politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jeb Bush’s bid for the GOP nomination looks even more in do
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jeb Bush’s bid for the GOP nomination looks even more in doubt after a clumsy performance in latest primary debate
The clip above gives a taste of the overnight third Republican debate. Bush, who not too long ago had been touching evens in the nomination betting, was under huge pressure to assert himself and take on the young Senator from Florida his own state, Marco Rubio.
Comments
-
He snipes the first!0
-
This is leading the BBC's news website:
"Collapsed charity Kids Company given £46m in public cash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-346612730 -
What is the political import of this story? It's been all over pb for months but I still do not see how it affects betting on politics. Is it good for Corbyn, bad for Sturgeon? Does it impact the Conservative succession: was Osborne in favour but Boris against? Is this scandal the death knell of Cameron's big society?AndyJS said:This is leading the BBC's news website:
"Collapsed charity Kids Company given £46m in public cash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34661273
I'm not trying to have a pop at anyone who's been regularly posting about KC but as the lawyers say, it all looks a bit sui generis.0 -
Ted Cruz had the moment of the night, attacking the moderators, as did Rubio. The questions were designed to bait the candidates. The questions were terrible, and I cannot recall another debate where the audience lustily booed the questions. Harwood asked Rubio a question about his tax plan, and was completely demolished by Rubio pointing out that after he had written a NY Times article about it, he had to correct it to show what Rubio was saying, when Harwood was arguing the original anti-Rubio thrust of the article. Harwood even denied he'd had to correct the article.
Becky Quick asked Trump a question challenging (correctly) his opposition to increasing the number of H1B visas. Trump denied it and she wondered aloud where she had read it, then apologized for asking it. 30 minutes later she said she remembered - it was on Trump's website.
There was even a question about Fantasy Football.
It really was that bad.
The moderators would ask a question, then interrupt the response.
Bush was awful, and if he's not done he's on the way to it. He looked demoralized.
Rubio helped himself. Fiorina spoke the most.
If you want proof of the liberal bias of the media, this was it.
CNBC should be utterly ashamed.0 -
Tim_B
In 2012, there were plenty of times the audience booed the moderators. Basically any question where the moderators asked a difficult question from the left, they would boo.0 -
On the debates, Cruz did well but he looks one for next time rather than 2016. Did anyone else get the impression there'd been an official GOP memo: stop attacking each other; go after Clinton and the media.0
-
It has political relevance for why Cameron was giving away so much money to someone without basic scrutiny.DecrepitJohnL said:
What is the political import of this story? It's been all over pb for months but I still do not see how it affects betting on politics. Is it good for Corbyn, bad for Sturgeon? Does it impact the Conservative succession: was Osborne in favour but Boris against? Is this scandal the death knell of Cameron's big society?AndyJS said:This is leading the BBC's news website:
"Collapsed charity Kids Company given £46m in public cash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34661273
I'm not trying to have a pop at anyone who's been regularly posting about KC but as the lawyers say, it all looks a bit sui generis.0 -
Debates should not be party political broadcasts. Candidates need to tested and questioned with vigour outside of their comfort zone.Tim_B said:Ted Cruz had the moment of the night, attacking the moderators, as did Rubio. The questions were designed to bait the candidates. The questions were terrible, and I cannot recall another debate where the audience lustily booed the questions. Harwood asked Rubio a question about his tax plan, and was completely demolished by Rubio pointing out that after he had written a NY Times article about it, he had to correct it to show what Rubio was saying, when Harwood was arguing the original anti-Rubio thrust of the article. Harwood even denied he'd had to correct the article.
Becky Quick asked Trump a question challenging (correctly) his opposition to increasing the number of H1B visas. Trump denied it and she wondered aloud where she had read it, then apologized for asking it. 30 minutes later she said she remembered - it was on Trump's website.
There was even a question about Fantasy Football.
It really was that bad.
The moderators would ask a question, then interrupt the response.
Bush was awful, and if he's not done he's on the way to it. He looked demoralized.
Rubio helped himself. Fiorina spoke the most.
If you want proof of the liberal bias of the media, this was it.
CNBC should be utterly ashamed.
Presently the problem with the GOP debates is the sheer scale of the operation. It's vastly unwieldy with very little opportunity for the selectorate to get a handle on the aspiring candidates. Clearly this situation will change as the dross falls away and then the GOP will be left with a better class of dross to tack to the right and secure the nomination.
It's a dance that the GOP nominee is forced to jive and severely handicaps their chances in the general election. One may only wonder how many times they will lose the presidency before they realize that looking like a member of the human race in the 21st century is a prerequisite for the Oval Office.
0 -
Not just Cameron but the Blair and Brown governments too. It's hugely relevant as to how people and organisations can become untouchable and then often descend into corruption. I was a huge fan of the Big Society idea, that communities should come together and work with each other rather than have everyone rely on the government.JEO said:
It has political relevance for why Cameron was giving away so much money to someone without basic scrutiny.DecrepitJohnL said:
What is the political import of this story? It's been all over pb for months but I still do not see how it affects betting on politics. Is it good for Corbyn, bad for Sturgeon? Does it impact the Conservative succession: was Osborne in favour but Boris against? Is this scandal the death knell of Cameron's big society?AndyJS said:This is leading the BBC's news website:
"Collapsed charity Kids Company given £46m in public cash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34661273
I'm not trying to have a pop at anyone who's been regularly posting about KC but as the lawyers say, it all looks a bit sui generis.
It's clear that there needs to be huge reform of the charity sector, I would be in favour of reducing the regulations on small charities but increasing transparency on the larger ones. We should know when we donate to Shelter, as just one example, that they provide shelter for no-one and spend their donations lobbying government and pushing people up waiting lists. This isn't bad in itself, but I am sure that many of their donors think their money is going to actually put a roof over some poor person's head.0 -
I think it's fair that participants should be scrutinised from right, left and centre. But when it is ridiculous questions like "shouldn't you resign" or "weren't you vetted", then it is the moderators pushing an attack ad of their own.JackW said:
Debates should not be party political broadcasts. Candidates need to tested and questioned with vigour outside of their comfort zone.Tim_B said:Ted Cruz had the moment of the night, attacking the moderators, as did Rubio. The questions were designed to bait the candidates. The questions were terrible, and I cannot recall another debate where the audience lustily booed the questions. Harwood asked Rubio a question about his tax plan, and was completely demolished by Rubio pointing out that after he had written a NY Times article about it, he had to correct it to show what Rubio was saying, when Harwood was arguing the original anti-Rubio thrust of the article. Harwood even denied he'd had to correct the article.
Becky Quick asked Trump a question challenging (correctly) his opposition to increasing the number of H1B visas. Trump denied it and she wondered aloud where she had read it, then apologized for asking it. 30 minutes later she said she remembered - it was on Trump's website.
There was even a question about Fantasy Football.
It really was that bad.
The moderators would ask a question, then interrupt the response.
Bush was awful, and if he's not done he's on the way to it. He looked demoralized.
Rubio helped himself. Fiorina spoke the most.
If you want proof of the liberal bias of the media, this was it.
CNBC should be utterly ashamed.
Presently the problem with the GOP debates is the sheer scale of the operation. It's vastly unwieldy with very little opportunity for the selectorate to get a handle on the aspiring candidates. Clearly this situation will change as the dross falls away and then the GOP will be left with a better class of dross to tack to the right and secure the nomination.
It's a dance that the GOP nominee is forced to jive and severely handicaps their chances in the general election. One may only wonder how many times they will lose the presidency before they realize that looking like a member of the human race in the 21st century is a prerequisite for the Oval Office.0 -
Catching up on PMQs before watching the US debate. I can't decide whether Corbyn asking the same question six times was good or bad for him. Dave gave a fair reply the first time about the response to the Lords defeat being set out in the Autumn Statement, to carry on asking the same question just allowed the PM all his soundbites about recovery, unemployment, personal allowances, childcare etc etc.
Also some very kind words at the start from the PM about Michael Meacher.0 -
Indeed they do - the Fox debate was a great example of that. The fact that both CNN and Fox are saying exactly the same thing about CNBC and the snarky questioning tells you this wasn't it.JackW said:
Debates should not be party political broadcasts. Candidates need to tested and questioned with vigour outside of their comfort zone.Tim_B said:Ted Cruz had the moment of the night, attacking the moderators, as did Rubio. The questions were designed to bait the candidates. The questions were terrible, and I cannot recall another debate where the audience lustily booed the questions. Harwood asked Rubio a question about his tax plan, and was completely demolished by Rubio pointing out that after he had written a NY Times article about it, he had to correct it to show what Rubio was saying, when Harwood was arguing the original anti-Rubio thrust of the article. Harwood even denied he'd had to correct the article.
Becky Quick asked Trump a question challenging (correctly) his opposition to increasing the number of H1B visas. Trump denied it and she wondered aloud where she had read it, then apologized for asking it. 30 minutes later she said she remembered - it was on Trump's website.
There was even a question about Fantasy Football.
It really was that bad.
The moderators would ask a question, then interrupt the response.
Bush was awful, and if he's not done he's on the way to it. He looked demoralized.
Rubio helped himself. Fiorina spoke the most.
If you want proof of the liberal bias of the media, this was it.
CNBC should be utterly ashamed.
Tough questions are good - those that are designed to bait the candidates are not, and neither are gotcha questions, of which there were many of both.
0 -
Interesting watching the post-debate coverage. Universal condemnation for the moderators and CNBC, and many of them came up with the same word to describe the questioning - snarky.0
-
A heartwarming story about Prince Harry, it looks like he has found his vocation and his work with disabled veterans across the world will have an immeasurable impact on their lives.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11961607/Prince-Harry-tells-US-wounded-veterans-Afghanistan-changed-my-life.html0 -
I disagree fundamentally.JEO said:
I think it's fair that participants should be scrutinised from right, left and centre. But when it is ridiculous questions like "shouldn't you resign" or "weren't you vetted", then it is the moderators pushing an attack ad of their own.JackW said:
Debates should not be party political broadcasts. Candidates need to tested and questioned with vigour outside of their comfort zone.Tim_B said:Ted Cruz had the moment of the night, attacking the moderators, as did Rubio. The questions were designed to bait the candidates. The questions were terrible, and I cannot recall another debate where the audience lustily booed the questions. Harwood asked Rubio a question about his tax plan, and was completely demolished by Rubio pointing out that after he had written a NY Times article about it, he had to correct it to show what Rubio was saying, when Harwood was arguing the original anti-Rubio thrust of the article. Harwood even denied he'd had to correct the article.
Becky Quick asked Trump a question challenging (correctly) his opposition to increasing the number of H1B visas. Trump denied it and she wondered aloud where she had read it, then apologized for asking it. 30 minutes later she said she remembered - it was on Trump's website.
There was even a question about Fantasy Football.
It really was that bad.
The moderators would ask a question, then interrupt the response.
Bush was awful, and if he's not done he's on the way to it. He looked demoralized.
Rubio helped himself. Fiorina spoke the most.
If you want proof of the liberal bias of the media, this was it.
CNBC should be utterly ashamed.
Presently the problem with the GOP debates is the sheer scale of the operation. It's vastly unwieldy with very little opportunity for the selectorate to get a handle on the aspiring candidates. Clearly this situation will change as the dross falls away and then the GOP will be left with a better class of dross to tack to the right and secure the nomination.
It's a dance that the GOP nominee is forced to jive and severely handicaps their chances in the general election. One may only wonder how many times they will lose the presidency before they realize that looking like a member of the human race in the 21st century is a prerequisite for the Oval Office.
Candidates should be tested to within an inch of their political life. The more so as they are essentially interviewing to become one of the two viable options for the presidency and thus leader of the "western world" and the most powerful nation on earth.
0 -
@JEO
it is the moderators pushing an attack ad of their own.
All three moderators are quite liberal. At least CNN included Hugh Hewitt in their liberal lineup to provide some balance. CNBC went for an ambush and it backfired spectacularly.
The overnights will be interesting, as it was up against a World Series game, involving the NY Mets and KC.0 -
A lot of people think it's important to find out how £46m could be wasted in these circumstances.DecrepitJohnL said:
What is the political import of this story? It's been all over pb for months but I still do not see how it affects betting on politics. Is it good for Corbyn, bad for Sturgeon? Does it impact the Conservative succession: was Osborne in favour but Boris against? Is this scandal the death knell of Cameron's big society?AndyJS said:This is leading the BBC's news website:
"Collapsed charity Kids Company given £46m in public cash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34661273
I'm not trying to have a pop at anyone who's been regularly posting about KC but as the lawyers say, it all looks a bit sui generis.0 -
See my 6:35am reply below.Tim_B said:
Indeed they do - the Fox debate was a great example of that. The fact that both CNN and Fox are saying exactly the same thing about CNBC and the snarky questioning tells you this wasn't it.JackW said:
Debates should not be party political broadcasts. Candidates need to tested and questioned with vigour outside of their comfort zone.Tim_B said:Ted Cruz had the moment of the night, attacking the moderators, as did Rubio. The questions were designed to bait the candidates. The questions were terrible, and I cannot recall another debate where the audience lustily booed the questions. Harwood asked Rubio a question about his tax plan, and was completely demolished by Rubio pointing out that after he had written a NY Times article about it, he had to correct it to show what Rubio was saying, when Harwood was arguing the original anti-Rubio thrust of the article. Harwood even denied he'd had to correct the article.
Becky Quick asked Trump a question challenging (correctly) his opposition to increasing the number of H1B visas. Trump denied it and she wondered aloud where she had read it, then apologized for asking it. 30 minutes later she said she remembered - it was on Trump's website.
There was even a question about Fantasy Football.
It really was that bad.
The moderators would ask a question, then interrupt the response.
Bush was awful, and if he's not done he's on the way to it. He looked demoralized.
Rubio helped himself. Fiorina spoke the most.
If you want proof of the liberal bias of the media, this was it.
CNBC should be utterly ashamed.
Tough questions are good - those that are designed to bait the candidates are not, and neither are gotcha questions, of which there were many of both.
Added to which I'd say that this is the most important job interview in the world. I want to see them respond to baited and gotcha questions and much more because the POTUS will face far worse in office.
Let us see their mettle under the challenge from the media - fair or not.
0 -
It didn't get Comrade Corbyn anywhere, yet the journos are mostly saying how clever he was.
I've no idea why since it did hand an open goal to Cameron to spout lots of killer facts.
I think they're just desperate to create some form of *tension* to a flaccid exchange, and to my eyes it's just EdM retread - so much for different style of PMQs. I think that lasted 2 or 3 weeks.Sandpit said:Catching up on PMQs before watching the US debate. I can't decide whether Corbyn asking the same question six times was good or bad for him. Dave gave a fair reply the first time about the response to the Lords defeat being set out in the Autumn Statement, to carry on asking the same question just allowed the PM all his soundbites about recovery, unemployment, personal allowances, childcare etc etc.
Also some very kind words at the start from the PM about Michael Meacher.0 -
I suspect you will be sorely disappointed with the Democratic debates in that case. It's already stating to look like a coronation.JackW said:
I disagree fundamentally.JEO said:
I think it's fair that participants should be scrutinised from right, left and centre. But when it is ridiculous questions like "shouldn't you resign" or "weren't you vetted", then it is the moderators pushing an attack ad of their own.JackW said:
Debates should not be party political broadcasts. Candidates need to tested and questioned with vigour outside of their comfort zone.Tim_B said:Ted Cruz had the moment of the night, attacking the moderators, as did Rubio. The questions were designed to bait the candidates. The questions were terrible, and I cannot recall another debate where the audience lustily booed the questions. Harwood asked Rubio a question about his tax plan, and was completely demolished by Rubio pointing out that after he had written a NY Times article about it, he had to correct it to show what Rubio was saying, when Harwood was arguing the original anti-Rubio thrust of the article. Harwood even denied he'd had to correct the article.
Becky Quick asked Trump a question challenging (correctly) his opposition to increasing the number of H1B visas. Trump denied it and she wondered aloud where she had read it, then apologized for asking it. 30 minutes later she said she remembered - it was on Trump's website.
There was even a question about Fantasy Football.
It really was that bad.
The moderators would ask a question, then interrupt the response.
Bush was awful, and if he's not done he's on the way to it. He looked demoralized.
Rubio helped himself. Fiorina spoke the most.
If you want proof of the liberal bias of the media, this was it.
CNBC should be utterly ashamed.
Presently the problem with the GOP debates is the sheer scale of the operation. It's vastly unwieldy with very little opportunity for the selectorate to get a handle on the aspiring candidates. Clearly this situation will change as the dross falls away and then the GOP will be left with a better class of dross to tack to the right and secure the nomination.
It's a dance that the GOP nominee is forced to jive and severely handicaps their chances in the general election. One may only wonder how many times they will lose the presidency before they realize that looking like a member of the human race in the 21st century is a prerequisite for the Oval Office.
Candidates should be tested to within an inch of their political life. The more so as they are essentially interviewing to become one of the two viable options for the presidency and thus leader of the "western world" and the most powerful nation on earth.0 -
Likely so.Tim_B said:
I suspect you will be sorely disappointed with the Democratic debates in that case. It's already stating to look like a coronation.JackW said:
I disagree fundamentally.JEO said:
I think it's fair that participants should be scrutinised from right, left and centre. But when it is ridiculous questions like "shouldn't you resign" or "weren't you vetted", then it is the moderators pushing an attack ad of their own.JackW said:
Debates should not be party political broadcasts. Candidates need to tested and questioned with vigour outside of their comfort zone.Tim_B said:Ted Cruz had the moment of the night, attacking the moderators, as did Rubio. The questions were designed to bait the candidates. The questions were terrible, and I cannot recall another debate where the audience lustily booed the questions. Harwood asked Rubio a question about his tax plan, and was completely demolished by Rubio pointing out that after he had written a NY Times article about it, he had to correct it to show what Rubio was saying, when Harwood was arguing the original anti-Rubio thrust of the article. Harwood even denied he'd had to correct the article.
Becky Quick asked Trump a question challenging (correctly) his opposition to increasing the number of H1B visas. Trump denied it and she wondered aloud where she had read it, then apologized for asking it. 30 minutes later she said she remembered - it was on Trump's website.
There was even a question about Fantasy Football.
It really was that bad.
The moderators would ask a question, then interrupt the response.
Bush was awful, and if he's not done he's on the way to it. He looked demoralized.
Rubio helped himself. Fiorina spoke the most.
If you want proof of the liberal bias of the media, this was it.
CNBC should be utterly ashamed.
Candidates should be tested to within an inch of their political life. The more so as they are essentially interviewing to become one of the two viable options for the presidency and thus leader of the "western world" and the most powerful nation on earth.
However the POTUS debates should be another matter,
0 -
Jeb Bush doing a post-debate interview on CNN and still going after Rubio's Senate attendance record and saying he should resign.0
-
Rubio's too short.0
-
Teddy Roosevelt did OK. Truman did OK.Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
0 -
Size shouldn't matter as Mrs Innocent_Abroad has advised you many times ....Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
0 -
Rule doesn't apply to former Veeps seeking re-election in their own right.Tim_B said:
Teddy Roosevelt did OK. Truman did OK.Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
0 -
Clinton is only five foot seven.Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
0 -
Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.0 -
Fascinating little pen pix
I remind him that he recently said immigration was not an issue: that’s not how they see it in Rochdale. When I tell him the town is home to 1,000 asylum seekers – more than the whole of the South East – he doesn’t seem to believe me. ‘Really?’ he asks. I assure him it’s true. When I say that about one in four of my constituents has roots in Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh, he says ‘great’ and his eyes light up.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3288055/Corbyn-night-President-XI-boring-SIMON-DANCZUK-got-hauled-leader-MoS-columns-result-best-one-yet.html#ixzz3pwDiFh5A0 -
I agree Rubio looks good, certainly compared to the others.
He is young and articulate but has Washington experience and would almost certainly win Florida. That is key for a successful republican.
I think Clinton would find him difficult to debate.0 -
Even liberal CNN leads at the top of the hour with "GOP 1: CNBC 0"
There seems to be a growing consensus that trust in the media as a whole was the loser last night.0 -
But it's not proper testing. They're not testing anything other than their ability to deliver a witty comeback. Gotcha politics is just pointless, and does nothing but turn governance into a reality show or social network meme. What you need is people like Andrew Neil that test candidates from right or left, and really drill into the answers and the meat of their policy ideas and governance records.JackW said:I disagree fundamentally.
Candidates should be tested to within an inch of their political life. The more so as they are essentially interviewing to become one of the two viable options for the presidency and thus leader of the "western world" and the most powerful nation on earth.0 -
I agree with all of that. Rubio, based on what we have seen so far, is the one best able to beat Hillary.DavidL said:I agree Rubio looks good, certainly compared to the others.
He is young and articulate but has Washington experience and would almost certainly win Florida. That is key for a successful republican.
I think Clinton would find him difficult to debate.
0 -
Hillary Clinton has responded to the GOP debate by posting a video of her brushing something off her shoulder.
Unfortunately the clip is from the Benghazi hearings and the families of the victims are not happy, and saying so.0 -
The reason I am apoplectic about Kids Company is that there have not yet been criminal charge of what is patently large scale fraud. The politicians, particularly Cameron, do not look very clever about this but their intentions were honest, unlike the management.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I think it is yet another body blow against the charity sector which has fallen further in public esteem in recent years than any other part of our public life. This is unfortunate but the stench of greed, self-serving and politicking has become overwhelming.0 -
Florida is important but the GOP cannot rely on it alone in the swing states.DavidL said:I agree Rubio looks good, certainly compared to the others.
He is young and articulate but has Washington experience and would almost certainly win Florida. That is key for a successful republican.
I think Clinton would find him difficult to debate.
Demographically Virginia, Colorado and Nevada are trending to the Democrats in POTUS elections with New Mexico and Washington State almost certainly out of reach. Arizona is moving in the same direction.
Ohio is also very important and a swing state that Clinton is better placed than Obama was in 08 and 12.
0 -
The scale of the GOP debates mitigates against better scrutiny but that will change.JEO said:
But it's not proper testing. They're not testing anything other than their ability to deliver a witty comeback. Gotcha politics is just pointless, and does nothing but turn governance into a reality show or social network meme. What you need is people like Andrew Neil that test candidates from right or left, and really drill into the answers and the meat of their policy ideas and governance records.JackW said:I disagree fundamentally.
Candidates should be tested to within an inch of their political life. The more so as they are essentially interviewing to become one of the two viable options for the presidency and thus leader of the "western world" and the most powerful nation on earth.
Neither is it either or in terms of type of debates and interviews. The more diverse the better the scrutiny, including gotcha. Rubio's best moment last night was said to be his reaction to the moderators. We may often learn as much if not more by these moments as some scripted soundbites.
0 -
Oh I agree that the trend in recent elections has been against the republicans and it is getting harder and harder for them to win the electoral college but without Florida it is not hard, it is impossible. Florida has an extra couple of electoral college votes this time making it even more important.JackW said:
Florida is important but the GOP cannot rely on it alone in the swing states.DavidL said:I agree Rubio looks good, certainly compared to the others.
He is young and articulate but has Washington experience and would almost certainly win Florida. That is key for a successful republican.
I think Clinton would find him difficult to debate.
Demographically Virginia, Colorado and Nevada are trending to the Democrats in POTUS elections with New Mexico and Washington State almost certainly out of reach. Arizona is moving in the same direction.
Ohio is also very important and a swing state that Clinton is better placed than Obama was in 08 and 12.0 -
I think the process has confirmed that Jeb Bush is not Presidential material. I think Rubio will get the nomination in the end.MikeSmithson said:
I agree with all of that. Rubio, based on what we have seen so far, is the one best able to beat Hillary.DavidL said:I agree Rubio looks good, certainly compared to the others.
He is young and articulate but has Washington experience and would almost certainly win Florida. That is key for a successful republican.
I think Clinton would find him difficult to debate.0 -
It does stink. The police / Fraud squad should certainly be involved.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
The question has to be how far similar failures are present elsewhere in the 'charity' sector (and I put "charity" in single quotes as a body funded mainly by the state is not a charity in any meaningful sense).0 -
Taller than Hillary though, so it doesn't matter. Were he debating Obama, it might be different.Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
0 -
That is a very revealing picture of Corbyn as leader, some fascinating details. Corbyn does have a whiff of the "Holy Fool" about him, and a certain Quixiotic charm.Plato_Says said:Fascinating little pen pix
I remind him that he recently said immigration was not an issue: that’s not how they see it in Rochdale. When I tell him the town is home to 1,000 asylum seekers – more than the whole of the South East – he doesn’t seem to believe me. ‘Really?’ he asks. I assure him it’s true. When I say that about one in four of my constituents has roots in Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh, he says ‘great’ and his eyes light up.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3288055/Corbyn-night-President-XI-boring-SIMON-DANCZUK-got-hauled-leader-MoS-columns-result-best-one-yet.html#ixzz3pwDiFh5A0 -
I suspect that Rubio had that one in his pocket, just in case.JackW said:
The scale of the GOP debates mitigates against better scrutiny but that will change.JEO said:
But it's not proper testing. They're not testing anything other than their ability to deliver a witty comeback. Gotcha politics is just pointless, and does nothing but turn governance into a reality show or social network meme. What you need is people like Andrew Neil that test candidates from right or left, and really drill into the answers and the meat of their policy ideas and governance records.JackW said:I disagree fundamentally.
Candidates should be tested to within an inch of their political life. The more so as they are essentially interviewing to become one of the two viable options for the presidency and thus leader of the "western world" and the most powerful nation on earth.
Neither is it either or in terms of type of debates and interviews. The more diverse the better the scrutiny, including gotcha. Rubio's best moment last night was said to be his reaction to the moderators. We may often learn as much if not more by these moments as some scripted soundbites.
Cruz probably had the outline ready too, except he didn't know the questions.
Christie's comment on fantasy football was off the cuff.0 -
Dunno how the rule applies with a female nominee - there's never been onedavid_herdson said:
Taller than Hillary though, so it doesn't matter. Were he debating Obama, it might be different.Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
0 -
Well said. I won't be happy with this saga until Batmanwoman and Yentob are either bankrupted or imprisoned (preferably both), with the ministers and charities commissioners involved on both sides of the house over more than 10 years also held to account for their support of London's drug dealers.DavidL said:
The reason I am apoplectic about Kids Company is that there have not yet been criminal charge of what is patently large scale fraud. The politicians, particularly Cameron, do not look very clever about this but their intentions were honest, unlike the management.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I think it is yet another body blow against the charity sector which has fallen further in public esteem in recent years than any other part of our public life. This is unfortunate but the stench of greed, self-serving and politicking has become overwhelming.
There's clearly an optimum size for a charity. When they get too big the persuading of a few students to shake a tin on a "RAG trip" gives way to professional 'chuggers', TV advertising and executive salaries. Government should be supporting the small charities and come down like a ton of bricks on the practices of larger ones.0 -
It's confirmed the debate format is not where he shines. He certainly has the experience as governor.Sean_F said:
I think the process has confirmed that Jeb Bush is not Presidential material. I think Rubio will get the nomination in the end.MikeSmithson said:
I agree with all of that. Rubio, based on what we have seen so far, is the one best able to beat Hillary.DavidL said:I agree Rubio looks good, certainly compared to the others.
He is young and articulate but has Washington experience and would almost certainly win Florida. That is key for a successful republican.
I think Clinton would find him difficult to debate.
But I agree that right or wrong, the result is that he is probably done.0 -
Geraldine Ferraro ran for veepInnocent_Abroad said:
Dunno how the rule applies with a female nominee - there's never been onedavid_herdson said:
Taller than Hillary though, so it doesn't matter. Were he debating Obama, it might be different.Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
0 -
bb63 I think the PB Tories were apoplectic..this crap crosses the political boundaries..Yentob and Batwoman looked very shifty at the Select Committee hearing..too shifty0
-
On topic, I agree with Mike that Bush's failures now look terminal. How does he turn it round? I don't really see a credible answer. Therefore, it still looks like Trump or Rubio unless either Carson can hold on - which on the evidence so far looks improbable - or someone else can break through.
Of the rest, Fiorina has already been tried and in any case, she has too many exploitable negatives re American jobs, and Cruz ticks too many boxes that are already filled by Trump or Rubio so it's difficult to see what he brings to the party while those two remain better placed. Bush is failing and the rest are nowhere.
One thought. If that analysis is right, I'd have thought it well into odds-on territory that Rubio ends up on the ticket.0 -
As I've said before, I was taken in by this. I liked the idea that someone was looking at the problems amongst our youth, seeming to get to the nub of the issues and explaining them clearly (as Batmanghelidjh did, at least in my eyes), and being proactive in finding solutions.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I'm still not sure she did not accurately determine the issues facing children (I'd have to go through interviews with her before this mess started); it's just that the 'solutions' appear to have been stupid, and the organisational skills of her and the crew around her were, at best, horrific. At worst they were criminally fraudulent.
I was obviously not looking too closely. Which is odd, as I tend to be rather cynical when it comes to many 'charities' ...
One thing that's annoying me is the BBC's attitude. Batmanghelidjh appeared on the BBC frequently, but they seem to be rather reticent in mentioning this. Are they going to admit they were taken in as well?0 -
So did Palin.Tim_B said:
Geraldine Ferraro ran for veepInnocent_Abroad said:
Dunno how the rule applies with a female nominee - there's never been onedavid_herdson said:
Taller than Hillary though, so it doesn't matter. Were he debating Obama, it might be different.Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
0 -
Post debate looks like Trump is still the favourite but Rubio is now clearly the moderate, establishment candidate and Cruz has put in a bid to be the candidate of ultra conservatives0
-
But Ferraro couldn't see Russia from her bedroomdavid_herdson said:
So did Palin.Tim_B said:
Geraldine Ferraro ran for veepInnocent_Abroad said:
Dunno how the rule applies with a female nominee - there's never been onedavid_herdson said:
Taller than Hillary though, so it doesn't matter. Were he debating Obama, it might be different.Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
I'd forgotten about Palin......0 -
I fear Yentob was a bit like Ant and Dec (with their 'assistant director' role at the time of the phone-in scandal): he'd accepted a position for the glamour (and perhaps money) of being associated with a charity that was well-known and acknowledged amongst his luncheon crowd.richardDodd said:bb63 I think the PB Tories were apoplectic..this crap crosses the political boundaries..Yentbob and Batwoman looked very shifty at the Select Committee hearing..too shifty
I'm not sure he fulfilled the actual role; he appeared fairly clueless at the select committee. Perhaps he treated it more like a sinecure.
*If* that is right, he's going to get all he deserves.0 -
AndyJS linked to this piece by my misanthopic colleague Dalrymple last night:JosiasJessop said:
As I've said before, I was taken in by this. I liked the idea that someone was looking at the problems amongst our youth, seeming to get to the nub of the issues and explaining them clearly (as Batmanghelidjh did, at least in my eyes), and being proactive in finding solutions.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I'm still not sure she did not accurately determine the issues facing children (I'd have to go through interviews with her before this mess started); it's just that the 'solutions' appear to have been stupid, and the organisational skills of her and the crew around her were, at best, horrific. At worst they were criminally fraudulent.
I was obviously not looking too closely. Which is odd, as I tend to be rather cynical when it comes to many 'charities' ...
One thing that's annoying me is the BBC's attitude. Batmanghelidjh appeared on the BBC frequently, but they seem to be rather reticent in mentioning this. Are they going to admit they were taken in as well?
http://takimag.com/article/something_is_rotten_theodore_dalrymple/print#axzz3paxk5pOV
But read down to the bottom bit on Save the Children. Something indeed is rotten in the state of Denmark.0 -
I wouldn't admit that on here if I were youTim_B said:
But Ferraro couldn't see Russia from her bedroomdavid_herdson said:
So did Palin.Tim_B said:
Geraldine Ferraro ran for veepInnocent_Abroad said:
Dunno how the rule applies with a female nominee - there's never been onedavid_herdson said:
Taller than Hillary though, so it doesn't matter. Were he debating Obama, it might be different.Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
I'd forgotten about Palin......
0 -
I remember MichaelInnocent_Abroad said:
I wouldn't admit that on here if I were youTim_B said:
But Ferraro couldn't see Russia from her bedroomdavid_herdson said:
So did Palin.Tim_B said:
Geraldine Ferraro ran for veepInnocent_Abroad said:
Dunno how the rule applies with a female nominee - there's never been onedavid_herdson said:
Taller than Hillary though, so it doesn't matter. Were he debating Obama, it might be different.Innocent_Abroad said:Rubio's too short.
I'd forgotten about Palin...... 0 -
Good morning from a rain swept TelAviv. Hope all you guys are behaving yourselves.0
-
What I can't help noticing is that the same people who don't think we should get angry about this and don't want to talk about it tend to be the same people who do get worked up about a white van man dodging a few pounds here and there on his tax bill.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Jessop, I'll believe that (on Yentob) when I see it.0 -
The BBC ? Hold that thought..JosiasJessop said:blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I was obviously not looking too closely. Which is odd, as I tend to be rather cynical when it comes to many 'charities' ...
One thing that's annoying me is the BBC's attitude. Batmanghelidjh appeared on the BBC frequently, but they seem to be rather reticent in mentioning this. Are they going to admit they were taken in as well?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/children_in_need_grants_made_to0 -
Mr. K, it's raining in Yorkshire, too.
Pissed it down almost all of yesterday. Probably have some flooding soon.0 -
Given the wailing by KC fans and Batman/Yentob threatening the end of days - I'm just relieved the HMG finally stood up to them. Overdue, but its finally over.AndyJS said:
What I can't help noticing is that the same people who don't think we should get angry about this and don't want to talk about it tend to be the same people who do get worked up about a white van man dodging a few pounds here and there on his tax bill.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.0 -
Unlike a TV programme, the responsibilities of a charity's Trustees are clearly set out in law. Yentob is the person legally responsible for the oversight of the charity's activities in much the same way that a company Director might be, even if they are non-executive and only attend a few meetings a year.JosiasJessop said:
I fear Yentob was a bit like Ant and Dec (with their 'assistant director' role at the time of the phone-in scandal): he'd accepted a position for the glamour (and perhaps money) of being associated with a charity that was well-known and acknowledged amongst his luncheon crowd.richardDodd said:bb63 I think the PB Tories were apoplectic..this crap crosses the political boundaries..Yentbob and Batwoman looked very shifty at the Select Committee hearing..too shifty
I'm not sure he fulfilled the actual role; he appeared fairly clueless at the select committee. Perhaps he treated it more like a sinecure.
*If* that is right, he's going to get all he deserves.0 -
It's bright and sunny in Dubai, although a bit cold at 32 degrees.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. K, it's raining in Yorkshire, too.
Pissed it down almost all of yesterday. Probably have some flooding soon. 0 -
She’s very telegenic though!TGOHF said:
The BBC ? Hold that thought..JosiasJessop said:
As I've said before, I was taken in by this. I liked the idea that someone was looking at the problems amongst our youth, seeming to get to the nub of the issues and explaining them clearly (as Batmanghelidjh did, at least in my eyes), and being proactive in finding solutions.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I'm still not sure she did not accurately determine the issues facing children (I'd have to go through interviews with her before this mess started); it's just that the 'solutions' appear to have been stupid, and the organisational skills of her and the crew around her were, at best, horrific. At worst they were criminally fraudulent.
I was obviously not looking too closely. Which is odd, as I tend to be rather cynical when it comes to many 'charities' ...
One thing that's annoying me is the BBC's attitude. Batmanghelidjh appeared on the BBC frequently, but they seem to be rather reticent in mentioning this. Are they going to admit they were taken in as well?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/children_in_need_grants_made_to0 -
MD...just to keep everybody happy...it is lashing it down here too..0
-
I stopped giving to charity years ago, simply because I lost trust in the people that ran them and the extraordinary salaries they were paying themselves. I just give to individuals now and cut out the middle man.DavidL said:
The reason I am apoplectic about Kids Company is that there have not yet been criminal charge of what is patently large scale fraud. The politicians, particularly Cameron, do not look very clever about this but their intentions were honest, unlike the management.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I think it is yet another body blow against the charity sector which has fallen further in public esteem in recent years than any other part of our public life. This is unfortunate but the stench of greed, self-serving and politicking has become overwhelming.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, far too hot.
Being a Dubai weather forecaster must be like being the weathergirl on The Fast Show.
Mr. Dodd, where art thou?0 -
Yesterday David Cameron stated that "Norway pays as much per head to the EU as we do".
Norway's net payment, per annum, is £68 per head.
The UK's net payment, per annum, is £153 per head.
So much for having an honest debate.0 -
Special report from Newsnight:
"How Kids Company 'bullied' ministers into funding them"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-346620140 -
MD Northern Italy..nr Venice0
-
Mr. SE, we'll see if that's pointed out.
I also wonder how much South Korea and other countries which have EU trade agreements pay.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Dodd, sounds a nice part of the world. How is the campaign for Venetian independence going?0 -
Not just Cameron. Labour handed over money too. It's an example of a total waste of public money when politicians' eyes are dazzled by fantasists. It also makes me wonder how many other examples there are of money being paid over to less high profile organisations with equal lack of scrutiny. It's our money after all.JEO said:
It has political relevance for why Cameron was giving away so much money to someone without basic scrutiny.DecrepitJohnL said:
What is the political import of this story? It's been all over pb for months but I still do not see how it affects betting on politics. Is it good for Corbyn, bad for Sturgeon? Does it impact the Conservative succession: was Osborne in favour but Boris against? Is this scandal the death knell of Cameron's big society?AndyJS said:This is leading the BBC's news website:
"Collapsed charity Kids Company given £46m in public cash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34661273
I'm not trying to have a pop at anyone who's been regularly posting about KC but as the lawyers say, it all looks a bit sui generis.0 -
Good article! Probably not my favourite performance of Hamlet from what Dalrymple writes! But the departure of much of the mainstream charity world from the privately funded voluntary sector to the politicised Establishment is a huge step over the last 15 years or so. Kid's Company may have been a spectacular disaster, but there have been so many issues with major charities over the last few years that it is in danger of tarnishing the whole sector.foxinsoxuk said:
AndyJS linked to this piece by my misanthopic colleague Dalrymple last night:JosiasJessop said:
As I've said before, I was taken in by this. I liked the idea that someone was looking at the problems amongst our youth, seeming to get to the nub of the issues and explaining them clearly (as Batmanghelidjh did, at least in my eyes), and being proactive in finding solutions.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I'm still not sure she did not accurately determine the issues facing children (I'd have to go through interviews with her before this mess started); it's just that the 'solutions' appear to have been stupid, and the organisational skills of her and the crew around her were, at best, horrific. At worst they were criminally fraudulent.
I was obviously not looking too closely. Which is odd, as I tend to be rather cynical when it comes to many 'charities' ...
One thing that's annoying me is the BBC's attitude. Batmanghelidjh appeared on the BBC frequently, but they seem to be rather reticent in mentioning this. Are they going to admit they were taken in as well?
http://takimag.com/article/something_is_rotten_theodore_dalrymple/print#axzz3paxk5pOV
But read down to the bottom bit on Save the Children. Something indeed is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Hope to see many of you this evening!0 -
Mr Dancer, I thought there were laws against fast girls in Dubai, weather or not their job was difficult.Morris_Dancer said:
Being a Dubai weather forecaster must be like being the weathergirl on The Fast Show.0 -
I gave a standing order to Save The Children for thirty years and then discovered the obscene salaries they were paying their bosses. I received phone calls from them afterwards and to get rid of them, I just asked "What is the salary of your CE?" The second question was "Can I have my thirty years of contributions back to give to a real charity?"
I usually give to Cafod, but the Salvation Army are ones I would support. They go out and do the dirty jobs instead of spouting off like Polly or Owen Jones. When did they last work in a soup kitchen?
Many of the big Charities have turned into a sinecure for failed politicians and posh virtue-signallers.0 -
MD..Not been paying much attention.lately the house is shrouded in scaffolding.. had the plumbers in to winterise the CH system . and workmen are crawling all over the place... so a slight distraction...and I am prepping for a two hour drama shoot for the BBC which starts next Thursday....Italian Politics are a nightmare.. every Italian is a one man Political Party0
-
Bit tricky for me this one. Meeting with commissioners this PM until 1700. Have fun!DavidBrackenbury said:
Good article! Probably not my favourite performance of Hamlet from what Dalrymple writes! But the departure of much of the mainstream charity world from the privately funded voluntary sector to the politicised Establishment is a huge step over the last 15 years or so. Kid's Company may have been a spectacular disaster, but there have been so many issues with major charities over the last few years that it is in danger of tarnishing the whole sector.foxinsoxuk said:
AndyJS linked to this piece by my misanthopic colleague Dalrymple last night:JosiasJessop said:
As I've said before, I was taken in by this. I liked the idea that someone was looking at the problems amongst our youth, seeming to get to the nub of the issues and explaining them clearly (as Batmanghelidjh did, at least in my eyes), and being proactive in finding solutions.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I'm still not sure she did not accurately determine the issues facing children (I'd have to go through interviews with her before this mess started); it's just that the 'solutions' appear to have been stupid, and the organisational skills of her and the crew around her were, at best, horrific. At worst they were criminally fraudulent.
I was obviously not looking too closely. Which is odd, as I tend to be rather cynical when it comes to many 'charities' ...
One thing that's annoying me is the BBC's attitude. Batmanghelidjh appeared on the BBC frequently, but they seem to be rather reticent in mentioning this. Are they going to admit they were taken in as well?
http://takimag.com/article/something_is_rotten_theodore_dalrymple/print#axzz3paxk5pOV
But read down to the bottom bit on Save the Children. Something indeed is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Hope to see many of you this evening!0 -
What do you mean? You encourage beggars?currystar said:
I stopped giving to charity years ago, simply because I lost trust in the people that ran them and the extraordinary salaries they were paying themselves. I just give to individuals now and cut out the middle man.DavidL said:
The reason I am apoplectic about Kids Company is that there have not yet been criminal charge of what is patently large scale fraud. The politicians, particularly Cameron, do not look very clever about this but their intentions were honest, unlike the management.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I think it is yet another body blow against the charity sector which has fallen further in public esteem in recent years than any other part of our public life. This is unfortunate but the stench of greed, self-serving and politicking has become overwhelming.
0 -
Mr. Dodd, important to get the plumbing in order to avoid burst pipes.0
-
But once you get into a situation that it is down to Ministers to pull the plug, party politics get in the way. Hence the reluctance of Labour and Conservative and Coalition Ministers to do so. Eventually someone had to bite the bullet..Cyclefree said:
Not just Cameron. Labour handed over money too. It's an example of a total waste of public money when politicians' eyes are dazzled by fantasists. It also makes me wonder how many other examples there are of money being paid over to less high profile organisations with equal lack of scrutiny. It's our money after all.JEO said:
It has political relevance for why Cameron was giving away so much money to someone without basic scrutiny.DecrepitJohnL said:
What is the political import of this story? It's been all over pb for months but I still do not see how it affects betting on politics. Is it good for Corbyn, bad for Sturgeon? Does it impact the Conservative succession: was Osborne in favour but Boris against? Is this scandal the death knell of Cameron's big society?AndyJS said:This is leading the BBC's news website:
"Collapsed charity Kids Company given £46m in public cash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34661273
I'm not trying to have a pop at anyone who's been regularly posting about KC but as the lawyers say, it all looks a bit sui generis.
Yentob and Batmanghellgdh need to account for their actions and there should be pressure for them to do so.0 -
Golly from the Dalrymple piece
Without government funding, Save the Children would have had just £17 million over and above its wage and fund-raising costs. Its brochure says that it raised a record £370 million last year, without mentioning that £228 million came from government sources of various kinds. I think the above figures make clear that employees of the charity are essentially publicly funded bureaucrats.
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/something_is_rotten_theodore_dalrymple/print#ixzz3pwZZxsnf0 -
Didn't happen until the coalition was over. Blame Clegg.DavidBrackenbury said:
But once you get into a situation that it is down to Ministers to pull the plug, party politics get in the way. Hence the reluctance of Labour and Conservative and Coalition Ministers to do so. Eventually someone had to bite the bullet..Cyclefree said:
Not just Cameron. Labour handed over money too. It's an example of a total waste of public money when politicians' eyes are dazzled by fantasists. It also makes me wonder how many other examples there are of money being paid over to less high profile organisations with equal lack of scrutiny. It's our money after all.JEO said:
It has political relevance for why Cameron was giving away so much money to someone without basic scrutiny.DecrepitJohnL said:
What is the political import of this story? It's been all over pb for months but I still do not see how it affects betting on politics. Is it good for Corbyn, bad for Sturgeon? Does it impact the Conservative succession: was Osborne in favour but Boris against? Is this scandal the death knell of Cameron's big society?AndyJS said:This is leading the BBC's news website:
"Collapsed charity Kids Company given £46m in public cash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34661273
I'm not trying to have a pop at anyone who's been regularly posting about KC but as the lawyers say, it all looks a bit sui generis.
Yentob and Batmanghellgdh need to account for their actions and there should be pressure for them to do so.0 -
MD .Exactly..plus we had new gutters and down pipes put in..some silicon injections into the outside steps..and a massive hedgerow trimmed..today my logs arrive and the gas bombola will be recharged...that should do the trick...now where is my WFA... ...0
-
Fourth paragraph down for the calculations:JEO said:
Do you have a link?MP_SE said:Yesterday David Cameron stated that "Norway pays as much per head to the EU as we do".
Norway's net payment, per annum, is £68 per head.
The UK's net payment, per annum, is £153 per head.
So much for having an honest debate.
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=857950 -
I give regularly to ACET. They spend virtually nothing on salaries and admin. A model of how a small development charity can work (and Leicester based!)CD13 said:
I gave a standing order to Save The Children for thirty years and then discovered the obscene salaries they were paying their bosses. I received phone calls from them afterwards and to get rid of them, I just asked "What is the salary of your CE?" The second question was "Can I have my thirty years of contributions back to give to a real charity?"
I usually give to Cafod, but the Salvation Army are ones I would support. They go out and do the dirty jobs instead of spouting off like Polly or Owen Jones. When did they last work in a soup kitchen?
Many of the big Charities have turned into a sinecure for failed politicians and posh virtue-signallers.
http://www.a-cet.org.uk/
I have also given well into four figures to Barnabasfund for their work with Syrian refugees:
https://barnabasfund.org/projects/category
Not every ones cup of tea perhaps, but you can be sure that the money does not go to jihadis.0 -
I wonder if the Out campaign should use the £153 or so figure, and ask it as an individual question:
Do you want to keep paying £153 a year to be in the EU?0 -
I enjoyed your piece on the Macedonian She Wolves.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dodd, important to get the plumbing in order to avoid burst pipes.
If you haven't read it, I'd recommend Funeral Games, by Mary Renault, which covers this period. It's extremely gripping, but so dark I can only bring myself to read it about once a decade.0 -
He's not really a misanthrope. People who meet him always come away with the opposite impression, apparently.
Dalrymple can't hate people that much if he chose to work in a prison hospital in Birmingham for 15 years when he could have chosen to work as a doctor pretty much anywhere. (In fact he did work as a doctor in the Pacific Islands in 1982-3, something he recounts in his book Fool or Physician).foxinsoxuk said:
AndyJS linked to this piece by my misanthopic colleague Dalrymple last night:JosiasJessop said:
As I've said before, I was taken in by this. I liked the idea that someone was looking at the problems amongst our youth, seeming to get to the nub of the issues and explaining them clearly (as Batmanghelidjh did, at least in my eyes), and being proactive in finding solutions.blackburn63 said:Re kids company.
If this had happened exclusively under Labour the Tories on here would be apoplectic, but of course because Dave was chucking money around like confetti its brushed under the carpet. It seems that Mrs Cameron may, possibly, have used pillow talk in influencing her husband.
The whole thing stinks, somebody wrote on here last night about losing an elderly relative in an overstretched hospital while Batman and Yentob are whispering in the ears of ministers against the instructions of civil servants.
I'm still not sure she did not accurately determine the issues facing children (I'd have to go through interviews with her before this mess started); it's just that the 'solutions' appear to have been stupid, and the organisational skills of her and the crew around her were, at best, horrific. At worst they were criminally fraudulent.
I was obviously not looking too closely. Which is odd, as I tend to be rather cynical when it comes to many 'charities' ...
One thing that's annoying me is the BBC's attitude. Batmanghelidjh appeared on the BBC frequently, but they seem to be rather reticent in mentioning this. Are they going to admit they were taken in as well?
http://takimag.com/article/something_is_rotten_theodore_dalrymple/print#axzz3paxk5pOV
But read down to the bottom bit on Save the Children. Something indeed is rotten in the state of Denmark.0 -
Just back from a week in Brittany/Normandy, where the weather was most polite, raining only overnight or whilst we were in restaurants.MikeK said:Good morning from a rain swept TelAviv. Hope all you guys are behaving yourselves.
The weather back in Blighty seems to have no such good manners....0 -
That is deeply concerning. I hope David Cameron comes out with a correction. We can all make mistakes once. I will judge him more harshly if he repeats the line.MP_SE said:
Fourth paragraph down for the calculations:JEO said:
Do you have a link?MP_SE said:Yesterday David Cameron stated that "Norway pays as much per head to the EU as we do".
Norway's net payment, per annum, is £68 per head.
The UK's net payment, per annum, is £153 per head.
So much for having an honest debate.
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=857950 -
Well, there is a police inquiry into allegations of child abuse. And the Charity Commission and those who are winding up the charity should also be taking action.DavidBrackenbury said:
But once you get into a situation that it is down to Ministers to pull the plug, party politics get in the way. Hence the reluctance of Labour and Conservative and Coalition Ministers to do so. Eventually someone had to bite the bullet..Cyclefree said:
Not just Cameron. Labour handed over money too. It's an example of a total waste of public money when politicians' eyes are dazzled by fantasists. It also makes me wonder how many other examples there are of money being paid over to less high profile organisations with equal lack of scrutiny. It's our money after all.JEO said:
It has political relevance for why Cameron was giving away so much money to someone without basic scrutiny.DecrepitJohnL said:
What is the political import of this story? It's been all over pb for months but I still do not see how it affects betting on politics. Is it good for Corbyn, bad for Sturgeon? Does it impact the Conservative succession: was Osborne in favour but Boris against? Is this scandal the death knell of Cameron's big society?AndyJS said:This is leading the BBC's news website:
"Collapsed charity Kids Company given £46m in public cash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34661273
I'm not trying to have a pop at anyone who's been regularly posting about KC but as the lawyers say, it all looks a bit sui generis.
Yentob and Batmanghellgdh need to account for their actions and there should be pressure for them to do so.
I'm a bit surprised anyone took this woman seriously. She had no therapeutic or professional training at all. Why would anyone put children, damaged or difficult children, with someone like that? It's the obvious first question to ask a charity headed by someone like that. Anyone who has or has dealt with a child with emotional or mental problems knows that good intentions are not enough: skilled experienced therapy and care is needed. Was there ever any evidence that Camilla or her acolytes had any of that?0 -
Medecins sans Frontiers?foxinsoxuk said:
I give regularly to ACET. They spend virtually nothing on salaries and admin. A model of how a small development charity can work (and Leicester based!)CD13 said:
I gave a standing order to Save The Children for thirty years and then discovered the obscene salaries they were paying their bosses. I received phone calls from them afterwards and to get rid of them, I just asked "What is the salary of your CE?" The second question was "Can I have my thirty years of contributions back to give to a real charity?"
I usually give to Cafod, but the Salvation Army are ones I would support. They go out and do the dirty jobs instead of spouting off like Polly or Owen Jones. When did they last work in a soup kitchen?
Many of the big Charities have turned into a sinecure for failed politicians and posh virtue-signallers.
http://www.a-cet.org.uk/
I have also given well into four figures to Barnabasfund for their work with Syrian refugees:
https://barnabasfund.org/projects/category
Not every ones cup of tea perhaps, but you can be sure that the money does not go to jihadis.0 -
I'm not sure the government should give money to charities, full stop. The whole point of charities is that they enable people to do something good - in a tax efficient manner - that is not being provided by the government. If people aren't willing to give money, either it should be the government's responsibility to do it directly, or it shouldn't be done. There should be no "half way house" where the government gives the money, but someone else spends it.Cyclefree said:
Not just Cameron. Labour handed over money too. It's an example of a total waste of public money when politicians' eyes are dazzled by fantasists. It also makes me wonder how many other examples there are of money being paid over to less high profile organisations with equal lack of scrutiny. It's our money after all.JEO said:
It has political relevance for why Cameron was giving away so much money to someone without basic scrutiny.DecrepitJohnL said:
What is the political import of this story? It's been all over pb for months but I still do not see how it affects betting on politics. Is it good for Corbyn, bad for Sturgeon? Does it impact the Conservative succession: was Osborne in favour but Boris against? Is this scandal the death knell of Cameron's big society?AndyJS said:This is leading the BBC's news website:
"Collapsed charity Kids Company given £46m in public cash"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34661273
I'm not trying to have a pop at anyone who's been regularly posting about KC but as the lawyers say, it all looks a bit sui generis.
I think the Kids Company exposed another issue. Certain people take on "charity boards" like baubles. Being associated with a high profile charity is seen as a good way of boosting one's career, prestige, etc.
But I think in many cases there is minimal genuine oversight of the activities of charities. There needs to be a change in both law and perception: being on the board of a charity is about proper supervision to make sure that things are done in the correct way. This will make being a board member much harder and less attractive. But it should mean that charities are much better regulated.0 -
Do you want to keep paying £153 a year to fund the BBC. Most will say no..but we still do...Morris_Dancer said:I wonder if the Out campaign should use the £153 or so figure, and ask it as an individual question:
Do you want to keep paying £153 a year to be in the EU?0 -
Main story in the telegraph... Remember when Farage spoke of a fifth column
'Andrew Parker says current level of threat from homegrown jihadis the highest he has seen in a career spanning 32-years
He also publicly admitted for the first time that MI5 had to carry out computer hacking attacks against terror networks to crack their communications.
Delivering the Lord Mayor of London’s annual defence and security lecture, he said the current level of threat was the highest he had seen in a career spanning 32-years. In the past 12 months his agency has thwarted six terror plots in the UK and another seven abroad.'
http://goo.gl/VijDTT0 -
I second that. Her books were an essential element on one holiday on a greek island.Sean_F said:
I enjoyed your piece on the Macedonian She Wolves.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dodd, important to get the plumbing in order to avoid burst pipes.
If you haven't read it, I'd recommend Funeral Games, by Mary Renault, which covers this period. It's extremely gripping, but so dark I can only bring myself to read it about once a decade.
0
