Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This could be the start of a Stop Gavin succeeding Theresa mov

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited December 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This could be the start of a Stop Gavin succeeding Theresa move

This Times story looks like an attempt to rubbish ex-Chief Whip now Defence Sec Gavin ("Private Pike") Williamsonhttps://t.co/ETaqLipzW8 pic.twitter.com/FGzJbzS7TM

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,709
    If it ever occurred to him to think that it was even remotely appropriate or possible to offer a cabinet position to the DUP, then he a dangerously preposterous and nincompoopismatic nang-bandit. It was bad enough that Mrs May seems to have assumed that the DUP deal was secure before it actually was, and that she was premature in thinking that the DUP was behind the Brexit border fudge, but this is a level of presumptuous stupidity way beyond that level. I cannot understand how he managed to wangle the position of Defence Secretary instead of (for example) Rory Stewart, let alone that he could possibly be a suitable candidate for PM. If he ever becomes leader of the Conservative Party, the Queen should use her own initiative to appoint somebody else as PM instead.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,802
    JohnLoony said:

    If it ever occurred to him to think that it was even remotely appropriate or possible to offer a cabinet position to the DUP, then he a dangerously preposterous and nincompoopismatic nang-bandit. It was bad enough that Mrs May seems to have assumed that the DUP deal was secure before it actually was, and that she was premature in thinking that the DUP was behind the Brexit border fudge, but this is a level of presumptuous stupidity way beyond that level. I cannot understand how he managed to wangle the position of Defence Secretary instead of (for example) Rory Stewart, let alone that he could possibly be a suitable candidate for PM. If he ever becomes leader of the Conservative Party, the Queen should use her own initiative to appoint somebody else as PM instead.

    Or alternatively, the story’s bollox
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,802
    edited December 2017
    I mean, really, how plausible is it, that May’s trusted negotiator, given a brief to negotiate a supply and confidence deal, takes it upon himself to negotiate a full coalition? Nominating an existing Govt minister for the sack in the process. And a post which would be completely unsuited to the DUP anyway. And did so “secretly” as well.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,137
    alex. said:

    I mean, really, how plausible is it, that May’s trusted negotiator, given a brief to negotiate a supply and confidence deal, takes it upon himself to negotiate a full coalition? Nominating an existing Govt minister for the sack in the process. And a post which would be completely unsuited to the DUP anyway. And did so “secretly” as well.

    Moderately plausible. He does not appear to be a man underburdened with misplaced self-confidence....

    Root seems to have lost faith in his offspinner.
    A couple of tests later than the rest of us.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,137
    Curran looks an honest and committed test bowler.
    But unexciting.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,802
    George Osborne to be interviewed on the Today programme about the EU referendum later this morning.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,802
    Christmas day was officially a white Christmas.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640
    alex. said:

    I mean, really, how plausible is it, that May’s trusted negotiator, given a brief to negotiate a supply and confidence deal, takes it upon himself to negotiate a full coalition? Nominating an existing Govt minister for the sack in the process. And a post which would be completely unsuited to the DUP anyway. And did so “secretly” as well.

    Exactly. For the Tories, there are advantages in a coalition over a C&S. As far as the story is concerned, either its rubbish, or the idea would have had May's approval from the beginning. In either case, as the lead identifies, the key question is why it should surface now. Maybe the target is Willamson, maybe it isn't? What's the biggest recent 'development' in government? It is not that Williamson has somehow managed to position himself as the heir apparent - but that people are suddenly talking about many years more of May.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640

    Christmas day was officially a white Christmas.

    Only on top of some faraway hill.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,802
    IanB2 said:

    Christmas day was officially a white Christmas.

    Only on top of some faraway hill.
    Good enough for those who bet on it.
  • My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Hope you all got nice presents.

    Mr. Meeks, I do wonder how WIlliamson and Hunt will end up getting on.
  • Sensible idea from Johnson. Jo, of course:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42481329

    Very refreshing to hear a politician stick up for free speech.
  • Sensible idea from Johnson. Jo, of course:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42481329

    Very refreshing to hear a politician stick up for free speech.

    As long as Johnson is not in practice sticking up for more potentially violent demonstrations against speakers who at the moment would not be invited in the first place. I'd have thought more of a worry was the privileged prats looking to make names for themselves by opposing the past. No, it looks like Johnson, Jo is indulging in cash-free headline-making rather than addressing any serious issues in his department. I wonder from whom could have learned that.
  • Mr. L, free speech is under constant attack from authoritarians, religious types, and the terminally over-sensitive. Even if Jo Johnson is just after a headline, it's nice to hear a politician actually supporting it.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,424
    edited December 2017
    Nigelb said:

    Curran looks an honest and committed test bowler.
    But unexciting.

    Huh, on that pitch no bowler is likely to look exciting .. unless he is Australian ;)
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,409
    If he really believed in civil liberties not statist intervention in higher education he'd stop sticking his nose in and let the universities decide their own policies. Nobody has to attend a particular university if they don't like those policies..
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,725
    alex. said:

    I mean, really, how plausible is it, that May’s trusted negotiator, given a brief to negotiate a supply and confidence deal, takes it upon himself to negotiate a full coalition? Nominating an existing Govt minister for the sack in the process. And a post which would be completely unsuited to the DUP anyway. And did so “secretly” as well.

    What post would be suitable for the DUP?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,409

    alex. said:

    I mean, really, how plausible is it, that May’s trusted negotiator, given a brief to negotiate a supply and confidence deal, takes it upon himself to negotiate a full coalition? Nominating an existing Govt minister for the sack in the process. And a post which would be completely unsuited to the DUP anyway. And did so “secretly” as well.

    What post would be suitable for the DUP?
    In a perfect world: whipping or last.
  • Good luck to those braving the sales today.

    Except for those going to stock up on wrapping paper and Christmas cards ready for next year - far too organised!

    I'm still recovering from the shock of getting the final answer in the crossword - but only after some clues from stjohn - how does anyone's brain work in that way?!?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,948

    Sensible idea from Johnson. Jo, of course:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42481329

    Very refreshing to hear a politician stick up for free speech.

    David Milliband, Ed Miliband. Boris Johnson, Jo Johnson.
  • IanB2 said:

    Christmas day was officially a white Christmas.

    Only on top of some faraway hill.
    Good enough for those who bet on it.
    I'd check the small print in case it specifies a weather station in one of the warmer parts of the country.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,214
    Dura_Ace said:

    If he really believed in civil liberties not statist intervention in higher education he'd stop sticking his nose in and let the universities decide their own policies. Nobody has to attend a particular university if they don't like those policies..

    On that basis the state should cease funding them completely. Let the market decide their fate.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    Why would this discredit him? After the Coalition with thee Lib Dem’s it seems a fairly natural step if you wanted a, ahem, strong and stable government for the Parliament. It’s more interesting that the DUP didn’t take it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    Jo Johnson is looking like Alan Tudyk on the bbc news page.
  • Obviously you and all PBers know that is a satirical site but we should warn any passing journalists lest the story leads Wednesday's Times.
  • Jonathan said:

    Sensible idea from Johnson. Jo, of course:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42481329

    Very refreshing to hear a politician stick up for free speech.

    David Milliband, Ed Miliband. Boris Johnson, Jo Johnson.
    Elizabeth Windsor, Charles Windsor, William Windsor, George Windsor.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited December 2017

    My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.

    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something. Though I think succeeding May might be a leadership contest too early as a no nonsense Northerner from a pretty ordinary background who previoudly worked in the pottery industry he has a good backstory too
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640
    HYUFD said:

    My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.

    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something. Though I think succeeding May might be a leadership contest too early as s no nonsense Northerner from a pretty ordinary background he has a good backstory too
    I suspect May is lining him up for potential succession in 2020/1. The old lags who see their last chance slipping away will have their eye on how to get rid of May next year. If they can achieve this they have no need to worry about the next generation, for whom (since the Tories don't have the luxury of opposition to learn up someone new) it is clearly too early.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.

    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something. Though I think succeeding May might be a leadership contest too early as s no nonsense Northerner from a pretty ordinary background he has a good backstory too
    At least a couple of names beyond the regular (Boris, Davis, Rudd) or implausible (JRM) are now being floated, with Hunt and Williamson. I'd guess the latter two have a better chance if May hangs around, and as noted that seems more likely now hence both being more of a threat to the more senior figures.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640
    DavidL said:

    Why would this discredit him? After the Coalition with thee Lib Dem’s it seems a fairly natural step if you wanted a, ahem, strong and stable government for the Parliament. It’s more interesting that the DUP didn’t take it.

    What minor party is going to want a coalition with the Tories now?
  • The start?

    It started the moment he promoted himself to Defence Secretary.

    There’s also the touch of David Miliband about him which isn’t a good look.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited December 2017
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.

    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something. Though I think succeeding May might be a leadership contest too early as s no nonsense Northerner from a pretty ordinary background he has a good backstory too
    I suspect May is lining him up for potential succession in 2020/1. The old lags who see their last chance slipping away will have their eye on how to get rid of May next year. If they can achieve this they have no need to worry about the next generation, for whom (since the Tories don't have the luxury of opposition to learn up someone new) it is clearly too early.
    Quite possible, I think May wants to hand over at the end of the transition period in 2021. Old lags will wait until Brexit in April 2019 and then maybe try if the local elections are poor in May which they may well be given they were last up in 2015, a good year for the Tories as they were up at the same time as the general election they won a majority in unlike 2014 whose seats are up next year when May might do relatively better
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited December 2017
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.

    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something. Though I think succeeding May might be a leadership contest too early as s no nonsense Northerner from a pretty ordinary background he has a good backstory too
    At least a couple of names beyond the regular (Boris, Davis, Rudd) or implausible (JRM) are now being floated, with Hunt and Williamson. I'd guess the latter two have a better chance if May hangs around, and as noted that seems more likely now hence both being more of a threat to the more senior figures.
    Hunt is of the same generation as Boris anyway, Williamson though is the first of the younger generation to get a significant Cabinet post.

    JRM is only implausible because not enough MPs may nominate him, if he got to the membership vote he would be very plausible
  • This senior official isn’t Damian Green is it?

    Green was in on in the talks and Gavin Williamson was reported to be urging Mrs May to sack Green.
  • Williamson gives every impression of being a bog standard Tory minister who believes that his principal job is to get positive headlines in the Daily Mail. But he does have a decent back story that sets him apart from many of his colleages. Can’t help thinking, though, that if the Tories are going to skip a generation they should be able to do a lot better.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.

    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something. Though I think succeeding May might be a leadership contest too early as s no nonsense Northerner from a pretty ordinary background he has a good backstory too
    At least a couple of names beyond the regular (Boris, Davis, Rudd) or implausible (JRM) are now being floated, with Hunt and Williamson. I'd guess the latter two have a better chance if May hangs around, and as noted that seems more likely now hence both being more of a threat to the more senior figures.
    Hunt is of the same generation as Boris anyway, Williamson though is the first of the younger generation to get a significant Cabinet post.

    JRM is only implausible because not enough MPs may nominate him, if he got to the membership vote he would be very plausible
    Hunt is of the same generation but only recently whispered as a leadership possibility, I think that more significant in terms of 'new' names emerging.

    As for your JRM point, you're basically saying 'if you ignore the reasons he's implausible, he's plausible'. It's true, but that line would work on anyone for anything.
  • HYUFD said:
    Neither Obama went to the wedding of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606

    HYUFD said:
    Neither Obama went to the wedding of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
    Maybe there'll be more spaces available and he can invite the Trumps and the Obamas, that's be funny - perhaps fewer foreign royals need to be invited as he is merely a second son.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.

    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something. Though I think succeeding May might be a leadership contest too early as s no nonsense Northerner from a pretty ordinary background he has a good backstory too
    At least a couple of names beyond the regular (Boris, Davis, Rudd) or implausible (JRM) are now being floated, with Hunt and Williamson. I'd guess the latter two have a better chance if May hangs around, and as noted that seems more likely now hence both being more of a threat to the more senior figures.
    Hunt is of the same generation as Boris anyway, Williamson though is the first of the younger generation to get a significant Cabinet post.

    JRM is only implausible because not enough MPs may nominate him, if he got to the membership vote he would be very plausible
    Hunt is of the same generation but only recently whispered as a leadership possibility, I think that more significant in terms of 'new' names emerging.

    As for your JRM point, you're basically saying 'if you ignore the reasons he's implausible, he's plausible'. It's true, but that line would work on anyone for anything.
    Hunt is 51, the same generation as Boris who is 53, Williamson is 41 and of a different generation.

    JRM is not implausible if he gets to the membership and given Leadsom got to the final 2 before she pulled out it is not impossible there are enough hard Brexiteer MPs to get him that far
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    Sensible idea from Johnson. Jo, of course:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42481329

    Very refreshing to hear a politician stick up for free speech.

    Fining universities for not inviting speakers they choose not to invite is limiting free speech. The idea that there should be a govt imposed standard of who should be invited to speak in your home or university is more Communist than Conservative.

    Of course Jo Johnson knows this and is only looking for a headline and a more positive impression from people such as yourself.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.

    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something. Though I think succeeding May might be a leadership contest too early as s no nonsense Northerner from a pretty ordinary background he has a good backstory too
    At least a couple of names beyond the regular (Boris, Davis, Rudd) or implausible (JRM) are now being floated, with Hunt and Williamson. I'd guess the latter two have a better chance if May hangs around, and as noted that seems more likely now hence both being more of a threat to the more senior figures.
    Hunt is of the same generation as Boris anyway, Williamson though is the first of the younger generation to get a significant Cabinet post.

    JRM is only implausible because not enough MPs may nominate him, if he got to the membership vote he would be very plausible
    Hunt is of the same generation but only recently whispered as a leadership possibility, I think that more significant in terms of 'new' names emerging.

    As for your JRM point, you're basically saying 'if you ignore the reasons he's implausible, he's plausible'. It's true, but that line would work on anyone for anything.
    There is nothing plausible about JRM, except as a great bet for a lay.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640
    In other news.... Brexit studies were 'being prepared' a year before Davis said they didn't exist
    Response to Freedom of Information request reveals Brexit department claimed to be preparing impact assessments in November 2016
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,137

    Nigelb said:

    Curran looks an honest and committed test bowler.
    But unexciting.

    Huh, on that pitch no bowler is likely to look exciting .. unless he is Australian ;)
    Broad managed it ..... for about an over.
  • kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Neither Obama went to the wedding of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
    Maybe there'll be more spaces available and he can invite the Trumps and the Obamas, that's be funny - perhaps fewer foreign royals need to be invited as he is merely a second son.
    All this brouhaha could be avoided if Prince Harry, The Prince of Wales, and James Hewitt went on The Jeremy Kyle Show and had a DNA test.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.

    Quite a few Toound he has a good backstory too
    At least a coupeems more likely now hence both being more of a threat to the more senior figures.
    Hunt is of the same generation as Boris anyway, Williamson though is the first of the younger generation to get a significant Cabinet post.

    JRM is only implausible because not enough MPs may nominate him, if he got to the membership vote he would be very plausible
    Hunt is of thng.

    As for your JRM point, you're basically saying 'if you ignore the reasons he's implausible, he's plausible'. It's true, but that line would work on anyone for anything.
    Hunt is 51, the same generation as Boris who is 53, Williamson is 41 and of a different generation.

    JRM is not implausible if he gets to the membership and given Leadsom got to the final 2 before she pulled out it is not impossible there are enough hard Brexiteer MPs to get him that far
    Did you actually ready what I wrote, HYUFD? Genuine question, as you seem to be responding to points I never raised. I never said Hunt was not of the same generation as Boris, I stated I thought that that he has not, until recently, been considered as leadership material, to be a more significant factor. In fact I explicitly said 'Hunt is of the same generation' so I am baffled as to why you've repeated that point as though I contested it.

    Similarly, I never claimed JRM would not be implausible if he did get through to the final two, I was pointing out that you yourself said his getting through to the final two was implausible (though as you point out now, not impossible), which made your logic very strange, since any judgement of anyone's plausibility has to be considered in the context of the rules and situation, which includes the leadership contest rules. Anyone can be considered plausible if you exclude the reasons that make them implausible. David Miliband is plausible, if you ignore that he is not an MP, and all the rest. For the record, that is the reason I considered JRM implausible.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Why would this discredit him? After the Coalition with thee Lib Dem’s it seems a fairly natural step if you wanted a, ahem, strong and stable government for the Parliament. It’s more interesting that the DUP didn’t take it.

    What minor party is going to want a coalition with the Tories now?
    Well the obvious one is one that is secure in its own territory where the Tories are not a threat. Like the DUP.

    Some of their support, albeit distorted by the weird machinations of Ulster politics is a bit to the left of the Tories but will such supporters really distinguish between coalition and supply and confidence? That is a distinction which would be lost on 95%+ of the population.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640

    IanB2 said:

    Christmas day was officially a white Christmas.

    Only on top of some faraway hill.
    Good enough for those who bet on it.
    Official white crimbo is the Met Office roof in London, where a snowflake is very unlikely to survive, the bets being great ones for the bookies almost every year. This year I did see one of the platforms offering a range of other locations, but they were all major cities, not Cumbrian hilltops.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    IanB2 said:

    In other news.... Brexit studies were 'being prepared' a year before Davis said they didn't exist
    Response to Freedom of Information request reveals Brexit department claimed to be preparing impact assessments in November 2016

    Sectoral assessments have already been released, just not forecasts
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400

    Christmas day was officially a white Christmas.

    Just rain here but pretty cold. The days running up to Christmas were unseasonably warm which was a nuisance. We normally use our conservatory as a super large fridge to store the Christmas goodies in but it was just too warm this year.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    DavidL said:

    Christmas day was officially a white Christmas.

    Just rain here but pretty cold. The days running up to Christmas were unseasonably warm which was a nuisance. We normally use our conservatory as a super large fridge to store the Christmas goodies in but it was just too warm this year.
    Some torrential rain here in the West Country - haven't seen such intense rain in years.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    My non-political other half spontaneously told me this morning that he liked Gavin Williamson because he is "no nonsense". (He likes very few politicians - he's sympathetic to Theresa May's problems but I'm not sure he rates her. He loathes lots of them: for example, Boris Johnson is "that muttonhead".) I hadn't really considered his leadership chances before but if he has made an impression on my other half I will have to consider the possibility properly.

    Quite a few Toound he has a good backstory too
    At least a couple of names beyond the regular (Boris, Davis, Rudd) es.
    Hunt is of the same generation as Boris anyway, Williamson though is the first of the younger generation to get a significant Cabinet post.

    JRM is only implausible because not enough MPs may nominate him, if he got to the membership vote he would be very plausible
    Hunt is of the same generation but only recently whispered as a leadership possibility, I think that more significant in terms of 'new' names emerging.

    As for your JRM point, you're basically saying 'if you ignore the reasons he's implausible, he's plausible'. It's true, but that line would work on anyone for anything.
    Hunt is 51, the same generation as Boris who is 53, Williamson is Brexiteer MPs to get him that far
    Did you actually ready what I wrote, HYUFD? Genuine question, as you seem to be responding to points I never raised. I never said Hunt was not of the same generation as Boris, I stated I thought that that he has not, until recently, been considered as leadership material, to be a more significant factor. In fact I explicitly said 'Hunt is of the same generation' so I am baffled as to why you've repeated that point as though I contested it.

    Similarly, I never claimed JRM would not be implausible if he did get through to the final two, I was pointing out that you yourself said his getting through to the final two was implausible (though as you point out now, not impossible), which made your logic very strange, since any judgement of anyone's plausibility has to be considered in the context of the rules and situation, which includes the leadership contest rules. For the record, that is the reason I consider him implausible.
    If new names are going to be added to really challenge the established names, they will mainly come from the younger generation like Williamson.

    I was really pointing out that JRM is only implausible if you think he has no chance of getting through to the final 2 and even that is not beyond the bounds of possibility
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,409
    HYUFD said:



    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something.

    He obviously has no real interest in actually improving the defence capabilities of the country as the two cuts he has thus far opposed were actually good ideas. Getting rid of amphibious capability is worthy as the casualties involved in a genuine amphibious assault are now politically unthinkable. Cutting the numbers of the Royal Marines and returning them to their original, and now neglected, role of maritime security is also a good idea. At the moment they are just another undermanned and partially trained infantry battalions and we've already got plenty of those.

    So not cutting those capabilities will have to be made up elsewhere. Probably by not renovating shitty housing and deferring pay rises. Again.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    Got yet another demonstration of how far away from the real world PB is yesterday. We were playing a family game after dinner and you had to name 3 of whatever was asked in 5 seconds. You had an option to switch once if you got an impossible topic. One of the teams, an adult and 2 teenagers, got the option of naming 3 members of the cabinet.

    They immediately switched. Who could possibly know or want to know that? Pretty much everyone else in the room agreed although I did get the odd pitying glance. Such odd hobbies I have. Nice to be back here really.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,802
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:



    At least a coupeems more likely now hence both being more of a threat to the more senior figures.

    Hunt is of the same generation as Boris anyway, Williamson though is the first of the younger generation to get a significant Cabinet post.

    JRM is only implausible because not enough MPs may nominate him, if he got to the membership vote he would be very plausible
    Hunt is of thng.

    As for your JRM point, you're basically saying 'if you ignore the reasons he's implausible, he's plausible'. It's true, but that line would work on anyone for anything.
    Hunt is 51, the same generation as Boris who is 53, Williamson is 41 and of a different generation.

    JRM is not implausible if he gets to the membership and given Leadsom got to the final 2 before she pulled out it is not impossible there are enough hard Brexiteer MPs to get him that far
    Did you actually ready what I wrote, HYUFD? Genuine question, as you seem to be responding to points I never raised. I never said Hunt was not of the same generation as Boris, I stated I thought that that he has not, until recently, been considered as leadership material, to be a more significant factor. In fact I explicitly said 'Hunt is of the same generation' so I am baffled as to why you've repeated that point as though I contested it.

    Similarly, I never claimed JRM would not be implausible if he did get through to the final two, I was pointing out that you yourself said his getting through to the final two was implausible (though as you point out now, not impossible), which made your logic very strange, since any judgement of anyone's plausibility has to be considered in the context of the rules and situation, which includes the leadership contest rules. Anyone can be considered plausible if you exclude the reasons that make them implausible. David Miliband is plausible, if you ignore that he is not an MP, and all the rest. For the record, that is the reason I considered JRM implausible.
    It’s not actually as simple to keep individuals off the ballot as people make out. Mainly because it potentially involves tactical voting stitch ups, which is often detrimental to the leading candidate - as they will be the ones “lending” votes. IDS famously did this to ensure he faced Clarke in 2001 and nearly screwed himself out of the contest completely. Any leading candidate will want to present themselves as the overwhelming choice of the PP, and ideally force the 2nd candidate to stand down. Albeit that is perhaps less likely to happen after the last time.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:



    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something.

    He obviously has no real interest in actually improving the defence capabilities of the country as the two cuts he has thus far opposed were actually good ideas. Getting rid of amphibious capability is worthy as the casualties involved in a genuine amphibious assault are now politically unthinkable. Cutting the numbers of the Royal Marines and returning them to their original, and now neglected, role of maritime security is also a good idea. At the moment they are just another undermanned and partially trained infantry battalions and we've already got plenty of those.

    So not cutting those capabilities will have to be made up elsewhere. Probably by not renovating shitty housing and deferring pay rises. Again.
    Pay rises for soldiers strikes me as a very vulnerable point for the Tories and an opening for Corbyn to look more patriotic.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Gavin Williamson at the time of writing is almost certainly the right man to succeed Theresa May rather than the old Dinosaurs usually touted. Unless someone else, younger, fresher emerges in the next few years. And he would beat Corbyn in a general election, and thus save the Labour party from Corbyn.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    stevef said:

    Gavin Williamson at the time of writing is almost certainly the right man to succeed Theresa May rather than the old Dinosaurs usually touted. Unless someone else, younger, fresher emerges in the next few years. And he would beat Corbyn in a general election, and thus save the Labour party from Corbyn.

    Whenever I have seen him interviewed, and that is not often in fairness, he has come across as incoherent and inarticulate. It seemed to me that Chief Whip was a good job for him. He is clearly clever, manipulative and some sort of a deal maker but he makes Mrs May look like a modern day Cicero. The Tories really need to do better than that.
  • Mr. rkrkrk, sadly, military stuff isn't much of a vote-winner.

    For anyone who is into that, I think Corbyn's history will put them off.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    In other news.... Brexit studies were 'being prepared' a year before Davis said they didn't exist
    Response to Freedom of Information request reveals Brexit department claimed to be preparing impact assessments in November 2016

    Sectoral assessments have already been released, just not forecasts
    Apparently our fisheries are mostly based in ports. You can see why we were reluctant to release such state secrets!

    I take it that the Christmas truce is over and the Brexit artillery can resume. :)
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    Mr. rkrkrk, sadly, military stuff isn't much of a vote-winner.

    For anyone who is into that, I think Corbyn's history will put them off.

    It’s a weakness I think Corbyn can neutralise. A future Labour leader may also exploit this angle.

    Also If he does manage to talk the Labour Party round on Trident then rather than offering the money to the NHS- he should say it will be used to properly equip our military...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,131
    alex. said:

    I mean, really, how plausible is it, that May’s trusted negotiator, given a brief to negotiate a supply and confidence deal, takes it upon himself to negotiate a full coalition? Nominating an existing Govt minister for the sack in the process. And a post which would be completely unsuited to the DUP anyway. And did so “secretly” as well.

    More likely he floated it as an idea (possibly internally) rather than offered it.

    But since Williamson is so disliked it makes him the perfect opponent to Hunt...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,695
    edited December 2017
    Boris might have been written off too early. Yes. it may be common currency that the man is a bumbling fool and a national embarrassment on the world stage but if the Tories are behind in the polls or even in opposition when the contest is called, then his USP remains that he has won two mayoral elections and one referendum which is more than any of his likely opponents can manage unless Ruth Davidson is in parliament by then.

    Edit: I'm not saying back him now, but keep him in mind when the vacancy does arise.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:



    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something.

    He obviously has no real interest in actually improving the defence capabilities of the country as the two cuts he has thus far opposed were actually good ideas. Getting rid of amphibious capability is worthy as the casualties involved in a genuine amphibious assault are now politically unthinkable. Cutting the numbers of the Royal Marines and returning them to their original, and now neglected, role of maritime security is also a good idea. At the moment they are just another undermanned and partially trained infantry battalions and we've already got plenty of those.

    So not cutting those capabilities will have to be made up elsewhere. Probably by not renovating shitty housing and deferring pay rises. Again.
    I agree that a contested beach landing is pretty much inconceivable but we will undoubtedly miss HMS Ocean when she is decommissioned next year. It seems to me that is what the Royal Marines should be for, to allow us to project ground forces from a flexible platform whether for security, aid or peacekeeping purposes.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,131
    Dura_Ace said:

    If he really believed in civil liberties not statist intervention in higher education he'd stop sticking his nose in and let the universities decide their own policies. Nobody has to attend a particular university if they don't like those policies..

    I disagree.

    It is very easy for the mob to pick off one institution at a time. Sometimes a convoy is the best approach - and they need to know they have the government's backing
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640
    edited December 2017
    alex. said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:



    At least a coupeems more likely now hence both being more of a threat to the more senior figures.


    Hunt is of thng.

    As for your JRM point, you're basically saying 'if you ignore the reasons he's implausible, he's plausible'. It's true, but that line would work on anyone for anything.
    JRM is not implausible if he gets to the membership and given Leadsom got to the final 2 before she pulled out it is not impossible there are enough hard Brexiteer MPs to get him that far
    Did you actually ready what I wrote, HYUFD? Genuine question, as you seem to be responding to points I never raised. I never said Hunt was not of the same generation as Boris, I stated I thought that that he has not, until recently, been considered as leadership material, to be a more significant factor. In fact I explicitly said 'Hunt is of the same generation' so I am baffled as to why you've repeated that point as though I contested it.

    Similarly, I never claimed JRM would not be implausible if he did get through to the final two, I was pointing out that you yourself said his getting through to the final two was implausible (though as you point out now, not impossible), which made your logic very strange, since any judgement of anyone's plausibility has to be considered in the context of the rules and situation, which includes the leadership contest rules. Anyone can be considered plausible if you exclude the reasons that make them implausible. David Miliband is plausible, if you ignore that he is not an MP, and all the rest. For the record, that is the reason I considered JRM implausible.
    It’s not actually as simple to keep individuals off the ballot as people make out. Mainly because it potentially involves tactical voting stitch ups, which is often detrimental to the leading candidate - as they will be the ones “lending” votes. IDS famously did this to ensure he faced Clarke in 2001 and nearly screwed himself out of the contest completely. Any leading candidate will want to present themselves as the overwhelming choice of the PP, and ideally force the 2nd candidate to stand down. Albeit that is perhaps less likely to happen after the last time.
    What planet are you on? After last time, there will absolutely have to be a membership ballot next time. Even the Tory membership won't settle for sheep status forever. The contest was avoided last time because they knew it wasn't safe to put Leadsome anywhere near the members.

    That the aged membership would vote for JRM is a comment on them (and not in a good way) that has little to do with his credibility. The MPs will make sure he doesn't get in the final two, for sure.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited December 2017
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:



    Quite a few Tories are beginning to warm to Williamson after his resistance to further defence cuts and his tough stance, your other half may be onto something.

    He obviously has no real interest in actually improving the defence capabilities of the country as the two cuts he has thus far opposed were actually good ideas. Getting rid of amphibious capability is worthy as the casualties involved in a genuine amphibious assault are now politically unthinkable. Cutting the numbers of the Royal Marines and returning them to their original, and now neglected, role of maritime security is also a good idea. At the moment they are just another undermanned and partially trained infantry battalions and we've already got plenty of those.

    So not cutting those capabilities will have to be made up elsewhere. Probably by not renovating shitty housing and deferring pay rises. Again.
    Williamson is just fighting for his own department, it is still up to the Chancellor where the axe will fall
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    Boris might have been written off too early. Yes. it may be common currency that the man is a bumbling fool and a national embarrassment on the world stage but if the Tories are behind in the polls or even in opposition when the contest is called, then his USP remains that he has won two mayoral elections and one referendum which is more than any of his likely opponents can manage unless Ruth Davidson is in parliament by then.

    Edit: I'm not saying back him now, but keep him in mind when the vacancy does arise.

    You can’t count him out - he surely still wants the job. But not attractive at current prices.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,711
    Morning PB - Hope everyone had a nice Christmas?

    So Nick Cleeg to become "Sir Nick" in the New Year? :D

    When is Mike Smithson going to be Knighted that's what I'd like to know... ;)
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,214
    rkrkrk said:

    Sensible idea from Johnson. Jo, of course:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42481329

    Very refreshing to hear a politician stick up for free speech.

    Fining universities for not inviting speakers they choose not to invite is limiting free speech. The idea that there should be a govt imposed standard of who should be invited to speak in your home or university is more Communist than Conservative.

    Of course Jo Johnson knows this and is only looking for a headline and a more positive impression from people such as yourself.
    Wrong. Taxpayers heavily fund the universities and he who pays the piper has a say. Unless you want them to fully independent and rely on the market to fund their courses. Perfectly feasible but you may not like what you get.
  • DavidL said:

    Got yet another demonstration of how far away from the real world PB is yesterday. We were playing a family game after dinner and you had to name 3 of whatever was asked in 5 seconds. You had an option to switch once if you got an impossible topic. One of the teams, an adult and 2 teenagers, got the option of naming 3 members of the cabinet.

    They immediately switched. Who could possibly know or want to know that? Pretty much everyone else in the room agreed although I did get the odd pitying glance. Such odd hobbies I have. Nice to be back here really.

    To be fair, that is a tough question - one of your answers might have resigned before the 5 seconds is up!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,746
    Morning all :)

    Hope everyone enjoyed their Christmas Day whether alone or with their family or with their loved ones (delete as appropriate).

    The Jo Johnson comments do nothing other than to re-enforce the dilemma. Forcing "free speech" on people seems on the face of it absurdly illiberal. You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.

    That said, I do agree that it's worrying institutions whose primary purpose is educational should seem so concerned to diminish the plurality of opinions made and voices heard. People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.

    That being said, there's no harm in having your conceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions challenged - living inside your own echo chamber may be reassuring and comfortable but it's not a formative experience. It cuts both ways and those coming to speak must be prepared themselves to be challenged, questioned and face hostile argument.

    Hate is successfully challenged, not by violence or fear but by argument and reason. When confronted by the reality of the bankruptcy of their arguments, those peddling such views tend to scuttle away into the darkness.

    I'd still prefer Government not to get involved and allow Universities and Student Unions to take their own decisions - I would always encourage plurality of debate and diversity of opinions (we could do with more of it on here sometimes) but that has to exist within the framework of the law of the land and cannot include violence or intimidation on either side.
  • I don't think it is about age or 'generation', I think it is more about exposure. Williamson is a new face, but you could equally have someone in their mid-fifties projected into a position of prominence, and getting talked about as a possible leadership contender.

    Unfortunately Chloe Smith's leadership bid isn't gaining much traction yet.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,409
    DavidL said:



    I agree that a contested beach landing is pretty much inconceivable but we will undoubtedly miss HMS Ocean when she is decommissioned next year. It seems to me that is what the Royal Marines should be for, to allow us to project ground forces from a flexible platform whether for security, aid or peacekeeping purposes.

    I served on the O so have mixed feelings about it. On one hand it was deliberately built to commercial standards so Vickers could get the order for political reasons and seemed like it would be a death trap if it ever got hit. On the other hand I was always profoundly grateful to land back on it!

    It's irrelevant whether we'll miss its capabilities or not as the O needs a LOT of the type of specialist crew which are in very short supply so we're going to have to asset strip it to man the QE class carriers. So we might as well have some cash off the Brazilian Navy for it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400

    DavidL said:

    Got yet another demonstration of how far away from the real world PB is yesterday. We were playing a family game after dinner and you had to name 3 of whatever was asked in 5 seconds. You had an option to switch once if you got an impossible topic. One of the teams, an adult and 2 teenagers, got the option of naming 3 members of the cabinet.

    They immediately switched. Who could possibly know or want to know that? Pretty much everyone else in the room agreed although I did get the odd pitying glance. Such odd hobbies I have. Nice to be back here really.

    To be fair, that is a tough question - one of your answers might have resigned before the 5 seconds is up!
    I think that we'd probably have let that slide. Without cheating I came up with 15 inside a minute getting one wrong. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not normally sit in the Cabinet? I thought Liz Truss was in the Cabinet, not merely attending.
  • stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Hope everyone enjoyed their Christmas Day whether alone or with their family or with their loved ones (delete as appropriate).

    The Jo Johnson comments do nothing other than to re-enforce the dilemma. Forcing "free speech" on people seems on the face of it absurdly illiberal. You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.

    That said, I do agree that it's worrying institutions whose primary purpose is educational should seem so concerned to diminish the plurality of opinions made and voices heard. People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.

    That being said, there's no harm in having your conceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions challenged - living inside your own echo chamber may be reassuring and comfortable but it's not a formative experience. It cuts both ways and those coming to speak must be prepared themselves to be challenged, questioned and face hostile argument.

    Hate is successfully challenged, not by violence or fear but by argument and reason. When confronted by the reality of the bankruptcy of their arguments, those peddling such views tend to scuttle away into the darkness.

    I'd still prefer Government not to get involved and allow Universities and Student Unions to take their own decisions - I would always encourage plurality of debate and diversity of opinions (we could do with more of it on here sometimes) but that has to exist within the framework of the law of the land and cannot include violence or intimidation on either side.

    The best thing we as a society did to tackle the BNP was to have Nick Griffin on Question Time. That evening was the beginning of the end for his party.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,211
    Lots of options get aired in negotiations, and it's quite possible that Williamson and Dodd touched on the possibility, and someone who doesn't like Williamson (no shortage, I gather) has elevated it to a concrete proposal. The timing is odd, though - almost nobody except us is paying attention.

    On Jo Johnson's speech, I'm not unsympathetic in principle (speaking as someone who opposed a demo to prevent Nick Griffin speaking in my then constituency), but how would it work? Would any group of students (some of whom do like to wind people up) be able to invite any extremist they like - an ISIS supporter, for instance - and the uni would be fined if they didn't let them?
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Got yet another demonstration of how far away from the real world PB is yesterday. We were playing a family game after dinner and you had to name 3 of whatever was asked in 5 seconds. You had an option to switch once if you got an impossible topic. One of the teams, an adult and 2 teenagers, got the option of naming 3 members of the cabinet.

    They immediately switched. Who could possibly know or want to know that? Pretty much everyone else in the room agreed although I did get the odd pitying glance. Such odd hobbies I have. Nice to be back here really.

    To be fair, that is a tough question - one of your answers might have resigned before the 5 seconds is up!
    I think that we'd probably have let that slide. Without cheating I came up with 15 inside a minute getting one wrong. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not normally sit in the Cabinet? I thought Liz Truss was in the Cabinet, not merely attending.
    Normally a Cabinet position - certainly was in the days of the coalition Quad.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Hope everyone enjoyed their Christmas Day whether alone or with their family or with their loved ones (delete as appropriate).

    The Jo Johnson comments do nothing other than to re-enforce the dilemma. Forcing "free speech" on people seems on the face of it absurdly illiberal. You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.

    That said, I do agree that it's worrying institutions whose primary purpose is educational should seem so concerned to diminish the plurality of opinions made and voices heard. People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.

    That being said, there's no harm in having your conceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions challenged - living inside your own echo chamber may be reassuring and comfortable but it's not a formative experience. It cuts both ways and those coming to speak must be prepared themselves to be challenged, questioned and face hostile argument.

    Hate is successfully challenged, not by violence or fear but by argument and reason. When confronted by the reality of the bankruptcy of their arguments, those peddling such views tend to scuttle away into the darkness.

    I'd still prefer Government not to get involved and allow Universities and Student Unions to take their own decisions - I would always encourage plurality of debate and diversity of opinions (we could do with more of it on here sometimes) but that has to exist within the framework of the law of the land and cannot include violence or intimidation on either side.

    The best thing we as a society did to tackle the BNP was to have Nick Griffin on Question Time. That evening was the beginning of the end for his party.
    Agreed. Achieved far, far more than all those Anti Nazi League/Unite against Fascism marches put together. Not as self indulgent though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    stodge said:

    You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.


    It seems to be the preferred method these days, either by legislation or other means of banning.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    Dura_Ace said:

    DavidL said:



    I agree that a contested beach landing is pretty much inconceivable but we will undoubtedly miss HMS Ocean when she is decommissioned next year. It seems to me that is what the Royal Marines should be for, to allow us to project ground forces from a flexible platform whether for security, aid or peacekeeping purposes.

    I served on the O so have mixed feelings about it. On one hand it was deliberately built to commercial standards so Vickers could get the order for political reasons and seemed like it would be a death trap if it ever got hit. On the other hand I was always profoundly grateful to land back on it!

    It's irrelevant whether we'll miss its capabilities or not as the O needs a LOT of the type of specialist crew which are in very short supply so we're going to have to asset strip it to man the QE class carriers. So we might as well have some cash off the Brazilian Navy for it.
    Really? That's interesting. I would have thought that crew for helicopters was pretty standard on board a ship or on the land. I can see planes being different. And are these not the kind of specialists we should be training? There also seems to be quite a gap between the full service of the QEs and the decommissioning of Ocean. Is there not a risk of skills being lost?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,870
    Free speech at universities (and elsewhere) is being undermined by the idiotic hate speech laws. Until the government move to a first amendment style protection of free expression then Jo Johnson is being completely disingenuous.
  • kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.


    It seems to be the preferred method these days, either by legislation or other means of banning.
    You can legislate to control what people say but not what they think. Racists don't stop being racists just because they don't use the N and P words in public.
  • Do we have to refer to Boris' brother as 'JoJo'?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.


    It seems to be the preferred method these days, either by legislation or other means of banning.
    You can legislate to control what people say but not what they think. Racists don't stop being racists just because they don't use the N and P words in public.
    Perhaps our esteemed politicians of both parties just read a little too much into 1984 and the idea that by eliminating certain words you could eliminate the ideas they were used to form?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.


    It seems to be the preferred method these days, either by legislation or other means of banning.
    You can legislate to control what people say but not what they think. Racists don't stop being racists just because they don't use the N and P words in public.
    Indeed not. If people are inciting violence and the like I get it, but I remember the furore over Griffin on QT, and the apparently genuine fear that if people heard him then it would legitimise him and so many would fall under his sway.

    If that was to happen, the problem would not really have been Griffin, but our society, and I regarded it as such an infantilising view.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,131

    Boris might have been written off too early. Yes. it may be common currency that the man is a bumbling fool and a national embarrassment on the world stage but if the Tories are behind in the polls or even in opposition when the contest is called, then his USP remains that he has won two mayoral elections and one referendum which is more than any of his likely opponents can manage unless Ruth Davidson is in parliament by then.

    Edit: I'm not saying back him now, but keep him in mind when the vacancy does arise.

    He's been vetoed
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    Lots of options get aired in negotiations, and it's quite possible that Williamson and Dodd touched on the possibility, and someone who doesn't like Williamson (no shortage, I gather) has elevated it to a concrete proposal. The timing is odd, though - almost nobody except us is paying attention.

    On Jo Johnson's speech, I'm not unsympathetic in principle (speaking as someone who opposed a demo to prevent Nick Griffin speaking in my then constituency), but how would it work? Would any group of students (some of whom do like to wind people up) be able to invite any extremist they like - an ISIS supporter, for instance - and the uni would be fined if they didn't let them?

    I think it’s the student unions with the no platform policies.
    Not clear how universities can have influence over that. So either they will be fined for something beyond their control - or they will have to try to force student unions to invite certain speakers. Or most likely option - it will be utterly meaningless.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.


    It seems to be the preferred method these days, either by legislation or other means of banning.
    You can legislate to control what people say but not what they think. Racists don't stop being racists just because they don't use the N and P words in public.
    Perhaps our esteemed politicians of both parties just read a little too much into 1984 and the idea that by eliminating certain words you could eliminate the ideas they were used to form?
    Possibly - a very common issue is where someone uses a single word, say the word 'swarming', and any other points that might be made are discounted at the supposed terribleness of a single word, which for one makes solving genuine problems a bit too simple, as it involves just not using certain words, and it rates everyone's worthiness purely on if they used the correct language.

    Not to say we want a free for all of racist slurs or something, but socially acceptable limits have thankfully mostly controlled that.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,131

    Do we have to refer to Boris' brother as 'JoJo'?

    Just google JoJo Siwa...
  • stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Hope everyone enjoyed their Christmas Day whether alone or with their family or with their loved ones (delete as appropriate).

    The Jo Johnson comments do nothing other than to re-enforce the dilemma. Forcing "free speech" on people seems on the face of it absurdly illiberal. You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.

    That said, I do agree that it's worrying institutions whose primary purpose is educational should seem so concerned to diminish the plurality of opinions made and voices heard. People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.

    That being said, there's no harm in having your conceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions challenged - living inside your own echo chamber may be reassuring and comfortable but it's not a formative experience. It cuts both ways and those coming to speak must be prepared themselves to be challenged, questioned and face hostile argument.

    Hate is successfully challenged, not by violence or fear but by argument and reason. When confronted by the reality of the bankruptcy of their arguments, those peddling such views tend to scuttle away into the darkness.

    I'd still prefer Government not to get involved and allow Universities and Student Unions to take their own decisions - I would always encourage plurality of debate and diversity of opinions (we could do with more of it on here sometimes) but that has to exist within the framework of the law of the land and cannot include violence or intimidation on either side.

    The best thing we as a society did to tackle the BNP was to have Nick Griffin on Question Time. That evening was the beginning of the end for his party.
    I know this now gets trotted out as an article of faith, but why did a Griffin-led BNP get its best ever result in a GE 7 months later?

    Repeated appearances on QT (the most ever for one individual?) by Farage and associated fruitcakes didn't do him any harm. It's only the impending prospect of his heart's desire that seems to have done that.

  • TonyETonyE Posts: 937
    MaxPB said:

    Free speech at universities (and elsewhere) is being undermined by the idiotic hate speech laws. Until the government move to a first amendment style protection of free expression then Jo Johnson is being completely disingenuous.

    I'm not sure how you do that without having a written constitution. The best way to start on that is to remove the idiotic 'Blair thought crime' laws that so blight the legal landscape.
  • Lots of options get aired in negotiations, and it's quite possible that Williamson and Dodd touched on the possibility, and someone who doesn't like Williamson (no shortage, I gather) has elevated it to a concrete proposal. The timing is odd, though - almost nobody except us is paying attention.

    On Jo Johnson's speech, I'm not unsympathetic in principle (speaking as someone who opposed a demo to prevent Nick Griffin speaking in my then constituency), but how would it work? Would any group of students (some of whom do like to wind people up) be able to invite any extremist they like - an ISIS supporter, for instance - and the uni would be fined if they didn't let them?

    Perhaps a government mandated list of speakers than cannot be refused is the only way ;)

    Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas!

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.


    It seems to be the preferred method these days, either by legislation or other means of banning.
    You can legislate to control what people say but not what they think. Racists don't stop being racists just because they don't use the N and P words in public.
    Perhaps our esteemed politicians of both parties just read a little too much into 1984 and the idea that by eliminating certain words you could eliminate the ideas they were used to form?
    Possibly - a very common issue is where someone uses a single word, say the word 'swarming', and any other points that might be made are discounted at the supposed terribleness of a single word, which for one makes solving genuine problems a bit too simple, as it involves just not using certain words, and it rates everyone's worthiness purely on if they used the correct language.

    Not to say we want a free for all of racist slurs or something, but socially acceptable limits have thankfully mostly controlled that.
    The reality is that if certain words are banned other words change their meaning. It is a policy doomed to failure.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Hope everyone enjoyed their Christmas Day whether alone or with their family or with their loved ones (delete as appropriate).

    The Jo Johnson comments do nothing other than to re-enforce the dilemma. Forcing "free speech" on people seems on the face of it absurdly illiberal. You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.

    That said, I do agree that it's worrying institutions whose primary purpose is educational should seem so concerned to diminish the plurality of opinions made and voices heard. People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.

    That being said, there's no harm in having your conceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions challenged - living inside your own echo chamber may be reassuring and comfortable but it's not a formative experience. It cuts both ways and those coming to speak must be prepared themselves to be challenged, questioned and face hostile argument.

    Hate is successfully challenged, not by violence or fear but by argument and reason. When confronted by the reality of the bankruptcy of their arguments, those peddling such views tend to scuttle away into the darkness.

    I'd still prefer Government not to get involved and allow Universities and Student Unions to take their own decisions - I would always encourage plurality of debate and diversity of opinions (we could do with more of it on here sometimes) but that has to exist within the framework of the law of the land and cannot include violence or intimidation on either side.

    The best thing we as a society did to tackle the BNP was to have Nick Griffin on Question Time. That evening was the beginning of the end for his party.
    I know this now gets trotted out as an article of faith, but why did a Griffin-led BNP get its best ever result in a GE 7 months later?

    Repeated appearances on QT (the most ever for one individual?) by Farage and associated fruitcakes didn't do him any harm. It's only the impending prospect of his heart's desire that seems to have done that.

    I don’t think QT is so popular to have a major causal effect on a GE.
    UKIP’s rise surely took some BNP votes with it.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 937
    The Source of the Story - a senior former official.

    That should have made it unprintable in the first place. Once upon a time, no journalist of integrity would print a single source story without corroboration.

    The Times, along with most of the rest of Fleet Street, needs to raise its game.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,409
    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    DavidL said:



    I agree that a contested beach landing is pretty much inconceivable but we will undoubtedly miss HMS Ocean when she is decommissioned next year. It seems to me that is what the Royal Marines should be for, to allow us to project ground forces from a flexible platform whether for security, aid or peacekeeping purposes.

    I served on the O so have mixed feelings about it. On one hand it was deliberately built to commercial standards so Vickers could get the order for political reasons and seemed like it would be a death trap if it ever got hit. On the other hand I was always profoundly grateful to land back on it!

    It's irrelevant whether we'll miss its capabilities or not as the O needs a LOT of the type of specialist crew which are in very short supply so we're going to have to asset strip it to man the QE class carriers. So we might as well have some cash off the Brazilian Navy for it.
    Really? That's interesting. I would have thought that crew for helicopters was pretty standard on board a ship or on the land. I can see planes being different. And are these not the kind of specialists we should be training? There also seems to be quite a gap between the full service of the QEs and the decommissioning of Ocean. Is there not a risk of skills being lost?
    Operating from a ship is very, very different...



    It's not just the WAFUs (crew), it's also engineers, handlers, armourers and other technical specialists. The QEC carriers need these crew right now for testing and operational development. Remember the RN has to generate a completely new carrier strike doctrine from nothing.

    And, yes, we should be training more right now but there is no money for more people. The armed forces are like a business that can only recruit exactly two roles: apprentices and graduate trainees. Every other job has to be filled by internal recruitment. So if wanted QECs AND the O there should have been a recruitment surge 5 years ago and there wasn't because the plan was always just to take them out of other parts of the fleet.
This discussion has been closed.