Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so to re-shuffle day unless the media’s being very badly m

24

Comments

  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,680
    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Yes and working on it, respectively.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 903
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    TGOHF said:

    May having a reshuffle to distract from Toby Young ?

    Yer having a larf. Nobody outside of the left wing twitter mob gives an Aylesbury duck.

    Other way round on both counts. It is the right that cares, and Tobygate is being hyped to distract from a dull reshuffle whose highlight will be some bloke we've never heard of swapping jobs with a woman we don't care about.
    Pretty rich considering the Labour front bench is almost full of people we've never heard of who are there because they don't question Corbz
    By don't question I assume you actually mean don't resign from the shadow cabinet and try to get rid of the leader against the will of the members....
    Loyalty cuts both ways. Doesn't Corbz have a responsibility to represent his members with the best talent available? Surely such a friendly politician could rise above the past?
    Surely the loyalty cuts both ways comments also applies to those who were loyal to the members choice whilst many walked out.

    If he is to do what the members want him to do then he needs a team he can trust with him, though he did bring in his challenger Owen Smith. I'm not sure there is a really a huge drive from members for the shadow cabinet to be filled with centrists, I think the opposite is more likely true. I imagine most members would be quite happy for Corbyn to mostly carry on with his current team only making the occasional change.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258
    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Three times. Once to go walking for a year, another to go freelancing, and finally a third time to look after a little 'un.

    Whether they 'worked out' or not is a difficult question: it depends on what you want from life. I would be considerably richer if I'd remained in my job, but I would have had a much less interesting life. I'd also not be married to my wonderful wife.

    I don't regret a thing.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    Essexit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Yes and working on it, respectively.
    Good luck.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    RoyalBlue said:

    Sandpit said:

    Seriously? Short of saying “Vote Labour” on the front page, what didn’t he do? Headline after headline, editorial after editorial, day after day, week after week, month after month, before, during and after the election campaign.

    Tell me if you think this guy is devastated, or over the moon about the result?

    Months and months?

    He only took the reins of The Standard a month before Election Day and didn’t take proper control until a couple of weeks before Election Day.

    Do you think he was wrong when he said in the paper’ editorial attacked the ‘disastrous manifesto’ and says Britain ‘could not have got off to a worse start’ in Brexit process?

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/30/osbornes-evening-standard-savages-theresa-mays-election-campaign

    He criticised Corbyn & Labour’s policies more and was accused of being a racist for attacking Diane Abbott’s sums. Loughborough Uni analysed the front pages and stories and said The Standard was harsher on Labour/Corbyn.

    They endorsed the Tories ‘
    Evening Standard comment: Why we believe this country needs a strong Conservative team as the next government’

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-why-we-believe-this-country-needs-a-strong-conservative-team-as-the-next-a3558971.html?amp

    You’ll have to trust me when I say he was gutted by the results but like me George is an optimist and when life hands you lemons you should make lemonade.

    We thought the result should be used to oust the cancer that was Mrs May and her staff and replace her with someone better like Amber Rudd.

    PS - Do you really think The Standard should be the mouth piece of the Tories? I prefer it to call it as it sees it.
    A cancer? Really?

    As for Amber Rudd, I don’t think the electorate is looking for somebody to hector them in a joyless loud voice.
    Yes, I suppose that May's advantage is that she's sometimes inaudible.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,559

    Mr. L, economic growth may have been higher, the question is whether that would've exceeded the growth in debt given the deficit would be larger and interest payments have snowballed alarmingly.

    Osborne's judgement was closer to being correct, I think.

    He ran up debt to record levels. That's the irony.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    stodge said:

    Mortimer said:

    RMT strikes - no pickets at my Dorset station.

    I have little time for strikes anyway, but not even bothering to picket is pitiful. Nye Bevan will be turning in his grave.

    I'd have thought not turning up for work and reducing SWR's service by 30% was fairly effective though SWR's routine litany of day-to-day problems means a 30% service reduction running on time would probably seem a pretty good service to most.
    Effective at showing up the RMT for what they are, certainly.

    Strikes show why public transport should not be publically owned. that, and the sarnies.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077
    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Yep. Best thing I ever did.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978

    Mr. L, economic growth may have been higher, the question is whether that would've exceeded the growth in debt given the deficit would be larger and interest payments have snowballed alarmingly.

    Osborne's judgement was closer to being correct, I think.

    He ran up debt to record levels. That's the irony.
    So you would have borrowed more but reduced the debt would you? Cloud cuckoo land.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    edited January 8

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    TGOHF said:

    May having a reshuffle to distract from Toby Young ?

    Yer having a larf. Nobody outside of the left wing twitter mob gives an Aylesbury duck.

    Other way round on both counts. It is the right that cares, and Tobygate is being hyped to distract from a dull reshuffle whose highlight will be some bloke we've never heard of swapping jobs with a woman we don't care about.
    Pretty rich considering the Labour front bench is almost full of people we've never heard of who are there because they don't question Corbz
    By don't question I assume you actually mean don't resign from the shadow cabinet and try to get rid of the leader against the will of the members....
    Loyalty cuts both ways. Doesn't Corbz have a responsibility to represent his members with the best talent available? Surely such a friendly politician could rise above the past?
    Surely the loyalty cuts both ways comments also applies to those who were loyal to the members choice whilst many walked out.

    If he is to do what the members want him to do then he needs a team he can trust with him, though he did bring in his challenger Owen Smith. I'm not sure there is a really a huge drive from members for the shadow cabinet to be filled with centrists, I think the opposite is more likely true. I imagine most members would be quite happy for Corbyn to mostly carry on with his current team only making the occasional change.

    It's not it about centrists vs leftys.

    It's about people who can do an interview without suggesting that the economic strategy is terrible
    Or bust....
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    edited January 8
    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Sort of.

    It doesn't half give you the impetus to a) get a better one and b) look properly.

    Good luck!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. L, he inherited a massive deficit and debt, you've just complained he cut the deficit too slowly, now you're complaining he let debt go too high. That's not a coherent position.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487

    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Yep. Best thing I ever did.
    Thanks. How long were you out of work? Did you manage to find something during your notice period?
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,680
    TOPPING said:

    Essexit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Yes and working on it, respectively.
    Good luck.
    Thanks!

    I should have added to the above that it's only been a little over a month. Given that my job was going nowhere, driving me to distraction, and eating up time that could have been used for jobhunting (or PB) it feels like the right decision so far.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,489
    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Good morning all. Yes and yes. Twice, in fact. The first time discombobulated my Mother, whose rather lowball estimate of my qualities was to hope that I got 'a good steady job' and didn't see resigning from a building society to go and sell arial photographs door to door (commission only) as a smart move :).
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,559

    Mr. L, he inherited a massive deficit and debt, you've just complained he cut the deficit too slowly, now you're complaining he let debt go too high. That's not a coherent position.

    No, I am complaining he should have chosen economic growth over austerity.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938

    Mr. L, he inherited a massive deficit and debt, you've just complained he cut the deficit too slowly, now you're complaining he let debt go too high. That's not a coherent position.

    My recollection of 2010 was the Coalition agreed that for every £6 toward reducing the deficit , £5 would come from spending cuts and £1 from tax rises, Whether that was exactly right or whether 3:1 might have worked better I'm not sure. The deficit needed to be reduced and it has been.

    Where I parted company with the Coalition was in two aspects - one, the ringfencing of certain areas of public expenditure so the weight of cuts fell disproportionately in others and second the apparent acquiescence of the Government to QE, financial methodone if you will,



  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. L, so you wanted the deficit to be larger and debt to be lower? That doesn't make sense. And if you would've spent the extra growth, if there had been any, to decrease the deficit to the levels it was under Osborne then that money wouldn't've been used for public services anyway.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,481
    edited January 8
    The good ship May sails on. :D

    Meanwhile check this out - Puts "Creep" AND "The Air That I Breath" into one song: :D

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Yep. Best thing I ever did.
    Thanks. How long were you out of work? Did you manage to find something during your notice period?
    It took me two weeks to change from being a solicitor in private practice, to being in-house legal counsel for one of the oil majors. That then morphed (after being head-hunted from my new role) into being a lawyer-commercial negotiator - basically, the guy they sent somewhere unpleasant to do the deal, draft the documents, then call in a main Board member when they needed someone to sign the deal with the President on the telly.

    70-odd countries later....
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,559
    edited January 8
    Mortimer said:

    Mr. L, economic growth may have been higher, the question is whether that would've exceeded the growth in debt given the deficit would be larger and interest payments have snowballed alarmingly.

    Osborne's judgement was closer to being correct, I think.

    He ran up debt to record levels. That's the irony.
    So you would have borrowed more but reduced the debt would you? Cloud cuckoo land.
    Growth is the key. GDP goes up so deficit and debt fall as a percentage. And the tax take increases so they fall in absolute terms as well. ETA: and benefits payments fall so there are the cuts you want.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 903
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    TGOHF said:

    May having a reshuffle to distract from Toby Young ?

    Yer having a larf. Nobody outside of the left wing twitter mob gives an Aylesbury duck.

    Other way round on both counts. It is the right that cares, and Tobygate is being hyped to distract from a dull reshuffle whose highlight will be some bloke we've never heard of swapping jobs with a woman we don't care about.
    Pretty rich considering the Labour front bench is almost full of people we've never heard of who are there because they don't question Corbz
    By don't question I assume you actually mean don't resign from the shadow cabinet and try to get rid of the leader against the will of the members....
    Loyalty cuts both ways. Doesn't Corbz have a responsibility to represent his members with the best talent available? Surely such a friendly politician could rise above the past?
    Surely the loyalty cuts both ways comments also applies to those who were loyal to the members choice whilst many walked out.

    If he is to do what the members want him to do then he needs a team he can trust with him, though he did bring in his challenger Owen Smith. I'm not sure there is a really a huge drive from members for the shadow cabinet to be filled with centrists, I think the opposite is more likely true. I imagine most members would be quite happy for Corbyn to mostly carry on with his current team only making the occasional change.

    It's not it about centrists vs leftys.

    It's about people who can do an interview without suggesting that the economic strategy is terrible
    Or bust....
    If the requirement is someone who doesn't get presented badly by right wing newspapers then I don't think Labour can fill the role. At the best of times that will happen, as it is Corbyn and they've already thrown so much at him anyone in the shadow cabinet is going to be under tougher scrutiny.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938
    Mortimer said:

    .

    Strikes show why public transport should not be publically owned. that, and the sarnies.

    Hang on, these are privately owned companies and they are having strikes so that's nonsensical.

    As for the usual Conservative anti-Union ranting, Unions have a right to exist and protect their members. For all the usual propaganda from the train operators who seem to think it's a case of much ado about nothing (or at least that's what they are trying to convince us), I quite like the idea of guards on trains.

    There's much more to this dispute than whether you call a person on a train a guard or a customer service assistant.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,326
    edited January 8
    Nigelb said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Sandpit said:

    Seriously? Short of saying “Vote Labour” on the front page, what didn’t he do? Headline after headline, editorial after editorial, day after day, week after week, month after month, before, during and after the election campaign.

    Tell me if you think this guy is devastated, or over the moon about the result?

    Months and months?

    He only took the reins of The Standard a month before Election Day and didn’t take proper control until a couple of weeks before Election Day.

    Do you think he was wrong when he said in the paper’ editorial attacked the ‘disastrous manifesto’ and says Britain ‘could not have got off to a worse start’ in Brexit process?

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/30/osbornes-evening-standard-savages-theresa-mays-election-campaign

    He criticised Corbyn & Labour’s policies more and was accused of being a racist for attacking Diane Abbott’s sums. Loughborough Uni analysed the front pages and stories and said The Standard was harsher on Labour/Corbyn.

    They endorsed the Tories ‘
    Evening Standard comment: Why we believe this country needs a strong Conservative team as the next government’

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-why-we-believe-this-country-needs-a-strong-conservative-team-as-the-next-a3558971.html?amp

    You’ll have to trust me when I say he was gutted by the results but like me George is an optimist and when life hands you lemons you should make lemonade.

    We thought the result should be used to oust the cancer that was Mrs May and her staff and replace her with someone better like Amber Rudd.

    PS - Do you really think The Standard should be the mouth piece of the Tories? I prefer it to call it as it sees it.
    A cancer? Really?

    As for Amber Rudd, I don’t think the electorate is looking for somebody to hector them in a joyless loud voice.
    Yes, I suppose that May's advantage is that she's sometimes inaudible.
    People will tolerate an abrasive tone if it is accompanied by an attractive vision of the future (cf. Thatcher). I see no evidence of that with Rudd. Moreover, her agreement with the policy of taking students out of the migration figures shows that she supports the liberal consensus that those who dislike mass immigration need to be soothed, rather than listened to. Much easier to manipulate the figures than change anything.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691

    Sandpit said:

    Seriously? Short of saying “Vote Labour” on the front page, what didn’t he do? Headline after headline, editorial after editorial, day after day, week after week, month after month, before, during and after the election campaign.

    Tell me if you think this guy is devastated, or over the moon about the result?

    Months and months?

    He only took the reins of The Standard a month before Election Day and didn’t take proper control until a couple of weeks before Election Day.

    Do you think he was wrong when he said in the paper’ editorial attacked the ‘disastrous manifesto’ and says Britain ‘could not have got off to a worse start’ in Brexit process?

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/30/osbornes-evening-standard-savages-theresa-mays-election-campaign

    He criticised Corbyn & Labour’s policies more and was accused of being a racist for attacking Diane Abbott’s sums. Loughborough Uni analysed the front pages and stories and said The Standard was harsher on Labour/Corbyn.

    They endorsed the Tories ‘
    Evening Standard comment: Why we believe this country needs a strong Conservative team as the next government’

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-why-we-believe-this-country-needs-a-strong-conservative-team-as-the-next-a3558971.html?amp

    You’ll have to trust me when I say he was gutted by the results but like me George is an optimist and when life hands you lemons you should make lemonade.

    We thought the result should be used to oust the cancer that was Mrs May and her staff and replace her with someone better like Amber Rudd.

    PS - Do you really think The Standard should be the mouth piece of the Tories? I prefer it to call it as it sees it.
    A Survation poll in July had a Rudd led Tory Party extending Labour's lead relative to a May led Tory Party
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Seriously? Short of saying “Vote Labour” on the front page, what didn’t he do? Headline after headline, editorial after editorial, day after day, week after week, month after month, before, during and after the election campaign.

    Tell me if you think this guy is devastated, or over the moon about the result?

    Months and months?

    He only took the reins of The Standard a month before Election Day and didn’t take proper control until a couple of weeks before Election Day.

    Do you think he was wrong when he said in the paper’ editorial attacked the ‘disastrous manifesto’ and says Britain ‘could not have got off to a worse start’ in Brexit process?

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/30/osbornes-evening-standard-savages-theresa-mays-election-campaign

    He criticised Corbyn & Labour’s policies more and was accused of being a racist for attacking Diane Abbott’s sums. Loughborough Uni analysed the front pages and stories and said The Standard was harsher on Labour/Corbyn.

    They endorsed the Tories ‘
    Evening Standard comment: Why we believe this country needs a strong Conservative team as the next government’

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-why-we-believe-this-country-needs-a-strong-conservative-team-as-the-next-a3558971.html?amp

    You’ll have to trust me when I say he was gutted by the results but like me George is an optimist and when life hands you lemons you should make lemonade.

    We thought the result should be used to oust the cancer that was Mrs May and her staff and replace her with someone better like Amber Rudd.

    PS - Do you really think The Standard should be the mouth piece of the Tories? I prefer it to call it as it sees it.
    A Survation poll in July had a Rudd led Tory Party extending Labour's lead relative to a May led Tory Party
    If removing May, Rudd is not the answer.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,154
    HYUFD said:

    Given Green's departure and the need to replace Mcloughin as party chairman a reshuffle of some type was inevitable, the question is its scope

    There was no need to replace Green. He was Minister for the Cabinet Office and First Secretary of State. Neither of those are essential roles and the responsibilities could have been redistributed to other ministers. Even if a replacement was deemed necessary, it could have been done via a vertical or near-vertical reshuffle, with just three or four moves, rather than a general shake-up.

    I agree that McLouglin needed to go - indeed, he should have gone immediately after the election - but May could (1) ask him to wait until she holds a general reshuffle, (2) engage in another vertical reshuffle, or (3) appoint someone on a temporary basis such as a peer or someone who doesn't sit in parliament.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,145
    Morning all,

    BF 'Next Cabinet member to leave' rules may be an issue:

    "Event Start Time
    20 December 2017, 17:00
    Win Only Market
    Who will be the next member of the UK cabinet to leave, after Damian Green?

    This market will be left incomplete until the new first secretary of state has been confirmed , and at this point the runner will be added and the market made complete. This market refers to the current government, in the event of a general election this market will be void."

    iirc I have seen rumours in press that nobody will be appointed first secretary.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,559

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Yep. Best thing I ever did.
    Thanks. How long were you out of work? Did you manage to find something during your notice period?
    It took me two weeks to change from being a solicitor in private practice, to being in-house legal counsel for one of the oil majors. That then morphed (after being head-hunted from my new role) into being a lawyer-commercial negotiator - basically, the guy they sent somewhere unpleasant to do the deal, draft the documents, then call in a main Board member when they needed someone to sign the deal with the President on the telly.

    70-odd countries later....
    Tbh I'd got it into my head you were something in Hollywood (hence the Marquee). Clearly I am no great loss to MI5.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    On work stuff: still writing (got a short in an anthology due out in a couple of months or so, might have a magazine serial this year too) but looking for something else, on the basis that, whilst I live like an atheist monk, I do need some money for luxuries such as food.

    It amuses me that the only area I've exceeded financial expectations is gambling, the riskiest and least sensible thing I've ever done with money.

    Anyway, if anyone needs a writer (fantasy, comedy, F1, [I also used to write about financial news but just basic stuff]) or proofreader do let me know.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    edited January 8

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Seriously? Short of saying “Vote Labour” on the front page, what didn’t he do? Headline after headline, editorial after editorial, day after day, week after week, month after month, before, during and after the election campaign.

    Tell me if you think this guy is devastated, or over the moon about the result?

    Months and months?

    He only took the reins of The Standard a month before Election Day and didn’t take proper control until a couple of weeks before Election Day.

    Do you think he was wrong when he said in the paper’ editorial attacked the ‘disastrous manifesto’ and says Britain ‘could not have got off to a worse start’ in Brexit process?

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/30/osbornes-evening-standard-savages-theresa-mays-election-campaign

    He criticised Corbyn & Labour’s policies more and was accused of being a racist for attacking Diane Abbott’s sums. Loughborough Uni analysed the front pages and stories and said The Standard was harsher on Labour/Corbyn.

    They endorsed the Tories ‘
    Evening Standard comment: Why we believe this country used to oust the cancer that was Mrs May and her staff and replace her with someone better like Amber Rudd.

    PS - Do you really think The Standard should be the mouth piece of the Tories? I prefer it to call it as it sees it.
    A Survation poll in July had a Rudd led Tory Party extending Labour's lead relative to a May led Tory Party
    If removing May, Rudd is not the answer.
    Ironically the only person who narrowed the Labour lead relative to May was Davis and the only fractionally. Boris got a higher Tory voteshare than May but a higher Labour voteshare too so overall the Labour lead was slightly bigger.

    The UKIP vote would be up under both Riudd and Hammond
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    edited January 8

    HYUFD said:

    Given Green's departure and the need to replace Mcloughin as party chairman a reshuffle of some type was inevitable, the question is its scope

    There was no need to replace Green. He was Minister for the Cabinet Office and First Secretary of State. Neither of those are essential roles and the responsibilities could have been redistributed to other ministers. Even if a replacement was deemed necessary, it could have been done via a vertical or near-vertical reshuffle, with just three or four moves, rather than a general shake-up.

    I agree that McLouglin needed to go - indeed, he should have gone immediately after the election - but May could (1) ask him to wait until she holds a general reshuffle, (2) engage in another vertical reshuffle, or (3) appoint someone on a temporary basis such as a peer or someone who doesn't sit in parliament.
    May does not have to have a Deputy but she clearly wats a loyalist there.

    Better get a new Chairman in place now rather than later as they are needed urgently
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,145

    HYUFD said:

    Given Green's departure and the need to replace Mcloughin as party chairman a reshuffle of some type was inevitable, the question is its scope

    There was no need to replace Green. He was Minister for the Cabinet Office and First Secretary of State. Neither of those are essential roles and the responsibilities could have been redistributed to other ministers. Even if a replacement was deemed necessary, it could have been done via a vertical or near-vertical reshuffle, with just three or four moves, rather than a general shake-up.

    I agree that McLouglin needed to go - indeed, he should have gone immediately after the election - but May could (1) ask him to wait until she holds a general reshuffle, (2) engage in another vertical reshuffle, or (3) appoint someone on a temporary basis such as a peer or someone who doesn't sit in parliament.
    iirc McLoughin offered his resignation after GE and so it appears May opted for 1.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,145
    The sacked will be leaving by the back door:

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 903
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Seriously? Short of saying “Vote Labour” on the front page, what didn’t he do? Headline after headline, editorial after editorial, day after day, week after week, month after month, before, during and after the election campaign.

    Tell me if you think this guy is devastated, or over the moon about the result?

    Months and months?

    He only took the reins of The Standard a month before Election Day and didn’t take proper control until a couple of weeks before Election Day.

    Do you think he was wrong when he said in the paper’ editorial attacked the ‘disastrous manifesto’ and says Britain ‘could not have got off to a worse start’ in Brexit process?

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/30/osbornes-evening-standard-savages-theresa-mays-election-campaign

    He criticised Corbyn & Labour’s policies more and was accused of being a racist for attacking Diane Abbott’s sums. Loughborough Uni analysed the front pages and stories and said The Standard was harsher on Labour/Corbyn.

    They endorsed the Tories ‘
    Evening Standard comment: Why we believe this country used to oust the cancer that was Mrs May and her staff and replace her with someone better like Amber Rudd.

    PS - Do you really think The Standard should be the mouth piece of the Tories? I prefer it to call it as it sees it.
    A Survation poll in July had a Rudd led Tory Party extending Labour's lead relative to a May led Tory Party
    If removing May, Rudd is not the answer.
    Ironically the only person who narrowed the Labour lead relative to May was Davis and the only fractionally. Boris got a higher Tory voteshare than May but a higher Labour voteshare too so overall the Labour lead was slightly bigger.

    The UKIP vote would be up under both Riudd and Hammond
    It would have to be someone outside the cabinet to actually be an immediate improvement on May, I imagine most of them would campaign better but that alone won't make enough difference.

    I also think May is holding something of a soft leave hard leave coalition together within the party which someone else could strain even more.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,559

    The sacked will be leaving by the back door:

    If only the Prime Minister had an office at the House of Commons so reshuffles could take place without the cameras.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,145

    The sacked will be leaving by the back door:

    If only the Prime Minister had an office at the House of Commons so reshuffles could take place without the cameras.
    Where's the fun in that!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    stodge said:

    Mortimer said:

    .

    Strikes show why public transport should not be publically owned. that, and the sarnies.

    Hang on, these are privately owned companies and they are having strikes so that's nonsensical.

    As for the usual Conservative anti-Union ranting, Unions have a right to exist and protect their members. For all the usual propaganda from the train operators who seem to think it's a case of much ado about nothing (or at least that's what they are trying to convince us), I quite like the idea of guards on trains.

    There's much more to this dispute than whether you call a person on a train a guard or a customer service assistant.
    Two reasons why having privately operated railways is a plus when strikes are involved:

    1) Strikes only affect a certain %, rather than the whole networks - because the areas are broken up, and because management are keener to keep the service going
    2) The employer isn't the state, so the state cannot be held to ransom.

    The SWR dispute is totally pointless. The RMT are being, as far as I can see, intransigent.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    RoyalBlue said:

    Nigelb said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Sandpit said:

    Seriously? Short of saying “Vote Labour” on the front page, what didn’t he do? Headline after headline, editorial after editorial, day after day, week after week, month after month, before, during and after the election campaign.

    Tell me if you think this guy is devastated, or over the moon about the result?

    Months and months?

    He only took the reins of The Standard a month before Election Day and didn’t take proper control until a couple of weeks before Election Day.

    Do you think he was wrong when he said in the paper’ editorial attacked the ‘disastrous manifesto’ and says Britain ‘could not have got off to a worse start’ in Brexit process?

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/30/osbornes-evening-standard-savages-theresa-mays-election-campaign

    He criticised Corbyn & Labour’s policies more and was accused of being a racist for attacking Diane Abbott’s sums. Loughborough Uni analysed the front pages and stories and said The Standard was harsher on Labour/Corbyn.

    They endorsed the Tories ‘
    Evening Standard comment: Why we believe this country needs a strong Conservative team as the next government’

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-why-we-believe-this-country-needs-a-strong-conservative-team-as-the-next-a3558971.html?amp

    You’ll have to trust me when I say he was gutted by the results but like me George is an optimist and when life hands you lemons you should make lemonade.

    We thought the result should be used to oust the cancer that was Mrs May and her staff and replace her with someone better like Amber Rudd.

    PS - Do you really think The Standard should be the mouth piece of the Tories? I prefer it to call it as it sees it.
    A cancer? Really?

    As for Amber Rudd, I don’t think the electorate is looking for somebody to hector them in a joyless loud voice.
    Yes, I suppose that May's advantage is that she's sometimes inaudible.
    People will tolerate an abrasive tone if it is accompanied by an attractive vision of the future (cf. Thatcher). I see no evidence of that with Rudd. Moreover, her agreement with the policy of taking students out of the migration figures shows that she supports the liberal consensus that those who dislike mass immigration need to be soothed, rather than listened to. Much easier to manipulate the figures than change anything.
    That was rather my point - we already have someone to somebody to hector us in a joyless, occasionally inaudible voice.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Yep. Best thing I ever did.
    Thanks. How long were you out of work? Did you manage to find something during your notice period?
    It took me two weeks to change from being a solicitor in private practice, to being in-house legal counsel for one of the oil majors. That then morphed (after being head-hunted from my new role) into being a lawyer-commercial negotiator - basically, the guy they sent somewhere unpleasant to do the deal, draft the documents, then call in a main Board member when they needed someone to sign the deal with the President on the telly.

    70-odd countries later....
    Tbh I'd got it into my head you were something in Hollywood (hence the Marquee). Clearly I am no great loss to MI5.
    I juggle other stuff too! And my wife is a film producer.....

    You may still get the call!
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,235
    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Yes and yes.

    Packed in the law back in 1999 with no idea what I wanted to do except that it didn't involve being a solicitor. In the end I signed up with a career consultancy and got a much better paid and more interesting job within about 6 weeks. It cost me few grand but I got a good return on my investment.

    (Unfortunately I eventually packed in that job to write books, which didn't work out so well, and after a few twists and turns ended up back where I started, albeit for more money. Still it was good while it lasted!)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Seriously? Short of saying “Vote Labour” on the front page, what didn’t he do? Headline after headline, editorial after editorial, day after day, week after week, month after month, before, during and after the election campaign.

    Tell me if you think this guy is devastated, or over the moon about the result?

    Months and months?

    He only took the reins of The Standard a month before Election Day and didn’t take proper control until a couple of weeks before Election Day.

    Do you think he was wrong when he said in the paper’ editorial attacked the ‘disastrous manifesto’ and says Britain ‘could not have got off to a worse start’ in Brexit process?

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/30/osbornes-evening-standard-savages-theresa-mays-election-campaign

    He criticised Corbyn & Labour’s policies more and was accused of being a racist for attacking Diane Abbott’s sums. Loughborough Uni analysed the front pages and stories and said The Standard was harsher on Labour/Corbyn.

    They endorsed the Tories ‘
    Evening Standard comment: Why we believe this country used to oust the cancer that was Mrs May and her staff and replace her with someone better like Amber Rudd.

    PS - Do you really think The Standard should be the mouth piece of the Tories? I prefer it to call it as it sees it.
    A Survation poll in July had a Rudd led Tory Party extending Labour's lead relative to a May led Tory Party
    If removing May, Rudd is not the answer.
    Ironically the only person who narrowed the Labour lead relative to May was Davis and the only fractionally. Boris got a higher Tory voteshare than May but a higher Labour voteshare too so overall the Labour lead was slightly bigger.

    The UKIP vote would be up under both Riudd and Hammond
    It would have to be someone outside the cabinet to actually be an immediate improvement on May, I imagine most of them would campaign better but that alone won't make enough difference.

    I also think May is holding something of a soft leave hard leave coalition together within the party which someone else could strain even more.
    Where is the evidence for that? Plus of course the most obvious choice outside the Cabinet is Mogg.

    Davis is probably the closest to the soft hard Leave coalition May has.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,235

    The sacked will be leaving by the back door:

    Shouldn't they be driven away in a black cab?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 903
    Evidence for which bit?

    Most of the cabinet seem to produce worse results, in polls taken, aside just slightly from Davis, so to make a real difference I think it would have to be someone outside of the cabinet.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,520
    Theresa needs to make this her night of the long knives with some big names getting the chop - one of Boris, Hammond or DD would be good for starters. As a curve ball, I'd be tempted to ennoble Toby Young and give him a brief in the DfE - the Left can't get any more peeved and the Right, who've been singing hymns about Young since this episode started, will feel flattered and listened to.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691

    Evidence for which bit?

    Most of the cabinet seem to produce worse results, in polls taken, aside just slightly from Davis, so to make a real difference I think it would have to be someone outside of the cabinet.

    In which case it would be Mogg most likely
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    The figure about whom there seem to have been no rumours is Gove.

    Remarkable.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,639
    Did a mention of Gove kill the thread?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,774
    Jonathan said:

    Monday morning...

    Has anyone ever quit their job without something to go to? Did it work out?

    Yes and eventually. I quit (under huge pressure to do so) the Navy at age 39 with no transferable skills, a few medals and more than a few psychological problems. I wandered around Europe for a few years studying languages, met my Mrs and eventually became an English tutor. I had no dependents which made it easier I think.

    Like so much that happens in life 99% of it is blind luck.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,639
    calum said:
    Annual reviews are common in most other forms of employment. They are, on the whole, pointless - with the usual bollocks of 'SMART' objectives and bosses promising to listen/support more. But I should see no reason that politicians should get away without having them.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    calum said:
    Like asking Trevor Bayliss to conduct a "How to be a Winner" seminar.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    On work stuff: still writing (got a short in an anthology due out in a couple of months or so, might have a magazine serial this year too) but looking for something else, on the basis that, whilst I live like an atheist monk, I do need some money for luxuries such as food.

    It amuses me that the only area I've exceeded financial expectations is gambling, the riskiest and least sensible thing I've ever done with money.

    Anyway, if anyone needs a writer (fantasy, comedy, F1, [I also used to write about financial news but just basic stuff]) or proofreader do let me know.

    What would you charge for proof-reading? 35,000 word novella.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,154
    Mortimer said:

    stodge said:

    Mortimer said:

    .

    Strikes show why public transport should not be publically owned. that, and the sarnies.

    Hang on, these are privately owned companies and they are having strikes so that's nonsensical.

    As for the usual Conservative anti-Union ranting, Unions have a right to exist and protect their members. For all the usual propaganda from the train operators who seem to think it's a case of much ado about nothing (or at least that's what they are trying to convince us), I quite like the idea of guards on trains.

    There's much more to this dispute than whether you call a person on a train a guard or a customer service assistant.
    Two reasons why having privately operated railways is a plus when strikes are involved:

    1) Strikes only affect a certain %, rather than the whole networks - because the areas are broken up, and because management are keener to keep the service going
    2) The employer isn't the state, so the state cannot be held to ransom.

    The SWR dispute is totally pointless. The RMT are being, as far as I can see, intransigent.
    (1) is completely correct. (2) not quite so much as the government will always get drawn in to any lengthy dispute but they wouldn't be direct players in the game.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 477
    calum said:
    Minister for no deal? FFS!

    And clearly Johnson and Davis really are 'unsackable'!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168

    calum said:
    Annual reviews are common in most other forms of employment. They are, on the whole, pointless - with the usual bollocks of 'SMART' objectives and bosses promising to listen/support more. But I should see no reason that politicians should get away without having them.
    Weren't we talking about joyless hectoring a little earlier ?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,199
    May has lost Fallon, Patel and Green from the cabinet inthe lase few months.

    So why does she need to move other cabinet ministers to make room for new blood?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,154
    Mortimer said:

    The figure about whom there seem to have been no rumours is Gove.

    Remarkable.

    Gove is widely seen as doing a good job where he is. He could theoretically therefore be a candidate for promotion, except that (1) I rather get the impression that May doesn't like having successes around her, (2) moving someone from a job he's doing well and just getting to grips with would negate much of that work, (3) she might well be sceptical of giving him a big-spending job such as Health when Dominic Cummings could be floating in the background, and (4) there will be few positions to offer him anyway if Boris, Hammond and Rudd are staying.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,520
    The following needs to be on the front page of tomorrow's Daily Mail: a cartoon of a giant Theresa squishing a lot of silly men with her Union Jack kitten heel. If she doesn't get that it hasn't worked.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,199

    On work stuff: still writing (got a short in an anthology due out in a couple of months or so, might have a magazine serial this year too) but looking for something else, on the basis that, whilst I live like an atheist monk, I do need some money for luxuries such as food.

    It amuses me that the only area I've exceeded financial expectations is gambling, the riskiest and least sensible thing I've ever done with money.

    Anyway, if anyone needs a writer (fantasy, comedy, F1, [I also used to write about financial news but just basic stuff]) or proofreader do let me know.

    What would you charge for proof-reading? 35,000 word novella.

    I have spotted that the question mark should be moved to the end of the sentence.

    No charge.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,023
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Still a longshot, but Oprah's presidential odds have surely shortened a bit ?
    https://slate.com/arts/2018/01/did-oprah-just-announce-a-presidential-campaign.html

    I wonder who her running mate would be. Winfrey-Warren would be bold but potentially electoral dynamite.
    Oprah would have to win the Democratic primaries first, remember Trump only won as the Republican nominee and not as an independent.

    An Oprah Warren ticket is not impossible and would be hugely popular on the coasts and Chicago but is not necessarily what the Democrats need to win back the rustbelt states and the Electoral College where Trump has such a stranglehold in 2016
    A bit like Michelle Obama running - it won't happen. Oprah lives too charmed a life to have to go through that whole process and all it entails. She will be much happier speaking and preaching from the sidelines.
  • If/when May creates more peers (as there's a shortage...) when would that be?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    King Cole, I'd ask for a sample of, say 4,000-5,000 words first (just to give it a quick skim, obviously if it's utterly error-ridden then it'd take longer and therefore cost more).

    Assuming there were the normal amount of errors, and I'm expecting some simply because even a 0.1% error rate would have 35 in total, I'd ask for £70.

    If you're interested, just send me a message and we can organise things.

    [NB you're a sensible fellow so I imagine you know this already, but a friend of mine who used to do this kind of work suggested making it plain that proofreading is only about spelling and grammatical errors. No editorial advice etc will be offered, it's just about typos, nonsensical sentences and problems of that nature].
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978

    Did a mention of Gove kill the thread?

    Gove is all you need.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,181

    the Right, who've been singing hymns about Young since this episode started, will feel flattered and listened to.

    As opposed to every single day since May became PM?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,023

    Interesting Golden Globes. As the stars line up to support the power of women in the film industry, the Best Actress (Frances McDormand, Three Billboards) and the Best Supporting Actress (Alison Janney, I Tanya) get their awards for playing deeply, deeply unpleasant, violent, abusive, bullying women......

    McDormand's character burned down a police station leaving the sheriff with horrible burns. And that is a comedy?

    As for last nights events where was the award for Rose McGowan who actually spoke out? These are the same people who fawned over Weinstein, Spacey and Polanski for years.

    Me too. More like we all knew and did nothing to stop it. And a lot of vulnerable young men and woman suffered as a result.

    But now it's fashionable and they can virtue signal all these long standing multi millionaire actors living in their walled mansions finally have the 'courage' to speak out against it. bravo!
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 903
    Gove's name probably works best for chants and songs, although I am not sure that will be a conservative strong point at the next election.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    King Cole, I'd ask for a sample of, say 4,000-5,000 words first (just to give it a quick skim, obviously if it's utterly error-ridden then it'd take longer and therefore cost more).

    Assuming there were the normal amount of errors, and I'm expecting some simply because even a 0.1% error rate would have 35 in total, I'd ask for £70.

    If you're interested, just send me a message and we can organise things.

    [NB you're a sensible fellow so I imagine you know this already, but a friend of mine who used to do this kind of work suggested making it plain that proofreading is only about spelling and grammatical errors. No editorial advice etc will be offered, it's just about typos, nonsensical sentences and problems of that nature].

    Thanks for that; understoood. May well be in touch. There’s an element of psychology and, a fairly wide sense, adolescent mental health in it, and Granddaiugher One, an Educational Psychologist, is currently reading it through for that aspect.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    edited January 8

    Mortimer said:

    Mr. L, economic growth may have been higher, the question is whether that would've exceeded the growth in debt given the deficit would be larger and interest payments have snowballed alarmingly.

    Osborne's judgement was closer to being correct, I think.

    He ran up debt to record levels. That's the irony.
    So you would have borrowed more but reduced the debt would you? Cloud cuckoo land.
    Growth is the key. GDP goes up so deficit and debt fall as a percentage. And the tax take increases so they fall in absolute terms as well. ETA: and benefits payments fall so there are the cuts you want.
    Do you call yourself decrepit because of your tendency to resurrect decrepit, discredited theories?

    The economic fairyland you advocate was famously demolished in this country by that well known neoliberal right wing Tory James Callaghan in September 1976, after many years of its comprehensive failure either to increase growth or reduce debt.

    "The cosy world we were told would go on for ever, where full employment would be guaran­teed by a stroke of the Chancellor’s pen, cutting taxes, deficit spending, that cosy world is gone."

    http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=174
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,199

    HYUFD said:

    Given Green's departure and the need to replace Mcloughin as party chairman a reshuffle of some type was inevitable, the question is its scope

    There was no need to replace Green. He was Minister for the Cabinet Office and First Secretary of State. Neither of those are essential roles and the responsibilities could have been redistributed to other ministers. Even if a replacement was deemed necessary, it could have been done via a vertical or near-vertical reshuffle, with just three or four moves, rather than a general shake-up.

    I agree that McLouglin needed to go - indeed, he should have gone immediately after the election - but May could (1) ask him to wait until she holds a general reshuffle, (2) engage in another vertical reshuffle, or (3) appoint someone on a temporary basis such as a peer or someone who doesn't sit in parliament.


    McLouglin was bumbling at Transport and should never have made a cabinet post.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,103
    Off topic, Fire And Fury is a rattling good read. Is it true? If only a tenth of it is true, it's still an amazing state of affairs.

    If you've got the impression that this is Steve Bannon's side of the story, it really isn't. It's no more flattering about him than about anyone else.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    King Cole, cheers, and best of luck with it.

    As an aside, when I was in China a young lady who I think worked in banking asked me to check a statement that was being put out by her firm (in English, of course). The only flaw with it was that it was so high brow most English readers would've struggled with parts of it (there was one word I didn't know).
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,580

    Off topic, Fire And Fury is a rattling good read. Is it true? If only a tenth of it is true, it's still an amazing state of affairs.

    If you've got the impression that this is Steve Bannon's side of the story, it really isn't. It's no more flattering about him than about anyone else.

    I see that Wikileaks have released a pirated version of the book, presumably to try and undermine sales.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,538
    brendan16 said:

    Interesting Golden Globes. As the stars line up to support the power of women in the film industry, the Best Actress (Frances McDormand, Three Billboards) and the Best Supporting Actress (Alison Janney, I Tanya) get their awards for playing deeply, deeply unpleasant, violent, abusive, bullying women......

    McDormand's character burned down a police station leaving the sheriff with horrible burns. And that is a comedy?

    As for last nights events where was the award for Rose McGowan who actually spoke out? These are the same people who fawned over Weinstein, Spacey and Polanski for years.

    Me too. More like we all knew and did nothing to stop it. And a lot of vulnerable young men and woman suffered as a result.

    But now it's fashionable and they can virtue signal all these long standing multi millionaire actors living in their walled mansions finally have the 'courage' to speak out against it. bravo!
    I have to say "me too" is the worst bit of sloganeering since "hacked off"; its undertone to me is "hey, look at me, I want some attention too".
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    Off topic, Fire And Fury is a rattling good read. Is it true? If only a tenth of it is true, it's still an amazing state of affairs.

    If you've got the impression that this is Steve Bannon's side of the story, it really isn't. It's no more flattering about him than about anyone else.

    Matthew d’Ancona, in the Guardian says (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/07/fire-fury-donald-trump-michael-wolff-book)
    'Were I running a modestly sized whelk stall, let alone the White House, the very last person I would allow behind the scenes to observe and report on its secrets would be Michael Wolff.

    Please understand: the author of Fire and Fury, the book that has rocked Donald Trump’s presidency, is a brilliant journalist. Having commissioned and edited his work in the past, I can vouch for his terrier-like pursuit of the truth and his diffident charm when handling his subjects.’

    I’m only reporting; I’m not qualified to judge the value of Mr d’Ancona’s opinion!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,154
    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Interesting Golden Globes. As the stars line up to support the power of women in the film industry, the Best Actress (Frances McDormand, Three Billboards) and the Best Supporting Actress (Alison Janney, I Tanya) get their awards for playing deeply, deeply unpleasant, violent, abusive, bullying women......

    McDormand's character burned down a police station leaving the sheriff with horrible burns. And that is a comedy?

    As for last nights events where was the award for Rose McGowan who actually spoke out? These are the same people who fawned over Weinstein, Spacey and Polanski for years.

    Me too. More like we all knew and did nothing to stop it. And a lot of vulnerable young men and woman suffered as a result.

    But now it's fashionable and they can virtue signal all these long standing multi millionaire actors living in their walled mansions finally have the 'courage' to speak out against it. bravo!
    I have to say "me too" is the worst bit of sloganeering since "hacked off"; its undertone to me is "hey, look at me, I want some attention too".
    More than just an undertone, really. It's on the face of the tin.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    It seems that the main point of the reshuffle today is to highlight just how poor the options are for the Tories - and to get some positive headlines in the right wing press. A Minister for No Deal. That is just hilarious - feeble and embarrassing; designed only for domestic consumption and to keep the right onside. That's how weak the PM is, I guess.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,181

    Off topic, Fire And Fury is a rattling good read.

  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617

    HYUFD said:

    Given Green's departure and the need to replace Mcloughin as party chairman a reshuffle of some type was inevitable, the question is its scope

    There was no need to replace Green. He was Minister for the Cabinet Office and First Secretary of State. Neither of those are essential roles and the responsibilities could have been redistributed to other ministers. Even if a replacement was deemed necessary, it could have been done via a vertical or near-vertical reshuffle, with just three or four moves, rather than a general shake-up.

    I agree that McLouglin needed to go - indeed, he should have gone immediately after the election - but May could (1) ask him to wait until she holds a general reshuffle, (2) engage in another vertical reshuffle, or (3) appoint someone on a temporary basis such as a peer or someone who doesn't sit in parliament.


    McLouglin was bumbling at Transport and should never have made a cabinet post.
    Alan Clark's cutting diary remarks about McLoughlin weren't far wrong. "He's a nice man, but not a card of very high value". McLoughlin owes his cabinet career entirely to Cameron's sensitivity about having a government full of privately educated poshos. Especially after Pickles left the cabinet in 2015.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,639
    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Interesting Golden Globes. As the stars line up to support the power of women in the film industry, the Best Actress (Frances McDormand, Three Billboards) and the Best Supporting Actress (Alison Janney, I Tanya) get their awards for playing deeply, deeply unpleasant, violent, abusive, bullying women......

    McDormand's character burned down a police station leaving the sheriff with horrible burns. And that is a comedy?

    As for last nights events where was the award for Rose McGowan who actually spoke out? These are the same people who fawned over Weinstein, Spacey and Polanski for years.

    Me too. More like we all knew and did nothing to stop it. And a lot of vulnerable young men and woman suffered as a result.

    But now it's fashionable and they can virtue signal all these long standing multi millionaire actors living in their walled mansions finally have the 'courage' to speak out against it. bravo!
    I have to say "me too" is the worst bit of sloganeering since "hacked off"; its undertone to me is "hey, look at me, I want some attention too".
    I know many on here object to the term 'virtue signalling' but the whole of last night's ceremony was a masterclass in it. Pointless badges, wearing black - but very expensive black showing a lot of very well sculpted flesh. Over-emoting during the speeches - and that was just from the audience who were determined to show they are doing the right thing.

    The people in that room last night are the very epitome of privilege and they don't seem to spot the hypocrisy of their posturing.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    It seems that the main point of the reshuffle today is to highlight just how poor the options are for the Tories - and to get some positive headlines in the right wing press. A Minister for No Deal. That is just hilarious - feeble and embarrassing; designed only for domestic consumption and to keep the right onside. That's how weak the PM is, I guess.

    What is the difference between a Minister for No Deal and Liam Fox’s department?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,103

    Off topic, Fire And Fury is a rattling good read. Is it true? If only a tenth of it is true, it's still an amazing state of affairs.

    If you've got the impression that this is Steve Bannon's side of the story, it really isn't. It's no more flattering about him than about anyone else.

    Matthew d’Ancona, in the Guardian says (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/07/fire-fury-donald-trump-michael-wolff-book)
    'Were I running a modestly sized whelk stall, let alone the White House, the very last person I would allow behind the scenes to observe and report on its secrets would be Michael Wolff.

    Please understand: the author of Fire and Fury, the book that has rocked Donald Trump’s presidency, is a brilliant journalist. Having commissioned and edited his work in the past, I can vouch for his terrier-like pursuit of the truth and his diffident charm when handling his subjects.’

    I’m only reporting; I’m not qualified to judge the value of Mr d’Ancona’s opinion!
    He's certainly a brilliant writer. The book is a real page-turner, and extremely funny: Dr Strangelove meets Yes Minister.

    I can easily imagine him getting very indiscreet comments through apparent inoffensiveness in the same way that Louis Theroux does. He has the same personal diffidence in his writing that Louis Theroux gives off, a man obviously happy to be the recorder of events rather than a star.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,774

    <

    What is the difference between a Minister for No Deal and Liam Fox’s department?

    Adam Werrity isn't under his desk.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,809
    edited January 8

    Off topic, Fire And Fury is a rattling good read. Is it true? If only a tenth of it is true, it's still an amazing state of affairs.

    If you've got the impression that this is Steve Bannon's side of the story, it really isn't. It's no more flattering about him than about anyone else.

    Agree 100%.

    He's not enjoying being President and never wanted to be President, which makes me think he might quit sometime during his first term.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    Mortimer said:

    stodge said:

    Mortimer said:

    .

    Strikes show why public transport should not be publically owned. that, and the sarnies.

    Hang on, these are privately owned companies and they are having strikes so that's nonsensical.

    As for the usual Conservative anti-Union ranting, Unions have a right to exist and protect their members. For all the usual propaganda from the train operators who seem to think it's a case of much ado about nothing (or at least that's what they are trying to convince us), I quite like the idea of guards on trains.

    There's much more to this dispute than whether you call a person on a train a guard or a customer service assistant.
    Two reasons why having privately operated railways is a plus when strikes are involved:

    1) Strikes only affect a certain %, rather than the whole networks - because the areas are broken up, and because management are keener to keep the service going
    2) The employer isn't the state, so the state cannot be held to ransom.

    The SWR dispute is totally pointless. The RMT are being, as far as I can see, intransigent.
    Why do you think the Unions are so keen on renationalisation?

    The public are being played.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,520
    edited January 8

    It seems that the main point of the reshuffle today is to highlight just how poor the options are for the Tories - and to get some positive headlines in the right wing press. A Minister for No Deal. That is just hilarious - feeble and embarrassing; designed only for domestic consumption and to keep the right onside. That's how weak the PM is, I guess.

    What is the difference between a Minister for No Deal and Liam Fox’s department?
    Presumably the Minister for Cliff Edge Brexit will be in charge of the swathe of customs barriers to be erected at the ports and the expulsion of EU citizens. Sounds a bit of a poisoned chalice.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,192
    There was something on the news this morning about Labour setting up a campaigning group focusing on Tory marginal seats.

    Not much else was said (perhaps @NickPalmer may know more). But given how good Corbyn’s Labour is at this stuff, moves such as this might have a greater bearing on the next GE than today’s reshuffle.

    And on that mildly provocative note I’m off to do some work.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Dura_Ace said:

    <

    What is the difference between a Minister for No Deal and Liam Fox’s department?

    Adam Werrity isn't under his desk.
    I’d ask what he was doing there, but that might cause a load of questionable posts. Otherwise LOL!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    Off topic - the guardian report that Barnier is meeting Nigel Farage today.
    Maybe it’s just me - but isn’t that a bit weird?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    It seems that the main point of the reshuffle today is to highlight just how poor the options are for the Tories - and to get some positive headlines in the right wing press. A Minister for No Deal. That is just hilarious - feeble and embarrassing; designed only for domestic consumption and to keep the right onside. That's how weak the PM is, I guess.

    What is the difference between a Minister for No Deal and Liam Fox’s department?
    Presumably the Minister for Cliff Edge Brexit will be in charge of the swathe of customs barriers to be erected at the ports and the expulsion of EU citizens. Sounds a bit of a poisoned chalice.
    Will quite a big budget I would have thought, too. Or is he (?) going to marshall the volunteer Dads Army of Customs Officers suggested last week?
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617

    Mortimer said:

    stodge said:

    Mortimer said:

    .

    Strikes show why public transport should not be publically owned. that, and the sarnies.

    Hang on, these are privately owned companies and they are having strikes so that's nonsensical.

    As for the usual Conservative anti-Union ranting, Unions have a right to exist and protect their members. For all the usual propaganda from the train operators who seem to think it's a case of much ado about nothing (or at least that's what they are trying to convince us), I quite like the idea of guards on trains.

    There's much more to this dispute than whether you call a person on a train a guard or a customer service assistant.
    Two reasons why having privately operated railways is a plus when strikes are involved:

    1) Strikes only affect a certain %, rather than the whole networks - because the areas are broken up, and because management are keener to keep the service going
    2) The employer isn't the state, so the state cannot be held to ransom.

    The SWR dispute is totally pointless. The RMT are being, as far as I can see, intransigent.
    Why do you think the Unions are so keen on renationalisation?

    The public are being played.
    A very large slice of the travelling public are now too young to remember the famous national rail strike of 1982, which shut down the entire rail system for weeks and was ironically also partly about the current driver only operation issue. I can just about vaguely remember it as a child at the time.

    Declassified documents now show us that Mrs Thatcher was angling to use the strike as an excuse to close down the majority of the rail network, and was mainly prevented from doing so by the fact that the rail union leader Sid Werdell was a moderate who realised what she was up to and finally backed down. Given today's more militant and intransigent union attitude I wouldn't be confident of that happening today.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619

    It seems that the main point of the reshuffle today is to highlight just how poor the options are for the Tories - and to get some positive headlines in the right wing press. A Minister for No Deal. That is just hilarious - feeble and embarrassing; designed only for domestic consumption and to keep the right onside. That's how weak the PM is, I guess.

    What is the difference between a Minister for No Deal and Liam Fox’s department?

    Not much - both are entirely pointless, designed only to placate the Tory right.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,502
    rkrkrk said:

    Off topic - the guardian report that Barnier is meeting Nigel Farage today.
    Maybe it’s just me - but isn’t that a bit weird?

    No more so than him meeting Clegg etc, not that I support Farage in any way.

    If you meet the hard remainers fairness diictates you meet the hard Brexiteers
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,154
    Scott_P said:

    Off topic, Fire And Fury is a rattling good read.

    Kim is no doubt amused by the restraint and humility shown by Trump.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    Off topic, Fire And Fury is a rattling good read. Is it true? If only a tenth of it is true, it's still an amazing state of affairs.

    If you've got the impression that this is Steve Bannon's side of the story, it really isn't. It's no more flattering about him than about anyone else.

    You've read the whole thing already? Wow.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,154

    Off topic, Fire And Fury is a rattling good read. Is it true? If only a tenth of it is true, it's still an amazing state of affairs.

    If you've got the impression that this is Steve Bannon's side of the story, it really isn't. It's no more flattering about him than about anyone else.

    Agree 100%.

    He's not enjoying being President and never wanted to be President, which makes me think he might quit sometime during his first term.
    And so stand next to Nixon as the only presidents to have resigned? He's between a rock and a hard place of his own making.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. Eagles, not sure about quitting, but might be interested in the odds on him not being the 2020 Republican nominee.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,580

    Off topic, Fire And Fury is a rattling good read. Is it true? If only a tenth of it is true, it's still an amazing state of affairs.

    If you've got the impression that this is Steve Bannon's side of the story, it really isn't. It's no more flattering about him than about anyone else.

    Matthew d’Ancona, in the Guardian says (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/07/fire-fury-donald-trump-michael-wolff-book)
    'Were I running a modestly sized whelk stall, let alone the White House, the very last person I would allow behind the scenes to observe and report on its secrets would be Michael Wolff.

    Please understand: the author of Fire and Fury, the book that has rocked Donald Trump’s presidency, is a brilliant journalist. Having commissioned and edited his work in the past, I can vouch for his terrier-like pursuit of the truth and his diffident charm when handling his subjects.’

    I’m only reporting; I’m not qualified to judge the value of Mr d’Ancona’s opinion!
    He's certainly a brilliant writer. The book is a real page-turner, and extremely funny: Dr Strangelove meets Yes Minister.

    I can easily imagine him getting very indiscreet comments through apparent inoffensiveness in the same way that Louis Theroux does. He has the same personal diffidence in his writing that Louis Theroux gives off, a man obviously happy to be the recorder of events rather than a star.
    I was reading an interview with him that apparently he set out to write a contrarian "Trump is brilliant the media is so unfair to him" but then realised that actually the chaos was worse than what the media was presenting.

    He presented himself perfectly to the White House.

    He burnt them good.
This discussion has been closed.