Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the year of Trump’s impeachment

2

Comments

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,450
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
    Big talk- no action - 20/1 available on BF. Did you have a bet on this idea?
    I was commenting on TSE's earlier tip and suggesting that it is looking more impressive by the week. He is the minister who best fits the age, experience and stature within the PCP to be the next PM this side of the election. Boris would not make the final two, Rees-Mogg and Davis will not stand, and the odds of Leadsom even being nominated are slim. Rudd has a wafer-thin majority but more pertinently is currently in the wrong job - she will be perceived to have failed on immigration. Corbyn needs an election and is unlikely to get one until he is too old to be considered seriously.

    Of the others, Raab and Williamson are too junior, Davidson is ineligible and Hammond is getting on a bit. Let's not even mention the Unmentionable one.

    So of that list, that leaves Hunt. That is annoying because I do not like Jeremy Hunt but it could be worse - it could be Corbyn.
    Yep - makes sense. I'm sure that you see though that words like 'value' when you've not dipped in are somewhat compromised.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
    Big talk- no action - 20/1 available on BF. Did you have a bet on this idea?
    I was commenting on TSE's earlier tip and suggesting that it is looking more impressive by the week. He is the minister who best fits the age, experience and stature within the PCP to be the next PM this side of the election. Boris would not make the final two, Rees-Mogg and Davis will not stand, and the odds of Leadsom even being nominated are slim. Rudd has a wafer-thin majority but more pertinently is currently in the wrong job - she will be perceived to have failed on immigration. Corbyn needs an election and is unlikely to get one until he is too old to be considered seriously.

    Of the others, Raab and Williamson are too junior, Davidson is ineligible and Hammond is getting on a bit. Let's not even mention the Unmentionable one.

    So of that list, that leaves Hunt. That is annoying because I do not like Jeremy Hunt but it could be worse - it could be Corbyn.
    Yep - makes sense. I'm sure that you see though that words like 'value' when you've not dipped in are somewhat compromised.

    If you say so. But I would have thought it was a factual statement. For many reasons - not least the scarcity of candidates - he should probably be favourite right now and he isn't. And yet TSE tipped him at far longer odds.

    We will not mention a tip that has Fallon by the wayside...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,666
    Sorry to go back to him but for those who find Mr Young's comments on Comic Relief amusing - we can do a lot better at mocking charity/poverty porn.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,200
    I expect I will be accused by some on here of going on again about my free speech hobbyhorse. But tant pis.

    The attached - http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/charlie-hebdo-interview/19500?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=spiked review 7 January 2018&utm_content=spiked review 7 January 2018+CID_ce2ad557ad808ce42ad3c374410f22a5&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_term=The importance of being Charlie#.WlJx9CSnyhA -

    Sorry for the long url - is a very interesting interview with the editor of the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

    Two years ago today, its staff and various other innocent bystanders were murdered by the Kouachi brothers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,210
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Wasn’t the 22nd amendment really a codification of an unwritten convention that stretched all the way back to Washington that, by and large, presidents only served two terms? I know that there were exceptions (Roosevelt of course and someone else did run a third time I think but lost, though not sure who or when that was) but by and large that was the custom anyway before it was passed.

    Yes.
    A convention that Washington himself deliberately set.

    There has always been argument about how deliberate it was, or whether it was just an accident due to illness.

    I will confess I can never make Washington out. He was a very strange man and I sometimes wonder if a lot of the brilliance he is credited with was actually just him being rather eccyentric and probably not really having a great grasp of what was going on.
    It's a view, and no doubt Washington was on odd [email protected], but you don't win a war like that purely by chance.
    He consistently made good decisions throughout his leadership, despite having no apparent talents other than unusual height, decent horsemanship, and an extremely distant manner.

    No one is that good entirely by accident.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,200
    Cyclefree said:

    I expect I will be accused by some on here of going on again about my free speech hobbyhorse. But tant pis.

    The attached - http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/charlie-hebdo-interview/19500?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=spiked review 7 January 2018&utm_content=spiked review 7 January 2018+CID_ce2ad557ad808ce42ad3c374410f22a5&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_term=The importance of being Charlie#.WlJx9CSnyhA -

    Sorry for the long url - is a very interesting interview with the editor of the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

    Two years ago today, its staff and various other innocent bystanders were murdered by the Kouachi brothers.

    Sorry: three years ago, not two.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    4 January 2018 17:43:46
    Stake:
    £19.50
    Potential payout
    £78.00
    Bet type
    Year in which Trump will be impeached: 2018 (Winner)
    Coupon ID
    1xx

    Status
    Open
    Odds
    3/1

    Donald Trump: President of the USA
    Politics / USA / In the Spotlight
    20 January 2021 09:00
    Year in which Trump will be impeached
    Trump will be considered impeached when the House of representatives passes a vote for impeachment
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,213

    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
    Ah. Are you saying the incoming House won't be able to *vote* until they take their seats in Jan 2019. Because if true, that's significant.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    edited January 7
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
    Big talk- no action - 20/1 available on BF. Did you have a bet on this idea?
    I was commenting on TSE's earlier tip and suggesting that it is looking more impressive by the week. He is the minister who best fits the age, experience and stature within the PCP to be the next PM this side of the election. Boris would not make the final two, Rees-Mogg and Davis will not stand, and the odds of Leadsom even being nominated are slim. Rudd has a wafer-thin majority but more pertinently is currently in the wrong job - she will be perceived to have failed on immigration. Corbyn needs an election and is unlikely to get one until he is too old to be considered seriously.

    Of the others, Raab and Williamson are too junior, Davidson is ineligible and Hammond is getting on a bit. Let's not even mention the Unmentionable one.

    So of that list, that leaves Hunt. That is annoying because I do not like Jeremy Hunt but it could be worse - it could be Corbyn.
    Boris and Davis will both likely stand, Mogg will probably back Boris as in the end will Gove in all probability. One of those two will likely win it. Of the Remainers Hunt will also have to get past Rudd and Margot James and Anne Milton will have an outside chance if promoted this week
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736

    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
    The Republicans also held the Senate as well in 1998 and there is still little chance of the Democrats winning control there even if they win the House
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, has penned a warts'n'all column on Toby Young's character and innate decency, for anyone who wishes to read it:

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/announcing-a-change-to-toby-youngs-spectator-column/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
    Ah. Are you saying the incoming House won't be able to *vote* until they take their seats in Jan 2019. Because if true, that's significant.
    That's my understanding, same as for Trump between when he was elected and when he was inaugurated.

    Others may know better.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,573
    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
    The Republicans also held the Senate as well in 1998 and there is still little chance of the Democrats winning control there even if they win the House
    Not to mention these sorts of partisan games are more the province of the Republicans and especially its tea party wing.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,845
    edited January 7
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
    Big talk- no action - 20/1 available on BF. Did you have a bet on this idea?
    I was commenting on TSE's earlier tip and suggesting that it is looking more impressive by the week. He is the minister who best fits the age, experience and stature within the PCP to be the next PM this side of the election. Boris would not make the final two, Rees-Mogg and Davis will not stand, and the odds of Leadsom even being nominated are slim. Rudd has a wafer-thin majority but more pertinently is currently in the wrong job - she will be perceived to have failed on immigration. Corbyn needs an election and is unlikely to get one until he is too old to be considered seriously.

    Of the others, Raab and Williamson are too junior, Davidson is ineligible and Hammond is getting on a bit. Let's not even mention the Unmentionable one.

    So of that list, that leaves Hunt. That is annoying because I do not like Jeremy Hunt but it could be worse - it could be Corbyn.
    Boris and Davis will both likely stand, Mogg will probably back Boris as in the end will Gove in all probability. One of those two will likely win it. Of the Remainers Hunt will also have to get past Rudd and Margot James and Anne Milton will have an outside chance if promoted this week
    Sajid Javid. Good back story, impressive non-political background experience, decent Cabinet experience, good media performer. What's not to like?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,936
    "Ex-nurse Anne Milton has all the right qualifications to be the next Health Secretary"

    I see The Mirror is happy to see Milton as the new Health Secretary.

    Anyone see any potential downside?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
    The Republicans also held the Senate as well in 1998 and there is still little chance of the Democrats winning control there even if they win the House
    Not to mention these sorts of partisan games are more the province of the Republicans and especially its tea party wing.
    Yes I think a future Speaker Pelosi could become quite powerful by manipulating a weak President Trump, holding impeachment as a threat without ever actually using it. That was Speaker Gingrich"s mistake and it ended up him going not Clinton
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736

    "Ex-nurse Anne Milton has all the right qualifications to be the next Health Secretary"

    I see The Mirror is happy to see Milton as the new Health Secretary.

    Anyone see any potential downside?

    If Milton gets Health, the top 3 are staying and Grayling becomes Deputy PM, perhaps Hunt will end up with Transport?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851

    "Ex-nurse Anne Milton has all the right qualifications to be the next Health Secretary"

    I see The Mirror is happy to see Milton as the new Health Secretary.

    Anyone see any potential downside?

    She’s a baby-eating Tory?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,213

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
    Ah. Are you saying the incoming House won't be able to *vote* until they take their seats in Jan 2019. Because if true, that's significant.
    That's my understanding, same as for Trump between when he was elected and when he was inaugurated.

    Others may know better.
    Thank you for pointing it out
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    edited January 7
    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
    Big talk- no action - 20/1 available on BF. Did you have a bet on this idea?
    I was commenting on TSE's earlier tip and suggesting that it is looking more impressive by the week. He is the minister who best fits the age, experience and stature within the PCP to be the next PM this side of the election. Boris would not make the final two, Rees-Mogg and Davis will not stand, and the odds of Leadsom even being nominated are slim. Rudd has a wafer-thin majority but more pertinently is currently in the wrong job - she will be perceived to have failed on immigration. Corbyn needs an election and is unlikely to get one until he is too old to be considered seriously.

    Of the others, Raab and Williamson are too junior, Davidson is ineligible and Hammond is getting on a bit. Let's not even mention the Unmentionable one.

    So of that list, that leaves Hunt. That is annoying because I do not like Jeremy Hunt but it could be worse - it could be Corbyn.
    Boris and Davis will both likely stand, Mogg will probably back Boris as in the end will Gove in all probability. One of those two will likely win it. Of the Remainers Hunt will also have to get past Rudd and Margot James and Anne Milton will have an outside chance if promoted this week
    Sajid Javid. Good back story, impressive non-political background experience, decent Cabinet experience, good media performer. What's not to like?
    He may be sacked by Monday night plus he is associated with all the local plans, unpopular with Nimbys even if right
  • viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
    Ah. Are you saying the incoming House won't be able to *vote* until they take their seats in Jan 2019. Because if true, that's significant.

    That's exactly it.

    That's why I said in the thread header about the Dems formally taking control in January 2019.

    In November and December we have a lame duck House.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame-duck_session
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    @TSE

    Why in the last 85 years?

    You could have said 'since the Second World War' or 'in the last 40 [or indeed 50] years'.

    Or you could have been bolder and said 'three times in the last 100 years (because going back to 1918 only adds Hoover to the list).

    Or you could, validly, have said that only 4 incumbent presidents in the last 100 years have failed to be re-elected in a presidential election (ignoring Truman and Johnson who withdrew after disappointing primary results).

    Or if you go back 150 years, you add the grand total of Cleveland and Taft to that list.

    Or if you take it to all time, that adds John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to that list - just eight presidents out of 31 incumbents who stood for re-election (and you could knock Cleveland off on the basis he did win a second term four years later).

    So the odds would appear to be against the Democrats on paper.

    Against that - it's Trump.

    Originally I was going to go since the 22nd Amendment.

    But then it turned into a rant about the stupidity of the 22nd Amendment.
    Why? It actually seems a very sensible rule to me. It doubtless seemed an even more sensible rule after 13 years of Roosevelt who literally did have a lock on the presidency for life.
    I'm not in favour of laws that target a certain individual.

    Said laws are even less effective when that certain individual is dead.
    Prompted by FDR, not targeted at him.
    Term limits to the grant of arbitrary power seem fairly sensible to me.

    Perhaps so, but what is the best limit to have? What length is best for a single term? 4 is most common, but is that best?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,936
    RobD said:

    "Ex-nurse Anne Milton has all the right qualifications to be the next Health Secretary"

    I see The Mirror is happy to see Milton as the new Health Secretary.

    Anyone see any potential downside?

    She’s a baby-eating Tory?
    That wouldnt disqualify her would it.

    Anything else?
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,845
    edited January 7
    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
    Big talk- no action - 20/1 available on BF. Did you have a bet on this idea?
    I was commenting on TSE's earlier tip and suggesting that it is looking more impressive by the week. He is the minister who best fits the age, experience and stature within the PCP to be the next PM this side of the election. Boris would not make the final two, Rees-Mogg and Davis will not stand, and the odds of Leadsom even being nominated are slim. Rudd has a wafer-thin majority but more pertinently is currently in the wrong job - she will be perceived to have failed on immigration. Corbyn needs an election and is unlikely to get one until he is too old to be considered seriously.

    Of the others, Raab and Williamson are too junior, Davidson is ineligible and Hammond is getting on a bit. Let's not even mention the Unmentionable one.

    So of that list, that leaves Hunt. That is annoying because I do not like Jeremy Hunt but it could be worse - it could be Corbyn.
    Boris and Davis will both likely stand, Mogg will probably back Boris as in the end will Gove in all probability. One of those two will likely win it. Of the Remainers Hunt will also have to get past Rudd and Margot James and Anne Milton will have an outside chance if promoted this week
    Sajid Javid. Good back story, impressive non-political background experience, decent Cabinet experience, good media performer. What's not to like?
    He may be sacked by Monday night plus he is associated with all the local plans, unpopular with Nimbys even if right
    Absolutely no reason to think he will be sacked. Why should he be? Hardly necessary in the name of 'diversity' (and is pretty young) so what other reason is there. Also did a lot to defuse the extent to which Grenfell was a problem for the Government.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,213

    Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, has penned a warts'n'all column on Toby Young's character and innate decency, for anyone who wishes to read it:

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/announcing-a-change-to-toby-youngs-spectator-column/

    I've been staying out of this argument because a) my online contributions may also be held against me (see previous posts) and b) I think his late-life efforts for education speaks well of him. Plus I have to acknowledge that you make a valid point.

    But I also have to state that you're missing the point. Let me explain.

    As previously discussed, Toby Young is a man who was given ~£50K in the 80's/90's by his rellies to buy a London house, which he later traded up and now has a house worth millions. He got his degree place thru the intercession of his father. He is a man who obtained a recent Government post thru a nontransparent process and is a friend of the Johnsons.

    The point is not whether he is fit for the office nor his personal characteristics. The point is that he is a chronic example of cronyism: he gets his life chances thru who he knows, not what he knows. Whether he is good or bad for the post is not the point: the point is that we don't know how the post was advertised, who else was interviewed, why did he get the job instead of somebody else, and so on.

    The fact that his friends in the media (eg Frasier Nelson or Sarah Vine, aka Mrs Michael Gove) are - perfectly legitimately - defending him does not alleviate the suspicion that he got the job thru cronyism. It makes it worse.



  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,936
    RobD said:

    "Ex-nurse Anne Milton has all the right qualifications to be the next Health Secretary"

    I see The Mirror is happy to see Milton as the new Health Secretary.

    Anyone see any potential downside?

    She’s a baby-eating Tory?
    Her husband is Director of Virgin Care that is seeking to win £billions of NHS work


    Surely that counts as a Conflict of Interest?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,213

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
    Ah. Are you saying the incoming House won't be able to *vote* until they take their seats in Jan 2019. Because if true, that's significant.

    That's exactly it.

    That's why I said in the thread header about the Dems formally taking control in January 2019.

    In November and December we have a lame duck House.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame-duck_session
    Got it, thank you... :)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,598
    DavidL said:

    What if Trump has the next generation of I phones manufactured in the USA? There are a range of possibilities.

    In the meantime the tax changes effectively punish the higher spending democratic states and benefit the lower taxed republican states: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/business/high-tax-states-law.html

    Or to put it another way, the cross subsidy of higher spending states from the Federal Budget is being limited to $10K per tax payer. The consequences for Democrats are likely to be severe.

    I tend to agree with you and Hunchman that the US is likely to see continued reasonable growth in the next two years.

    However, I think getting the manufacure of things like iPhones moved to the US is unlikely for a couple of reasons.

    Firstly, and most importantly, is geography. China is at the centre of the iPhone supply chain: Flash memory and screens come from Korea, processors from Taiwan, filters and other components from Japan, and mobile RAM and casing materials from China itself. Moving to the US would lengthen all those supply chains, make just in time manufacture more difficult, and result in larger inventory levels.

    Secondly, not many countries have free trade or preferential access deals with the US. (And the US has shown no particular appetite under Trump for free trade.) If the TTIP and TPP had been signed then manufacturing in the US might have made sense. As it is, somewhere like Mexico or Canada - which have FTAs with the EU as well as the US - would make much more sense.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,544
    viewcode said:

    Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, has penned a warts'n'all column on Toby Young's character and innate decency, for anyone who wishes to read it:

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/announcing-a-change-to-toby-youngs-spectator-column/

    I've been staying out of this argument because a) my online contributions may also be held against me (see previous posts) and b) I think his late-life efforts for education speaks well of him. Plus I have to acknowledge that you make a valid point.

    But I also have to state that you're missing the point. Let me explain.

    As previously discussed, Toby Young is a man who was given ~£50K in the 80's/90's by his rellies to buy a London house, which he later traded up and now has a house worth millions. He got his degree place thru the intercession of his father. He is a man who obtained a recent Government post thru a nontransparent process and is a friend of the Johnsons.

    The point is not whether he is fit for the office nor his personal characteristics. The point is that he is a chronic example of cronyism: he gets his life chances thru who he knows, not what he knows. Whether he is good or bad for the post is not the point: the point is that we don't know how the post was advertised, who else was interviewed, why did he get the job instead of somebody else, and so on.

    The fact that his friends in the media (eg Frasier Nelson or Sarah Vine, aka Mrs Michael Gove) are - perfectly legitimately - defending him does not alleviate the suspicion that he got the job thru cronyism. It makes it worse.
    Doesn't everybody resolve temporary career setbacks by getting their personal friend the editor of the Spectator to devote a whole piece to clarifying that they're just a regular guy? I know I do.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617

    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
    The Republicans gained control of both the house and senate in 1994
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    viewcode said:

    Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, has penned a warts'n'all column on Toby Young's character and innate decency, for anyone who wishes to read it:

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/announcing-a-change-to-toby-youngs-spectator-column/

    I've been staying out of this argument because a) my online contributions may also be held against me (see previous posts) and b) I think his late-life efforts for education speaks well of him. Plus I have to acknowledge that you make a valid point.

    But I also have to state that you're missing the point. Let me explain.

    As previously discussed, Toby Young is a man who was given ~£50K in the 80's/90's by his rellies to buy a London house, which he later traded up and now has a house worth millions. He got his degree place thru the intercession of his father. He is a man who obtained a recent Government post thru a nontransparent process and is a friend of the Johnsons.

    The point is not whether he is fit for the office nor his personal characteristics. The point is that he is a chronic example of cronyism: he gets his life chances thru who he knows, not what he knows. Whether he is good or bad for the post is not the point: the point is that we don't know how the post was advertised, who else was interviewed, why did he get the job instead of somebody else, and so on.

    The fact that his friends in the media (eg Frasier Nelson or Sarah Vine, aka Mrs Michael Gove) are - perfectly legitimately - defending him does not alleviate the suspicion that he got the job thru cronyism. It makes it worse.



    Thanks viewcode. I don't doubt Toby Young had a privileged upbringing. I also think that's a large part of the reason why he's so passionate about helping others less privileged than himself - he understands the advantages he was gifted with in life, how that's helped him, and has seen for himself how the system can be stacked against others.

    That's a large part of the reason he's so passionate about free schools, and is frustrated by the hypocrisy of some of his critics, particularly those like Polly Toynbee, or Diane Abbott who sent her own child to private school.

    Your criticism - that he got the job through cronyism - actually doesn't seem to be the basis of the case against him, which seems to be founded on his laddish tweets dating back years, but it's a legitimate question t ask.

    I'm confident the suspicion is unfounded, and he'd qualify handsomely on his own merits, and would be comfortable with the selection process being made more public.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    HHemmelig said:

    viewcode said:

    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc

    The Republicans already held a majority in the House in 1998, and had done so since 1996.

    This time the Democrats do not, and need the election in November to get one. So I don't see how they initiate until they all take their seats and the 116th Congress assembles in Jan 2019.
    The Republicans gained control of both the house and senate in 1994
    Argh, typo. Thanks. I meant to type 1994.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,100

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Just for old time's sake:

    LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%


    :innocent:
    June 2017:

    Implementing Brexit Parties 86.2%

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    Ashes aggregate:

    Eng: 2508-84
    Aus: 2982-58
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    There is some absolute BS being written by the Tobyite apologists.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,883

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Just for old time's sake:

    LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%


    :innocent:
    June 2017:

    Implementing Brexit Parties 86.2%
    June 2017 was a narrow win for the 'test Brexit to destruction' party over the 'let's ignore Brexit' party.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
    Big talk- no action - 20/1 available on BF. Did you have a bet on this idea?
    I was commenting on TSE's earlier tip and suggesting that it is looking more impressive by the week. He is the minister who best fits the age, experience and stature within the PCP to be the next PM this side of the election. Boris would not make the final two, Rees-Mogg and Davis will not stand, and the odds of Leadsom even being nominated are slim. Rudd has a wafer-thin majority but more pertinently is currently in the wrong job - she will be perceived to have failed on immigration. Corbyn needs an election and is unlikely to get one until he is too old to be considered seriously.

    Of the others, Raab and Williamson are too junior, Davidson is ineligible and Hammond is getting on a bit. Let's not even mention the Unmentionable one.

    So of that list, that leaves Hunt. That is annoying because I do not like Jeremy Hunt but it could be worse - it could be Corbyn.
    Boris and Davis will both likely stand, Mogg will probably back Boris as in the end will Gove in all probability. One of those two will likely win it. Of the Remainers Hunt will also have to get past Rudd and Margot James and Anne Milton will have an outside chance if promoted this week
    Sajid Javid. Good back story, impressive non-political background experience, decent Cabinet experience, good media performer. What's not to like?
    He may be sacked by Monday night plus he is associated with all the local plans, unpopular with Nimbys even if right
    Absolutely no reason to think he will be sacked. Why should he be? Hardly necessary in the name of 'diversity' (and is pretty young) so what other reason is there. Also did a lot to defuse the extent to which Grenfell was a problem for the Government.

    I was not suggesting he should be but he is reported as one of those at risk
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,989
    About 1/7th through Shipman's 'Fall out'. So far, Davis is coming across pretty well. Hammond pretty badly...

    I do still wonder if there might be a move of him from the Treasury at some point soon.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,989

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Just for old time's sake:

    LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%


    :innocent:
    June 2017:

    Implementing Brexit Parties 86.2%
    June 2017 was a narrow win for the 'test Brexit to destruction' party over the 'let's ignore Brexit' party.
    I can't wait for your comments on the day we Brexit.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 2,773

    There is some absolute BS being written by the Tobyite apologists.

    The Jared O'Mara test being failed in a big way by the Tories.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,845
    edited January 7
    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
    Big talk- no action - 20/1 available on BF. Did you have a bet on this idea?
    I was commenting on TSE's earlier tip and suggesting that it is looking more impressive by the week. He is the minister who best fits the age, experience and stature within the PCP to be the next PM this side of the election. Boris would not make the final two, Rees-Mogg and Davis will not stand, and the odds of Leadsom even being nominated are slim. Rudd has a wafer-thin majority but more pertinently is currently in the wrong job - she will be perceived to have failed on immigration. Corbyn needs an election and is unlikely to get one until he is too old to be considered seriously.

    Of the others, Raab and Williamson are too junior, Davidson is ineligible and Hammond is getting on a bit. Let's not even mention the Unmentionable one.

    So of that list, that leaves Hunt. That is annoying because I do not like Jeremy Hunt but it could be worse - it could be Corbyn.
    Boris and Davis will both likely stand, Mogg will probably back Boris as in the end will Gove in all probability. One of those two will likely win it. Of the Remainers Hunt will also have to get past Rudd and Margot James and Anne Milton will have an outside chance if promoted this week
    Sajid Javid. Good back story, impressive non-political background experience, decent Cabinet experience, good media performer. What's not to like?
    He may be sacked by Monday night plus he is associated with all the local plans, unpopular with Nimbys even if right
    Absolutely no reason to think he will be sacked. Why should he be? Hardly necessary in the name of 'diversity' (and is pretty young) so what other reason is there. Also did a lot to defuse the extent to which Grenfell was a problem for the Government.

    I was not suggesting he should be but he is reported as one of those at risk
    I think most of these "at risk" briefings are largely rubbish. Just certain individuals (and/or their supporters) punting names to journalists to deflect attention from themselves. If somebody is genuinely at risk you've got to come up with some sort of rational reason for that being so.
  • There was a vote for impeachment quite recently. It failed.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-impeachment-vote-fail-282888

    TSE is quite correct 2019 or 2020 are the years there will be an impeachment vote.
    Assuming Democrats take majority of the House. I think 2019 is a very good bet. I'm on.

    Impeachment will lead to conviction in the Senate only if 66 Senators vote for it.
    Therefore Republicans need to vote for it.

    I envisage conviction occurring only if substantial evidence is produced by Robert Mueller.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,574
    Reports that paedophile Vanessa George next in line for similar release to Warboys

    The Country has lost it's senses

    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,792

    There is some absolute BS being written by the Tobyite apologists.

    It's always interesting to see for which cause partisans will die in a ditch. For certain Tories it appears to be tit man Toby and his 45,000 deleted tweets.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,037
    edited January 7

    "Ex-nurse Anne Milton has all the right qualifications to be the next Health Secretary"

    I see The Mirror is happy to see Milton as the new Health Secretary.

    Anyone see any potential downside?

    Being a nurse does not necessarily make you a suitable person to run a government department with a £120bn budget. You might understand how to run a ward - but that isn't quite the same thing.

    She may do a great job - but give her health as she used to be a nurse?!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,589
    edited January 7


    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    My sympathies with right wingers on this - on one hand it's someone attacking the BBC so yay, on the other hand it's about the pay gap which absolutely 100% deffo does not exist at all in anyway despite it existing so I can see how this is going to be a tough one to take a position on.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828

    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    Interesting. She actually accuses the BBC of breaking the law rather than just getting annoyed that most "big names" are men (i.e. Gary Linekar gets paid an outrageous amount for being Gary Linekar rather than having superior presenting qualities to Mark Chapman or Gabby Logan)
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,037

    There was a vote for impeachment quite recently. It failed.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-impeachment-vote-fail-282888

    TSE is quite correct 2019 or 2020 are the years there will be an impeachment vote.
    Assuming Democrats take majority of the House. I think 2019 is a very good bet. I'm on.

    Impeachment will lead to conviction in the Senate only if 66 Senators vote for it.
    Therefore Republicans need to vote for it.

    I envisage conviction occurring only if substantial evidence is produced by Robert Mueller.

    The betting above was about impeachment not a vote on impeachment in one house.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,574
    Alistair said:


    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    My sympathies with right wingers on this - on one hand it's someone attacking the BBC so yay, on the other hand it's about the pay gap which absolutely 100% deffo does not exist at all in anyway despite it existing so I can see how this is going to be a tough one to take a position on.
    For the avoidance of doubt I am on the side of those receiving unequal pay. I listen to 5 live most mornings with Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden. Campbell is reputed to earn £450,000 and I bet anything you like Rachel is not earning anything like that, and to be fair she is far better at the job than he is
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    Alistair said:


    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    My sympathies with right wingers on this - on one hand it's someone attacking the BBC so yay, on the other hand it's about the pay gap which absolutely 100% deffo does not exist at all in anyway despite it existing so I can see how this is going to be a tough one to take a position on.
    No, not difficult at all. The much talked about pay gaps exist because men tend to do higher paying jobs and tend to work more hours. The extent to which we should seek to change society to make sure women feel they can go for higher paid jobs/careers is debatable.

    What Ms Gracie is alleging, is that the BBC is breaking the equal pay law. Where it gets tricky with television is, what are the BBC paying for. One news anchor reading the Six O'Clock News should probably expect to earn the same as another. They are doing a job. But the issue is more about big names. The BBC pay for who these people are rather than what they do. And the names tend to be male.

    Personally I don't like the fact that the BBC piss my money up the wall by paying Gary Linekar what they do irrespective of his gender.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,210
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    What if Trump has the next generation of I phones manufactured in the USA? There are a range of possibilities.

    In the meantime the tax changes effectively punish the higher spending democratic states and benefit the lower taxed republican states: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/business/high-tax-states-law.html

    Or to put it another way, the cross subsidy of higher spending states from the Federal Budget is being limited to $10K per tax payer. The consequences for Democrats are likely to be severe.

    I tend to agree with you and Hunchman that the US is likely to see continued reasonable growth in the next two years.

    However, I think getting the manufacure of things like iPhones moved to the US is unlikely for a couple of reasons.

    Firstly, and most importantly, is geography. China is at the centre of the iPhone supply chain: Flash memory and screens come from Korea, processors from Taiwan, filters and other components from Japan, and mobile RAM and casing materials from China itself. Moving to the US would lengthen all those supply chains, make just in time manufacture more difficult, and result in larger inventory levels.

    Secondly, not many countries have free trade or preferential access deals with the US. (And the US has shown no particular appetite under Trump for free trade.) If the TTIP and TPP had been signed then manufacturing in the US might have made sense. As it is, somewhere like Mexico or Canada - which have FTAs with the EU as well as the US - would make much more sense.
    More importantly, the idea of duplicating such manufacturing facilities in the US in the space of a couple of years is simply laughable.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,574
    tlg86 said:

    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    Interesting. She actually accuses the BBC of breaking the law rather than just getting annoyed that most "big names" are men (i.e. Gary Linekar gets paid an outrageous amount for being Gary Linekar rather than having superior presenting qualities to Mark Chapman or Gabby Logan)
    Or Claire Balding
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,210

    Alistair said:


    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    My sympathies with right wingers on this - on one hand it's someone attacking the BBC so yay, on the other hand it's about the pay gap which absolutely 100% deffo does not exist at all in anyway despite it existing so I can see how this is going to be a tough one to take a position on.
    For the avoidance of doubt I am on the side of those receiving unequal pay. I listen to 5 live most mornings with Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden. Campbell is reputed to earn £450,000 and I bet anything you like Rachel is not earning anything like that, and to be fair she is far better at the job than he is
    So am I.
    The justification for the massive gaps is unique 'talent', but it really isn't anything if the kind - rather that opportunities to become well known are still extremely skewed.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828

    Alistair said:


    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    My sympathies with right wingers on this - on one hand it's someone attacking the BBC so yay, on the other hand it's about the pay gap which absolutely 100% deffo does not exist at all in anyway despite it existing so I can see how this is going to be a tough one to take a position on.
    For the avoidance of doubt I am on the side of those receiving unequal pay. I listen to 5 live most mornings with Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden. Campbell is reputed to earn £450,000 and I bet anything you like Rachel is not earning anything like that, and to be fair she is far better at the job than he is
    I don't like Campbell either and it's not about competence but about who he is.

    Paying Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May a lot of money was fine as they were irreplaceable. But the likes of Linekar, Campbell, Vine and Nolan should not be commanding the fees they receive. If they can earn more elsewhere, let them go.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,210

    Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, has penned a warts'n'all column on Toby Young....

    Genital warts ?

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,813
    edited January 7
    Looks like Noel Edmonds is going to get a cabinet job from Mrs May
  • Apart from Creep and Karma Police, Radiohead did nothing of note.

  • @Cricket_Ali: Bad news from the England camp with Joe Root in hospital this morning through dehydration, vomiting. Awaiting update on whether he can resume innings
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:


    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    My sympathies with right wingers on this - on one hand it's someone attacking the BBC so yay, on the other hand it's about the pay gap which absolutely 100% deffo does not exist at all in anyway despite it existing so I can see how this is going to be a tough one to take a position on.
    For the avoidance of doubt I am on the side of those receiving unequal pay. I listen to 5 live most mornings with Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden. Campbell is reputed to earn £450,000 and I bet anything you like Rachel is not earning anything like that, and to be fair she is far better at the job than he is
    So am I.
    The justification for the massive gaps is unique 'talent', but it really isn't anything if the kind - rather that opportunities to become well known are still extremely skewed.
    What about Hollywood?

    https://tinyurl.com/y8nzmnzv

    Do the men earn more simply because of sexism? Or is it that the big name male actors add a few million to the earnings of a movie? I'm sure the female actors work just as hard, but I don't see why men shouldn't get more if they are a more valuable commodity.

    It's harder for the BBC because of the way they are funded. They have to play the "we're in a competitive market" line. I think where I have a problem is that I think the BBC itself is a fantastic platform to be on so I don't think the BBC has to pay that much.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    The Digital Spy thread on the Gracie letter is quite good:

    https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2262415/carrie-gracie-quits-the-bbc#latest
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,552

    Alistair said:


    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    My sympathies with right wingers on this - on one hand it's someone attacking the BBC so yay, on the other hand it's about the pay gap which absolutely 100% deffo does not exist at all in anyway despite it existing so I can see how this is going to be a tough one to take a position on.
    For the avoidance of doubt I am on the side of those receiving unequal pay. I listen to 5 live most mornings with Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden. Campbell is reputed to earn £450,000 and I bet anything you like Rachel is not earning anything like that, and to be fair she is far better at the job than he is
    Yes, Campbell is in the £400k to £450k band.

    Burden was not listed so is on less than £150k.

    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/annex_annual_report_201617.pdf
  • The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,130
    edited January 7

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    BIS is coming back? Greg Clark has been completely anonymous.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,574

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    So who is health
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,424

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    In which case he'd also surely be First Secretary of State.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,037

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    Does this mean he gets universities and higher education from Education - does the job come with Jo Johnson and Toby Young?
  • The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    In which case he'd also surely be First Secretary of State.
    Looks like she's getting rid of the First Secretary of State title, it's just going to be a Cabinet Office Minister/Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster kind of job now, not Deputy PM in all but name.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,574

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    In which case he'd also surely be First Secretary of State.
    Hope so
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,346
    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, has penned a warts'n'all column on Toby Young's character and innate decency, for anyone who wishes to read it:

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/announcing-a-change-to-toby-youngs-spectator-column/

    I've been staying out of this argument because a) my online contributions may also be held against me (see previous posts) and b) I think his late-life efforts for education speaks well of him. Plus I have to acknowledge that you make a valid point.

    But I also have to state that you're missing the point. Let me explain.

    As previously discussed, Toby Young is a man who was given ~£50K in the 80's/90's by his rellies to buy a London house, which he later traded up and now has a house worth millions. He got his degree place thru the intercession of his father. He is a man who obtained a recent Government post thru a nontransparent process and is a friend of the Johnsons.

    The point is not whether he is fit for the office nor his personal characteristics. The point is that he is a chronic example of cronyism: he gets his life chances thru who he knows, not what he knows. Whether he is good or bad for the post is not the point: the point is that we don't know how the post was advertised, who else was interviewed, why did he get the job instead of somebody else, and so on.

    The fact that his friends in the media (eg Frasier Nelson or Sarah Vine, aka Mrs Michael Gove) are - perfectly legitimately - defending him does not alleviate the suspicion that he got the job thru cronyism. It makes it worse.
    Doesn't everybody resolve temporary career setbacks by getting their personal friend the editor of the Spectator to devote a whole piece to clarifying that they're just a regular guy? I know I do.
    Yes I think everyone uses their network of friends to write an article in the local press.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,424

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    In which case he'd also surely be First Secretary of State.
    Looks like she's getting rid of the First Secretary of State title, it's just going to be a Cabinet Office Minister/Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster kind of job now, not Deputy PM in all but name.
    Well, we'll see. The nature of these things is that different journalists report contradictory rumours. The best thing to do is to wait for the actual announcements.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    Mortimer said:

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Just for old time's sake:

    LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%


    :innocent:
    June 2017:

    Implementing Brexit Parties 86.2%
    June 2017 was a narrow win for the 'test Brexit to destruction' party over the 'let's ignore Brexit' party.
    I can't wait for your comments on the day we Brexit.
    They will focus on the inevitably of our immediate rejoining.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    Mortimer said:

    About 1/7th through Shipman's 'Fall out'. So far, Davis is coming across pretty well. Hammond pretty badly...

    I do still wonder if there might be a move of him from the Treasury at some point soon.

    Fiona Hill, in chapter after chapter after chapter, comes across as an absolute bloody nightmare.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,845
    MikeL said:

    Alistair said:


    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    My sympathies with right wingers on this - on one hand it's someone attacking the BBC so yay, on the other hand it's about the pay gap which absolutely 100% deffo does not exist at all in anyway despite it existing so I can see how this is going to be a tough one to take a position on.
    For the avoidance of doubt I am on the side of those receiving unequal pay. I listen to 5 live most mornings with Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden. Campbell is reputed to earn £450,000 and I bet anything you like Rachel is not earning anything like that, and to be fair she is far better at the job than he is
    Yes, Campbell is in the £400k to £450k band.

    Burden was not listed so is on less than £150k.

    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/annex_annual_report_201617.pdf
    Do they do the same jobs though?

    It seems to me that whilst there may be a gender issue in play, the way that the pay of "talent" is negotiated makes it difficult to make a conclusive case for any law breaking etc. Presumably all salaries are negotiated individually through agents. Contracts will be specific to individuals and will be dependent on each individuals circumstances, the specific requirements on them, exclusivity, and the extent to which they (and their agents) are prepared to play hardball.

    One person may be quite happy earning £150k a year, or accept lower earnings in return for a more restrictive role, whereas somebody else may push for more and be more prepared to walk away if they don't get what they want.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,130

    Mortimer said:

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Just for old time's sake:

    LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%


    :innocent:
    June 2017:

    Implementing Brexit Parties 86.2%
    June 2017 was a narrow win for the 'test Brexit to destruction' party over the 'let's ignore Brexit' party.
    I can't wait for your comments on the day we Brexit.
    They will focus on the inevitably of our immediate rejoining.
    And taking up the Euro.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,989
    I hope no PBers are impacted by the RMT strikes tomorrow. Even those who favour nationalisation...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, has penned a warts'n'all column on Toby Young's character and innate decency, for anyone who wishes to read it:

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/announcing-a-change-to-toby-youngs-spectator-column/

    I've been staying out of this argument because a) my online contributions may also be held against me (see previous posts) and b) I think his late-life efforts for education speaks well of him. Plus I have to acknowledge that you make a valid point.

    But I also have to state that you're missing the point. Let me explain.

    As previously discussed, Toby Young is a man who was given ~£50K in the 80's/90's by his rellies to buy a London house, which he later traded up and now has a house worth millions. He got his degree place thru the intercession of his father. He is a man who obtained a recent Government post thru a nontransparent process and is a friend of the Johnsons.

    The point is not whether he is fit for the office nor his personal characteristics. The point is that he is a chronic example of cronyism: he gets his life chances thru who he knows, not what he knows. Whether he is good or bad for the post is not the point: the point is that we don't know how the post was advertised, who else was interviewed, why did he get the job instead of somebody else, and so on.

    The fact that his friends in the media (eg Frasier Nelson or Sarah Vine, aka Mrs Michael Gove) are - perfectly legitimately - defending him does not alleviate the suspicion that he got the job thru cronyism. It makes it worse.
    Doesn't everybody resolve temporary career setbacks by getting their personal friend the editor of the Spectator to devote a whole piece to clarifying that they're just a regular guy? I know I do.
    Yes, but I've been reading Young's columns, and following his work, for years. I've subscribed to The Spectator for over 15 years. I've seen all sides of his character and opinion in that time.

    No, he's not perfect (who of us are?) but I am a pretty good judge of character, and the facts and sentiments Fraser Nelson write about Young absolutely ring true to me.

    I genuinely think he's misunderstood - his detractors are getting him badly wrong.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    Bit late to the party here but I agree with TSE - lots of value in both 2019 and 2020.
  • Mortimer said:

    I hope no PBers are impacted by the RMT strikes tomorrow. Even those who favour nationalisation...

    I'm indirectly affected by the strikes this week.

    It is also the reason why I'll be spending the entire working week in Manchester.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,100
    Been a while since I've seen Forest as the lead game on MOTD....!!

    Exactly 40 years since I became a steward there.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,432
    edited January 7

    @Cricket_Ali: Bad news from the England camp with Joe Root in hospital this morning through dehydration, vomiting. Awaiting update on whether he can resume innings

    Playing in 43 degrees yesterday was a bit ridiculous but of course there aren't any rules dealing with extreme heat at cricket matches.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596
    alex. said:

    MikeL said:

    Alistair said:


    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    My sympathies with right wingers on this - on one hand it's someone attacking the BBC so yay, on the other hand it's about the pay gap which absolutely 100% deffo does not exist at all in anyway despite it existing so I can see how this is going to be a tough one to take a position on.
    For the avoidance of doubt I am on the side of those receiving unequal pay. I listen to 5 live most mornings with Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden. Campbell is reputed to earn £450,000 and I bet anything you like Rachel is not earning anything like that, and to be fair she is far better at the job than he is
    Yes, Campbell is in the £400k to £450k band.

    Burden was not listed so is on less than £150k.

    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/annex_annual_report_201617.pdf
    Do they do the same jobs though?

    It seems to me that whilst there may be a gender issue in play, the way that the pay of "talent" is negotiated makes it difficult to make a conclusive case for any law breaking etc. Presumably all salaries are negotiated individually through agents. Contracts will be specific to individuals and will be dependent on each individuals circumstances, the specific requirements on them, exclusivity, and the extent to which they (and their agents) are prepared to play hardball.

    One person may be quite happy earning £150k a year, or accept lower earnings in return for a more restrictive role, whereas somebody else may push for more and be more prepared to walk away if they don't get what they want.
    If you mean sexism looks a bit different in "talent" roles than on the shop floors, then yes.

    But legal or not it does not pass the sniff test.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    In which case he'd also surely be First Secretary of State.
    Looks like she's getting rid of the First Secretary of State title, it's just going to be a Cabinet Office Minister/Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster kind of job now, not Deputy PM in all but name.
    Well, we'll see. The nature of these things is that different journalists report contradictory rumours. The best thing to do is to wait for the actual announcements.
    Isn't BIZ otherwise a demotion from Health?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596
    If you're happy to tie your money up, you can get 1/13 on BF for Javid NOT to be next Chancellor. If he's sacked tomorrow you could try to cash out... no liquidity
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    AndyJS said:

    @Cricket_Ali: Bad news from the England camp with Joe Root in hospital this morning through dehydration, vomiting. Awaiting update on whether he can resume innings

    Playing in 43 degrees yesterday was a bit ridiculous but of course there aren't any rules dealing with extreme heat at cricket matches.
    Or extreme cold. There've been any number of first-class matches halted for snow. You don't want to be on the receiving end of a bullet square cut after two hours in the field in those conditions.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,200

    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, has penned a warts'n'all column on Toby Young's character and innate decency, for anyone who wishes to read it:

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/announcing-a-change-to-toby-youngs-spectator-column/


    Doesn't everybody resolve temporary career setbacks by getting their personal friend the editor of the Spectator to devote a whole piece to clarifying that they're just a regular guy? I know I do.
    Yes, but I've been reading Young's columns, and following his work, for years. I've subscribed to The Spectator for over 15 years. I've seen all sides of his character and opinion in that time.

    No, he's not perfect (who of us are?) but I am a pretty good judge of character, and the facts and sentiments Fraser Nelson write about Young absolutely ring true to me.

    I genuinely think he's misunderstood - his detractors are getting him badly wrong.
    Have you met him? Know him personally? If not, to say that you know “all sides” of his character is a pretty bold statement to make.

    And with the greatest respect, agreeing with the editor of a magazine who has employed a writer whom you have been following for years and reading in the self-same magazine you’ve been reading for years that the guy he employs and you’ve been reading is a great guy is..... well ...... rather circular.

    I too have read quite a few of Young’s columns over the years. I have not formed the same impression as you. We will have to disagree on this one.

    But I think you are making the mistake of confusing his opinions, which you may share, with his judgment - a rather more important matter, given his new role - and perhaps leaping to his defence because you perceive some malice in the attacks by his critics. Whether the latter is true or not is of course irrelevant to whether or not he is fit and proper for his new role.

    But it would seem that it is not just the Left which takes the view that my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

    It does not always lead to the best decision-making, as some of us have pointed out vis-a-vis Corbyn. The Tories are making the same mistake and, in the process, neutralising the effectiveness of any sort of similar attack on Corbyn and the things he has said and done over the years.

    They are both retoxifying themselves and inoculating Corbyn.

    And all this, for Toby Young to sit on an organisation no-one has ever heard of.

    “Pick your battles”. The Tories might do well to pay heed to such advice.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,883

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    Beefed up as in taking back control of Liam Fox's empire?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,600
    Well, all these rumours are doing a fair job at distracting us from Toby Young. But the Heath->BIS move in the middle of an NHS winter crisis is odd. Is it meant as a demotion to punish him for "allowing" the crisis, or an escape route to protect him, or even a promotion if it's beefed up? Labour's line should probably be "OK, we've had the apology and the sacking. Now will someone actually do something to help the service?"
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,210
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:


    Also Carrie Gracie resigned as BBC China correspondent over unequal pay with massive broad side against the BBC

    My sympathies with right wingers on this - on one hand it's someone attacking the BBC so yay, on the other hand it's about the pay gap which absolutely 100% deffo does not exist at all in anyway despite it existing so I can see how this is going to be a tough one to take a position on.
    For the avoidance of doubt I am on the side of those receiving unequal pay. I listen to 5 live most mornings with Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden. Campbell is reputed to earn £450,000 and I bet anything you like Rachel is not earning anything like that, and to be fair she is far better at the job than he is
    So am I.
    The justification for the massive gaps is unique 'talent', but it really isn't anything if the kind - rather that opportunities to become well known are still extremely skewed.
    What about Hollywood?

    https://tinyurl.com/y8nzmnzv

    Do the men earn more simply because of sexism? Or is it that the big name male actors add a few million to the earnings of a movie? I'm sure the female actors work just as hard, but I don't see why men shouldn't get more if they are a more valuable commodity....
    Based on what ?
    There is notoriously extreme variation in the relation between the remuneration of the top paid stars and the box office takings of their films.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,210

    Well, all these rumours are doing a fair job at distracting us from Toby Young. But the Heath->BIS move in the middle of an NHS winter crisis is odd. Is it meant as a demotion to punish him for "allowing" the crisis, or an escape route to protect him, or even a promotion if it's beefed up? Labour's line should probably be "OK, we've had the apology and the sacking. Now will someone actually do something to help the service?"

    We can look forward to "where's the beef" questions, too.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    'Likely' is a wonderful word whether you're indulging in guesswork or actually have inside information. You can always argue that something changed.

    My guess would be that either The Times is guessing or someone outside No 10 is lobbying for that move for Hunt - but once again, it shows the daftness of announcing the reshuffle in advance.

    Yes, Green went before Christmas but First Sec of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office are not essential jobs. There was no necessity to replace him at all.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,313
    Sad to see Carrie Gracie leave. She always offered a nuanced perspective on PRC, diregarding the boosters, and the haters alike. Emphasising that most Chinese remain, as they always have been, peasants. And stressing that prsperity (that is lack of famine) is the most important factor in the survival of the regime.
    She also looks NOWT like I had imagined!
  • brendan16 said:

    There was a vote for impeachment quite recently. It failed.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-impeachment-vote-fail-282888

    TSE is quite correct 2019 or 2020 are the years there will be an impeachment vote.
    Assuming Democrats take majority of the House. I think 2019 is a very good bet. I'm on.

    Impeachment will lead to conviction in the Senate only if 66 Senators vote for it.
    Therefore Republicans need to vote for it.

    I envisage conviction occurring only if substantial evidence is produced by Robert Mueller.

    The betting above was about impeachment not a vote on impeachment in one house.
    Did you actually read the article about the bet?

    It says "He will be deemed to be impeached when the House of Representatives pass a vote for impeachment"

    Perhaps you do not understand that the process is as follows:

    Impeachment (being charged or indicted) is a simple majority vote in House of Representatives.

    Then conviction (the actual trial) is two-thirds majority in Senate.

    As of now Paddy Power is offering 7/2 for 2019. Down from 6/1 earlier.

    The bet is JUST impeachment and thus just the House of Representatives.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,210

    @Cricket_Ali: Bad news from the England camp with Joe Root in hospital this morning through dehydration, vomiting. Awaiting update on whether he can resume innings

    Root at the ground and padded up, still wearing his hospital wrist tag apparently.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,432
    "Get Involved

    #bbccricket

    Ant Drake: People who weren’t at the SCG yesterday won’t be able to comprehend how hot it was. One of our group got heart palpitations and nearly fainted after only 20 minutes in the sun. The game probably should have been stopped. This is not a question of preparedness."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/41784766
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,976
    edited January 8

    Well, all these rumours are doing a fair job at distracting us from Toby Young. But the Heath->BIS move in the middle of an NHS winter crisis is odd. Is it meant as a demotion to punish him for "allowing" the crisis, or an escape route to protect him, or even a promotion if it's beefed up? Labour's line should probably be "OK, we've had the apology and the sacking. Now will someone actually do something to help the service?"

    Health to Bis is at best a sideways move. Possibly a move against an overly ambitious upstart, but as I am not in this cabinet kremlinology market, not one I would lose sleep over. To me it looks like Theresa doesn't like being outshone, and she is low wattage herself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    edited January 8

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    In which case he'd also surely be First Secretary of State.
    No, Grayling would likely get that job and/or Cabinet Secretary then if it is not Hunt. Business Secretary is Greg Clark's (presumably former) job
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,100

    The Times say Jeremy Hunt is likely to be the new beefed up Business Secretary.

    Does he get to call himself Sir Loin?
This discussion has been closed.