Skip to content

Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,844
edited December 16 in General
Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com

Firstly I thought if there were to be a by-election engineered to get Burnham back into parliament then Starmer has the power to ensure an all-women shortlist.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 21,481
    First (and in the middle of an interview).
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 21,481
    Candidate is making a meal of a calculation...
  • First (and in the middle of an interview).

    Are you the interviewer or the interviewee?

    If you’re the latter then I suspect you’re not getting the job.

    Unless it is a police interview.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,059
    ‘Forensic’
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,495
    ..All sorts of candidates might stand such as serial by-election winner and cat impressionist George Galloway..

    We were talking about both narcissists and cats at the end of the last thread.
  • I couldn't agree more

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,790
    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?
  • PhilPhil Posts: 3,121
    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,549
    edited December 16
    On topic, I do wonder if the New Statesman journalist probed the NEC source on what the current rules on all women shortlists in Labour are?

    These were dropped in the last Parliament because women actually made up a small majority of Labour MPs. The balance shifted in the male direction in 2024 but I understand they are being considered rather than having been formally re-introduced - it isn't clear 46% is sufficiently short of parity to justify.

    The sole Parliamentary by-election of this term (Runcorn) saw a female Labour candidate... but not an all-women shortlist. By-elections pre-2019 also frequently featured male Labour candidates.

    There might be a route to block Burnham here. But I'd want more detail of what it is - it seems to me that this is assertion by the anti-Burnham faction, and the New Statesman has been a bit lax in fact-checking.
  • Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,689

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    You make it sound like the main agenda is insulating the state from too much democratic influence, lest the people vote for the wrong policies or people.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 21,481
    edited December 16

    First (and in the middle of an interview).

    Are you the interviewer or the interviewee?

    If you’re the latter then I suspect you’re not getting the job.

    Unless it is a police interview.
    Interviewer (for MPharm course). Bumper applications again...

    No sign of the death of this Uni, yet.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 21,481
    boulay said:

    Candidate is making a meal of a calculation...

    Recipe and photo please as we are now a betting and food website as of last night.
    Sorry - confidentiality and all that...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,495
    Good decision, which I'm not sure has been reported here ?

    Sydney Muslim leaders say they will refuse to perform funeral rites or receive the bodies of the Bondi shooters.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 21,481
    Nigelb said:

    Good decision, which I'm not sure has been reported here ?

    Sydney Muslim leaders say they will refuse to perform funeral rites or receive the bodies of the Bondi shooters.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/

    Are they both dead now?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,290

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    So it’s AOK for it took take multiple months to get permission to replace one (1) window and require £10,000+ to be spent on consultants to file the complex application?

    Don’t expect any actual housing to be built, then.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,549
    edited December 16

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    You make it sound like the main agenda is insulating the state from too much democratic influence, lest the people vote for the wrong policies or people.
    Not really. I don't fully trust politicians or civil servants to get it right (although nor do I think they are malevolent). That includes those whose instincts I kind of share or who are democratically elected.

    It isn't unreasonable for them to have some friction - to follow a process, to do the analysis, to properly consider counterarguments in consultation.

    No, I don't want politicians - even those I quite like - to pull the lever and instantly get the outcome they desire. Perhaps you do, but that just makes you a fool - it doesn't make me some kind of deep state obstructionist.
  • AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    a

    AnneJGP said:

    kle4 said:

    Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:


    • The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
    • Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
    • Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
    • Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
    • Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
    Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
    After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
    Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
    Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
    Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
    Stalin was ladykiller when young, and a complete party animal.

    He graduated to killing ladies (and gents) on an epic scale. And used parties as a kind of punishment for his coterie - force people who didn’t like drinking to drink etc
    "But Tsar Alexander made it all the way to Paris!"
  • Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    So it’s AOK for it took take multiple months to get permission to replace one (1) window and require £10,000+ to be spent on consultants to file the complex application?

    Don’t expect any actual housing to be built, then.
    You're creating a strawman. I never said every process was justified and there was no unnecessary red tape. I'm just saying having a proportionate process rather than "pull lever, get thing" has a lot going for it.
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 334
    What if this mythical by election is held on 7th May 2026? Is GG going to stand in a Westminster constituency at the same time as he is running to be MSP for Glasgow Southside, like a modern day Rainbow George Weiss?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,426

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    a

    AnneJGP said:

    kle4 said:

    Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:


    • The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
    • Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
    • Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
    • Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
    • Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
    Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
    After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
    Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
    Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
    Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
    Stalin was ladykiller when young, and a complete party animal.

    Calling a man who sexually assaulted 13 year old girls 'a ladykiller' is pushing it a bit.
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 334
    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,790

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    Having a large majority does however allow you to legislate to change any laws you wish.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 21,481
    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    a

    AnneJGP said:

    kle4 said:

    Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:


    • The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
    • Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
    • Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
    • Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
    • Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
    Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
    After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
    Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
    Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
    Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
    Stalin was ladykiller when young, and a complete party animal.

    Calling a man who sexually assaulted 13 year old girls 'a ladykiller' is pushing it a bit.
    He killed lots of ladies, so there's that.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,689

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    You make it sound like the main agenda is insulating the state from too much democratic influence, lest the people vote for the wrong policies or people.
    Not really. I don't fully trust politicians or civil servants to get it right (although nor do I think they are malevolent). That includes those whose instincts I kind of share or who are democratically elected.

    It isn't unreasonable for them to have some friction - to follow a process, to do the analysis, to properly consider counterarguments in consultation.

    No, I don't want politicians - even those I quite like - to pull the lever and instantly get the outcome they desire. Perhaps you do, but that just makes you a fool - it doesn't make me some kind of deep state obstructionist.
    Being able to pull a lever and instantly get the outcome they desire would require a miracle, not just the elimination of bureaucratic obstacles, but on the whole it is desirable that politicians do have the power to actually do things, otherwise the system eventually risks being overthrown in a revolution.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,060
    Nigelb said:

    Good decision, which I'm not sure has been reported here ?

    Sydney Muslim leaders say they will refuse to perform funeral rites or receive the bodies of the Bondi shooters.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/

    Linky does not work, which raises questions ...
  • eekeek Posts: 32,165
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good decision, which I'm not sure has been reported here ?

    Sydney Muslim leaders say they will refuse to perform funeral rites or receive the bodies of the Bondi shooters.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/

    Linky does not work, which raises questions ...
    try https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/02de03b003a4e6b9e1b80b675c6e52dd
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,148
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good decision, which I'm not sure has been reported here ?

    Sydney Muslim leaders say they will refuse to perform funeral rites or receive the bodies of the Bondi shooters.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/

    Linky does not work, which raises questions ...
    The Wayback Machine come up with nothing. And they're quite agressive about grabbing news sites.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,572
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good decision, which I'm not sure has been reported here ?

    Sydney Muslim leaders say they will refuse to perform funeral rites or receive the bodies of the Bondi shooters.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/

    Linky does not work, which raises questions ...
    Try https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/02de03b003a4e6b9e1b80b675c6e52dd
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,060
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good decision, which I'm not sure has been reported here ?

    Sydney Muslim leaders say they will refuse to perform funeral rites or receive the bodies of the Bondi shooters.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/

    Linky does not work, which raises questions ...
    try https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/02de03b003a4e6b9e1b80b675c6e52dd
    Thanks.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,060
    https://www.thenational.scot/news/25698379.scotch-whisky-giant-brings-robot-dogs-bid-cut-alcohol-waste/

    Not sure this counts as AI really, but robodogs being brought into whisky production (controlling excess evaporation from the casks in store).
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,060
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good decision, which I'm not sure has been reported here ?

    Sydney Muslim leaders say they will refuse to perform funeral rites or receive the bodies of the Bondi shooters.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/

    Linky does not work, which raises questions ...
    try https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/02de03b003a4e6b9e1b80b675c6e52dd
    Thanks.
  • Bonnie Blue and George Galloway in the same paragraph, not many people can say that.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,060

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Good decision, which I'm not sure has been reported here ?

    Sydney Muslim leaders say they will refuse to perform funeral rites or receive the bodies of the Bondi shooters.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/

    Linky does not work, which raises questions ...
    Try https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/sydney-muslims-refuse-funeral-rites-for-bondi-massacre-attackers/news-story/02de03b003a4e6b9e1b80b675c6e52dd
    Thanks.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,998
    Spare a thought for passengers on the 15:02 Newcastle - Liverpool train. They left Newcastle on time. At 16:52 they arrived...

    ...back in Newcastle.

    Trespassers in the Durham area.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,458
    edited December 16

    On topic, I do wonder if the New Statesman journalist probed the NEC source on what the current rules on all women shortlists in Labour are?

    These were dropped in the last Parliament because women actually made up a small majority of Labour MPs. The balance shifted in the male direction in 2024 but I understand they are being considered rather than having been formally re-introduced - it isn't clear 46% is sufficiently short of parity to justify.

    The sole Parliamentary by-election of this term (Runcorn) saw a female Labour candidate... but not an all-women shortlist. By-elections pre-2019 also frequently featured male Labour candidates.

    There might be a route to block Burnham here. But I'd want more detail of what it is - it seems to me that this is assertion by the anti-Burnham faction, and the New Statesman has been a bit lax in fact-checking.

    You don't need an all-woman shortlist to block Andy Burnham. You just need a shortlist without Andy Burnham on it.

    Thing is, if Burnham tries this it will be clear he's coming to trigger and win a leadership contest. The question then is do the parliamentary party want one (and him)? If they do then it's all over for Starmer and he won't be able to block Burnham. His power will already have dissipated. If they don't there'll be no need to block Burnham because Burnham himself will have sussed the situation and he won't bother. He'll stay as Mr Manchester.

    TLDR: Burnham either comes back with everything in place to replace Starmer as party leader and PM, or he stays put. This 'all women shortlist' business is a bit of a red herring.

    IMO he's a sell at anything in single digits.
  • DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,689

    Bonnie Blue and George Galloway in the same paragraph, not many people can say that.

    If she were a candidate, I doubt she'd lose her deposit.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 4,042

    Bonnie Blue and George Galloway in the same paragraph, not many people can say that.

    Yet, when you think about it they ARE somewhat similar.

    Fairly irresponsible and rather overactive C**** with no understanding of why the vast majority dislike them so much.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,572

    DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
    In my area, it's both!
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,523
    kinabalu said:

    On topic, I do wonder if the New Statesman journalist probed the NEC source on what the current rules on all women shortlists in Labour are?

    These were dropped in the last Parliament because women actually made up a small majority of Labour MPs. The balance shifted in the male direction in 2024 but I understand they are being considered rather than having been formally re-introduced - it isn't clear 46% is sufficiently short of parity to justify.

    The sole Parliamentary by-election of this term (Runcorn) saw a female Labour candidate... but not an all-women shortlist. By-elections pre-2019 also frequently featured male Labour candidates.

    There might be a route to block Burnham here. But I'd want more detail of what it is - it seems to me that this is assertion by the anti-Burnham faction, and the New Statesman has been a bit lax in fact-checking.

    You don't need an all-woman shortlist to block Andy Burnham. You just need a shortlist without Andy Burnham on it.

    Thing is, if Burnham tries this it will be clear he's coming to trigger and win a leadership contest. The question then is do the parliamentary party want one (and him)? If they do then it's all over for Starmer and he won't be able to block Burnham. His power will already have dissipated. If they don't there'll be no need to block Burnham because Burnham himself will have sussed the situation and he won't bother. He'll stay as Mr Manchester.

    TLDR: Burnham either comes back with everything in place to replace Starmer as party leader and PM, or he stays put. This 'all women shortlist' business is a bit of a red herring.

    IMO he's a sell at anything in single digits.
    It's moderately interesting that Burnham didn't throw his hat into the ring with Runcorn. Better opportunities will be hard to come by. I'm not 100% convinced he wants it. Being PM is hard - even the good ones end up roundly pilloried. He's got a nice high profile job as it is made that bit more high profile by these little flirtations.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,790

    Bonnie Blue and George Galloway in the same paragraph, not many people can say that.

    If she were a candidate, I doubt she'd lose her deposit.
    She’d probably gain hundreds of deposits.

    Sorry…
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 334

    DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
    In my area, it's both!
    Its not even politicians blocking it here ... the local development plan was made years ago, council "officers" take great pleasure in using their power to recommend refusal for developments of all descriptions. Someone aiming to build 1 or 2 houses in the countryside is at a direct disadvantage as this is not seen to be doing much for the "housing emergency"
  • Spare a thought for passengers on the 15:02 Newcastle - Liverpool train. They left Newcastle on time. At 16:52 they arrived...

    ...back in Newcastle.

    Trespassers in the Durham area.

    Next time, try not to stray onto the tracks when taking railway photos!
  • DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Aren't younger people allowed to enjoy scenery too? Makes you wonder why they go on holiday.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,059
    Cicero said:

    Bonnie Blue and George Galloway in the same paragraph, not many people can say that.

    Yet, when you think about it they ARE somewhat similar.

    Fairly irresponsible and rather overactive C**** with no understanding of why the vast majority dislike them so much.
    Wow, quality edgy commentary here.

    I wasn’t aware of a majority disliking Bonnie Blue, or even knowing who she is.

    Still your rant is a load off your mind. Can Bonnie say the same ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,458

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    So it’s AOK for it took take multiple months to get permission to replace one (1) window and require £10,000+ to be spent on consultants to file the complex application?

    Don’t expect any actual housing to be built, then.
    That's a rather illogical inference. The opposite equivalent would be something like, "oh so you'd be totally fine with abolishing the civil service in favour of rule by PM diktat then, would you?"
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,059

    DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
    Love people being contrary for the sake of it.

    Without proof it’s just anecdote 👍
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 27,074
    An interesting article, which badly needed at least one table and at least one graph.
  • Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    How much greenery remains in the Green Party?

    But in any case, more building in an already overheated London will not help the regions recover their economic mojo or find somewhere to live. Anecdotally, there is also a shortage of builders although Labour's other policy to train more young people in the building trades might offset this.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,879

    Spare a thought for passengers on the 15:02 Newcastle - Liverpool train. They left Newcastle on time. At 16:52 they arrived...

    ...back in Newcastle.

    Trespassers in the Durham area.

    "Hello. We're Cockneys...."
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,458
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, I do wonder if the New Statesman journalist probed the NEC source on what the current rules on all women shortlists in Labour are?

    These were dropped in the last Parliament because women actually made up a small majority of Labour MPs. The balance shifted in the male direction in 2024 but I understand they are being considered rather than having been formally re-introduced - it isn't clear 46% is sufficiently short of parity to justify.

    The sole Parliamentary by-election of this term (Runcorn) saw a female Labour candidate... but not an all-women shortlist. By-elections pre-2019 also frequently featured male Labour candidates.

    There might be a route to block Burnham here. But I'd want more detail of what it is - it seems to me that this is assertion by the anti-Burnham faction, and the New Statesman has been a bit lax in fact-checking.

    You don't need an all-woman shortlist to block Andy Burnham. You just need a shortlist without Andy Burnham on it.

    Thing is, if Burnham tries this it will be clear he's coming to trigger and win a leadership contest. The question then is do the parliamentary party want one (and him)? If they do then it's all over for Starmer and he won't be able to block Burnham. His power will already have dissipated. If they don't there'll be no need to block Burnham because Burnham himself will have sussed the situation and he won't bother. He'll stay as Mr Manchester.

    TLDR: Burnham either comes back with everything in place to replace Starmer as party leader and PM, or he stays put. This 'all women shortlist' business is a bit of a red herring.

    IMO he's a sell at anything in single digits.
    It's moderately interesting that Burnham didn't throw his hat into the ring with Runcorn. Better opportunities will be hard to come by. I'm not 100% convinced he wants it. Being PM is hard - even the good ones end up roundly pilloried. He's got a nice high profile job as it is made that bit more high profile by these little flirtations.
    He probably shouldn't want it (he and Manchester have been good for each other) but I think he does. Wanting isn't getting though.
  • kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, I do wonder if the New Statesman journalist probed the NEC source on what the current rules on all women shortlists in Labour are?

    These were dropped in the last Parliament because women actually made up a small majority of Labour MPs. The balance shifted in the male direction in 2024 but I understand they are being considered rather than having been formally re-introduced - it isn't clear 46% is sufficiently short of parity to justify.

    The sole Parliamentary by-election of this term (Runcorn) saw a female Labour candidate... but not an all-women shortlist. By-elections pre-2019 also frequently featured male Labour candidates.

    There might be a route to block Burnham here. But I'd want more detail of what it is - it seems to me that this is assertion by the anti-Burnham faction, and the New Statesman has been a bit lax in fact-checking.

    You don't need an all-woman shortlist to block Andy Burnham. You just need a shortlist without Andy Burnham on it.

    Thing is, if Burnham tries this it will be clear he's coming to trigger and win a leadership contest. The question then is do the parliamentary party want one (and him)? If they do then it's all over for Starmer and he won't be able to block Burnham. His power will already have dissipated. If they don't there'll be no need to block Burnham because Burnham himself will have sussed the situation and he won't bother. He'll stay as Mr Manchester.

    TLDR: Burnham either comes back with everything in place to replace Starmer as party leader and PM, or he stays put. This 'all women shortlist' business is a bit of a red herring.

    IMO he's a sell at anything in single digits.
    It's moderately interesting that Burnham didn't throw his hat into the ring with Runcorn. Better opportunities will be hard to come by. I'm not 100% convinced he wants it. Being PM is hard - even the good ones end up roundly pilloried. He's got a nice high profile job as it is made that bit more high profile by these little flirtations.
    He probably shouldn't want it (he and Manchester have been good for each other) but I think he does. Wanting isn't getting though.
    If Labour do get tonked in the locals next year, an even halfway proven winner will look more attractive, so there's that.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,290
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    So it’s AOK for it took take multiple months to get permission to replace one (1) window and require £10,000+ to be spent on consultants to file the complex application?

    Don’t expect any actual housing to be built, then.
    That's a rather illogical inference. The opposite equivalent would be something like, "oh so you'd be totally fine with abolishing the civil service in favour of rule by PM diktat then, would you?"
    If you are resisting change to the planning and regulation, then you are in favour of the £16,000, multi-year, window replacement.

    That’s what is happening right now.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,256
    Far be it from me to query a header. But an "NEC source" - really? There's around 40 people on the NEC, mostly trade union and constituency party representatives, so it's pretty meaningless gossip.
    I'd be astonished if Burnham's future path is determined by the fact he's a chap.
  • Couple win £1m lottery jackpot for second time - in '24-trillion-to-one' odds
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pr1njl9vo

    There's always someone worse off than you, but it's not this pair. Some dodgy probability calculations, though; possibly by a doctor.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,302

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, I do wonder if the New Statesman journalist probed the NEC source on what the current rules on all women shortlists in Labour are?

    These were dropped in the last Parliament because women actually made up a small majority of Labour MPs. The balance shifted in the male direction in 2024 but I understand they are being considered rather than having been formally re-introduced - it isn't clear 46% is sufficiently short of parity to justify.

    The sole Parliamentary by-election of this term (Runcorn) saw a female Labour candidate... but not an all-women shortlist. By-elections pre-2019 also frequently featured male Labour candidates.

    There might be a route to block Burnham here. But I'd want more detail of what it is - it seems to me that this is assertion by the anti-Burnham faction, and the New Statesman has been a bit lax in fact-checking.

    You don't need an all-woman shortlist to block Andy Burnham. You just need a shortlist without Andy Burnham on it.

    Thing is, if Burnham tries this it will be clear he's coming to trigger and win a leadership contest. The question then is do the parliamentary party want one (and him)? If they do then it's all over for Starmer and he won't be able to block Burnham. His power will already have dissipated. If they don't there'll be no need to block Burnham because Burnham himself will have sussed the situation and he won't bother. He'll stay as Mr Manchester.

    TLDR: Burnham either comes back with everything in place to replace Starmer as party leader and PM, or he stays put. This 'all women shortlist' business is a bit of a red herring.

    IMO he's a sell at anything in single digits.
    It's moderately interesting that Burnham didn't throw his hat into the ring with Runcorn. Better opportunities will be hard to come by. I'm not 100% convinced he wants it. Being PM is hard - even the good ones end up roundly pilloried. He's got a nice high profile job as it is made that bit more high profile by these little flirtations.
    He probably shouldn't want it (he and Manchester have been good for each other) but I think he does. Wanting isn't getting though.
    If Labour do get tonked in the locals next year, an even halfway proven winner will look more attractive, so there's that.
    He is though a doubly proven loser.

    It's just so wildly implausible that he can somehow propel himself to power in the Labour party by basically just saying 'I'm free'.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,148
    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Persimmon executive to Barratt executive. Remind me again where is this Shippea Hill where we’ve just bought a 150 hectare plot?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,290

    Far be it from me to query a header. But an "NEC source" - really? There's around 40 people on the NEC, mostly trade union and constituency party representatives, so it's pretty meaningless gossip.
    I'd be astonished if Burnham's future path is determined by the fact he's a chap.

    It's in the Labour party constitution/setup

    Why wouldn't Keir do this? It's the kind of procedural crap he loves.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,148

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, I do wonder if the New Statesman journalist probed the NEC source on what the current rules on all women shortlists in Labour are?

    These were dropped in the last Parliament because women actually made up a small majority of Labour MPs. The balance shifted in the male direction in 2024 but I understand they are being considered rather than having been formally re-introduced - it isn't clear 46% is sufficiently short of parity to justify.

    The sole Parliamentary by-election of this term (Runcorn) saw a female Labour candidate... but not an all-women shortlist. By-elections pre-2019 also frequently featured male Labour candidates.

    There might be a route to block Burnham here. But I'd want more detail of what it is - it seems to me that this is assertion by the anti-Burnham faction, and the New Statesman has been a bit lax in fact-checking.

    You don't need an all-woman shortlist to block Andy Burnham. You just need a shortlist without Andy Burnham on it.

    Thing is, if Burnham tries this it will be clear he's coming to trigger and win a leadership contest. The question then is do the parliamentary party want one (and him)? If they do then it's all over for Starmer and he won't be able to block Burnham. His power will already have dissipated. If they don't there'll be no need to block Burnham because Burnham himself will have sussed the situation and he won't bother. He'll stay as Mr Manchester.

    TLDR: Burnham either comes back with everything in place to replace Starmer as party leader and PM, or he stays put. This 'all women shortlist' business is a bit of a red herring.

    IMO he's a sell at anything in single digits.
    It's moderately interesting that Burnham didn't throw his hat into the ring with Runcorn. Better opportunities will be hard to come by. I'm not 100% convinced he wants it. Being PM is hard - even the good ones end up roundly pilloried. He's got a nice high profile job as it is made that bit more high profile by these little flirtations.
    He probably shouldn't want it (he and Manchester have been good for each other) but I think he does. Wanting isn't getting though.
    If Labour do get tonked in the locals next year, an even halfway proven winner will look more attractive, so there's that.
    If Labour do badly in next year’s Manchester City Council elections Burnham may have lost his chance of being a prospective PM.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 5,036
    edited December 16
    Taz said:

    DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
    Love people being contrary for the sake of it.

    Without proof it’s just anecdote 👍
    I live in Sutton Coldfield. It's solid blue. The Greens have no power or representation here; all the opposition to Birmingham Labour's plans for housing in the area is coming from the local Tory councillors. Take it or leave it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,403

    Taz said:

    DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
    Love people being contrary for the sake of it.

    Without proof it’s just anecdote 👍
    I live in Sutton Coldfield. It's solid blue. The Greens have no power or representation here; all the opposition to Labour's plans for housing in the area is coming from the local Tory councillors. Take it or leave it.
    Was the Tories here in Dorset... not sure if the Lib Dems are going to be any better re development tbh.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 26,204

    DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Aren't younger people allowed to enjoy scenery too? Makes you wonder why they go on holiday.
    Sunshine, get laid, cheap booze all without losing the security blanket of an English breakfast.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,403
    edited December 16

    Couple win £1m lottery jackpot for second time - in '24-trillion-to-one' odds
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pr1njl9vo

    There's always someone worse off than you, but it's not this pair. Some dodgy probability calculations, though; possibly by a doctor.

    1 in 1.9 million ^2 so 1 in circa 3.6 trillion?

    (Stands back and awaits correction from the legion of PB statisticians.)
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,316
    I have a cake in the oven, which is nice.

    Also, Brent crude is below $60 for the first time since early 2021. If course the Russians have to sell at a discount, although so much of their oil is floating in tablets on the ocean that it looks like they are struggling to find buyers, even at a discount.
  • Taz said:

    DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
    Love people being contrary for the sake of it.

    Without proof it’s just anecdote 👍
    I live in Sutton Coldfield. It's solid blue. The Greens have no power or representation here; all the opposition to Labour's plans for housing in the area is coming from the local Tory councillors. Take it or leave it.
    Was the Tories here in Dorset... not sure if the Lib Dems are going to be any better re development tbh.
    To be fair, most councils of whatever hue tend to be opposed to new housing development in the area. What I find strange is the weird presumption that it is the Greens who consitite the main opposition to housebuilding when they have such relatively small numbers of councillors.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 26,204

    Taz said:

    DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
    Love people being contrary for the sake of it.

    Without proof it’s just anecdote 👍
    I live in Sutton Coldfield. It's solid blue. The Greens have no power or representation here; all the opposition to Labour's plans for housing in the area is coming from the local Tory councillors. Take it or leave it.
    Was the Tories here in Dorset... not sure if the Lib Dems are going to be any better re development tbh.
    All the parties are against development locally, too many cheap votes in it.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,951

    Couple win £1m lottery jackpot for second time - in '24-trillion-to-one' odds
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pr1njl9vo

    There's always someone worse off than you, but it's not this pair. Some dodgy probability calculations, though; possibly by a doctor.

    1 in 1.9 million ^2 so 1 in circa 3.6 trillion?

    (Stands back and awaits correction from the legion of PB statisticians.)
    I think that's the odds of winning twice in a row. Presumably they have had some losing tickets also...
  • Couple win £1m lottery jackpot for second time - in '24-trillion-to-one' odds
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pr1njl9vo

    There's always someone worse off than you, but it's not this pair. Some dodgy probability calculations, though; possibly by a doctor.

    1 in 1.9 million ^2 so 1 in circa 3.6 trillion?

    (Stands back and awaits correction from the legion of PB statisticians.)
    Yes but after the first win, they'd have the same odds as anyone else against the second. It's not so much the trillions figure is wrong but that it's not helpful in this context.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,523

    I have a cake in the oven, which is nice.

    Also, Brent crude is below $60 for the first time since early 2021. If course the Russians have to sell at a discount, although so much of their oil is floating in tablets on the ocean that it looks like they are struggling to find buyers, even at a discount.

    What is the breakeven POO for Russia?
  • Minister orders probe into foreign interference in politics
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87l5nq93wno

    Spoiler: it's not just the Russians.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,403
    Clocking off for a bit now, basking in the warm glow of my earlier brilliance which modesty prevents me from mentioning.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,282
    @George_Osborne
    Hi, some personal news - I’m changing job. I recently asked myself the question: what’s the most exciting and promising company in the world right now? The answer I believe is OpenAI. So it’s a privilege to be going to work for OpenAI as managing director and head of OpenAI for countries, based here in London. In my conversations with Sam Altman, Brad Lightcap, and other senior colleagues, it’s clear they are exceptionally impressive leaders and that they care very deeply about their mission to ensure the power of artificial intelligence is developed responsibly, and the benefits are felt by all. That’s exactly what the OpenAI for Countries initiative intends to achieve, helping societies around the world share the opportunity this powerful technology brings. Am honorored to join the team.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,458
    edited December 16

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    So it’s AOK for it took take multiple months to get permission to replace one (1) window and require £10,000+ to be spent on consultants to file the complex application?

    Don’t expect any actual housing to be built, then.
    That's a rather illogical inference. The opposite equivalent would be something like, "oh so you'd be totally fine with abolishing the civil service in favour of rule by PM diktat then, would you?"
    If you are resisting change to the planning and regulation, then you are in favour of the £16,000, multi-year, window replacement.

    That’s what is happening right now.
    Well you'll be pleased to know I'm not. It's clearly an area in the spotlights for a shake up and rightly so. Long overdue.

    Bet Norfolk agrees too but I mustn't presume.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,316
    edited December 16

    Couple win £1m lottery jackpot for second time - in '24-trillion-to-one' odds
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pr1njl9vo

    There's always someone worse off than you, but it's not this pair. Some dodgy probability calculations, though; possibly by a doctor.

    1 in 1.9 million ^2 so 1 in circa 3.6 trillion?

    (Stands back and awaits correction from the legion of PB statisticians.)
    Those might be the correct odds for this specific couple winning in two specific draws, but when you consider all the people playing all the lotteries in all the world - the chances that someone would win a large (not even the jackpot in this case) lottery prize twice is much, much lower.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,689
    Scott_xP said:

    @George_Osborne
    Hi, some personal news - I’m changing job. I recently asked myself the question: what’s the most exciting and promising company in the world right now? The answer I believe is OpenAI. So it’s a privilege to be going to work for OpenAI as managing director and head of OpenAI for countries, based here in London. In my conversations with Sam Altman, Brad Lightcap, and other senior colleagues, it’s clear they are exceptionally impressive leaders and that they care very deeply about their mission to ensure the power of artificial intelligence is developed responsibly, and the benefits are felt by all. That’s exactly what the OpenAI for Countries initiative intends to achieve, helping societies around the world share the opportunity this powerful technology brings. Am honorored to join the team.

    Just in time for the bubble to burst.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,316
    Cookie said:

    I have a cake in the oven, which is nice.

    Also, Brent crude is below $60 for the first time since early 2021. If course the Russians have to sell at a discount, although so much of their oil is floating in tablets on the ocean that it looks like they are struggling to find buyers, even at a discount.

    What is the breakeven POO for Russia?
    I'm not sure, and it will vary from field to field. But their receiving a lot less income from oil, gas and refined fuel sales today than at any point since Feb 2022.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,069

    Couple win £1m lottery jackpot for second time - in '24-trillion-to-one' odds
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pr1njl9vo

    There's always someone worse off than you, but it's not this pair. Some dodgy probability calculations, though; possibly by a doctor.

    1 in 1.9 million ^2 so 1 in circa 3.6 trillion?

    (Stands back and awaits correction from the legion of PB statisticians.)
    Those might be the correct odds for this specific couple winning in two specific draws, but when you consider all the prime playing all the lorries in all the world - the channel that someone would win a large (not even the jackpot in this case) lottery prize twice is much, much lower.
    And it depends how you do the calculation and from what standpoint. Once you have won the first one your chances of doing it again are the same as all the people who have not.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,290
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    So it’s AOK for it took take multiple months to get permission to replace one (1) window and require £10,000+ to be spent on consultants to file the complex application?

    Don’t expect any actual housing to be built, then.
    That's a rather illogical inference. The opposite equivalent would be something like, "oh so you'd be totally fine with abolishing the civil service in favour of rule by PM diktat then, would you?"
    If you are resisting change to the planning and regulation, then you are in favour of the £16,000, multi-year, window replacement.

    That’s what is happening right now.
    Well you'll be pleased to know I'm not. It's clearly an area in the spotlights for a shake up and rightly so. Long overdue.

    Bet Norfolk agrees too but I mustn't presume.
    How about we aim for just doubling the cost of the window, so around £10K and 6 months to get it done?

    Or is that too much anarchism?
  • Cookie said:

    I have a cake in the oven, which is nice.

    Also, Brent crude is below $60 for the first time since early 2021. If course the Russians have to sell at a discount, although so much of their oil is floating in tablets on the ocean that it looks like they are struggling to find buyers, even at a discount.

    What is the breakeven POO for Russia?
    The problem with Russian crude is two-fold. First, American sanctions and secondary sanctions depress the price because you'll get knocked out of the international trading system. Second, drone strikes mean that even if you can find someone to ship it, you might have to wait while Russia repairs whatever port or pipeline it was to be exported from.

    Now, suppose you are a buyer. You have a refinery. If you buy Russian crude and it is late because Ukraine got lucky one night, your refinery has to shut down. Even though Russia is selling for roubles on the dollar, it is better to pay the premium to Middle Eastern suppliers who can deliver on time.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,458
    Scott_xP said:

    @George_Osborne
    Hi, some personal news - I’m changing job. I recently asked myself the question: what’s the most exciting and promising company in the world right now? The answer I believe is OpenAI. So it’s a privilege to be going to work for OpenAI as managing director and head of OpenAI for countries, based here in London. In my conversations with Sam Altman, Brad Lightcap, and other senior colleagues, it’s clear they are exceptionally impressive leaders and that they care very deeply about their mission to ensure the power of artificial intelligence is developed responsibly, and the benefits are felt by all. That’s exactly what the OpenAI for Countries initiative intends to achieve, helping societies around the world share the opportunity this powerful technology brings. Am honorored to join the team.

    Wahay. Onwards and upwards he goes. No austerity for George.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,148

    Taz said:

    DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
    Love people being contrary for the sake of it.

    Without proof it’s just anecdote 👍
    I live in Sutton Coldfield. It's solid blue. The Greens have no power or representation here; all the opposition to Labour's plans for housing in the area is coming from the local Tory councillors. Take it or leave it.
    Was the Tories here in Dorset... not sure if the Lib Dems are going to be any better re development tbh.
    To be fair, most councils of whatever hue tend to be opposed to new housing development in the area. What I find strange is the weird presumption that it is the Greens who consitite the main opposition to housebuilding when they have such relatively small numbers of councillors.
    I don’t agree. Our council is certainly in favour of development. It means increased Council Tax receipts.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,458

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    So it’s AOK for it took take multiple months to get permission to replace one (1) window and require £10,000+ to be spent on consultants to file the complex application?

    Don’t expect any actual housing to be built, then.
    That's a rather illogical inference. The opposite equivalent would be something like, "oh so you'd be totally fine with abolishing the civil service in favour of rule by PM diktat then, would you?"
    If you are resisting change to the planning and regulation, then you are in favour of the £16,000, multi-year, window replacement.

    That’s what is happening right now.
    Well you'll be pleased to know I'm not. It's clearly an area in the spotlights for a shake up and rightly so. Long overdue.

    Bet Norfolk agrees too but I mustn't presume.
    How about we aim for just doubling the cost of the window, so around £10K and 6 months to get it done?

    Or is that too much anarchism?
    Just put that window in, end of. It's not rocket science. It's just basic glaziership.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,060
    edited December 16
    algarkirk said:

    Couple win £1m lottery jackpot for second time - in '24-trillion-to-one' odds
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pr1njl9vo

    There's always someone worse off than you, but it's not this pair. Some dodgy probability calculations, though; possibly by a doctor.

    1 in 1.9 million ^2 so 1 in circa 3.6 trillion?

    (Stands back and awaits correction from the legion of PB statisticians.)
    Those might be the correct odds for this specific couple winning in two specific draws, but when you consider all the prime playing all the lorries in all the world - the channel that someone would win a large (not even the jackpot in this case) lottery prize twice is much, much lower.
    And it depends how you do the calculation and from what standpoint. Once you have won the first one your chances of doing it again are the same as all the people who have not.
    Not at all, unless you add "per pound spent". And even then there is the somewhat counterintuitive point that if you spend more on tickets you are relatively more likely to win big (to do with the reducing number of big prizes as one goes up the ££ scale).

    And the second time is not independent of the first. YOu win big, you have plenty of spare cash to gamble again ...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,282
    @PippaCrerar

    EXCL: An agreement to rejoin Erasmus – the EU’s student exchange programme – set to be announced on Wednesday as part of UK government’s drive towards closer relations with Brussels.

    https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/2000992877443231788?s=20
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,458
    Anyway, the Ashes. I know this goes against PB etiquette but I'm feeling moderately bullish. I was right about Crawley getting runs at Brisbane remember. You all laughed and chuckled and smirked and guffawed but I was right. So now to Adelaide and I'm expecting a win or at the very worst a dominating draw. The boys have had a nice rest. They'll be raring to go.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,290
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    So it’s AOK for it took take multiple months to get permission to replace one (1) window and require £10,000+ to be spent on consultants to file the complex application?

    Don’t expect any actual housing to be built, then.
    That's a rather illogical inference. The opposite equivalent would be something like, "oh so you'd be totally fine with abolishing the civil service in favour of rule by PM diktat then, would you?"
    If you are resisting change to the planning and regulation, then you are in favour of the £16,000, multi-year, window replacement.

    That’s what is happening right now.
    Well you'll be pleased to know I'm not. It's clearly an area in the spotlights for a shake up and rightly so. Long overdue.

    Bet Norfolk agrees too but I mustn't presume.
    How about we aim for just doubling the cost of the window, so around £10K and 6 months to get it done?

    Or is that too much anarchism?
    Just put that window in, end of. It's not rocket science. It's just basic glaziership.
    So you want to install a window without a study to consider its effect on post colonial equality?

    Heartless fascist.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,812
    Fascinating how lucrative Osborne’s post-political career has been, whereas Cameron’s has been underwhelming if not downright embarrassing (Greensill).
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,059

    Taz said:

    DoctorG said:

    Phil said:

    New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

    No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

    Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
    Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
    Love people being contrary for the sake of it.

    Without proof it’s just anecdote 👍
    I live in Sutton Coldfield. It's solid blue. The Greens have no power or representation here; all the opposition to Birmingham Labour's plans for housing in the area is coming from the local Tory councillors. Take it or leave it.
    Well done you for offering a bit more detail but still anecdotal
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,262
    Scott_xP said:

    @George_Osborne
    Hi, some personal news - I’m changing job. I recently asked myself the question: what’s the most exciting and promising company in the world right now? The answer I believe is OpenAI. So it’s a privilege to be going to work for OpenAI as managing director and head of OpenAI for countries, based here in London. In my conversations with Sam Altman, Brad Lightcap, and other senior colleagues, it’s clear they are exceptionally impressive leaders and that they care very deeply about their mission to ensure the power of artificial intelligence is developed responsibly, and the benefits are felt by all. That’s exactly what the OpenAI for Countries initiative intends to achieve, helping societies around the world share the opportunity this powerful technology brings. Am honorored to join the team.


    Narrator: Last week Osborne failed to secure the chairmanship of HSBC.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,302

    Fascinating how lucrative Osborne’s post-political career has been, whereas Cameron’s has been underwhelming if not downright embarrassing (Greensill).

    I always thought very little of Osborne and very highly of Cameron. Not sure if their subsequent careers have proved me very right or very wrong.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,059
    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    EXCL: An agreement to rejoin Erasmus – the EU’s student exchange programme – set to be announced on Wednesday as part of UK government’s drive towards closer relations with Brussels.

    https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/2000992877443231788?s=20

    Is this where we give the EU what they want and they fuck us up the ass.

    SKS would pay full price for a Dominos pizza
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,458

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

    “Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

    If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

    Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

    Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
    So it’s AOK for it took take multiple months to get permission to replace one (1) window and require £10,000+ to be spent on consultants to file the complex application?

    Don’t expect any actual housing to be built, then.
    That's a rather illogical inference. The opposite equivalent would be something like, "oh so you'd be totally fine with abolishing the civil service in favour of rule by PM diktat then, would you?"
    If you are resisting change to the planning and regulation, then you are in favour of the £16,000, multi-year, window replacement.

    That’s what is happening right now.
    Well you'll be pleased to know I'm not. It's clearly an area in the spotlights for a shake up and rightly so. Long overdue.

    Bet Norfolk agrees too but I mustn't presume.
    How about we aim for just doubling the cost of the window, so around £10K and 6 months to get it done?

    Or is that too much anarchism?
    Just put that window in, end of. It's not rocket science. It's just basic glaziership.
    So you want to install a window without a study to consider its effect on post colonial equality?

    Heartless fascist.
    I most certainly do want to cover the post colonial equality ramifications but let's get that off the critical path of installing the actual window. We'll be here until 2050 with this gaping hole otherwise.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 26,204
    kinabalu said:

    Anyway, the Ashes. I know this goes against PB etiquette but I'm feeling moderately bullish. I was right about Crawley getting runs at Brisbane remember. You all laughed and chuckled and smirked and guffawed but I was right. So now to Adelaide and I'm expecting a win or at the very worst a dominating draw. The boys have had a nice rest. They'll be raring to go.

    Moderately bullish - does that mean you expect we can survive for 3 or even 4 days?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 27,074

    Couple win £1m lottery jackpot for second time - in '24-trillion-to-one' odds
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pr1njl9vo

    There's always someone worse off than you, but it's not this pair. Some dodgy probability calculations, though; possibly by a doctor.

    1 in 1.9 million ^2 so 1 in circa 3.6 trillion?

    (Stands back and awaits correction from the legion of PB statisticians.)
    Dice have no memory.

    If the probability of winning was 1 in 1.9 million then the probability of winning the first time was 1 in 1.9million. If they are independent then the probability of winning the second time given that they won the first time was still 1 in 1.9million.

    I have two questions
    • Question 1 is whether they were independent: did they fiddle it?
    • Question 2 is how many people played how many lotteries over the last 100 years. If millions of lotteries are played, then the odds of at least one lottery being won twice by the same person is lower than you think. See also low-probability card hands.
    Now Barty will tell me where I went wrong. LOOK, I MIXED UP IRRATIONAL NUMBERS AND RECURRING DECIMALS, OK? COULD HAPPEN TO ANYBODY.

    (It's very embarrassing being corrected by economists. Especially when they are right)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,302
    edited December 16
    kinabalu said:

    Anyway, the Ashes. I know this goes against PB etiquette but I'm feeling moderately bullish. I was right about Crawley getting runs at Brisbane remember. You all laughed and chuckled and smirked and guffawed but I was right. So now to Adelaide and I'm expecting a win or at the very worst a dominating draw. The boys have had a nice rest. They'll be raring to go.

    A strangulated and painful draw is the best I hope for. The problem is the batting, bowling, and fielding.
Sign In or Register to comment.