Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Porn Legacy: Theresa May’s aides want Damian Green to quit

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited December 3 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Porn Legacy: Theresa May’s aides want Damian Green to quit

The Porn Legacy: Mrs May's aides, including her Chief of Staff, want Damian Green to quit.https://t.co/r1GXdkHLM6 pic.twitter.com/xDGMx0XZyw

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • The advice of May's aides has not been the best this year.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540
    Second. Like the Tories if there’s a GE soon.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    FPT: Mr. Richard, indeed.

    On-topic: there's more here than the claim. There's the conduct of police, which matters far more. Green going would legitimise police officers keeping information acquired in the course of criminal investigations and then releasing that information a decade later, after leaving the police, to prosecute a personal vendetta.

    It's extremely disturbing. Public trust in the police is essential, and this has harmed their standing significantly.

    As an aside, it's wryly amusing to watch the BBC, having acted as propaganda agents by unquestioningly broadcasting the party political on behalf of the Stasi the other day, now reporting on questions being raised over the ex-officers' decision to release such information.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    The Brexit we are likely to get is a FTA that ends free movement, whether Green resigns or not or Davis is Brexit Secretary or not.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,157
    "Fans of the Chaos Theory and Butterfly Effect will be amused that one man’s reported computer use a decade ago or alleged inappropriate behaviour could impact the type of Brexit we get."

    Amused? Not sure that's the word I'd use.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    @AtticusBakelite: All revolutions are run by middle-class blowhards with a scattering of very posh revolutionary tourists. The working class are there to do the heavy lifting and to be patted on the head. Or shot in the back of the head. One of the two.

    *cough*BREXIT*cough*
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,253
    edited December 3
    FBI agent removed from Mueller investigation over anti-Trump messages

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/fbi-agent-removed-trump-investigation/index.html

    Trump is of course totally all over this on tw@tter.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 315
    It is a win for David Davis.

    He can claim Brexit negotiations had been to textbook and he had conceded not a single 'concrete' concession in 18 months. With his resignation still wet on the page Mrs May and the government capitulate, or drive us over cliff-edge Brexit.

    What a hero! Let's make him PM!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,253
    Ministers are expected to back the first generation of small nuclear power stations in Britain with tens of millions of pounds this week, in an attempt to give the UK a competitive edge on the technology and provide a new source of clean power.

    Rolls-Royce and a host of US and Chinese companies have been lobbying and waiting for the support since George Osborne first promised them a share of £250m two years ago.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/03/mini-nuclear-power-stations-uk-government-funding
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    Ministers are expected to back the first generation of small nuclear power stations in Britain with tens of millions of pounds this week, in an attempt to give the UK a competitive edge on the technology and provide a new source of clean power.

    Rolls-Royce and a host of US and Chinese companies have been lobbying and waiting for the support since George Osborne first promised them a share of £250m two years ago.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/03/mini-nuclear-power-stations-uk-government-funding

    Great news, get on with this sort of stuff. RR make a container-sized nuclear reactor and generator which has been proven in ships and submarines for decades, why not use them on land.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976
    edited December 3

    FBI agent removed from Mueller investigation over anti-Trump messages

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/fbi-agent-removed-trump-investigation/index.html

    Trump is of course totally all over this on tw@tter.

    Trump’s going the distance, and if he can get the overseas profits back onshore for infrastructure spending he’s looking at a second term.

    Those desperate to get rid of him are making basic mistakes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    Sandpit said:

    FBI agent removed from Mueller investigation over anti-Trump messages

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/fbi-agent-removed-trump-investigation/index.html

    Trump is of course totally all over this on tw@tter.

    Trump’s going the distance, and if he can get the overseas profits back onshore for infrastructure spending he’s looking at a second term.

    Those desperate to get rid of him are making basic mistakes.
    Even if Trump does get a second term, not impossible if the Democrats nominate Warren, the GOP will almost certainly lose the House next year and the Senate in 2020 too and many more governorship and state assemblies. So he will be as bad for the GOP outside the Presidency as Clinton and Obama were for the Democrats.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    Sandpit said:

    Trump’s going the distance, and if he can get the overseas profits back onshore for infrastructure spending he’s looking at a second term.

    Those desperate to get rid of him are making basic mistakes.

    He apparently admitted obstruction of justice yesterday. Now reduced to Tweeting that it wisnae him, a big lawyer did it, and ran away...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FBI agent removed from Mueller investigation over anti-Trump messages

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/fbi-agent-removed-trump-investigation/index.html

    Trump is of course totally all over this on tw@tter.

    Trump’s going the distance, and if he can get the overseas profits back onshore for infrastructure spending he’s looking at a second term.

    Those desperate to get rid of him are making basic mistakes.
    Even if Trump does get a second term, not impossible if the Democrats nominate Warren, the GOP will almost certainly lose the House next year and the Senate in 2020 too and many more governorship and state assemblies. So he will be as bad for the GOP outside the Presidency as Clinton and Obama were for the Democrats.
    Oh absolutely. The Reps have got a year to pass everything they want to pass. The party of the President historically does very badly in the mid-terms, although the House looks difficult for the Dems looking at the seats that are up next year. The Senate could be R51-D49 in a couple of weeks’ time if Roy Moore loses in Alabama.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3

    It is a win for David Davis.

    He can claim Brexit negotiations had been to textbook and he had conceded not a single 'concrete' concession in 18 months. With his resignation still wet on the page Mrs May and the government capitulate, or drive us over cliff-edge Brexit.

    What a hero! Let's make him PM!

    Davis would be able to present himself as having been able to work with the EU but not betray his pro Brexit principles and in that sense it would probably better set him up to succeed May than staying Brexit Secretary would. I would suggest Hunt as his replacement as Brexit Secretary if Davis leaves or Gove if he is willing to compromise which is a big if, Grayling also would have an outside chance.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 315
    HYUFD said:

    It is a win for David Davis.

    He can claim Brexit negotiations had been to textbook and he had conceded not a single 'concrete' concession in 18 months. With his resignation still wet on the page Mrs May and the government capitulate, or drive us over cliff-edge Brexit.

    What a hero! Let's make him PM!

    Davis would be able to present himself as having been able to work with the EU but not betray his pro Brexit principles and in that sense it would probably better set him up to succeed May than staying Brexit Secretary would. I would suggest Hunt as his replacement as Brexit Secretary if Davis leaves or Gove if he is willing to compromise which is a big if, Grayling also would have an outside chance.
    That is what I am saying. The man is a Machiavellian weasel!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    FBI agent removed from Mueller investigation over anti-Trump messages

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/fbi-agent-removed-trump-investigation/index.html

    Trump is of course totally all over this on tw@tter.

    Trump’s going the distance, and if he can get the overseas profits back onshore for infrastructure spending he’s looking at a second term.

    Those desperate to get rid of him are making basic mistakes.
    Even if Trump does get a second term, not impossible if the Democrats nominate Warren, the GOP will almost certainly lose the House next year and the Senate in 2020 too and many more governorship and state assemblies. So he will be as bad for the GOP outside the Presidency as Clinton and Obama were for the Democrats.
    Oh absolutely. The Reps have got a year to pass everything they want to pass. The party of the President historically does very badly in the mid-terms, although the House looks difficult for the Dems looking at the seats that are up next year. The Senate could be R51-D49 in a couple of weeks’ time if Roy Moore loses in Alabama.
    Every seat is always up in the House so they the Dems should take that.

    As you say the Senate is a long shot considering the seats up but the Dems could even have a shot there if Jones nicks it on Tuesday week in Alabama and we will see if Cotton replaces Tillerson.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    HYUFD said:

    It is a win for David Davis.

    He can claim Brexit negotiations had been to textbook and he had conceded not a single 'concrete' concession in 18 months. With his resignation still wet on the page Mrs May and the government capitulate, or drive us over cliff-edge Brexit.

    What a hero! Let's make him PM!

    Davis would be able to present himself as having been able to work with the EU but not betray his pro Brexit principles and in that sense it would probably better set him up to succeed May than staying Brexit Secretary would. I would suggest Hunt as his replacement as Brexit Secretary if Davis leaves or Gove if he is willing to compromise which is a big if, Grayling also would have an outside chance.
    That is what I am saying. The man is a Machiavellian weasel!
    Yes, leaving as Brexit Secretary before the £50 billion is committed by May would be an ideal scenario for Davis.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    However, there are still big issues over the Porn Identity - whose is it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056

    Ministers are expected to back the first generation of small nuclear power stations in Britain with tens of millions of pounds this week, in an attempt to give the UK a competitive edge on the technology and provide a new source of clean power.

    Rolls-Royce and a host of US and Chinese companies have been lobbying and waiting for the support since George Osborne first promised them a share of £250m two years ago.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/03/mini-nuclear-power-stations-uk-government-funding

    The Swansea Tidal Barrage is also in the PM's in-tray for sign-off, as I undersand it. It would power 100,000 homes. The similar Cardiff one would power over a million. Between them, all the houses in Wales. And with no issues about what to do with the spent fuel......
  • MJWMJW Posts: 230
    I can't see Davis resigning unless he's using Green as an excuse to get out because he's begun to realise the mess we're in over Brexit, and that it's a no win situation for him - he either does the right thing by the country and takes what he can get in a severely unbalanced negotiation with the EU & gets savaged by the lunatic wing of his party and the tabloids, or walks out and goes down as the man who, fairly or unfairly, cocked up negotiations and wrecked the economy. Abandoning ship over an unrelated issue would allow him to avoid the worst of the fallout - although it might backfire in that it might reinforce the impression that he's a hothead who loves a toy throw over fairly trivial issues. I know he loves posing as a man of honour, but in that case offering to resign is enough - the PM could refuse to accept and he could withdraw saying he wanted to, but the government needs him.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    FPT: Mr. Richard, indeed.

    On-topic: there's more here than the claim. There's the conduct of police, which matters far more. Green going would legitimise police officers keeping information acquired in the course of criminal investigations and then releasing that information a decade later, after leaving the police, to prosecute a personal vendetta.

    It's extremely disturbing. Public trust in the police is essential, and this has harmed their standing significantly.

    As an aside, it's wryly amusing to watch the BBC, having acted as propaganda agents by unquestioningly broadcasting the party political on behalf of the Stasi the other day, now reporting on questions being raised over the ex-officers' decision to release such information.

    Agreed. Who would actually be upset if May stood firm, and kept Green in situ?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,321

    Ministers are expected to back the first generation of small nuclear power stations in Britain with tens of millions of pounds this week, in an attempt to give the UK a competitive edge on the technology and provide a new source of clean power.

    Rolls-Royce and a host of US and Chinese companies have been lobbying and waiting for the support since George Osborne first promised them a share of £250m two years ago.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/03/mini-nuclear-power-stations-uk-government-funding

    The Swansea Tidal Barrage is also in the PM's in-tray for sign-off, as I undersand it. It would power 100,000 homes. The similar Cardiff one would power over a million. Between them, all the houses in Wales. And with no issues about what to do with the spent fuel......
    It is a spectacular project, but the strike price they want is ridiculous. I don't see why the Government can't just sponsor the building of it and then let the power compete on the market. I'm sure there's a reason.

    Also, they should alter the plans to include the world's highest salt water fountain, going up every time the water was let in and out. Like the Jet d'eau in Geneva. The current highest is in Saudi Arabia. It would be a big tourist attraction, albeit that it would slightly reduce output.

    That's for the 35% of MPs who look at PB. You can have that idea free!
  • Sean_F said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    FPT: Mr. Richard, indeed.

    On-topic: there's more here than the claim. There's the conduct of police, which matters far more. Green going would legitimise police officers keeping information acquired in the course of criminal investigations and then releasing that information a decade later, after leaving the police, to prosecute a personal vendetta.

    It's extremely disturbing. Public trust in the police is essential, and this has harmed their standing significantly.

    As an aside, it's wryly amusing to watch the BBC, having acted as propaganda agents by unquestioningly broadcasting the party political on behalf of the Stasi the other day, now reporting on questions being raised over the ex-officers' decision to release such information.

    Agreed. Who would actually be upset if May stood firm, and kept Green in situ?
    Me, I staked some money on Green as next out at 3/1.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,411
    ‘David Davis fighting for the godgiven right to look at pornography on company time and not get sacked. Truly, he is a giant among pygmies.’

    I think there's a bit more to the story than this
  • RobD said:

    ‘David Davis fighting for the godgiven right to look at pornography on company time and not get sacked. Truly, he is a giant among pygmies.’

    I think there's a bit more to the story than this

    Yeah, David Davis looking to scarper before the Brexit shit show consumes him.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,837

    FBI agent removed from Mueller investigation over anti-Trump messages

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/fbi-agent-removed-trump-investigation/index.html

    Trump is of course totally all over this on tw@tter.

    The point being that Mueller removed him as he wants his ship as tight as possible.

    If it is used as pretext by congress to wind up the investigation or oust Mueller there will be anarchy. The New York AG is chomping at the bit to go after Trump's financials.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    RobD said:

    ‘David Davis fighting for the godgiven right to look at pornography on company time and not get sacked. Truly, he is a giant among pygmies.’

    I think there's a bit more to the story than this

    Maybe Davis has got £20 on Boris next out of cabinet and is just protecting his investment?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,411
    "There is also concern that May would be put in an invidious position if Green was cleared, allowed to keep his job and then faced further claims of a sexual nature. “What happens if someone else comes forward?” one aide asked."

    Is this seriously being advanced as a reason?

    If there is strong evidence, then Green is a goner.

    But, the fact that such a weak argument is being advanced, suggests to me that the evidence is not there.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    RobD said:

    ‘David Davis fighting for the godgiven right to look at pornography on company time and not get sacked. Truly, he is a giant among pygmies.’

    I think there's a bit more to the story than this

    Maybe Davis has got £20 on Boris next out of cabinet and is just protecting his investment?
    Wow, he knows a bookie who’ll go above £1.50.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 82

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Whether there's been boom, recession or recovery there has been a continual pressure on people reliant on benefit. It doesn't need a long study to show if you give a group of people that by definition have low income and little or no savings less money then they will need food banks more.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056

    Sean_F said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    FPT: Mr. Richard, indeed.

    On-topic: there's more here than the claim. There's the conduct of police, which matters far more. Green going would legitimise police officers keeping information acquired in the course of criminal investigations and then releasing that information a decade later, after leaving the police, to prosecute a personal vendetta.

    It's extremely disturbing. Public trust in the police is essential, and this has harmed their standing significantly.

    As an aside, it's wryly amusing to watch the BBC, having acted as propaganda agents by unquestioningly broadcasting the party political on behalf of the Stasi the other day, now reporting on questions being raised over the ex-officers' decision to release such information.

    Agreed. Who would actually be upset if May stood firm, and kept Green in situ?
    Me, I staked some money on Green as next out at 3/1.
    You hide it well. No-one could ever guess from your threads.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056

    "There is also concern that May would be put in an invidious position if Green was cleared, allowed to keep his job and then faced further claims of a sexual nature. “What happens if someone else comes forward?” one aide asked."

    Is this seriously being advanced as a reason?

    If there is strong evidence, then Green is a goner.

    But, the fact that such a weak argument is being advanced, suggests to me that the evidence is not there.

    Surely, if May thought Green was going, he wouldn't have stood in for her at PMQs?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    edited December 3

    Sean_F said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    FPT: Mr. Richard, indeed.

    On-topic: there's more here than the claim. There's the conduct of police, which matters far more. Green going would legitimise police officers keeping information acquired in the course of criminal investigations and then releasing that information a decade later, after leaving the police, to prosecute a personal vendetta.

    It's extremely disturbing. Public trust in the police is essential, and this has harmed their standing significantly.

    As an aside, it's wryly amusing to watch the BBC, having acted as propaganda agents by unquestioningly broadcasting the party political on behalf of the Stasi the other day, now reporting on questions being raised over the ex-officers' decision to release such information.

    Agreed. Who would actually be upset if May stood firm, and kept Green in situ?
    Me, I staked some money on Green as next out at 3/1.
    You hide it well. No-one could ever guess from your threads.....
    I would also be disappointed that we would be denied a series of awesome puns about Green's departure being a red light for May.
  • Sean_F said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    FPT: Mr. Richard, indeed.

    On-topic: there's more here than the claim. There's the conduct of police, which matters far more. Green going would legitimise police officers keeping information acquired in the course of criminal investigations and then releasing that information a decade later, after leaving the police, to prosecute a personal vendetta.

    It's extremely disturbing. Public trust in the police is essential, and this has harmed their standing significantly.

    As an aside, it's wryly amusing to watch the BBC, having acted as propaganda agents by unquestioningly broadcasting the party political on behalf of the Stasi the other day, now reporting on questions being raised over the ex-officers' decision to release such information.

    Agreed. Who would actually be upset if May stood firm, and kept Green in situ?
    Me, I staked some money on Green as next out at 3/1.
    You hide it well. No-one could ever guess from your threads.....
    He was rude about David Cameron, he deserves to be booted, not because the Rozzers have acted disgracefully.
  • "There is also concern that May would be put in an invidious position if Green was cleared, allowed to keep his job and then faced further claims of a sexual nature. “What happens if someone else comes forward?” one aide asked."

    Is this seriously being advanced as a reason?

    If there is strong evidence, then Green is a goner.

    But, the fact that such a weak argument is being advanced, suggests to me that the evidence is not there.

    Surely, if May thought Green was going, he wouldn't have stood in for her at PMQs?
    It would have caused more problems if he hadn't stood in for her.
  • ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    FPT: Mr. Richard, indeed.

    On-topic: there's more here than the claim. There's the conduct of police, which matters far more. Green going would legitimise police officers keeping information acquired in the course of criminal investigations and then releasing that information a decade later, after leaving the police, to prosecute a personal vendetta.

    It's extremely disturbing. Public trust in the police is essential, and this has harmed their standing significantly.

    As an aside, it's wryly amusing to watch the BBC, having acted as propaganda agents by unquestioningly broadcasting the party political on behalf of the Stasi the other day, now reporting on questions being raised over the ex-officers' decision to release such information.

    Agreed. Who would actually be upset if May stood firm, and kept Green in situ?
    Me, I staked some money on Green as next out at 3/1.
    You hide it well. No-one could ever guess from your threads.....
    I would also be disappointed that we would be denied a series of awesome puns about Green's departure being a red light for May.
    If Green's goes tomorrow or Tuesday, the PB thread headline will be 'Porn and sleaze: knocks one out of the cabinet'
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056

    "There is also concern that May would be put in an invidious position if Green was cleared, allowed to keep his job and then faced further claims of a sexual nature. “What happens if someone else comes forward?” one aide asked."

    Is this seriously being advanced as a reason?

    If there is strong evidence, then Green is a goner.

    But, the fact that such a weak argument is being advanced, suggests to me that the evidence is not there.

    Surely, if May thought Green was going, he wouldn't have stood in for her at PMQs?
    It would have caused more problems if he hadn't stood in for her.
    But it looks like she has made her decision: he stays.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. Eagles, no headline planned "It's not easy being Green"?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,315

    Ministers are expected to back the first generation of small nuclear power stations in Britain with tens of millions of pounds this week, in an attempt to give the UK a competitive edge on the technology and provide a new source of clean power.

    Rolls-Royce and a host of US and Chinese companies have been lobbying and waiting for the support since George Osborne first promised them a share of £250m two years ago.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/03/mini-nuclear-power-stations-uk-government-funding

    The Swansea Tidal Barrage is also in the PM's in-tray for sign-off, as I undersand it. It would power 100,000 homes. The similar Cardiff one would power over a million. Between them, all the houses in Wales. And with no issues about what to do with the spent fuel......
    It is a spectacular project, but the strike price they want is ridiculous. I don't see why the Government can't just sponsor the building of it and then let the power compete on the market. I'm sure there's a reason.

    Also, they should alter the plans to include the world's highest salt water fountain, going up every time the water was let in and out. Like the Jet d'eau in Geneva. The current highest is in Saudi Arabia. It would be a big tourist attraction, albeit that it would slightly reduce output.

    That's for the 35% of MPs who look at PB. You can have that idea free!
    This used to be the kind of thing I was all over (before I changed career). But

    What is the strike price? And do you know if it's on an escalator or is fixed price?

    Thanks
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,253
    edited December 3
    DM_Andy said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Whether there's been boom, recession or recovery there has been a continual pressure on people reliant on benefit. It doesn't need a long study to show if you give a group of people that by definition have low income and little or no savings less money then they will need food banks more.
    I believe that even by Trussell Trust own analysis, the vast majority of food bank users are not there because of reductions in benefits, it is due to delays in benefits payments when they first make a claim (in combination with having no savings), resulting in a cliff edge scenario.

    It is why waiting for UC for 6 weeks is particularly bad.
  • "There is also concern that May would be put in an invidious position if Green was cleared, allowed to keep his job and then faced further claims of a sexual nature. “What happens if someone else comes forward?” one aide asked."

    Is this seriously being advanced as a reason?

    If there is strong evidence, then Green is a goner.

    But, the fact that such a weak argument is being advanced, suggests to me that the evidence is not there.

    Surely, if May thought Green was going, he wouldn't have stood in for her at PMQs?
    It would have caused more problems if he hadn't stood in for her.
    But it looks like she has made her decision: he stays.
    She's in denial, The Sunday Times article says she refused the preliminary report into Green.
  • Mr. Eagles, no headline planned "It's not easy being Green"?

    It isn't very subtle, a good pun works when it is subtle, and my puns are noted for their subtlety
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896

    RobD said:

    ‘David Davis fighting for the godgiven right to look at pornography on company time and not get sacked. Truly, he is a giant among pygmies.’

    I think there's a bit more to the story than this

    Maybe Davis has got £20 on Boris next out of cabinet and is just protecting his investment?
    Surely Davis will have to know that Green is gone, before he trots along to hand in his resignation? Therefore Green will have gone first and it isn't simultaneous?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. Eagles, you're about as subtle as Basil II's policy on prisoners of war.

    Anyway, I must be off.
  • DM_Andy said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Whether there's been boom, recession or recovery there has been a continual pressure on people reliant on benefit. It doesn't need a long study to show if you give a group of people that by definition have low income and little or no savings less money then they will need food banks more.
    I believe that even by Trussell Trust own analysis, the vast majority of food bank users are not there because of reductions in benefits, it is due to delays in benefits payments when they first make a claim (in combination with having no savings), resulting in a cliff edge scenario.

    It is why waiting for UC for 6 weeks is particularly bad.
    Does anyone think the 6 week delay is a good idea ?

    Is there an actual purpose to it ?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,253

    DM_Andy said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Whether there's been boom, recession or recovery there has been a continual pressure on people reliant on benefit. It doesn't need a long study to show if you give a group of people that by definition have low income and little or no savings less money then they will need food banks more.
    I believe that even by Trussell Trust own analysis, the vast majority of food bank users are not there because of reductions in benefits, it is due to delays in benefits payments when they first make a claim (in combination with having no savings), resulting in a cliff edge scenario.

    It is why waiting for UC for 6 weeks is particularly bad.
    Does anyone think the 6 week delay is a good idea ?

    Is there an actual purpose to it ?
    I am going to guess it is probably something to do with how crap the IT system is.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,342

    "There is also concern that May would be put in an invidious position if Green was cleared, allowed to keep his job and then faced further claims of a sexual nature. “What happens if someone else comes forward?” one aide asked."

    Is this seriously being advanced as a reason?

    If there is strong evidence, then Green is a goner.

    But, the fact that such a weak argument is being advanced, suggests to me that the evidence is not there.

    Surely, if May thought Green was going, he wouldn't have stood in for her at PMQs?
    It would have caused more problems if he hadn't stood in for her.
    But it looks like she has made her decision: he stays.
    I agree , May made a point of upsetting the Police service , a couple of retired officers are not going to push her around.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,157
    To go back to something to talk about earlier, I’m quite impressed to hear that John McDonnell is wargaming the scenarios in the event of the Labour Party winning the next election. The best way to overcome the party’s poor image on economic competence is to develop some.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 396

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Such rot, as if a rise of c.3,000 to c.40,000 food packs is the same as c.40,000 to over a million (Trussell trust's figures). If increasing food bank use is just due to the passage of time we must have been on fast forward since 2010.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,632

    To go back to something to talk about earlier, I’m quite impressed to hear that John McDonnell is wargaming the scenarios in the event of the Labour Party winning the next election. The best way to overcome the party’s poor image on economic competence is to develop some.

    Sadly, they only seem to be modelling disaster situations. Runs on the pound. Market meltdowns. Cannot imagine why.

    You may wish to keep the clever-cleverness quiet for a bit.

    Maybe.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,366
    edited December 3

    DM_Andy said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Whether there's been boom, recession or recovery there has been a continual pressure on people reliant on benefit. It doesn't need a long study to show if you give a group of people that by definition have low income and little or no savings less money then they will need food banks more.
    I believe that even by Trussell Trust own analysis, the vast majority of food bank users are not there because of reductions in benefits, it is due to delays in benefits payments when they first make a claim (in combination with having no savings), resulting in a cliff edge scenario.

    It is why waiting for UC for 6 weeks is particularly bad.
    Does anyone think the 6 week delay is a good idea ?

    Is there an actual purpose to it ?
    I did read somewhere that it was supposed to approximate the gap between pay packets when changing from one job to another. That sound cruelly fuckwitted of course, but it's not to say that some bright young thing didn't think it up.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729

    Mr. Eagles, no headline planned "It's not easy being Green"?

    It isn't very subtle, a good pun works when it is subtle, and my puns are noted for their subtlety
    That would have been the most ironic statement of the week but for the 'no Jews, no racists' sign by that Momentum not-quite-an-activist (whom I see is also on Electronic Intifada, incidentally).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,411
    edited December 3

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Such rot, as if a rise of c.3,000 to c.40,000 food packs is the same as c.40,000 to over a million (Trussell trust's figures). If increasing food bank use is just due to the passage of time we must have been on fast forward since 2010.
    Is the increase correlated with the increased availability of them?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Such rot, as if a rise of c.3,000 to c.40,000 food packs is the same as c.40,000 to over a million (Trussell trust's figures). If increasing food bank use is just due to the passage of time we must have been on fast forward since 2010.
    Do you think it might have anything to do with how much more widely they are available?

    I was involved in setting up one of the early ones in 2008-9, and the demand was enormous from the off. They had been needed badly for years but Labour made it very hard to set them up. The coalition came in and encouraged their spread. That must have had some impact.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,157

    To go back to something to talk about earlier, I’m quite impressed to hear that John McDonnell is wargaming the scenarios in the event of the Labour Party winning the next election. The best way to overcome the party’s poor image on economic competence is to develop some.

    Sadly, they only seem to be modelling disaster situations. Runs on the pound. Market meltdowns. Cannot imagine why.

    You may wish to keep the clever-cleverness quiet for a bit.

    Maybe.
    Isn’t preparing for every eventuality rather the point? But credit where it is due surely. You can’t complain about people taking their job seriously surely?
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 396
    RobD said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Such rot, as if a rise of c.3,000 to c.40,000 food packs is the same as c.40,000 to over a million (Trussell trust's figures). If increasing food bank use is just due to the passage of time we must have been on fast forward since 2010.
    Is the increase correlated with the increased availability of them?
    Would be surprising if it didn't correlate. But we all know the phrase about correlation and causation.

    https://fullfact.org/economy/why-are-more-people-using-food-banks/
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756

    To go back to something to talk about earlier, I’m quite impressed to hear that John McDonnell is wargaming the scenarios in the event of the Labour Party winning the next election. The best way to overcome the party’s poor image on economic competence is to develop some.

    Sadly, they only seem to be modelling disaster situations. Runs on the pound. Market meltdowns. Cannot imagine why.

    You may wish to keep the clever-cleverness quiet for a bit.

    Maybe.
    +1

    I'm assuming McDonnell's wargaming scenarios consist of re-reading A Very British Coup and having a round table discussion about what exactly to do when the tanks circle Heathrow. If the thought of that lot in government is enough to get me to think about leaving, one can only imagine what is going through the minds of those in the establishment with a lot more than me to protect.

    Perhaps they are all buying bitcoin... :D
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 396
    ydoethur said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Such rot, as if a rise of c.3,000 to c.40,000 food packs is the same as c.40,000 to over a million (Trussell trust's figures). If increasing food bank use is just due to the passage of time we must have been on fast forward since 2010.
    Do you think it might have anything to do with how much more widely they are available?

    I was involved in setting up one of the early ones in 2008-9, and the demand was enormous from the off. They had been needed badly for years but Labour made it very hard to set them up. The coalition came in and encouraged their spread. That must have had some impact.
    I think it's probably a mixture of factors with the increase of referrals for people experiencing a crisis of income most important. What counted as high demand in 2008/9 is nothing like what food banks are dealing with now in terms of numbers.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,390
    Q. What's Damian Green's favourite breakfast cereal?

    A. Porn Flakes!

    (I thank you!)
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,342
    kyf_100 said:

    To go back to something to talk about earlier, I’m quite impressed to hear that John McDonnell is wargaming the scenarios in the event of the Labour Party winning the next election. The best way to overcome the party’s poor image on economic competence is to develop some.

    Sadly, they only seem to be modelling disaster situations. Runs on the pound. Market meltdowns. Cannot imagine why.

    You may wish to keep the clever-cleverness quiet for a bit.

    Maybe.
    +1

    I'm assuming McDonnell's wargaming scenarios consist of re-reading A Very British Coup and having a round table discussion about what exactly to do when the tanks circle Heathrow. If the thought of that lot in government is enough to get me to think about leaving, one can only imagine what is going through the minds of those in the establishment with a lot more than me to protect.

    Perhaps they are all buying bitcoin... :D
    Are you in a panic over the latest 8% lead for Labour ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729

    ydoethur said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Such rot, as if a rise of c.3,000 to c.40,000 food packs is the same as c.40,000 to over a million (Trussell trust's figures). If increasing food bank use is just due to the passage of time we must have been on fast forward since 2010.
    Do you think it might have anything to do with how much more widely they are available?

    I was involved in setting up one of the early ones in 2008-9, and the demand was enormous from the off. They had been needed badly for years but Labour made it very hard to set them up. The coalition came in and encouraged their spread. That must have had some impact.
    I think it's probably a mixture of factors with the increase of referrals for people experiencing a crisis of income most important. What counted as high demand in 2008/9 is nothing like what food banks are dealing with now in terms of numbers.
    My point being that so far as I know the demand hasn't changed where they were open at the time, but the availability has.

    I should add though that it is some time since I was actively involved in that particular food bank so my information isn't recent.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729

    Q. What's Damian Green's favourite breakfast cereal?

    A. Porn Flakes!

    (I thank you!)

    What speed does Damian Green play music?

    Largo, because he prefers things that aren't Quick.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,321
    rcs1000 said:

    Ministers are expected to back the first generation of small nuclear power stations in Britain with tens of millions of pounds this week, in an attempt to give the UK a competitive edge on the technology and provide a new source of clean power.

    Rolls-Royce and a host of US and Chinese companies have been lobbying and waiting for the support since George Osborne first promised them a share of £250m two years ago.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/03/mini-nuclear-power-stations-uk-government-funding

    The Swansea Tidal Barrage is also in the PM's in-tray for sign-off, as I undersand it. It would power 100,000 homes. The similar Cardiff one would power over a million. Between them, all the houses in Wales. And with no issues about what to do with the spent fuel......
    It is a spectacular project, but the strike price they want is ridiculous. I don't see why the Government can't just sponsor the building of it and then let the power compete on the market. I'm sure there's a reason.

    Also, they should alter the plans to include the world's highest salt water fountain, going up every time the water was let in and out. Like the Jet d'eau in Geneva. The current highest is in Saudi Arabia. It would be a big tourist attraction, albeit that it would slightly reduce output.

    That's for the 35% of MPs who look at PB. You can have that idea free!
    This used to be the kind of thing I was all over (before I changed career). But

    What is the strike price? And do you know if it's on an escalator or is fixed price?

    Thanks
    £89 per megawatt hour. And the story I read didn't mention whether it was fixed or on an escalator. It's getting on for Hinckley point prices.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,253
    MP Nadine Dorries defends 'shared password' tweet

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42216622

    I don't think this is really that odd. We know most famous people don't solely control their tw@tter etc.

    I would however hope that there would be a way of having permission based logins, such that staff can do their work, track who did what when and also enable the "boss" to remain in control.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 396
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.

    Such rot, as if a rise of c.3,000 to c.40,000 food packs is the same as c.40,000 to over a million (Trussell trust's figures). If increasing food bank use is just due to the passage of time we must have been on fast forward since 2010.
    Do you think it might have anything to do with how much more widely they are available?

    I was involved in setting up one of the early ones in 2008-9, and the demand was enormous from the off. They had been needed badly for years but Labour made it very hard to set them up. The coalition came in and encouraged their spread. That must have had some impact.
    I think it's probably a mixture of factors with the increase of referrals for people experiencing a crisis of income most important. What counted as high demand in 2008/9 is nothing like what food banks are dealing with now in terms of numbers.
    My point being that so far as I know the demand hasn't changed where they were open at the time, but the availability has.

    I should add though that it is some time since I was actively involved in that particular food bank so my information isn't recent.
    Trussell trust reckon the demand has grown much more quickly in areas as Universal Credit has been introduced. Studies (linked in the post I put up before) that have tried to account for the growth in food bank availability showed large increases in relative demand. Both of those indicate it's less a supply driven increase than one driven by demand.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756
    Yorkcity said:

    kyf_100 said:

    To go back to something to talk about earlier, I’m quite impressed to hear that John McDonnell is wargaming the scenarios in the event of the Labour Party winning the next election. The best way to overcome the party’s poor image on economic competence is to develop some.

    Sadly, they only seem to be modelling disaster situations. Runs on the pound. Market meltdowns. Cannot imagine why.

    You may wish to keep the clever-cleverness quiet for a bit.

    Maybe.
    +1

    I'm assuming McDonnell's wargaming scenarios consist of re-reading A Very British Coup and having a round table discussion about what exactly to do when the tanks circle Heathrow. If the thought of that lot in government is enough to get me to think about leaving, one can only imagine what is going through the minds of those in the establishment with a lot more than me to protect.

    Perhaps they are all buying bitcoin... :D
    Are you in a panic over the latest 8% lead for Labour ?
    FPT, I mentioned that I'd been looking at jobs overseas ever since GE2017 and some discussion ensued as to whether or not a Corbyn government would lead to a brain drain and capital flight.

    My own position is that I'd be happy to pay a little extra tax to help reduce the widening gap in society, but I genuinely fear the economic chaos a Corbyn government would lead to and think it wise to keep an eye on the exit. The fact that McDonnell is wargaming precisely these scenarios is, as BannedInParis points out, a bad sign, not a good one, of what's to come.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    I've just been watching Question Time on BBC Parliament. Varoufakis is the man!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896

    I've just been watching Question Time on BBC Parliament. Varoufakis is the man!

    Yeah, I thought he was impressive as well. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he has a way if cutting through the crap that put the rest of the panel to shame. Umunna, Gymiah and the woman from the ST were all very weak.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105

    "There is also concern that May would be put in an invidious position if Green was cleared, allowed to keep his job and then faced further claims of a sexual nature. “What happens if someone else comes forward?” one aide asked."

    Is this seriously being advanced as a reason?

    If there is strong evidence, then Green is a goner.

    But, the fact that such a weak argument is being advanced, suggests to me that the evidence is not there.

    Surely, if May thought Green was going, he wouldn't have stood in for her at PMQs?
    It would have caused more problems if he hadn't stood in for her.
    But it looks like she has made her decision: he stays.
    She's in denial, The Sunday Times article says she refused the preliminary report into Green.
    I see no downside to standing firm on this. It's not as if the public think that Damian Green is a bad man who has to be removed from politics.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    IanB2 said:

    I've just been watching Question Time on BBC Parliament. Varoufakis is the man!

    Yeah, I thought he was impressive as well. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he has a way if cutting through the crap that put the rest of the panel to shame. Umunna, Gymiah and the woman from the ST were all very weak.
    We could do with a British version to lead the Labour Party. None of our lot compares.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,498
    edited December 3
    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 396
    edited December 3
    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    Surely they should be compared to the average of ten polls previous to the general election, and not to the GE itself? Not like for like.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,498

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    Surely they should be compared to the average of ten polls previous to the general election, and not to the GE itself? Not like for like.
    Do you mean compared to the polls at the same point in the previous parliament, ie. 6 months after the 2015 election?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056

    rcs1000 said:

    Ministers are expected to back the first generation of small nuclear power stations in Britain with tens of millions of pounds this week, in an attempt to give the UK a competitive edge on the technology and provide a new source of clean power.

    Rolls-Royce and a host of US and Chinese companies have been lobbying and waiting for the support since George Osborne first promised them a share of £250m two years ago.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/03/mini-nuclear-power-stations-uk-government-funding

    The Swansea Tidal Barrage is also in the PM's in-tray for sign-off, as I undersand it. It would power 100,000 homes. The similar Cardiff one would power over a million. Between them, all the houses in Wales. And with no issues about what to do with the spent fuel......
    It is a spectacular project, but the strike price they want is ridiculous. I don't see why the Government can't just sponsor the building of it and then let the power compete on the market. I'm sure there's a reason.

    Also, they should alter the plans to include the world's highest salt water fountain, going up every time the water was let in and out. Like the Jet d'eau in Geneva. The current highest is in Saudi Arabia. It would be a big tourist attraction, albeit that it would slightly reduce output.

    That's for the 35% of MPs who look at PB. You can have that idea free!
    This used to be the kind of thing I was all over (before I changed career). But

    What is the strike price? And do you know if it's on an escalator or is fixed price?

    Thanks
    £89 per megawatt hour. And the story I read didn't mention whether it was fixed or on an escalator. It's getting on for Hinckley point prices.
    For the test-bed of Swansea. For Cardiff, I understand it is maybe 25% cheaper....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729

    Trussell trust reckon the demand has grown much more quickly in areas as Universal Credit has been introduced. Studies (linked in the post I put up before) that have tried to account for the growth in food bank availability showed large increases in relative demand. Both of those indicate it's less a supply driven increase than one driven by demand.

    Looking at the Trussell Trust report (the full version) it is ambivalent on that point. Going up from 30 to 1350 food banks in the five years from 2009 to 2014 was always going to have an impact on usage especially as many of those 30 were actually in quite affluent areas. It further states that while there is some correlation between local authority cuts and food bank use, it also admits there are studies from as far back as 2007 which suggest chronic food insecurity which had no meaningful form of redress existed even in the boom years (I'm afraid that doesn't surprise me).

    In one sense I'm less worried about their existence - anybody can suddenly have an emergency which leaves them in difficulty if they have no savings, and even on a decent wage it isn't easy to save with the housing costs the way they are. What bothers me more is that there seems to be little meaningful effort at addressing the underlying problems of chronic users of food banks. If it were me, I would have said that after three consecutive visits another service/benefit should kick in, because constant use is not what they were intended for. That's where I think the system shows itself as fundamentally broken.

    I would also add that I think the person who thought UC should be paid in arrears starting after six weeks is somebody of such low intelligence that they would fail the entrance examination for kindergarten. Heck, they might even fail to be classed as a moron on the basis that implies their IQ is a positive number. I hate to think quite how much their father had to pay the board to get them a cushy number in the Civil Service. It should be paid after one week, maximum, and then in advance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,315
    IanB2 said:

    I've just been watching Question Time on BBC Parliament. Varoufakis is the man!

    Yeah, I thought he was impressive as well. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he has a way if cutting through the crap that put the rest of the panel to shame. Umunna, Gymiah and the woman from the ST were all very weak.
    Varoufakis gets a number of things absolutely right: in particular, he's correct about the a basic income distorting incentives less.

    But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)

    Savings and debt are mechanisms for the time transfer of work. When I save, I let somebody consume my share of this year's production, in return for getting some additional share of future production. When I borrow, I am consuming more of this year's production, in return for giving up some of my own production at some point in the future.

    When you absolve someone of their debts, you are both saying "you do not have to give up a portion of your future production", and you are telling someone else "you have handed over a portion of your past production, and you will no longer receive a portion of somebody else's future production". Varoufakis gets the first part of the proposition, but fails to understand that it must imply the second.

    The Varoufakis worldview is that borrowing and savings are entirely separate things, when they are just different sides of the same coin.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,498
    edited December 3
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
    Contrary to received punditry, that seems to be the case.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    edited December 3
    rcs1000 said:

    But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)

    That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,315
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
    Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I've just been watching Question Time on BBC Parliament. Varoufakis is the man!

    Yeah, I thought he was impressive as well. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he has a way if cutting through the crap that put the rest of the panel to shame. Umunna, Gymiah and the woman from the ST were all very weak.
    Varoufakis gets a number of things absolutely right: in particular, he's correct about the a basic income distorting incentives less.

    But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)

    Savings and debt are mechanisms for the time transfer of work. When I save, I let somebody consume my share of this year's production, in return for getting some additional share of future production. When I borrow, I am consuming more of this year's production, in return for giving up some of my own production at some point in the future.

    When you absolve someone of their debts, you are both saying "you do not have to give up a portion of your future production", and you are telling someone else "you have handed over a portion of your past production, and you will no longer receive a portion of somebody else's future production". Varoufakis gets the first part of the proposition, but fails to understand that it must imply the second.

    The Varoufakis worldview is that borrowing and savings are entirely separate things, when they are just different sides of the same coin.
    Somehow I think the Chinese understand.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,371
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
    ... but it's not very large.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
    ... but it's not very large.
    Enough to make the difference between Labour being the largest party rather than the Tories.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
    Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
    So UKIP still stood in more than half the 650 seats at the 2017 general election and an even higher percentage once you exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland where they stood the fewest candidates.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)

    That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
    US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056

    To go back to something to talk about earlier, I’m quite impressed to hear that John McDonnell is wargaming the scenarios in the event of the Labour Party winning the next election. The best way to overcome the party’s poor image on economic competence is to develop some.

    Depending on the outcome of those wargames.

    "Strange game.

    The only winning move is not to play...."


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)

    That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
    US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
    Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.

    Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
    Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
    The trouble with Brexit meaning different things to different groups is that the Tories may well find that their version of Brexit agrees with nobody.

    GE2022 doesn't look good. The remainers will, of course, vote against the Tories. The ultra hard line Brexiteers may vote UKIP if any kind of concession is made to the EU. 'Soft' leavers may change their mind once hard Brexit becomes a reality. And the version of Brexit the Tories are pursuing (with a heavy focus on ending immigration above all else) may appeal largely to a working class who would consider it an act of class betrayal to vote Conservative anyway.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 59,709
    edited December 3
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)

    That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
    US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
    Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.

    Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
    Dubya's comment was taken out of context?

    Wasn't he speaking as Governor of Texas and talking about imports into Texas, versus from the rest of America and rest of the world?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896
    kyf_100 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
    Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
    The trouble with Brexit meaning different things to different groups is that the Tories may well find that their version of Brexit agrees with nobody.

    GE2022 doesn't look good. The remainers will, of course, vote against the Tories. The ultra hard line Brexiteers may vote UKIP if any kind of concession is made to the EU. 'Soft' leavers may change their mind once hard Brexit becomes a reality. And the version of Brexit the Tories are pursuing (with a heavy focus on ending immigration above all else) may appeal largely to a working class who would consider it an act of class betrayal to vote Conservative anyway.
    Yep. As I said earlier, the Tories' problem is that there aren't enough people who want Brexit but don't want socialism. And that the former are decreasing as the reality of Brexit starts to dawn on people, whereas the latter is increasing as each age cohort of 18-year olds joins the register and the middle aged cohort that used to abandon Labour when they bought their house aren't, because they can't.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    edited December 3

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)

    That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
    US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
    Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.

    Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
    Dubya's comment actually taken out of context?

    Wasn't he speaking as Governor of Texas and talking about imports into Texas, versus from the rest of America and rest of the world?
    I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. Texas of course as one of only two states to have had an independent existence (and the only one that lasted more than a week) has always seen itself a bit differently (hence 'Lone Star State') so it seems possible.

    Edit - that would then leave 'when you say you're going to do something and then don't do it, that's trustworthiness,' as his finest gaffe.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 396
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    Surely they should be compared to the average of ten polls previous to the general election, and not to the GE itself? Not like for like.
    Do you mean compared to the polls at the same point in the previous parliament, ie. 6 months after the 2015 election?
    I mean it makes zero sense to compare the average of the last ten polls to the actual result of the GE. You would need to compare them to what they predicted for the GE with the same methodology to be a meaningful comparison, and even that would have problems if they've got the weightings wrong.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,315
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
    Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
    So UKIP still stood in more than half the 650 seats at the 2017 general election and an even higher percentage once you exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland where they stood the fewest candidates.
    In the seats they stood, they averaged 4.4%. Assume they wouldn't stand in Northern Ireland under any circumstances, but that in the rest of the country they'd average 2% (which is probably an understatement).

    This means the true level of support for UKIP in 2017 was 3.1%.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 570
    Sean_F said:


    US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.

    In both cases it's a public excuse - I doubt many really believe it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105
    IanB2 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
    Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
    The trouble with Brexit meaning different things to different groups is that the Tories may well find that their version of Brexit agrees with nobody.

    GE2022 doesn't look good. The remainers will, of course, vote against the Tories. The ultra hard line Brexiteers may vote UKIP if any kind of concession is made to the EU. 'Soft' leavers may change their mind once hard Brexit becomes a reality. And the version of Brexit the Tories are pursuing (with a heavy focus on ending immigration above all else) may appeal largely to a working class who would consider it an act of class betrayal to vote Conservative anyway.
    Yep. As I said earlier, the Tories' problem is that there aren't enough people who want Brexit but don't want socialism. And that the former are decreasing as the reality of Brexit starts to dawn on people, whereas the latter is increasing as each age cohort of 18-year olds joins the register and the middle aged cohort that used to abandon Labour when they bought their house aren't, because they can't.
    IMO, there are a lot of people who want Brexit, but don't want socialism.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896
    edited December 3

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    Surely they should be compared to the average of ten polls previous to the general election, and not to the GE itself? Not like for like.
    Do you mean compared to the polls at the same point in the previous parliament, ie. 6 months after the 2015 election?
    I mean it makes zero sense to compare the average of the last ten polls to the actual result of the GE. You would need to compare them to what they predicted for the GE with the same methodology to be a meaningful comparison, and even that would have problems if they've got the weightings wrong.
    Even that is wrong, because people respond differently to pollsters when the "if there is an election.." question is hypothetical and distant, than they do when there is an impending real decision to make. This of course explains why oppositions poll higher in mid-term and drop back as the election approaches - a "rule" that was broken this year.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896
    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):

    Lab 41.3%
    Con 39.5%
    LD 7.3%
    UKIP 4.2%
    Greens 2.5%

    Changes from the general election:

    Lab +0.3%
    Con -4.0%
    LD -0.3%
    UKIP +2.3%
    Greens +0.8%

    So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
    Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
    The trouble with Brexit meaning different things to different groups is that the Tories may well find that their version of Brexit agrees with nobody.

    GE2022 doesn't look good. The remainers will, of course, vote against the Tories. The ultra hard line Brexiteers may vote UKIP if any kind of concession is made to the EU. 'Soft' leavers may change their mind once hard Brexit becomes a reality. And the version of Brexit the Tories are pursuing (with a heavy focus on ending immigration above all else) may appeal largely to a working class who would consider it an act of class betrayal to vote Conservative anyway.
    Yep. As I said earlier, the Tories' problem is that there aren't enough people who want Brexit but don't want socialism. And that the former are decreasing as the reality of Brexit starts to dawn on people, whereas the latter is increasing as each age cohort of 18-year olds joins the register and the middle aged cohort that used to abandon Labour when they bought their house aren't, because they can't.
    IMO, there are a lot of people who want Brexit, but don't want socialism.
    but not enough to give the Tories a majority.
This discussion has been closed.