Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the next Foreign Secretary

SystemSystem Posts: 11,005
edited July 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the next Foreign Secretary

Last weekend I did a piece on who will be the next Chancellor and my central premise was that Boris Johnson would leave Jeremy Hunt at King Charles Street lest he adds another malcontent on the backbenches so dabbling in this market didn’t really interest me as I might end up tying up my money for a long time. The events in the Strait of Hormuz probably ensures Boris Johnson decides to keep Hunt there for continuity reasons alone.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    16/1 on Emily ?

    Sure why not, it's basically a proxy bet on Boris failing quickly.

    A lot of ways it could go wrong but clear value.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    OT what idiot thought official birthday pictures of Prince George in an England shirt was a good idea?
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In Parliament Boris Johnson would need all the help he could get. He does not need unshackled enemies.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141


    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In Parliament Boris Johnson would need all the help he could get. He does not need unshackled enemies.

    There's no non-catastrophic way through this without making enemies of the brexiters though, they're the ones he needs to rope in.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187

    OT what idiot thought official birthday pictures of Prince George in an England shirt was a good idea?

    Should have been a Germany shirt?
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,932

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In Parliament Boris Johnson would need all the help he could get. He does not need unshackled enemies.
    He is likely to have some more by the end of Thursday. I strongly suspect he will have promised more things to more people than he can deliver.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    So Johnson is saying that all is needed to avoid a hard border is “belief”? But also implying that avoiding a hard border is a necessary pre-condition for Brexit? So Brexit isn’t happening?
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    OT what idiot thought official birthday pictures of Prince George in an England shirt was a good idea?

    His mother.

  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    If the Press are to be believed the country is going to lose its PM, its Chancellor, its Foreign Secretary, its Home Secretary, all in the middle of an International diplomatic crisis. And not just being moved, but out of the Govt altogether. And because the new Tory leader is upset that one of them campaigned against him and another hasn’t demonstrated sufficient enthusiasm for his reign.

    Remind me again why it is necessary for May to resign on Wednesday?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123
    Not seeing this one to be honest. I think Emily Thornberry is probably a better bet for next PM. A Labour party led by her would be formidable opposition to such a divided Tory party.

    And JRM as favourite? Words fail me.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.



  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mildly peeved to discover the result is tomorrow rather than today. Thought it'd be 11am on Monday. Oh well.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    The funniest moment this week is going to be when Johnson has his “conversation” with Trump and Trump comes to the conclusion that he is an idiot.

  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mildly peeved to discover the result is tomorrow rather than today. Thought it'd be 11am on Monday. Oh well.

    Almost .... ballots need to be received by midday and the result late afternoon or early evening.

    The LibDems that is .... :smiley:

    Speculation that the winner will travel to Bedford to kiss hands with Mike Smithson to be anointed as Prime Minister In Waiting (forever) and First Lord of the Bar Charts are yet to be confirmed.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    alex. said:

    If the Press are to be believed the country is going to lose its PM, its Chancellor, its Foreign Secretary, its Home Secretary, all in the middle of an International diplomatic crisis. And not just being moved, but out of the Govt altogether. And because the new Tory leader is upset that one of them campaigned against him and another hasn’t demonstrated sufficient enthusiasm for his reign.

    Remind me again why it is necessary for May to resign on Wednesday?

    Because she is a dismal failure with a reverse Midas Touch.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,691

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In Parliament Boris Johnson would need all the help he could get. He does not need unshackled enemies.
    Remarkably Johnson goes into his premiership with even less authority than Theresa May leaving hers. Expect a chaotic few months ahead, which could well be what does for Johnson, more than positions on Brexit.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880
    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    AIUI that person was wrong. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of the US Federal Budget (not GDP) in 1966, and decreased rapidly from there. Note that was three years *before* the Moon landing, and reduced very rapidly after that. At it's height, it was about 0.8% of US GDP:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
    https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/multimedia/NASABudgetHistory.pdf

    One thing that sticks in my mind (whether it's correct or not) is that US citizens spent more on cosmetics than they did on the space race.

    As an aside, I love it when people blame Nixon for 'destroying' the US space industry. In reality, Congress had already made it clear that they were very uninterested in further space exploits well before Apollo 11. Even JFK was having second thoughts about thee Apollo program before he died, and approached the Russians about making it a joint project ...
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    I thought Kennedy got the money for the Apollo project by agreeing to have Houston as the base..
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    edited July 2019
    The Guardian's 'most viewed' this morning is about the potential heatwave. Just saying.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215
    Surely the next FS will be Mrs May? ;)
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215
    JackW said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mildly peeved to discover the result is tomorrow rather than today. Thought it'd be 11am on Monday. Oh well.

    Almost .... ballots need to be received by midday and the result late afternoon or early evening.

    The LibDems that is .... :smiley:

    Speculation that the winner will travel to Bedford to kiss hands with Mike Smithson to be anointed as Prime Minister In Waiting (forever) and First Lord of the Bar Charts are yet to be confirmed.
    The bar chart of the result is already prepared, we’re just waiting for the figures and the names.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,152
    FF43 said:

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In Parliament Boris Johnson would need all the help he could get. He does not need unshackled enemies.
    Remarkably Johnson goes into his premiership with even less authority than Theresa May leaving hers. Expect a chaotic few months ahead, which could well be what does for Johnson, more than positions on Brexit.
    Sadly, I doubt that any of these MPs talking about defecting or VoNC’ing will do anything. There is little courage or principles left in public life.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,175
    Boris is like Zero Mostel in The Producers - promising everything to everyone until one day they try to cash in their stakes and find little stake to go round a long way. Unless both the ERG loons and allegedly sensible people like Amber Rudd have lost their minds, they aren't going to cheer on a Boris administration that doesn't deliver. And it can't deliver.

    Just like Trump in the White House, expect a succession of hugely funny leaks revealing that Boris's bluster tries and spectacularly fails to deal with complex issues. Its going to be funny. Very tragically Oh God thats My Country down the Pan funny.

    Hammond as King Over The Water - sitting on his alternative seat of power at the back saying "I told you so" as everything he said would happen does happen, is going to look like a colossus compared to Bozza. And the Tories will hate him for it.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/


    This is a government begging to be brought down from the outset.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    AIUI that person was wrong. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of the US Federal Budget (not GDP) in 1966, and decreased rapidly from there. Note that was three years *before* the Moon landing, and reduced very rapidly after that. At it's height, it was about 0.8% of US GDP:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
    https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/multimedia/NASABudgetHistory.pdf

    One thing that sticks in my mind (whether it's correct or not) is that US citizens spent more on cosmetics than they did on the space race.

    As an aside, I love it when people blame Nixon for 'destroying' the US space industry. In reality, Congress had already made it clear that they were very uninterested in further space exploits well before Apollo 11. Even JFK was having second thoughts about thee Apollo program before he died, and approached the Russians about making it a joint project ...
    The trouble with the Apollo mission is that apart from proving to the Russians that America can put a man on the moon, there was no real point in it. Astronomers were happy enough with the photos, and mainly interested in deep space.

    The recent Jodrell Bank documentary had Whitehall phoning Bernard Lovell to ask about tracking Sputnik. Lovell pointed out anyone with a radio could do so because it was broadcasting pings. No, not the satellite, came the reply, the rocket (which was basically an ICBM with a satellite where the nuclear warhead would be).
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    edited July 2019
    "Dear ****,

    The struggle for liberation of all people is never complete and must always be renewed. As a movement, we educate ourselves and each other to better stand in solidarity with and unite all those facing oppression and discrimination.

    That's why we are launching education materials for our members and supporters to help them confront bigotry, wherever it arises. Over the coming months, the party will produce educational materials on a number of specific forms of racism and bigotry. Our first materials are on antisemitism, recognising that anti-Jewish bigotry has reared its head in our movement.

    Browse our new antisemitism minisite
    Read our new leaflet on antisemitism

    Hatred towards Jewish people is rising in many parts of the world. Our party is not immune from that poison – and we must drive it out from our movement.

    While other political parties and some of the media exaggerate and distort the scale of the problem in our party, we must face up to the unsettling truth that a small number of Labour members hold antisemitic views and a larger number don't recognise antisemitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories.

    The evidence is clear enough. The worst cases of antisemitism in our party have included Holocaust denial, crude Jewish-banker stereotypes, conspiracy theories blaming Israel for 9/11 or every war on the Rothschild family, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood.

    So please engage with the materials we are producing, which will be placed on a page on our website, along with other resources, so our movement can be the strongest anti-racist force in our country.

    I have learned so much, I hope you will too, so that together we can fight these evils.

    In solidarity,

    Jeremy Corbyn
    Leader of the Labour Party"
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    IanB2 said:

    Surely the next FS will be Mrs May? ;)

    Scarily, that isn’t even in the top three worst options.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    rkrkrk said:

    "Dear ****,

    The struggle for liberation of all people is never complete and must always be renewed. As a movement, we educate ourselves and each other to better stand in solidarity with and unite all those facing oppression and discrimination.

    That's why we are launching education materials for our members and supporters to help them confront bigotry, wherever it arises. Over the coming months, the party will produce educational materials on a number of specific forms of racism and bigotry. Our first materials are on antisemitism, recognising that anti-Jewish bigotry has reared its head in our movement.

    Browse our new antisemitism minisite
    Read our new leaflet on antisemitism

    Hatred towards Jewish people is rising in many parts of the world. Our party is not immune from that poison – and we must drive it out from our movement.

    While other political parties and some of the media exaggerate and distort the scale of the problem in our party, we must face up to the unsettling truth that a small number of Labour members hold antisemitic views and a larger number don't recognise antisemitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories.

    The evidence is clear enough. The worst cases of antisemitism in our party have included Holocaust denial, crude Jewish-banker stereotypes, conspiracy theories blaming Israel for 9/11 or every war on the Rothschild family, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood.

    So please engage with the materials we are producing, which will be placed on a page on our website, along with other resources, so our movement can be the strongest anti-racist force in our country.

    I have learned so much, I hope you will too, so that together we can fight these evils.

    In solidarity,

    Jeremy Corbyn
    Leader of the Labour Party"

    Is this a spoof?

  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    alex. said:

    rkrkrk said:

    "Dear ****,

    The struggle for liberation of all people is never complete and must always be renewed. As a movement, we educate ourselves and each other to better stand in solidarity with and unite all those facing oppression and discrimination.

    That's why we are launching education materials for our members and supporters to help them confront bigotry, wherever it arises. Over the coming months, the party will produce educational materials on a number of specific forms of racism and bigotry. Our first materials are on antisemitism, recognising that anti-Jewish bigotry has reared its head in our movement.

    Browse our new antisemitism minisite
    Read our new leaflet on antisemitism

    Hatred towards Jewish people is rising in many parts of the world. Our party is not immune from that poison – and we must drive it out from our movement.

    While other political parties and some of the media exaggerate and distort the scale of the problem in our party, we must face up to the unsettling truth that a small number of Labour members hold antisemitic views and a larger number don't recognise antisemitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories.

    The evidence is clear enough. The worst cases of antisemitism in our party have included Holocaust denial, crude Jewish-banker stereotypes, conspiracy theories blaming Israel for 9/11 or every war on the Rothschild family, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood.

    So please engage with the materials we are producing, which will be placed on a page on our website, along with other resources, so our movement can be the strongest anti-racist force in our country.

    I have learned so much, I hope you will too, so that together we can fight these evils.

    In solidarity,

    Jeremy Corbyn
    Leader of the Labour Party"

    Is this a spoof?

    It's the email I received this morning as a Labour party member.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited July 2019

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    AIUI that person was wrong. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of the US Federal Budget (not GDP) in 1966, and decreased rapidly from there. Note that was three years *before* the Moon landing, and reduced very rapidly after that. At it's height, it was about 0.8% of US GDP:

    To be fair they probably didn't say that. I just remember it was a big, disproportionate number. Maybe less than the UK will effectively end up spending on Brexit though (if not the Irish border).

    BTW: re the Irish border - for all the political aspects, isn't it ultimately true that the reason the Republic don't want a hard border is because of the economic damage it will do to them? So when all the Brexiteers waffle on about how "the UK won't impose any border controls, it will be the EU that are responsible for a hard border" they are effectively saying that they will protect the Southern Irish economy, but do little to help the North?

    It's like the wider bizarre suggestions that the UK should not worry about trade agreements because we will just retain 0% tariffs on everything. As if the basic purpose of Free trade agreement is to enable the buy stuff as cheap as possible, when actually it is to sell (using incoming trade barriers as leverage).

  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited July 2019
    ..

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    AIUI that person was wrong. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of the US Federal Budget (not GDP) in 1966, and decreased rapidly from there. Note that was three years *before* the Moon landing, and reduced very rapidly after that. At it's height, it was about 0.8% of US GDP:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
    https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/multimedia/NASABudgetHistory.pdf

    One thing that sticks in my mind (whether it's correct or not) is that US citizens spent more on cosmetics than they did on the space race.

    As an aside, I love it when people blame Nixon for 'destroying' the US space industry. In reality, Congress had already made it clear that they were very uninterested in further space exploits well before Apollo 11. Even JFK was having second thoughts about thee Apollo program before he died, and approached the Russians about making it a joint project ...
    The trouble with the Apollo mission is that apart from proving to the Russians that America can put a man on the moon, there was no real point in it. Astronomers were happy enough with the photos, and mainly interested in deep space.

    The recent Jodrell Bank documentary had Whitehall phoning Bernard Lovell to ask about tracking Sputnik. Lovell pointed out anyone with a radio could do so because it was broadcasting pings. No, not the satellite, came the reply, the rocket (which was basically an ICBM with a satellite where the nuclear warhead would be).
    That point was exactly the point: ten years previously, the Americans had suffered from the 'bomber gap' psychosis that proved to be false. Then JFK himself played on the 'missile gap' psychosis which, as it is believed he knew, was false (the R7 being a rather cr@p ICBM as it required days to prepare for launch).

    Then came Sputnik, an area where Russia really was ahead: although only because the US hadn't really got into it - as well as the USAF and other branches having competing programs, they were concerned that launching a satellite might cause political problems because of overflight of unfriendly countries - an issue the Russians neatly solved with Sputnik.

    Space was the only area where the Russians were beating the Americans, and getting to the Moon was a good way of beating them. In mid-1966, the Americans finally overtook the Russians in terms of space capability. Apollo 11 proved that.

    The Russians didn't even commit to going to the Moon until two or three years after JFK mainlined the Apollo program. It's an interesting alternative history to consider what might have happened if they'd committed earlier, and if Korolev hadn't died. The Russians might have easily won.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,152
    alex. said:

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    AIUI that person was wrong. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of the US Federal Budget (not GDP) in 1966, and decreased rapidly from there. Note that was three years *before* the Moon landing, and reduced very rapidly after that. At it's height, it was about 0.8% of US GDP:

    To be fair they probably didn't say that. I just remember it was a big, disproportionate number. Maybe less than the UK will effectively end up spending on Brexit though (if not the Irish border).

    BTW: re the Irish border - for all the political aspects, isn't it ultimately true that the reason the Republic don't want a hard border is because of the economic damage it will do to them? So when all the Brexiteers waffle on about how "the UK won't impose any border controls, it will be the EU that are responsible for a hard border" they are effectively saying that they will protect the Southern Irish economy, but do little to help the North?

    It's like the wider bizarre suggestions that the UK should not worry about trade agreements because we will just retain 0% tariffs on everything. As if the basic purpose of Free trade agreement is to enable the buy stuff as cheap as possible, when actually it is to sell (using incoming trade barriers as leverage).

    The ultra-Brexiteers just think that it is an affront that they should be required to pay attention to anything at all other than their own wishes.

    Understand that and you understand why they talk nonsense pretty much all the time and why their "solutions" are no such thing, being little more than "Do what I want, because I say so".
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    edited July 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    alex. said:

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    AIUI that person was wrong. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of the US Federal Budget (not GDP) in 1966, and decreased rapidly from there. Note that was three years *before* the Moon landing, and reduced very rapidly after that. At it's height, it was about 0.8% of US GDP:

    To be fair they probably didn't say that. I just remember it was a big, disproportionate number. Maybe less than the UK will effectively end up spending on Brexit though (if not the Irish border).

    BTW: re the Irish border - for all the political aspects, isn't it ultimately true that the reason the Republic don't want a hard border is because of the economic damage it will do to them? So when all the Brexiteers waffle on about how "the UK won't impose any border controls, it will be the EU that are responsible for a hard border" they are effectively saying that they will protect the Southern Irish economy, but do little to help the North?

    It's like the wider bizarre suggestions that the UK should not worry about trade agreements because we will just retain 0% tariffs on everything. As if the basic purpose of Free trade agreement is to enable the buy stuff as cheap as possible, when actually it is to sell (using incoming trade barriers as leverage).

    The ultra-Brexiteers just think that it is an affront that they should be required to pay attention to anything at all other than their own wishes.

    Understand that and you understand why they talk nonsense pretty much all the time and why their "solutions" are no such thing, being little more than "Do what I want, because I say so".
    Ms Cyclefree, may I suggest that your note missed out a crucial few words central to many Brexiteers thinking:
    "Do what I want, because I say so" should be followed by"'or I'll send a gunboat!"
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,954
    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.



    So where there's a will & 10% of your GDP, there's a way.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,624
    edited July 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153051218375323650?s=20

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153052207966773250?s=20

    Davis, Fallon or Cox would be offered Foreign Secretary, Hunt would be offered Business Secretary the Sun reports

    I dislike Boris, and the things said during the campaign would be a petty reason for it (and with Boris, as per Trump, I get the impression the pettier things are what drive him), but moving Hunt at the least seems reasonable whether he wins by a large margin or a stonkingly large margin. They are probably not as far apart on Brexit as some think, but Boris should reasonably have someone in tune with him on the subject at the Foreign Office. If not for the current situation I feel like it wouldn't even be in doubt.
    Hunt should tell him to get stuffed. Has he no self-respect? Why should he agree to be demoted? And if the reason is because Boris is too petty to take criticism all the more reason not to have such a man as his boss.
    He doesn't have to agree but plenty of politicians would and he is about to be humiliatingly beaten by Boris. As to the reason I absolutely agree. Thats Boris though, Trump lite with a knowledge of classics- very thin skinned.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    rkrkrk said:

    alex. said:

    rkrkrk said:

    "Dear ****,

    The struggle for liberation of all people is never complete and must always be renewed. As a movement, we educate ourselves and each other to better stand in solidarity with and unite all those facing oppression and discrimination.

    That's why we are launching education materials for our members and supporters to help them confront bigotry, wherever it arises. Over the coming months, the party will produce educational materials on a number of specific forms of racism and bigotry. Our first materials are on antisemitism, recognising that anti-Jewish bigotry has reared its head in our movement.

    Browse our new antisemitism minisite
    Read our new leaflet on antisemitism

    Hatred towards Jewish people is rising in many parts of the world. Our party is not immune from that poison – and we must drive it out from our movement.

    While other political parties and some of the media exaggerate and distort the scale of the problem in our party, we must face up to the unsettling truth that a small number of Labour members hold antisemitic views and a larger number don't recognise antisemitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories.

    The evidence is clear enough. The worst cases of antisemitism in our party have included Holocaust denial, crude Jewish-banker stereotypes, conspiracy theories blaming Israel for 9/11 or every war on the Rothschild family, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood.

    So please engage with the materials we are producing, which will be placed on a page on our website, along with other resources, so our movement can be the strongest anti-racist force in our country.

    I have learned so much, I hope you will too, so that together we can fight these evils.

    In solidarity,

    Jeremy Corbyn
    Leader of the Labour Party"

    Is this a spoof?

    It's the email I received this morning as a Labour party member.
    It sounds like something from a long ago soviet leader the wording is archaic. Surely it should have included a statement about immediate suspension an permanent expulsion of offenders.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,152

    Cyclefree said:

    alex. said:

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    AIUI that person was wrong. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of the US Federal Budget (not GDP) in 1966, and decreased rapidly from there. Note that was three years *before* the Moon landing, and reduced very rapidly after that. At it's height, it was about 0.8% of US GDP:

    To be fair they probably didn't say that. I just remember it was a big, disproportionate number. Maybe less than the UK will effectively end up spending on Brexit though (if not the Irish border).

    BTW: re the Irish border - for all the political aspects, isn't it ultimately true that the reason the Republic don't want a hard border is because of the economic damage it will do to them? So when all the Brexiteers waffle on about how "the UK won't impose any border controls, it will be the EU that are responsible for a hard border" they are effectively saying that they will protect the Southern Irish economy, but do little to help the North?

    It's like the wider bizarre suggestions that the UK should not worry about trade agreements because we will just retain 0% tariffs on everything. As if the basic purpose of Free trade agreement is to enable the buy stuff as cheap as possible, when actually it is to sell (using incoming trade barriers as leverage).

    The ultra-Brexiteers just think that it is an affront that they should be required to pay attention to anything at all other than their own wishes.

    Understand that and you understand why they talk nonsense pretty much all the time and why their "solutions" are no such thing, being little more than "Do what I want, because I say so".
    Ms Cyclefree, may I suggest that your note missed out a crucial few words central to many Brexiteers thinking:
    "Do what I want, because I say so" should be followed by"'or I'll send a gunboat!"
    We have a gunboat!? Are you sure you're not confusing it with the toy one they play with in their baths?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,337

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    So where there's a will & 10% of your GDP, there's a way.
    Someone was wrong. The figure was around 2% of GDP.

    And it gave the US their pre-eminence in chip manufacturing
  • Options
    asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276

    OT what idiot thought official birthday pictures of Prince George in an England shirt was a good idea?

    Indeed, doesn't play well in Scotland
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,152
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153051218375323650?s=20

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153052207966773250?s=20

    Davis, Fallon or Cox would be offered Foreign Secretary, Hunt would be offered Business Secretary the Sun reports

    I dislike Boris, and the things said during the campaign would be a petty reason for it (and with Boris, as per Trump, I get the impression the pettier things are what drive him), but moving Hunt at the least seems reasonable whether he wins by a large margin or a stonkingly large margin. They are probably not as far apart on Brexit as some think, but Boris should reasonably have someone in tune with him on the subject at the Foreign Office. If not for the current situation I feel like it wouldn't even be in doubt.
    Hunt should tell him to get stuffed. Has he no self-respect? Why should he agree to be demoted? And if the reason is because Boris is too petty to take criticism all the more reason not to have such a man as his boss.
    He doesn't have to agree but plenty of politicians would and he is about to be humilistingly beaten by Boris. As the reason I absolutely agree. Thats Boris though, Trump lite with a knowledge of classics- very thin skinned.

    A spoilt child who has never grown up.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    nichomar said:

    rkrkrk said:

    alex. said:

    rkrkrk said:

    "Dear ****,

    The struggle for liberation of all people is never complete and must always be renewed. As a movement, we educate ourselves and each other to better stand in solidarity with and unite all those facing oppression and discrimination.

    That's why we are launching education materials for our members and supporters to help them confront bigotry, wherever it arises. Over the coming months, the party will produce educational materials on a number of specific forms of racism and bigotry. Our first materials are on antisemitism, recognising that anti-Jewish bigotry has reared its head in our movement.

    Browse our new antisemitism minisite
    Read our new leaflet on antisemitism

    Hatred towards Jewish people is rising in many parts of the world. Our party is not immune from that poison – and we must drive it out from our movement.

    While other political parties and some of the media exaggerate and distort the scale of the problem in our party, we must face up to the unsettling truth that a small number of Labour members hold antisemitic views and a larger number don't recognise antisemitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories.

    The evidence is clear enough. The worst cases of antisemitism in our party have included Holocaust denial, crude Jewish-banker stereotypes, conspiracy theories blaming Israel for 9/11 or every war on the Rothschild family, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood.

    So please engage with the materials we are producing, which will be placed on a page on our website, along with other resources, so our movement can be the strongest anti-racist force in our country.

    I have learned so much, I hope you will too, so that together we can fight these evils.

    In solidarity,

    Jeremy Corbyn
    Leader of the Labour Party"

    Is this a spoof?

    It's the email I received this morning as a Labour party member.
    It sounds like something from a long ago soviet leader the wording is archaic. Surely it should have included a statement about immediate suspension an permanent expulsion of offenders.
    I just thought that it was arguable that Corbyn himself was guilty of at least one of the "worst cases of antisemitism", and adding the words "I have learned so much..." sounds like an admission of it!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,624
    DavidL said:

    Not seeing this one to be honest. I think Emily Thornberry is probably a better bet for next PM. A Labour party led by her would be formidable opposition to such a divided Tory party.

    And JRM as favourite? Words fail me.

    The most fervent Tory of my acquaintance made that very suggestion last week re JRM so probably not a bad indicator of what many members would like.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.



    So where there's a will & 10% of your GDP, there's a way.
    Yup its easy to blow 10% of your GDP ask Labour
  • Options
    TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    JackW said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mildly peeved to discover the result is tomorrow rather than today. Thought it'd be 11am on Monday. Oh well.

    Almost .... ballots need to be received by midday and the result late afternoon or early evening.

    The LibDems that is .... :smiley:

    Speculation that the winner will travel to Bedford to kiss hands with Mike Smithson to be anointed as Prime Minister In Waiting (forever) and First Lord of the Bar Charts are yet to be confirmed.
    Who did you vote for in the end, Jack? Presuming Ed, or just Jo?
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    The trouble with the Apollo mission is that apart from proving to the Russians that America can put a man on the moon, there was no real point in it. Astronomers were happy enough with the photos, and mainly interested in deep space.

    The recent Jodrell Bank documentary had Whitehall phoning Bernard Lovell to ask about tracking Sputnik. Lovell pointed out anyone with a radio could do so because it was broadcasting pings. No, not the satellite, came the reply, the rocket (which was basically an ICBM with a satellite where the nuclear warhead would be).

    That point was exactly the point: ten years previously, the Americans had suffered from the 'bomber gap' psychosis that proved to be false. Then JFK himself played on the 'missile gap' psychosis which, as it is believed he knew, was false (the R7 being a rather cr@p ICBM as it required days to prepare for launch).

    Then came Sputnik, an area where Russia really was ahead: although only because the US hadn't really got into it - as well as the USAF and other branches having competing programs, they were concerned that launching a satellite might cause political problems because of overflight of unfriendly countries - an issue the Russians neatly solved with Sputnik.

    Space was the only area where the Russians were beating the Americans, and getting to the Moon was a good way of beating them. In mid-1966, the Americans finally overtook the Russians in terms of space capability. Apollo 11 proved that.

    The Russians didn't even commit to going to the Moon until two or three years after JFK mainlined the Apollo program. It's an interesting alternative history to consider what might have happened if they'd committed earlier, and if Korolev hadn't died. The Russians might have easily won.
    Apparently the Russians did try but their rockets were not powerful enough, because their rocket engines were not big enough, so they needed to use two dozen or so engines and did not have the electronics to coordinate them properly. After several launch failures, the programme was cancelled.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6fjs_8Yx8
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Miss Cyclefree, quite.

    Conservative MPs are damned fools for backing Boris so much. If it weren't known he was an incompetent then one might forgive them, but he's held high office and was distinctly unimpressive.

    Perhaps beyond the Peter Principle there's the Boris Principle, when someone's proven rubbish at their current job and gets promoted anyway.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,624
    rkrkrk said:

    alex. said:

    rkrkrk said:

    "Dear ****,

    The struggle for liberation of all people is never complete and must always be renewed. As a movement, we educate ourselves and each other to better stand in solidarity with and unite all those facing oppression and discrimination.

    That's why we are launching education materials for our members and supporters to help them confront bigotry, wherever it arises. Over the coming months, the party will produce educational materials on a number of specific forms of racism and bigotry. Our first materials are on antisemitism, recognising that anti-Jewish bigotry has reared its head in our movement.

    Browse our new antisemitism minisite
    Read our new leaflet on antisemitism

    Hatred towards Jewish people is rising in many parts of the world. Our party is not immune from that poison – and we must drive it out from our movement.

    While other political parties and some of the media exaggerate and distort the scale of the problem in our party, we must face up to the unsettling truth that a small number of Labour members hold antisemitic views and a larger number don't recognise antisemitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories.

    The evidence is clear enough. The worst cases of antisemitism in our party have included Holocaust denial, crude Jewish-banker stereotypes, conspiracy theories blaming Israel for 9/11 or every war on the Rothschild family, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood.

    So please engage with the materials we are producing, which will be placed on a page on our website, along with other resources, so our movement can be the strongest anti-racist force in our country.

    I have learned so much, I hope you will too, so that together we can fight these evils.

    In solidarity,

    Jeremy Corbyn
    Leader of the Labour Party"

    Is this a spoof?

    It's the email I received this morning as a Labour party member.
    How will the Corbyn fans who disagree with him that it is not all a smear react this time? I dont know how they reconcile that he repeatedly says there is an issue, if not as big as opponents and the media say, while they dont think there is one at all.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215
    How did Brexit get from being the easiest thing in the world to becoming analogous to history's most difficult enterprise?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,337
    edited July 2019

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    As an aside, I love it when people blame Nixon for 'destroying' the US space industry. In reality, Congress had already made it clear that they were very uninterested in further space exploits well before Apollo 11. Even JFK was having second thoughts about thee Apollo program before he died, and approached the Russians about making it a joint project ...
    The trouble with the Apollo mission is that apart from proving to the Russians that America can put a man on the moon, there was no real point in it. Astronomers were happy enough with the photos, and mainly interested in deep space.

    The recent Jodrell Bank documentary had Whitehall phoning Bernard Lovell to ask about tracking Sputnik. Lovell pointed out anyone with a radio could do so because it was broadcasting pings. No, not the satellite, came the reply, the rocket (which was basically an ICBM with a satellite where the nuclear warhead would be).
    That point was exactly the point: ten years previously, the Americans had suffered from the 'bomber gap' psychosis that proved to be false. Then JFK himself played on the 'missile gap' psychosis which, as it is believed he knew, was false (the R7 being a rather cr@p ICBM as it required days to prepare p7p launch).

    Then came Sputnik, an area where Russia really was ahead: although only because the US hadn't really got into it - as well as the USAF and other branches having competing programs, they were concerned that launching a satellite might cause political problems because of overflight of unfriendly countries - an issue the Russians neatly solved with Sputnik.

    Space was the only area where the Russians were beating the Americans, and getting to the Moon was a good way of beating them. In mid-1966, the Americans finally overtook the Russians in terms of space capability. Apollo 11 proved that.

    The Russians didn't even commit to going to the Moon until two or three years after JFK mainlined the Apollo program. It's an interesting alternative history to consider what might have happened if they'd committed earlier, and if Korolev hadn't died. The Russians might have easily won.
    The point was rather the demonstration to the world of the superiority of the American economic model over the communist one. Whether it was worth the expenditure purely for that is debatable.
    But it unquestionably cemented US technical dominance. NASA bought 60% of the entire output of the nascent chip industry for about half a decade, so probably enabled the establishment of the industry’s extremely high (and now self-sustaining) level of R&D spending.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153051218375323650?s=20

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153052207966773250?s=20

    Davis, Fallon or Cox would be offered Foreign Secretary, Hunt would be offered Business Secretary the Sun reports

    I dislike Boris, and the things said during the campaign would be a petty reason for it (and with Boris, as per Trump, I get the impression the pettier things are what drive him), but moving Hunt at the least seems reasonable whether he wins by a large margin or a stonkingly large margin. They are probably not as far apart on Brexit as some think, but Boris should reasonably have someone in tune with him on the subject at the Foreign Office. If not for the current situation I feel like it wouldn't even be in doubt.
    Hunt should tell him to get stuffed. Has he no self-respect? Why should he agree to be demoted? And if the reason is because Boris is too petty to take criticism all the more reason not to have such a man as his boss.
    He doesn't have to agree but plenty of politicians would and he is about to be humiliatingly beaten by Boris. As to the reason I absolutely agree. Thats Boris though, Trump lite with a knowledge of classics- very thin skinned.
    My uninformed impression is these rumours are all rubbish and mainly about whoever is spreading them angling for a job. IDS comes up a lot.

    The reason they look wrong is that any Cabinet needs to balance various wings of the party and pay due heed to the result of the leadership contest, where Hunt and Javid did well. In Boris's case, he also needs to defuse accusations of racism and misogyny. Most of the rumoured Cabinets look like a Brexiteer's wet dream rather than anything politically viable.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,624
    FF43 said:

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In Parliament Boris Johnson would need all the help he could get. He does not need unshackled enemies.
    Remarkably Johnson goes into his premiership with even less authority than Theresa May leaving hers. Expect a chaotic few months ahead, which could well be what does for Johnson, more than positions on Brexit.
    Johnson needs a quick win, and for sake of the country I hope he gets it but am not hugely optimistic.

    I do think he is less confident than some on here of winning a snap GE and that a man as insecure as he appears to be will be petrified at the prospect of being the shortest or near shortest serving PM in history, and that's the only thing that might prevent one from occurring even if it means him backpedaling on other things .
  • Options
    EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    So where there's a will & 10% of your GDP, there's a way.
    Good grief. Are we actually not all clear that GDP isn't "consumed"?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    alex. said:

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    AIUI that person was wrong. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of the US Federal Budget (not GDP) in 1966, and decreased rapidly from there. Note that was three years *before* the Moon landing, and reduced very rapidly after that. At it's height, it was about 0.8% of US GDP:

    To be fair they probably didn't say that. I just remember it was a big, disproportionate number. Maybe less than the UK will effectively end up spending on Brexit though (if not the Irish border).

    BTW: re the Irish border - for all the political aspects, isn't it ultimately true that the reason the Republic don't want a hard border is because of the economic damage it will do to them? So when all the Brexiteers waffle on about how "the UK won't impose any border controls, it will be the EU that are responsible for a hard border" they are effectively saying that they will protect the Southern Irish economy, but do little to help the North?

    It's like the wider bizarre suggestions that the UK should not worry about trade agreements because we will just retain 0% tariffs on everything. As if the basic purpose of Free trade agreement is to enable the buy stuff as cheap as possible, when actually it is to sell (using incoming trade barriers as leverage).

    The ultra-Brexiteers just think that it is an affront that they should be required to pay attention to anything at all other than their own wishes.

    Understand that and you understand why they talk nonsense pretty much all the time and why their "solutions" are no such thing, being little more than "Do what I want, because I say so".
    Ms Cyclefree, may I suggest that your note missed out a crucial few words central to many Brexiteers thinking:
    "Do what I want, because I say so" should be followed by"'or I'll send a gunboat!"
    We have a gunboat!? Are you sure you're not confusing it with the toy one they play with in their baths?
    LOL!! I'm not but I suspect they are.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,624

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153051218375323650?s=20

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153052207966773250?s=20

    Davis, Fallon or Cox would be offered Foreign Secretary, Hunt would be offered Business Secretary the Sun reports

    I dislike Boris, and the things said during the campaign would be a petty reason for it (and with Boris, as per Trump, I get the impression the pettier things are what drive him), but moving Hunt at the least seems reasonable whether he wins by a large margin or a stonkingly large margin. They are probably not as far apart on Brexit as some think, but Boris should reasonably have someone in tune with him on the subject at the Foreign Office. If not for the current situation I feel like it wouldn't even be in doubt.
    Hunt should tell him to get stuffed. Has he no self-respect? Why should he agree to be demoted? And if the reason is because Boris is too petty to take criticism all the more reason not to have such a man as his boss.
    He doesn't have to agree but plenty of politicians would and he is about to be humiliatingly beaten by Boris. As to the reason I absolutely agree. Thats Boris though, Trump lite with a knowledge of classics- very thin skinned.
    My uninformed impression is these rumours are all rubbish and mainly about whoever is spreading them angling for a job. IDS comes up a lot.

    The reason they look wrong is that any Cabinet needs to balance various wings of the party and pay due heed to the result of the leadership contest, where Hunt and Javid did well. In Boris's case, he also needs to defuse accusations of racism and misogyny. Most of the rumoured Cabinets look like a Brexiteer's wet dream rather than anything politically viable.
    You may be right, but Boris very much gives the impression of being obsessed by what is said about him, given he thinks so much of himself, that it is pretty plausible.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Tabman said:

    Who did you vote for in the end, Jack? Presuming Ed, or just Jo?

    @Tabman you rascal ....

    As Jo Grimond wasn't on the ballot again I decided not to cast a ballot which was the second reason I couldn't vote. Inexplicably it would appear that my activities at Auchentennach Castle preclude me from joining the yellow peril.

    Apparently there was some disquiet in the LibDems that I was an entryist intent on malevolent activities .... As if .... :naughty:
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,839
    edited July 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    FF43 said:

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In Parliament Boris Johnson would need all the help he could get. He does not need unshackled enemies.
    Remarkably Johnson goes into his premiership with even less authority than Theresa May leaving hers. Expect a chaotic few months ahead, which could well be what does for Johnson, more than positions on Brexit.
    Sadly, I doubt that any of these MPs talking about defecting or VoNC’ing will do anything. There is little courage or principles left in public life.
    Rather like the Labour critics of anti-semitism, they think that talking (or Tweeting) about getting rid of people is a substitute for any actions to bring about that outcome.

    Phil Hammond is only the latest, saying he’ll vote against anything a Conservative government proposes, but without voting against the government itself in a vote of confidence.

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act has a lot to answer for, if it were not in place then the original vote on the Withdrawal Agreement would have been a vote of confidence, and voting it down would have led to an election months ago - rather than the endless stalemate out politicians seem determined to perpetuate due to their lack of willingness to support positively any outcome at all.

    Anyway, back to watching moon landing videos, much more enjoyable than politics on a hot and sunny day. :)
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    No Deal Ireland will be supported, not only by the EU but also from the US. No Deal Britain will be on its own. For Ireland No Deal really is better than a bad deal.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-prepares-huge-aid-package-for-ireland-dnckkgp5t
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,932
    IanB2 said:

    How did Brexit get from being the easiest thing in the world to becoming analogous to history's most difficult enterprise?

    Reality hit
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,624
    edited July 2019
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FF43 said:

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In Parliament Boris Johnson would need all the help he could get. He does not need unshackled enemies.
    Remarkably Johnson goes into his premiership with even less authority than Theresa May leaving hers. Expect a chaotic few months ahead, which could well be what does for Johnson, more than positions on Brexit.
    Sadly, I doubt that any of these MPs talking about defecting or VoNC’ing will do anything. There is little courage or principles left in public life.
    Rather like the Labour critics of anti-semitism, they think that talking (or Tweeting) about getting rid of people is a substitute for any actions to bring about that outcome.

    Phil Hammond is only the latest, saying he’ll vote against anything a Conservative government proposes, but without voting against the government itself in a vote of confidence.

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act has a lot to answer for, if it were not in place then the original vote on the Withdrawal Agreement would have been a vote of confidence, and voting it down would have led to an election months ago, rather than the endless stalemate out politicians seem determined to perpetuate.

    Anyway, back to watching moon landing videos, much more enjoyable than politics on a hot and sunny day. :)
    You and others keep blaming the act but their actions are entirely their choice. They surely know it is ridiculous to vote against but not no confidence, and even if the act opens up that door they are choosing to repeatedly dive through it. The real problem is not the act but what they are choosing to do. The act does not cause a stalemate they choose to perpetuate one.

    It's just another example of those involved using processes as an excuse for their actions.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,624
    JackW said:

    Tabman said:

    Who did you vote for in the end, Jack? Presuming Ed, or just Jo?

    @Tabman you rascal ....

    As Jo Grimond wasn't on the ballot again I decided not to cast a ballot which was the second reason I couldn't vote. Inexplicably it would appear that my activities at Auchentennach Castle preclude me from joining the yellow peril.

    Apparently there was some disquiet in the LibDems that I was an entryist intent on malevolent activities .... As if .... :naughty:
    Ironically if you tried joining the other parties you might be refused for not being malevolent enough!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,839

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    ...
    The trouble with the Apollo mission is that apart from proving to the Russians that America can put a man on the moon, there was no real point in it. Astronomers were happy enough with the photos, and mainly interested in deep space.

    The recent Jodrell Bank documentary had Whitehall phoning Bernard Lovell to ask about tracking Sputnik. Lovell pointed out anyone with a radio could do so because it was broadcasting pings. No, not the satellite, came the reply, the rocket (which was basically an ICBM with a satellite where the nuclear warhead would be).
    That point was exactly the point: ten years previously, the Americans had suffered from the 'bomber gap' psychosis that proved to be false. Then JFK himself played on the 'missile gap' psychosis which, as it is believed he knew, was false (the R7 being a rather cr@p ICBM as it required days to prepare for launch).

    Then came Sputnik, an area where Russia really was ahead: although only because the US hadn't really got into it - as well as the USAF and other branches having competing programs, they were concerned that launching a satellite might cause political problems because of overflight of unfriendly countries - an issue the Russians neatly solved with Sputnik.

    Space was the only area where the Russians were beating the Americans, and getting to the Moon was a good way of beating them. In mid-1966, the Americans finally overtook the Russians in terms of space capability. Apollo 11 proved that.

    The Russians didn't even commit to going to the Moon until two or three years after JFK mainlined the Apollo program. It's an interesting alternative history to consider what might have happened if they'd committed earlier, and if Korolev hadn't died. The Russians might have easily won.
    I was at the Korolev museum in Ukraine a couple of weeks ago. An absolutely fascinating place and quite amazing to see the view of the Space Race from the “other” side. Their achievements, with many times fewer resources than the Americans had in the early days, were quite astonishing.

    (Mrs Sandpit still won’t let me go to Chernobyl :( )
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880


    Apparently the Russians did try but their rockets were not powerful enough, because their rocket engines were not big enough, so they needed to use two dozen or so engines and did not have the electronics to coordinate them properly. After several launch failures, the programme was cancelled.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6fjs_8Yx8

    It is much more complex than that. The Russians didn't decide to go to the Moon until too late, and there were massive arguments about how to do it. They lacked a NASA-like organisation to make quick decisions between competing systems. Their rocket genius Korolev then died, and his replacement was not as good an engineer, manager or political wrangler (the fact that Korolev partly died due to the stresses he suffered in a labour camp is one of the ironies of the program).

    The resultant N1 was in Saturn V class - more powerful in some ways, less capable in others. The decision to use many smaller rocket engines makes sense in some ways - they were very reliable engines, and they didn't have to undergo the somewhat problematic engine development program the US did with the F1 engines.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)#Comparison_with_Saturn_V

    IMV the Russian's biggest mistake was in not creating an all-up test rig. The Americans did this with the Saturn V, where they could test all five first-stage F1 engines in one go. Instead, the Russians decided to test 'live' on a rocket - and they expected failures as a result.

    In a way, their 'more but smaller' attitude to large rockets was shown to be correct by the Falcon 9 Heavy, which uses 27 smaller engines. With time and political will, the N1 would have been a superb rocket.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    How did Brexit get from being the easiest thing in the world to becoming analogous to history's most difficult enterprise?

    Reality hit
    The whole message of Johnson’s Telegraph column is that putting a man on the moon was a doddle. Well, a doddle inspired by belief. So it hasn’t.
  • Options
    TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    JackW said:

    Tabman said:

    Who did you vote for in the end, Jack? Presuming Ed, or just Jo?

    @Tabman you rascal ....

    As Jo Grimond wasn't on the ballot again I decided not to cast a ballot which was the second reason I couldn't vote. Inexplicably it would appear that my activities at Auchentennach Castle preclude me from joining the yellow peril.

    Apparently there was some disquiet in the LibDems that I was an entryist intent on malevolent activities .... As if .... :naughty:
    I get that a lot too 😂
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,839
    Nigelb said:

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    So where there's a will & 10% of your GDP, there's a way.
    Someone was wrong. The figure was around 2% of GDP.

    And it gave the US their pre-eminence in chip manufacturing
    The computer was something else for the time. A group recently managed to get one working again.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh_gP5aF3ys
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,691
    Cyclefree said:

    FF43 said:

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In Parliament Boris Johnson would need all the help he could get. He does not need unshackled enemies.
    Remarkably Johnson goes into his premiership with even less authority than Theresa May leaving hers. Expect a chaotic few months ahead, which could well be what does for Johnson, more than positions on Brexit.
    Sadly, I doubt that any of these MPs talking about defecting or VoNC’ing will do anything. There is little courage or principles left in public life.
    Johnson needs cooperation, which he doesn't look likely to get, even if it doesn't go all the way to VONC.

    He has the hard date of Oct 31 coming up. I doubt he wants a No Deal any more than May did. Easy to get into; hard to get out of. He seems to think something will turn up that is good enough for most people. That outcome depends on highly sceptical people giving him the benefit of an enormous doubt or willing to own part of Johnson's humiliation.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    No Deal Ireland will be supported, not only by the EU but also from the US. No Deal Britain will be on its own. For Ireland No Deal really is better than a bad deal.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-prepares-huge-aid-package-for-ireland-dnckkgp5t

    Yes, when push comes to shove, Trump won’t be tweeting that the effects of No deal are the EU’s or Irish Government’s fault.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937
    David Davis or Sir Michael Fallon look increasingly likely according to the latest reports with Geoffrey Cox an outside bet. Hunt will be offered Business Secretary instead plus possibly DPM too
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    HYUFD said:

    David Davis or Sir Michael Fallon look increasingly likely according to the latest reports with Geoffrey Cox an outside bet. Hunt will be offered Business Secretary instead plus possibly DPM too

    Can’t Johnson hold a view for more than half an hour?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215
    rkrkrk said:

    alex. said:

    rkrkrk said:

    "Dear ****,

    The struggle for liberation of all people is never complete and must always be renewed. As a movement, we educate ourselves and each other to better stand in solidarity with and unite all those facing oppression and discrimination.

    That's why we are launching education materials for our members and supporters to help them confront bigotry, wherever it arises. Over the coming months, the party will produce educational materials on a number of specific forms of racism and bigotry. Our first materials are on antisemitism, recognising that anti-Jewish bigotry has reared its head in our movement.

    Browse our new antisemitism minisite
    Read our new leaflet on antisemitism

    Hatred towards Jewish people is rising in many parts of the world. Our party is not immune from that poison – and we must drive it out from our movement.

    While other political parties and some of the media exaggerate and distort the scale of the problem in our party, we must face up to the unsettling truth that a small number of Labour members hold antisemitic views and a larger number don't recognise antisemitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories.

    The evidence is clear enough. The worst cases of antisemitism in our party have included Holocaust denial, crude Jewish-banker stereotypes, conspiracy theories blaming Israel for 9/11 or every war on the Rothschild family, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood.

    So please engage with the materials we are producing, which will be placed on a page on our website, along with other resources, so our movement can be the strongest anti-racist force in our country.

    I have learned so much, I hope you will too, so that together we can fight these evils.

    In solidarity,

    Jeremy Corbyn
    Leader of the Labour Party"

    Is this a spoof?

    It's the email I received this morning as a Labour party member.
    https://labourlist.org/2019/07/labour-launches-new-antisemitism-education-material/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937
    edited July 2019

    No Deal Ireland will be supported, not only by the EU but also from the US. No Deal Britain will be on its own. For Ireland No Deal really is better than a bad deal.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-prepares-huge-aid-package-for-ireland-dnckkgp5t

    Boris has made quite clear he will not impose a hard border in Northern Ireland, if the Republic and EU want to impose one that is up to them.

    As for Ireland being supported by the USA, Trump of course told Varadkar an Irish border wall 'would work very well'

    https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/donald-trump-ireland-visit-irish-border-wall-brexit-leo-varadkar-meeting/
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,624
    edited July 2019
    HYUFD said:

    David Davis or Sir Michael Fallon look increasingly likely according to the latest reports with Geoffrey Cox an outside bet. Hunt will be offered Business Secretary instead plus possibly DPM too

    So Liz for Biz not happening?
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    kle4 said:


    How will the Corbyn fans who disagree with him that it is not all a smear react this time? I dont know how they reconcile that he repeatedly says there is an issue, if not as big as opponents and the media say, while they dont think there is one at all.

    I agree - I think it's impossible to reconcile.
    Either you agree with Corbyn that there's an issue, or you don't.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    JackW said:



    As Jo Grimond wasn't on the ballot again I decided not to cast a ballot ....

    Like the Tory Party, you favour Old Etonians as Leaders.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,319

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Gove seems a possibility at 10-1 as it's rumoured that Boris plans to promote him as a signal that old hostilities are forgotten. JRM would be an amusing choice - very much the idea of the typical Brit that some people abroad still have. I'm not sure the EU would take him very seriously, though.

    My guesses, though: Mordaunt to FS, Gove to Home, Zac to Defra, Saj to Chancellor (despite the rumour), IDS to defence. Spin will be "diversity under Boris, open to the world".
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,624
    Well of course he did sign up to it in the end. He just has as little chance as May in getting more Tories and Labour MPs to do the same, so has given up on it.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    alex. said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    How did Brexit get from being the easiest thing in the world to becoming analogous to history's most difficult enterprise?

    Reality hit
    The whole message of Johnson’s Telegraph column is that putting a man on the moon was a doddle. Well, a doddle inspired by belief. So it hasn’t.
    “We choose to Brexit without a deal... we choose to Brexit without a deal... And we choose to do so not because we want a frictionless Irish border but because we want it to be Hard!”
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937

    Boris is like Zero Mostel in The Producers - promising everything to everyone until one day they try to cash in their stakes and find little stake to go round a long way. Unless both the ERG loons and allegedly sensible people like Amber Rudd have lost their minds, they aren't going to cheer on a Boris administration that doesn't deliver. And it can't deliver.

    Just like Trump in the White House, expect a succession of hugely funny leaks revealing that Boris's bluster tries and spectacularly fails to deal with complex issues. Its going to be funny. Very tragically Oh God thats My Country down the Pan funny.

    Hammond as King Over The Water - sitting on his alternative seat of power at the back saying "I told you so" as everything he said would happen does happen, is going to look like a colossus compared to Bozza. And the Tories will hate him for it.

    When Boris and Trump are re elected you are going to be seriously disappointed
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    HYUFD said:

    No Deal Ireland will be supported, not only by the EU but also from the US. No Deal Britain will be on its own. For Ireland No Deal really is better than a bad deal.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-prepares-huge-aid-package-for-ireland-dnckkgp5t

    Boris has made quite clear he will not impose a hard border in Northern Ireland, if the Republic and EU want to impose one that is up to them.

    As for Ireland being supported by the USA, Trump of course told Varadkar an Irish border wall 'would work very well'

    https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/donald-trump-ireland-visit-irish-border-wall-brexit-leo-varadkar-meeting/

    The EU will abide by its WTO obligations and will seek to protect the integrity of the Single Market. It will provide Ireland with financial help - as will the US. The UK will be on its own. We’ll be back at the negotiating table soon enough, humiliated and emasculated, and being told what to do. The Tories will own it all. Good luck!

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,839
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FF43 said:

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In Parliament Boris Johnson would need all the help he could get. He does not need unshackled enemies.
    Remarkably Johnson goes into his premiership with even less authority than Theresa May leaving hers. Expect a chaotic few months ahead, which could well be what does for Johnson, more than positions on Brexit.
    Sadly, I doubt that any of these MPs talking about defecting or VoNC’ing will do anything. There is little courage or principles left in public life.
    Rather like the Labour critics of anti-semitism, they think that talking (or Tweeting) about getting rid of people is a substitute for any actions to bring about that outcome.

    Phil Hammond is only the latest, saying he’ll vote against anything a Conservative government proposes, but without voting against the government itself in a vote of confidence.

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act has a lot to answer for, if it were not in place then the original vote on the Withdrawal Agreement would have been a vote of confidence, and voting it down would have led to an election months ago, rather than the endless stalemate out politicians seem determined to perpetuate.

    Anyway, back to watching moon landing videos, much more enjoyable than politics on a hot and sunny day. :)
    You and others keep blaming the act but their actions are entirely their choice. They surely know it is ridiculous to vote against but not no confidence, and even if the act opens up that door they are choosing to repeatedly dive through it. The real problem is not the act but what they are choosing to do. The act does not cause a stalemate they choose to perpetuate one.

    It's just another example of those involved using processes as an excuse for their actions.
    I agree with you, the Act is an enabler of the behaviour we are seeing from politicians on all sides unable to agree on anything, but now able to keep kicking the can with no risk to their own careers.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153051218375323650?s=20

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153052207966773250?s=20

    Davis, Fallon or Cox would be offered Foreign Secretary, Hunt would be offered Business Secretary the Sun reports

    I dislike Boris, and the things said during the campaign would be a petty reason for it (and with Boris, as per Trump, I get the impression the pettier things are what drive him), but moving Hunt at the least seems reasonable whether he wins by a large margin or a stonkingly large margin. They are probably not as far apart on Brexit as some think, but Boris should reasonably have someone in tune with him on the subject at the Foreign Office. If not for the current situation I feel like it wouldn't even be in doubt.
    Hunt should tell him to get stuffed. Has he no self-respect? Why should he agree to be demoted? And if the reason is because Boris is too petty to take criticism all the more reason not to have such a man as his boss.
    Is democracy an alien concept? Hunt is in a contest to determine the path the party takes. If he wins he gets promoted. If he loses then the winner gets to determine it.

    Hunt doesn't determine if he wins or loses, voters do. He doesn't have to agree to get demoted, if he loses Boris has every right to tell him to get stuffed.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited July 2019
    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    How did Brexit get from being the easiest thing in the world to becoming analogous to history's most difficult enterprise?

    Reality hit
    Because in 10 or 20 years of railing against the EU, almost no-one in the ERG (and certainly not Nigel Farage in Ukip and now BXP) ever gave it any serious thought. The whole debate carried on at the level of the golf club bore.

    How can you not know Dover is on the way to France? Or that the Irish peace was hard won? How can anyone simultaneously believe the EU prevents Britain making its own trade deals but that after Brexit we can make one with Germany? How can you believe FTAs are important but be so cavalier about losing the ones we already have via the EU? How can you rail against European standards and tribunals but welcome American ones that will be far more onerous.

    The problem is not that Brexiteers are wrong but much of the time they are not even wrong, so far removed are they from reality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,043

    No Deal Ireland will be supported, not only by the EU but also from the US. No Deal Britain will be on its own. For Ireland No Deal really is better than a bad deal.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-prepares-huge-aid-package-for-ireland-dnckkgp5t

    So some people (like Mr Coveney) have been using the extra six months to 31st October wisely.

    Johnson's casual rhetoric has made leaving on 31st October without a deal the only viable option. Unless he has been telling the biggest whoppers ever exhuming Mrs May's deal or revoking are simply not available. Does anyone think Johnson and his acolytes have been working feverishly in the shadows to mitigate the effects of no deal.

    JRM as FS? There is value in the comedy factor at least.
  • Options
    EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Ah, this again. As has been pointed out numerous times, the issue for the headcases is they don't trust the EU to acknowledge the technological solutions once the backstop is in place, since they believe the backstop is a device to keep us trapped in the EU forever. There is no contradiction between believing it's unnecessary and believing it's a bad idea.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811
    alex. said:

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    AIUI that person was wrong. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of the US Federal Budget (not GDP) in 1966, and decreased rapidly from there. Note that was three years *before* the Moon landing, and reduced very rapidly after that. At it's height, it was about 0.8% of US GDP:

    To be fair they probably didn't say that. I just remember it was a big, disproportionate number. Maybe less than the UK will effectively end up spending on Brexit though (if not the Irish border).

    BTW: re the Irish border - for all the political aspects, isn't it ultimately true that the reason the Republic don't want a hard border is because of the economic damage it will do to them? So when all the Brexiteers waffle on about how "the UK won't impose any border controls, it will be the EU that are responsible for a hard border" they are effectively saying that they will protect the Southern Irish economy, but do little to help the North?

    It's like the wider bizarre suggestions that the UK should not worry about trade agreements because we will just retain 0% tariffs on everything. As if the basic purpose of Free trade agreement is to enable the buy stuff as cheap as possible, when actually it is to sell (using incoming trade barriers as leverage).

    on news the other day someone said it peaked at 5% of GDP so lots of numbers bandied about
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,337
    alex. said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    How did Brexit get from being the easiest thing in the world to becoming analogous to history's most difficult enterprise?

    Reality hit
    The whole message of Johnson’s Telegraph column is that putting a man on the moon was a doddle. Well, a doddle inspired by belief. So it hasn’t.
    The Russian effort is probably a better metaphor. Equally inspired by belief, and falling down on the technical details.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I don't know. They put a man on the moon fifty years ago and they still can't find a cure for the common Leaver.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    kle4 said:

    JackW said:

    Tabman said:

    Who did you vote for in the end, Jack? Presuming Ed, or just Jo?

    @Tabman you rascal ....

    As Jo Grimond wasn't on the ballot again I decided not to cast a ballot which was the second reason I couldn't vote. Inexplicably it would appear that my activities at Auchentennach Castle preclude me from joining the yellow peril.

    Apparently there was some disquiet in the LibDems that I was an entryist intent on malevolent activities .... As if .... :naughty:
    Ironically if you tried joining the other parties you might be refused for not being malevolent enough!
    Well quiet ....

    With the Labour party my belief that Corbyn isn't the messiah is clearly a disqualification which might explain their antipathy to Jews who've had a messiah problem for over 2,000 years let alone Jezza's short tenure in that role.

    As for the Conservatives their headlong addiction in following Labour in electing a clown as their leader does somewhat put me at odds with my belief that having a buffoon as Prime Minister disqualifies that party from enjoying my endorsement.

    Further if I was a member of The OMRLP I'd be seeking clarification from the Electoral Commission as to whether it is lawful for the Conservative and Labour parties to emulate my party to such an extent that voters might assume they were both breakaway groups from the Official Monster Raving Loony Party !!

  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    The Sun reports rumours that Boris will sack Hunt if he scores more than 60 per cent; that Saj has fallen out of favour because he is said to be preparing a new leadership bid in case Boris falls early; that Liz Truss reckons she can still be Chancellor (see Saj); and many more that I can't be bothered to type because I do not believe any of them but I've often been wrong before.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9553021/boris-johnson-sack-jeremy-hunt/

    Gove seems a possibility at 10-1 as it's rumoured that Boris plans to promote him as a signal that old hostilities are forgotten. JRM would be an amusing choice - very much the idea of the typical Brit that some people abroad still have. I'm not sure the EU would take him very seriously, though.

    My guesses, though: Mordaunt to FS, Gove to Home, Zac to Defra, Saj to Chancellor (despite the rumour), IDS to defence. Spin will be "diversity under Boris, open to the world".
    IDS to Defence. And subcontract UK defence policy to the United States? Apparently they’re going to lends us some assets to protect our shipping don’t you know?

    I suppose not such a problem for those on the left who believe that the U.K. doesn’t operate an independent defence policy anyway, but we’ve surely at least got to pretend?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937

    HYUFD said:

    No Deal Ireland will be supported, not only by the EU but also from the US. No Deal Britain will be on its own. For Ireland No Deal really is better than a bad deal.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-prepares-huge-aid-package-for-ireland-dnckkgp5t

    Boris has made quite clear he will not impose a hard border in Northern Ireland, if the Republic and EU want to impose one that is up to them.

    As for Ireland being supported by the USA, Trump of course told Varadkar an Irish border wall 'would work very well'

    https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/donald-trump-ireland-visit-irish-border-wall-brexit-leo-varadkar-meeting/

    The EU will abide by its WTO obligations and will seek to protect the integrity of the Single Market. It will provide Ireland with financial help - as will the US. The UK will be on its own. We’ll be back at the negotiating table soon enough, humiliated and emasculated, and being told what to do. The Tories will own it all. Good luck!

    We will regain sovereignty, border control and do our own free trade deals, including ultimately with the USA.

    I repeat, Boris will not impose a hard border in Ireland but use a technical solution instead, the WTO is hardly going to invade Northern Ireland to impose one is it and given Trump had little time for the WTO at present it does not exactly have much strength to impose its will anyway
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    IanB2 said:

    rkrkrk said:


    It's the email I received this morning as a Labour party member.

    https://labourlist.org/2019/07/labour-launches-new-antisemitism-education-material/
    Interesting thanks. This doesn't sound very positive:
    "Earlier this month, PoliticsHome revealed that Labour general secretary Jennie Formby asked both the Jewish Labour Movement and Jewish Leadership Council to endorse the document, but they refused. JLM chair Mike Katz commented: “If they think we are going to mark their overdue homework for them then they have another thing coming.”
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    David Davis or Sir Michael Fallon look increasingly likely according to the latest reports with Geoffrey Cox an outside bet. Hunt will be offered Business Secretary instead plus possibly DPM too

    So Liz for Biz not happening?
    Could be Chancellor
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937
    Boris will be the first genuine classicist as PM since Gladstone too
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    No Deal Ireland will be supported, not only by the EU but also from the US. No Deal Britain will be on its own. For Ireland No Deal really is better than a bad deal.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-prepares-huge-aid-package-for-ireland-dnckkgp5t

    Boris has made quite clear he will not impose a hard border in Northern Ireland, if the Republic and EU want to impose one that is up to them.

    As for Ireland being supported by the USA, Trump of course told Varadkar an Irish border wall 'would work very well'

    https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/donald-trump-ireland-visit-irish-border-wall-brexit-leo-varadkar-meeting/
    Trump compared the Irish border to the Mexico-US border.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,954
    edited July 2019
    Endillion said:

    alex. said:

    Someone said the other day that at its height, NASA was consuming something like 10% of US GDP.

    So where there's a will & 10% of your GDP, there's a way.
    Good grief. Are we actually not all clear that GDP isn't "consumed"?
    Absolutely, whatever figure it was, NASA consumed $x which was equivalent to y% of US GDP might be a better way to put it.

    Otoh if the BoE forecasts are in any way correct that No Deal Brexit would mean a 9.3% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years, it might be reasonably accurate to say in 2034 that Brexit had 'consumed' 9.3% of GDP.

    Of course the sage of NE Somerset has said ND Brexit would provide an £80b boost to the economy, so other views are available.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,337

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153051218375323650?s=20

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1153052207966773250?s=20

    Davis, Fallon or Cox would be offered Foreign Secretary, Hunt would be offered Business Secretary the Sun reports

    I dislike Boris, and the things said during the campaign would be a petty reason for it (and with Boris, as per Trump, I get the impression the pettier things are what drive him), but moving Hunt at the least seems reasonable whether he wins by a large margin or a stonkingly large margin. They are probably not as far apart on Brexit as some think, but Boris should reasonably have someone in tune with him on the subject at the Foreign Office. If not for the current situation I feel like it wouldn't even be in doubt.
    Hunt should tell him to get stuffed. Has he no self-respect? Why should he agree to be demoted? And if the reason is because Boris is too petty to take criticism all the more reason not to have such a man as his boss.
    Is democracy an alien concept? Hunt is in a contest to determine the path the party takes. If he wins he gets promoted. If he loses then the winner gets to determine it.

    Hunt doesn't determine if he wins or loses, voters do. He doesn't have to agree to get demoted, if he loses Boris has every right to tell him to get stuffed.
    Democracy has little to do with it when far less than 1% of the electorate are determining the next PM.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    David Davis or Sir Michael Fallon look increasingly likely according to the latest reports with Geoffrey Cox an outside bet. Hunt will be offered Business Secretary instead plus possibly DPM too

    So Liz for Biz not happening?
    Could be Chancellor
    Should be Chancellor.
This discussion has been closed.