Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three tips on who might be Theresa May’s successor

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited December 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three tips on who might be Theresa May’s successor

A few days before Christmas I had lunch with a friend who has followed the Tory party for decades and knows it quite well. Inevitability the conversation turned on who might be Mrs May’s successor, their observations had a quite the impact and led to an update to my betting portfolio.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640
    edited December 2017
    First! Unlike Leadsom.

    Davis threatening to resign is hardly "to the point"... ;)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640
    edited December 2017
    The next boundary review may well hand Rudd a chance to decamp into rural Kent, where there will probably be an extra seat.

    What is Hunt actually doing to peak "too soon"?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640
    One of the stand-out facts of the June contest is that a third of the voters at the 2015 election switched party or stayed at home when it came to 2017.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,723
    IanB2 said:

    One of the stand-out facts of the June contest is that a third of the voters at the 2015 election switched party or stayed at home when it came to 2017.

    Is that so? That's an interesting statistic. It is a good thing for the country if people are more likely to think through their vote and less likely to simply follow habit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    Very interesting thread, thanks TSE. My strategy so far in this market has been to lay more than back, maybe it’s time to put a coin or two on some of the outsiders. The outcome is very dependent on the timing of Mrs May’s resignation, the longer she remains leader the higher the chance of a relative outsider winning the contest.
  • No love for Gavin Williamson?

    It still looks like Hunt's to lose, for me, even though I think he is making a mess of health, at least he is largely keeping it out of the headlines. Patients will know about the growing shortages and queues but patients are not the electorate to consider here.

    If May does leave abruptly then Hammond looks the most obvious plug-and-play replacement, as Chancellor and former Foreign Secretary with a pragmatic approach to Brexit.

    Boris is too short in the betting but if the Tories are miles behind in the polls or even in Opposition, then Boris retains his USP as a winner of two Mayoral contests and one referendum.

    Anyway, Shadsy kindly boosted Lidington and Gauke to 130/1 for a throwaway tenner. My main bet is on Hunt.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640

    IanB2 said:

    One of the stand-out facts of the June contest is that a third of the voters at the 2015 election switched party or stayed at home when it came to 2017.

    Is that so? That's an interesting statistic. It is a good thing for the country if people are more likely to think through their vote and less likely to simply follow habit.
    A big chunk of it was people deserting UKIP, but nevertheless it indicates a significant churn beneath the apparently small swing in most seats, as the Mansfield/Canterbury-type switches took place in every seat, mostly cancelling each other out.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640

    No love for Gavin Williamson?

    It still looks like Hunt's to lose, for me, even though I think he is making a mess of health, at least he is largely keeping it out of the headlines. Patients will know about the growing shortages and queues but patients are not the electorate to consider here.

    If May does leave abruptly then Hammond looks the most obvious plug-and-play replacement, as Chancellor and former Foreign Secretary with a pragmatic approach to Brexit.

    Boris is too short in the betting but if the Tories are miles behind in the polls or even in Opposition, then Boris retains his USP as a winner of two Mayoral contests and one referendum.

    Anyway, Shadsy kindly boosted Lidington and Gauke to 130/1 for a throwaway tenner. My main bet is on Hunt.

    The majority of patients receiving NHS treatment are happy with the care they receive, even if they sometimes weren't so happy waiting a while for it. The swing voters on the NHS are mostly the people who see themselves as potential patients.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,723
    I have a soft spot for Mrs May. She is from the same town as me. She is only a couple of years older than me. I lived in Maidenhead for 13 years and noticed just how conscientious she was as a local MP. I also approve of politicians stealing the policies of other politicians - it shows a commendable lack of ego. So I liked the way she purloined several of Ed Miliband's plans.

    So take my bias into account.

    But it seems to me that she is simply the best option the Tories have to get them over the line at the next election. Nobody will remember the details of what went wrong in 2017 in 4.5 years time. But if she lasts a couple of years she'll at least look like a survivor.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,695
    edited December 2017
    OT Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has prepared four podcasts on Churchill's oratory, introduced here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/defeat-nazis-winston-churchill-first-weaponised-words/

    The article quotes Sir Nicholas Soames' view that our last great political orator was Michael Foot.

    Wandering even further off-topic, the Telegraph mentions the imminent Darkest Hour film about Churchill vs Halifax on whether to continue the fight or make peace with Germany after the fall of France, which is probably a warning not to back Dunkirk for the Oscars. Remarkably there are at least four films on the period -- those two, Churchill, and Their Finest. Although I am no Roger or Marquee Mark, I also get the impression this has been a particularly strong year for cinema.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640

    I have a soft spot for Mrs May. She is from the same town as me. She is only a couple of years older than me. I lived in Maidenhead for 13 years and noticed just how conscientious she was as a local MP. I also approve of politicians stealing the policies of other politicians - it shows a commendable lack of ego. So I liked the way she purloined several of Ed Miliband's plans.

    So take my bias into account.

    But it seems to me that she is simply the best option the Tories have to get them over the line at the next election. Nobody will remember the details of what went wrong in 2017 in 4.5 years time. But if she lasts a couple of years she'll at least look like a survivor.

    All good, except that the failures of the 2017 GE will be in the memory forever. And brought out for a fresh airing as soon as there is a sniff of an election.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,137
    At 350/1, Gauke would have been an interesting bet.

    Lidington ? Nice guys come last - and he comes across as a bit ineffectual in the chamber (however unfairly).
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,211
    edited December 2017
    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it. Rudd still seems to me worth a punt. The problem with the outsiders is that 90% of voters won't have heard of them at all, so picking one out of the blue will look like an act of desperation.

    Recidivist's argument is strong, though. We've seen how quickly opinion changes on this forum, where even hardline Conservatives were urging her to go, but now see her as doing a decent job. In general it's never a crazy strategy to bet on continuity - as people from Corbyn to Merkel have shown, incumbency and sheer doggedness can take you far further than the volatile commentators expect.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640

    OT Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has prepared four podcasts on Churchill's oratory, introduced here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/defeat-nazis-winston-churchill-first-weaponised-words/

    The article quotes Sir Nicholas Soames' view that our last great political orator was Michael Foot.

    Wandering even further off-topic, the Telegraph mentions the imminent Darkest Hour film about Churchill vs Halifax on whether to continue the fight or make peace with Germany after the fall of France, which is probably a warning not to back Dunkirk for the Oscars. Remarkably there are at least four films on the period -- those two, Churchill, and Their Finest. Although I am no Roger or Marquee Mark, I also get the impression this has been a particularly strong year for cinema.

    The year after the referendum has been a good one for 1940 nostalgia, for sure.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,549
    I am no Roger, but if I were to bet on the Oscars, I would have to put money on Frances McDormand as Best Actress. (With the disclaimer that I haven't seen I, Tonya yet, and I hear Margot Robbie is also superb.)

    Also from Three Billboards, will be two nominations for Best Supporting Actor - Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrleson. The favourite will probably be Sam Rockwell, but I'd argue that Woody's performance was the better one.
  • David Gauke is a great tip.

    I don't think Andrea Leadsom is any more likely than Jacob Rees-Mogg - she shot her bolt for good last year, IMHO - and I'd want north of 25/1 to even consider her.

    Gavin Williamson is obviously angling for that same wing of the party.

    David Lidington is a thoroughly nice guy but strikes me as a sort of Alec Douglas-Home figure. Possible, and at 100/1 decent enough odds, but I wouldn't put a lot on.
  • IanB2 said:

    OT Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has prepared four podcasts on Churchill's oratory, introduced here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/defeat-nazis-winston-churchill-first-weaponised-words/

    The article quotes Sir Nicholas Soames' view that our last great political orator was Michael Foot.

    Wandering even further off-topic, the Telegraph mentions the imminent Darkest Hour film about Churchill vs Halifax on whether to continue the fight or make peace with Germany after the fall of France, which is probably a warning not to back Dunkirk for the Oscars. Remarkably there are at least four films on the period -- those two, Churchill, and Their Finest. Although I am no Roger or Marquee Mark, I also get the impression this has been a particularly strong year for cinema.

    The year after the referendum has been a good one for 1940 nostalgia, for sure.
    How long does it take to make a film? Three years? Five? Something must have happened a few years ago to convince several different groups that the time for a Churchill film had come.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,419
    rcs1000 said:

    I am no Roger, but if I were to bet on the Oscars, I would have to put money on Frances McDormand as Best Actress. (With the disclaimer that I haven't seen I, Tonya yet, and I hear Margot Robbie is also superb.)

    Also from Three Billboards, will be two nominations for Best Supporting Actor - Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrleson. The favourite will probably be Sam Rockwell, but I'd argue that Woody's performance was the better one.

    Best actress is no shoo-in for Frances McDormand. Loved Margot Robbie in I, Tonya - but they both have to beat Sally Hawkins in The Shape of Water, which I can see being the "Fuck you, Trump!" for this year's Oscar voters. Guillermo del Toro's wonder-filled romance between Sally Hawkins and The Creature From The Black Lagoon (seriously!) is infinitely better than the Oscar-shovel that was La La Land. Go see it and enjoy.

    Daniel Day-Lewis is a good bet to contend for best actor Oscar in Phantom Thread, in which he would even have beaten our own Ms Cyclefree to the acting honours this time out! It is a strange little movie, but he dominates a film that really stays with you. And he says it is his last, having retired. (Again. The last time proved to be cobblers....) Honourable mention to Andrew Garfield in Breathe. But for the BAFTAs at least, can't see past Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour. (Which is also nailed on for Hair and Makeup!)

    However, of the Big Contenders, I still have to see Dunkirk and Call Me By Your Name.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,695
    edited December 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    I am no Roger, but if I were to bet on the Oscars, I would have to put money on Frances McDormand as Best Actress. (With the disclaimer that I haven't seen I, Tonya yet, and I hear Margot Robbie is also superb.)

    Also from Three Billboards, will be two nominations for Best Supporting Actor - Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrleson. The favourite will probably be Sam Rockwell, but I'd argue that Woody's performance was the better one.

    Three Billboards is a comedy, isn't it? Do comedies win Oscars? Edit: perhaps they do; it is very short in the betting.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Yes but why now, or rather, why did many different groups have the same idea two or three or five years ago (or however long it takes to arrange financing, scripts and production)? The Brexit referendum is surely too recent.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,419

    rcs1000 said:

    I am no Roger, but if I were to bet on the Oscars, I would have to put money on Frances McDormand as Best Actress. (With the disclaimer that I haven't seen I, Tonya yet, and I hear Margot Robbie is also superb.)

    Also from Three Billboards, will be two nominations for Best Supporting Actor - Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrleson. The favourite will probably be Sam Rockwell, but I'd argue that Woody's performance was the better one.

    Three Billboards is a comedy, isn't it? Do comedies win Oscars? Edit: perhaps they do; it is very short in the betting.
    Comedy? Has its funny moments for sure. Peter Dinklage asking to be excused "to go to the little boys room..." being one such gem. But there is also a fair bit of gratuitous violence dished out too.
  • Mr. Sandpit, cheers, hard to argue against his general point.

    F1 is a huge success for the UK, with the majority of teams based here, provided a great local economy for suppliers and many well-paid jobs (not to mention numerous title bonuses).
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,409
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
    LCDH might have had more chance of a gong if he weren't an overt shit.
  • Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
    The trouble with hanging the piece on Lewis Hamilton is his tax arrangements. Ask Lester (though admittedly the latter's tax dodging was more blatant and even farcical -- Piggott agreed a tax settlement with the Inland Revenue but then wrote them a cheque on a bank account he had not declared).
  • Mr. L, not an especial fan of Hamilton but it is curious he gets more opprobrium than, say, Button for living in Monaco. I suspect it's because he's flashier than other drivers, but people wanting to pay less tax (and F1 drivers living in Monaco) is nothing new.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,229

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
    The trouble with hanging the piece on Lewis Hamilton is his tax arrangements. Ask Lester (though admittedly the latter's tax dodging was more blatant and even farcical -- Piggott agreed a tax settlement with the Inland Revenue but then wrote them a cheque on a bank account he had not declared).
    I have heard that cheque on undeclared bank account story about other people - urban myth, I suspect.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
    LCDH might have had more chance of a gong if he weren't an overt shit.
    LH has his critics and already got an MBE, fair enough. I’d much rather see honours for the likes of Adrian Newey and Paddy Lowe - who between them designed the last seven cars to win the championship - and Ron Dennis, who was the force behind McLaren for decades and was the brains behind the road car company, possibly the most successful manufacturing startup in the UK since Dyson.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,695
    edited December 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
    The trouble with hanging the piece on Lewis Hamilton is his tax arrangements. Ask Lester (though admittedly the latter's tax dodging was more blatant and even farcical -- Piggott agreed a tax settlement with the Inland Revenue but then wrote them a cheque on a bank account he had not declared).
    I have heard that cheque on undeclared bank account story about other people - urban myth, I suspect.
    Here is the story on a Channel 4 documentary
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvBPZF16njw&t=2495
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    edited December 2017

    Mr. L, not an especial fan of Hamilton but it is curious he gets more opprobrium than, say, Button for living in Monaco. I suspect it's because he's flashier than other drivers, but people wanting to pay less tax (and F1 drivers living in Monaco) is nothing new.

    90% of professionals in the “touring” sports live other than in the UK. Given they’re going to spend less than the required three months in Britain anyway, why would anyone volunteer to pay 45% in tax on their worldwide income? Racing drivers have lived in Monaco since Graham Hill in the ‘60s.
  • IanB2 said:

    OT Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has prepared four podcasts on Churchill's oratory, introduced here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/defeat-nazis-winston-churchill-first-weaponised-words/

    The article quotes Sir Nicholas Soames' view that our last great political orator was Michael Foot.

    Wandering even further off-topic, the Telegraph mentions the imminent Darkest Hour film about Churchill vs Halifax on whether to continue the fight or make peace with Germany after the fall of France, which is probably a warning not to back Dunkirk for the Oscars. Remarkably there are at least four films on the period -- those two, Churchill, and Their Finest. Although I am no Roger or Marquee Mark, I also get the impression this has been a particularly strong year for cinema.

    The year after the referendum has been a good one for 1940 nostalgia, for sure.
    How long does it take to make a film? Three years? Five? Something must have happened a few years ago to convince several different groups that the time for a Churchill film had come.
    Cameron's Bloomberg speech?

    By the way, just for fun: today is the last day David Cameron gave himself to achieve his renegotiation and deliver an in/out referendum on the European Union.
  • Mr. Sandpit, well, quite.

    It's one of the reasons India was so unpopular with teams, trying to get a twentieth (one race out of 20) of tax from them. The fact it was a bloody awful circuit didn't exactly help.
  • Mr. Royale, I wonder if it would've gone the other way. The migrant crisis is not often in the news now (numbers are still very large but far lower than at the peak of Merkel's insanity).
  • I'm not convinced that Gauke is "mitigating the problems of Universal Credit" - the people getting it don't think so, the councils and landlords being hit with huge bills don't think so, and there is plenty more scandal to come out as UC is one of those policies where Tories seem determinedly oblivious to reality.

    Don't ignore either the elephant in the room - the next leader will secure the post Brexit settlement. So it's not only about how they have performed with their respective briefs, its about which wing of the Tories wins out and the reaction of the other wing to losing. I still think JRM will make the final two on this ground alone - that he looks and feels like an authentic Tory of the past (which is precisely where a significant number in the party are determined to go) has to help him.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,229

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
    The trouble with hanging the piece on Lewis Hamilton is his tax arrangements. Ask Lester (though admittedly the latter's tax dodging was more blatant and even farcical -- Piggott agreed a tax settlement with the Inland Revenue but then wrote them a cheque on a bank account he had not declared).
    I have heard that cheque on undeclared bank account story about other people - urban myth, I suspect.
    Here is the story on a Channel 4 documentary
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvBPZF16njw&t=2495
    OK.

    Can't read the titles very clearly but the source seems to be a "former Lloyd's underwriter", and why he would know anything about it in that capacity, God knows.
  • Mr. Royale, I wonder if it would've gone the other way. The migrant crisis is not often in the news now (numbers are still very large but far lower than at the peak of Merkel's insanity).

    That's possible. On the other hand, net immigration might have continued to run at very high levels into the UK over that period, the Government might have become even more unpopular, and the stories about a United States of Europe, an EU army, and the EU's threatened actions against Poland and Hungary further frightened the horses.
  • I'm not convinced that Gauke is "mitigating the problems of Universal Credit" - the people getting it don't think so, the councils and landlords being hit with huge bills don't think so, and there is plenty more scandal to come out as UC is one of those policies where Tories seem determinedly oblivious to reality.

    Don't ignore either the elephant in the room - the next leader will secure the post Brexit settlement. So it's not only about how they have performed with their respective briefs, its about which wing of the Tories wins out and the reaction of the other wing to losing. I still think JRM will make the final two on this ground alone - that he looks and feels like an authentic Tory of the past (which is precisely where a significant number in the party are determined to go) has to help him.

    Personally, I think Brexit will stretch the democratic elastic of the centre-right in this country about as far as it will go, and the next Tory leader will need to be much more collegiate and inclusive to win.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
    The trouble with hanging the piece on Lewis Hamilton is his tax arrangements. Ask Lester (though admittedly the latter's tax dodging was more blatant and even farcical -- Piggott agreed a tax settlement with the Inland Revenue but then wrote them a cheque on a bank account he had not declared).
    I have heard that cheque on undeclared bank account story about other people - urban myth, I suspect.
    Here is the story on a Channel 4 documentary
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvBPZF16njw&t=2495
    OK.

    Can't read the titles very clearly but the source seems to be a "former Lloyd's underwriter", and why he would know anything about it in that capacity, God knows.
    Wikipedia says Lester denied it, so your scepticism might be justified, though the source is hardly unimpeachable. I shall leave it there. If it is not true, it ought to be.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,802
    edited December 2017

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
    The trouble with hanging the piece on Lewis Hamilton is his tax arrangements. Ask Lester (though admittedly the latter's tax dodging was more blatant and even farcical -- Piggott agreed a tax settlement with the Inland Revenue but then wrote them a cheque on a bank account he had not declared).
    Lester Piggott went to jail. The comparison is hardly appropriate. Hamilton probably still has a large tax bill in this country, just not as large as it would be if he lived here. And if somebody chooses to live outside the country I don’t see why they should be taxed as if they did.
  • alex. said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
    The trouble with hanging the piece on Lewis Hamilton is his tax arrangements. Ask Lester (though admittedly the latter's tax dodging was more blatant and even farcical -- Piggott agreed a tax settlement with the Inland Revenue but then wrote them a cheque on a bank account he had not declared).
    Lester Piggott went to jail. The comparison is hardly appropriate. Hamilton probably still has a large tax bill in this country, just not as large as it would be if he lived here. And if somebody chooses to live outside the country I don’t see why they should be taxed as if they did.
    I think the plane business was more about its declared use than Hamilton's home, though even that cuts both ways: why tax or honour him as if he lived here? But it is surely a fact that tax arrangements do matter for honours, isn't it? Probably the fuss would need to die down before Hamilton is knighted (or whatever is the going rate for world champions -- there does seem to have been a degree of inflation here).

    Tbh I cannot get too excited about honours but nor do I want to abolish a system which is cheap and keeps people happy.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,902
    As a Tory member, I’m half-inclined to let May have another go in 2022. I am not confident that anyone else will deliver a better result, and her stock will rise after Brexit is delivered.

    On another topic, when are the new peerages announced?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    alex. said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, might have been a feeling a Churchill film would work either way.

    Good morning Mr Dancer.
    One for you, Joe Saward on “Where were the honours for one of Britain’s best known industries”
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/a-flawed-system/
    The trouble with hanging the piece on Lewis Hamilton is his tax arrangements. Ask Lester (though admittedly the latter's tax dodging was more blatant and even farcical -- Piggott agreed a tax settlement with the Inland Revenue but then wrote them a cheque on a bank account he had not declared).
    Lester Piggott went to jail. The comparison is hardly appropriate. Hamilton probably still has a large tax bill in this country, just not as large as it would be if he lived here. And if somebody chooses to live outside the country I don’t see why they should be taxed as if they did.
    It’s of course entirely coincidental that the media types going after the likes of Hamilton have just had a lot of their own, umm, tax planning vehicles and structures, shut down by HMRC. The difference is that Lewis genuinely lives abroad, that’s now the only real way to avoid the taxman.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    IanB2 said:

    OT Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has prepared four podcasts on Churchill's oratory, introduced here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/defeat-nazis-winston-churchill-first-weaponised-words/

    The article quotes Sir Nicholas Soames' view that our last great political orator was Michael Foot.

    Wandering even further off-topic, the Telegraph mentions the imminent Darkest Hour film about Churchill vs Halifax on whether to continue the fight or make peace with Germany after the fall of France, which is probably a warning not to back Dunkirk for the Oscars. Remarkably there are at least four films on the period -- those two, Churchill, and Their Finest. Although I am no Roger or Marquee Mark, I also get the impression this has been a particularly strong year for cinema.

    The year after the referendum has been a good one for 1940 nostalgia, for sure.
    How long does it take to make a film? Three years? Five? Something must have happened a few years ago to convince several different groups that the time for a Churchill film had come.
    It is perhaps that WW2 is leaving living memory, so more open to mythmaking dramas. One of my ageing aunts was giving a sermon on Christmas in wartime based on her own memories. I think that it was lost on all the congregation under 50, as even inherited memory is getting thin.

    The war films may do well at the BAFTAs, but probably not at the Oscars, as Britain's 1940 doesnot have the same resonance on the US West coast. Dunkirk was very cleverly filmed, so may be the exception.

    Incidentally, I saw Paddington 2 the other day, highly recommended. Hugh Grant hams it up superbly as the villain.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,948
    Good grief what a motley crew.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    Headline today of Corbyn saying he is staking out the centre ground - he's gone native in the establishment! I thought part of his appeal was not being part of the centre.
  • Friendly New Year bet:

    I will bet £50 that Iran will have a revolution before end-of CY2018. Would anyone - and only one - wish to bet against this?

    All funds to FATJUGS*. PtP to adjudicate please.

    * Future Accruals To Junior's Usually Good Servers.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    IanB2 said:



    What is Hunt actually doing to peak "too soon"?

    Simply being talked about as a candidate at this stage, now it is felt a contest is not imminent?
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 150

    Friendly New Year bet:

    I will bet £50 that Iran will have a revolution before end-of CY2018. Would anyone - and only one - wish to bet against this?

    All funds to FATJUGS*. PtP to adjudicate please.

    * Future Accruals To Junior's Usually Good Servers.

    What's the definition of a revolution? The end of the Islamic Republic entirely and a new constitution of whatever sort?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
  • Mr. Blue, recall how terrible her 2017 campaign was.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 689
    FPT:

    Pro_Rata said:

    They should have read the Daily Mail:
    image

    Every single word is something I have argued at some point in the last 18 months particularly:

    Political Union will not happen unless and until the nation states are all ready
    We should have the confidence of our own influence in the project
    It should probably not happen in my lifetime

    All still bang on in 2017.

    The trouble with Leavers was that they always seek to do Britain down when it comes to the influence she had within Europe and the EU.
    No it's not still bang on. The Euro changed things.
    So, you lacked the confidence in Britain to find her way in a multi-speed Europe. I'm sure you downright dismissed that Britain's deal for a multi-destination Europe would ever be reality in any meaningful way, despite its being a formalisation of the status quo.

    That Mail article brought a long standing thought to the fore, best summed up by adapting Sunil:

    "Didn't Believe in Britain, so I beleaved" (or beleft if you prefer)

    Casino was explicit in this lack of faith in successive governments in his reply. We would apparently be too weak to resist a wholesale coup d'etat against the nation state by the ECJ.

    How the solution is to put the backs to the wall of the self same British governments and system for which he has such little regard, and into a situation where we might feel the need to spaff our sovereignty to any nation in the world who might want a piece, I'm not quite sure.


    Who decides if all the nation states are ready? And what if they subsequently decide it was a mistake, and not for them?

    One of the reasons I voted Leave was because the last Labour Government, preceded by the previous Conservative administration, both took it upon themselves to decide that for me without any further national consultation.

    I didn't have any confidence that future Governments, particularly Labour Governments, wouldn't do the same again off the back of a 2016 mandate, notwithstanding the rather loosely worded European Union Act 2011. And, in any event, the Lisbon Treaty was sufficiently broad in scope and remit to give a lot of latitude to the CJEU and EU institutions to pursue further jurisprudence and integration without reference to either.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606

    Mr. L, not an especial fan of Hamilton but it is curious he gets more opprobrium than, say, Button for living in Monaco. I suspect it's because he's flashier than other drivers, but people wanting to pay less tax (and F1 drivers living in Monaco) is nothing new.

    He's not as likable as Button, he's flashier as you say, I think it's as simple as that as to why he gets more opprobrium, fairly or not. People for give a lot if someone comes across as likable, and while he might be a very nice man, his image Is not as kind as some.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    I have a soft spot for Mrs May. She is from the same town as me. She is only a couple of years older than me. I lived in Maidenhead for 13 years and noticed just how conscientious she was as a local MP. I also approve of politicians stealing the policies of other politicians - it shows a commendable lack of ego. So I liked the way she purloined several of Ed Miliband's plans.

    So take my bias into account.

    But it seems to me that she is simply the best option the Tories have to get them over the line at the next election. Nobody will remember the details of what went wrong in 2017 in 4.5 years time. But if she lasts a couple of years she'll at least look like a survivor.

    She may be a good constituency MP, but has been pretty poor at higher level.

    I can see that there is always a reason not to have a contest, but I really do not think either she or the Tory party would want her spearheading another campaign. It may happen in the circumstances where an election happens precipitously, but whatever circumstances set that off would heavily colour the result.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,131
    I think you are making a mistake to view this as a Leave/Remain axis.

    Assuming May survives until the deal is done then the party will accept the new reality. The Grey suits will insist on the best candidate being chosen regardless of the past. All they will need to do is accept the status quo and commit to "moving on" from the topic.

    So Remainers will be fine. Rejoinders will not. Similarly anyone on the Ultra side who wants to repudiate May's deal will be cast into the outer darkness
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    It won't be Leadsom I don't think, her MP vote last time will likely split between Rees-Mogg, Boris and Gove, though her eendorsement could be crucial.

    Gauke s a better bet and if he delivers on universal credit and makes it the success it should be ie ensuring that it always pays to work more hours and the benefits system does not mean you have to turn down part time work, then a number of MPs who backed May in June 2016 could turn to him.

    May is likely to stay now in my view post Brexit until the end of the transition in 2021 so there may be room for a new contender but they would needs to get in the Cabinet first.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    Charles said:

    I think you are making a mistake to view this as a Leave/Remain axis.

    Assuming May survives until the deal is done then the party will accept the new reality. The Grey suits will insist on the best candidate being chosen regardless of the past. All they will need to do is accept the status quo and commit to "moving on" from the topic.

    So Remainers will be fine. Rejoinders will not. Similarly anyone on the Ultra side who wants to repudiate May's deal will be cast into the outer darkness

    Cast into the outer darkness? Tories have some dramatic methods of dealing with internal dissenters?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    kle4 said:

    Headline today of Corbyn saying he is staking out the centre ground - he's gone native in the establishment! I thought part of his appeal was not being part of the centre.

    Except Corbyn's idea of the 'centre ground' is 'sharing the wealth we create' and attacking 'the self serving wealthy elite' so basically it is the 'centre ground' on the Left between the policies of Michael Foot and Mao!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42524076
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,948
    The chance of May satisfying everyone is nil. There will be trouble ahead. The question is who and how bad.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,640

    IanB2 said:

    OT Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has prepared four podcasts on Churchill's oratory, introduced here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/defeat-nazis-winston-churchill-first-weaponised-words/

    The article quotes Sir Nicholas Soames' view that our last great political orator was Michael Foot.

    Wandering even further off-topic, the Telegraph mentions the imminent Darkest Hour film about Churchill vs Halifax on whether to continue the fight or make peace with Germany after the fall of France, which is probably a warning not to back Dunkirk for the Oscars. Remarkably there are at least four films on the period -- those two, Churchill, and Their Finest. Although I am no Roger or Marquee Mark, I also get the impression this has been a particularly strong year for cinema.

    The year after the referendum has been a good one for 1940 nostalgia, for sure.
    How long does it take to make a film? Three years? Five? Something must have happened a few years ago to convince several different groups that the time for a Churchill film had come.
    It is perhaps that WW2 is leaving living memory, so more open to mythmaking dramas. One of my ageing aunts was giving a sermon on Christmas in wartime based on her own memories. I think that it was lost on all the congregation under 50, as even inherited memory is getting thin.

    The war films may do well at the BAFTAs, but probably not at the Oscars, as Britain's 1940 doesnot have the same resonance on the US West coast. Dunkirk was very cleverly filmed, so may be the exception.

    Incidentally, I saw Paddington 2 the other day, highly recommended. Hugh Grant hams it up superbly as the villain.
    Dunkirk was cleverly filmed, but lacks much by way of storyline and character development. You go to experience being there, as the first part of Private Ryan did for D-Day. But it doesn't bear much repeat viewing; indeed seeing it again for me rubbed in just how many of the incidents are shown over and over, from different perspectives. It may win some technical awards but doesn't feel like a best movie to me.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Headline today of Corbyn saying he is staking out the centre ground - he's gone native in the establishment! I thought part of his appeal was not being part of the centre.

    Except Corbyn's idea of the 'centre ground' is 'sharing the wealth we create' and attacking 'the self serving wealthy elite' so basically it is the 'centre ground' on the Left between the policies of Michael Foot and Mao!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42524076
    But I thought he didn't even like referring to it as the centre ground, being proud to be on the left, where he thinks the best ideas are and most people are. I thought he was one who wasn't a fan of refining what is centre as doing so is just a way of trying to hide how right or left you are. My mistake though, our politicos love to redefine wherect he centre is, and help make left or right even more useless terms.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited December 2017

    I have a soft spot for Mrs May. She is from the same town as me. She is only a couple of years older than me. I lived in Maidenhead for 13 years and noticed just how conscientious she was as a local MP. I also approve of politicians stealing the policies of other politicians - it shows a commendable lack of ego. So I liked the way she purloined several of Ed Miliband's plans.

    So take my bias into account.

    But it seems to me that she is simply the best option the Tories have to get them over the line at the next election. Nobody will remember the details of what went wrong in 2017 in 4.5 years time. But if she lasts a couple of years she'll at least look like a survivor.

    There was a Survation poll over the summer comparing how the Tories would fare against Corbyn relative to May, with Rudd, Boris, Hammond and Davis as alternative leaders. Only Boris got a higher Tory voteshare than May and then only fractionally and only Davis saw a narrower gap with Labour and then only marginally. Both Rudd and Hammond got lower Tory voteshare than May and a bigger Labour lead than May, Hammond significantly so.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    OT Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has prepared four podcasts on Churchill's oratory, introduced here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/defeat-nazis-winston-churchill-first-weaponised-words/

    The article quotes Sir Nicholas Soames' view that our last great political orator was Michael Foot.

    Wandering even further off-topic, the Telegraph mentions the imminent Darkest Hour film about Churchill vs Halifax on whether to continue the fight or make peace with Germany after the fall of France, which is probably a warning not to back Dunkirk for the Oscars. Remarkably there are at least four films on the period -- those two, Churchill, and Their Finest. Although I am no Roger or Marquee Mark, I also get the impression this has been a particularly strong year for cinema.

    The year after the referendum has been a good one for 1940 nostalgia, for sure.
    How long does it take to make a film? Three years? Five? Something must have happened a few years ago to convince several different groups that the time for a Churchill film had come.
    It is perhaps that WW2 is leaving living memory, so more open to mythmaking dramas. One of my ageing aunts was giving a sermon on Christmas in wartime based on her own memories. I think that it was lost on all the congregation under 50, as even inherited memory is getting thin.

    The war films may do well at the BAFTAs, but probably not at the Oscars, as Britain's 1940 doesnot have the same resonance on the US West coast. Dunkirk was very cleverly filmed, so may be the exception.

    Incidentally, I saw Paddington 2 the other day, highly recommended. Hugh Grant hams it up superbly as the villain.
    Dunkirk was cleverly filmed, but lacks much by way of storyline and character development. You go to experience being there, as the first part of Private Ryan did for D-Day. But it doesn't bear much repeat viewing; indeed seeing it again for me rubbed in just how many of the incidents are shown over and over, from different perspectives. It may win some technical awards but doesn't feel like a best movie to me.
    Agreed. Nolans a Great filmmaker, but it doesn't feel like one which will be watched over and over for years.
  • Rebourne_FluffyRebourne_Fluffy Posts: 225
    edited December 2017
    DM_Andy said:

    Friendly New Year bet:

    I will bet £50 that Iran will have a revolution before end-of CY2018. Would anyone - and only one - wish to bet against this?

    All funds to FATJUGS*. PtP to adjudicate please.

    * Future Accruals To Junior's Usually Good Servers.

    What's the definition of a revolution? The end of the Islamic Republic entirely and a new constitution of whatever sort?
    Something like Zimbabwe. I just can see the army taking on the RG though, hence revolution.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited December 2017
    Just a reminder too that the new ConservativeHome Tory members next Tory leader poll yesterday had Mogg first, Gove second, Boris third and Davis fourth.

    Leadsom was included but got barely 1%.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/12/our-survey-next-tory-leader-as-last-month-rees-mogg-leads-and-gove-is-second.html
  • Scott_P said:
    Absolutely the right thing to do. Now, whether she actually does it...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Headline today of Corbyn saying he is staking out the centre ground - he's gone native in the establishment! I thought part of his appeal was not being part of the centre.

    Except Corbyn's idea of the 'centre ground' is 'sharing the wealth we create' and attacking 'the self serving wealthy elite' so basically it is the 'centre ground' on the Left between the policies of Michael Foot and Mao!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42524076
    But I thought he didn't even like referring to it as the centre ground, being proud to be on the left, where he thinks the best ideas are and most people are. I thought he was one who wasn't a fan of refining what is centre as doing so is just a way of trying to hide how right or left you are. My mistake though, our politicos love to redefine wherect he centre is, and help make left or right even more useless terms.
    All politicians see themselves as the centre. It is an ego thing. Corbyn sees himself as occupying the centre between extraparliamentary Trotskyites and the Parliamentary Labour party.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,725

    IanB2 said:

    OT Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has prepared four podcasts on Churchill's oratory, introduced here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/defeat-nazis-winston-churchill-first-weaponised-words/

    The article quotes Sir Nicholas Soames' view that our last great political orator was Michael Foot.

    Wandering even further off-topic, the Telegraph mentions the imminent Darkest Hour film about Churchill vs Halifax on whether to continue the fight or make peace with Germany after the fall of France, which is probably a warning not to back Dunkirk for the Oscars. Remarkably there are at least four films on the period -- those two, Churchill, and Their Finest. Although I am no Roger or Marquee Mark, I also get the impression this has been a particularly strong year for cinema.

    The year after the referendum has been a good one for 1940 nostalgia, for sure.
    How long does it take to make a film? Three years? Five? Something must have happened a few years ago to convince several different groups that the time for a Churchill film had come.
    It is perhaps that WW2 is leaving living memory, so more open to mythmaking dramas. One of my ageing aunts was giving a sermon on Christmas in wartime based on her own memories. I think that it was lost on all the congregation under 50, as even inherited memory is getting thin.

    The war films may do well at the BAFTAs, but probably not at the Oscars, as Britain's 1940 doesnot have the same resonance on the US West coast. Dunkirk was very cleverly filmed, so may be the exception.

    Incidentally, I saw Paddington 2 the other day, highly recommended. Hugh Grant hams it up superbly as the villain.
    Re para 1 WWII is indeed hsitory. My primary school teacher grandson weas asked (told) last term to teach his 8 year olds about ,WWII and for them 'to ask their grandparernts' about it. In the area where he works an 8 year old could very easily have a parents in their mid to late 20’s and consequently grandparents now in their 50’s. Born in other words in the 1960’s
    He ended up asking me to write a letter to the class about what I remembered about being a child during the war; I was about the age of his class when the war ended.
  • If you knock over all of the Leavers in the Cabinet (plus the Moggster) then there is only one stand-out candidate from that wing of the party:

    #Esther4Leader

    Currently being wasted in the Whip's office. If May had any sense McVey would be doing media interviews 24/7.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    I'm not either because no matter how much money is provided it's never enough, a combination presumably of ever increasing cost from increased pressure and failure to reduce costs in those areas of it which are horribly inefficient. Add in training concerns and maybe it will all go tits up, and I see no solutions on offer as politicians only suggestions are more money, or reforms that apoatently never work since all of them are condemned, in general.

    I've long had crisis overload on it, and am now dispassionately waiting for the actual collapse.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,521
    'Gauke also spent six years working as a minister in George Osborne’s Treasury, he will have learned from the best during those six years.'

    Civil servants presumably? Worth noting that Osborne and perhaps the Treasury more generally were never convinced by IDS's scheme.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Headline today of Corbyn saying he is staking out the centre ground - he's gone native in the establishment! I thought part of his appeal was not being part of the centre.

    Except Corbyn's idea of the 'centre ground' is 'sharing the wealth we create' and attacking 'the self serving wealthy elite' so basically it is the 'centre ground' on the Left between the policies of Michael Foot and Mao!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42524076
    But I thought he didn't even like referring to it as the centre ground, being proud to be on the left, where he thinks the best ideas are and most people are. I thought he was one who wasn't a fan of refining what is centre as doing so is just a way of trying to hide how right or left you are. My mistake though, our politicos love to redefine wherect he centre is, and help make left or right even more useless terms.
    Corbyn is still as left-wing as ever, just his advisers have told him if he talks about 'the centre ground' he might win over a few mums in Middle England who are wary about putting a cross next to the Labour candidate while he is leader.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    OT Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has prepared four podcasts on Churchill's oratory, introduced here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/defeat-nazis-winston-churchill-first-weaponised-words/

    The article quotes Sir Nicholas Soames' view that our last great political orator was Michael Foot.

    Wandering even further off-topic, the Telegraph mentions the imminent Darkest Hour film about Churchill vs Halifax on whether to continue the fight or make peace with Germany after the fall of France, which is probably a warning not to back Dunkirk for the Oscars. Remarkably there are at least four films on the period -- those two, Churchill, and Their Finest. Although I am no Roger or Marquee Mark, I also get the impression this has been a particularly strong year for cinema.

    The year after the referendum has been a good one for 1940 nostalgia, for sure.
    How long does it take to make a film? Three years? Five? Something must have happened a few years ago to convince several different groups that the time for a Churchill film had come.
    It is perhaps that WW2 is leaving living memory, so more open to mythmaking dramas. One of my ageing aunts was giving a sermon on Christmas in wartime based on her own memories. I think that it was lost on all the congregation under 50, as even inherited memory is getting thin.

    The war films may do well at the BAFTAs, but probably not at the Oscars, as Britain's 1940 doesnot have the same resonance on the US West coast. Dunkirk was very cleverly filmed, so may be the exception.

    Incidentally, I saw Paddington 2 the other day, highly recommended. Hugh Grant hams it up superbly as the villain.
    Dunkirk was cleverly filmed, but lacks much by way of storyline and character development. You go to experience being there, as the first part of Private Ryan did for D-Day. But it doesn't bear much repeat viewing; indeed seeing it again for me rubbed in just how many of the incidents are shown over and over, from different perspectives. It may win some technical awards but doesn't feel like a best movie to me.
    Yes, I was thinking about a technical Oscar. I agree that plot and characterisation were particularly weak.

    The central soldier character was essentially a coward, with only one motivation of escape. The film takes the fashionable view of soldier as victim, but in Hollywood they rather prefer more heroic images of the military.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    The average GP gets an average £90 000 a year, comfortably in the top 10% of earners and just under 4 times the average UK salary.

    There are far more things to be worried about than medics.
  • HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    The average GP gets an average £90 000 a year, comfortably in the top 10% of earners and just under 4 times the average UK salary.

    There are far more things to be worried about than medics.
    And 'full time' GPs only work 4 days a week.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    I'm not either because no matter how much money is provided it's never enough, a combination presumably of ever increasing cost from increased pressure and failure to reduce costs in those areas of it which are horribly inefficient. Add in training concerns and maybe it will all go tits up, and I see no solutions on offer as politicians only suggestions are more money, or reforms that apoatently never work since all of them are condemned, in general.

    I've long had crisis overload on it, and am now dispassionately waiting for the actual collapse.
    My concerns are more existential. The NHS will remain a ragpatch ricketty ship taking on water. The existential issue is that the deterioration in quality of training in UK medicine and nursing is such that there will be no adequate crew for whatever replaces the NHS, whatever flag it flies.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    OT Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has prepared four podcasts on Churchill's oratory, introduced here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/defeat-nazis-winston-churchill-first-weaponised-words/

    The article quotes Sir Nicholas Soames' view that our last great political orator was Michael Foot.

    Wandering even further off-topic, the Telegraph mentions the imminent Darkest Hour film about Churchill vs Halifax on whether to continue the fight or make peace with Germany after the fall of France, which is probably a warning not to back Dunkirk for the Oscars. Remarkably there are at least four films on the period -- those two, Churchill, and Their Finest. Although I am no Roger or Marquee Mark, I also get the impression this has been a particularly strong year for cinema.

    The year after the referendum has been a good one for 1940 nostalgia, for sure.
    How long does it take to make a film? Three years? Five? Something must have happened a few years ago to convince several different groups that the time for a Churchill film had come.
    It is perhaps that WW2 is leaving living memory, so

    Incidentally, I saw Paddington 2 the other day, highly recommended. Hugh Grant hams it up superbly as the villain.
    Dunkirk was cleverly filmed, but lacks much by way of storyline and character development. You go to experience being there, as the first part of Private Ryan did for D-Day. But it doesn't bear much repeat viewing; indeed seeing it again for me rubbed in just how many of the incidents are shown over and over, from different perspectives. It may win some technical awards but doesn't feel like a best movie to me.
    Yes, I was thinking about a technical Oscar. I agree that plot and characterisation were particularly weak.

    The central soldier character was essentially a coward, with only one motivation of escape. The film takes the fashionable view of soldier as victim, but in Hollywood they rather prefer more heroic images of the military.
    That I cannot even recall who played any of the soldiers, excePT that one was Harry styles or something not that I'd recognise him, is a pretty good indication to me that the characterisation was indeed poor, if none of the actors could make me remember them.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,778
    edited December 2017
    Pro_Rata said:

    So, you lacked the confidence in Britain to find her way in a multi-speed Europe. I'm sure you downright dismissed that Britain's deal for a multi-destination Europe would ever be reality in any meaningful way, despite its being a formalisation of the status quo.

    That Mail article brought a long standing thought to the fore, best summed up by adapting Sunil:

    "Didn't Believe in Britain, so I beleaved" (or beleft if you prefer)

    I actually expected Britain to be able to find her way and thought that Cameron's renegotiations would succeed as the EU would realise the need to resolve the problems created by the Euro not being the currency for everyone. The reality is that the rest of the EU rebuked the renegotiations, they've determined that the reforms we needed to remain were not suitable for them (Europe 'a la carte' as they put it). So it wasn't in our hands.

    Had there been a meaningful reform agreed, then things might have been different. Lisbon betrayed Britain by changing whole swathes of competences from requiring unanimity to QMV, which allows the Eurozone to unilaterally change laws without any say of non-Eurozone nations like Britain. Had it been agreed for example to bring in the introduction of "double QMV" voting in areas that previously required unanimity, where a QMV of both Eurozone and non-Eurozone nations is required to introduce laws affecting non-Eurozone nations then that would have been meaningful.

    The EU wasn't willing to contemplate that or remove in any way the unilateral lawmaking powers of the Eurozone. I believe in Britain independently, but no I don't believe Britain can meaningfully reform the EU when the EU has shown we can't. When the Eurozone can unilaterally rewrite our laws without any input from Britain.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited December 2017
    Scott_P said:
    McLaughlin, Greening, Clark, Grayling, Leadsom and maybe Javid all set to be sacked according to that article.

    However I would be wary about some of them, Grayling in particular is close to May and ran her leadership campaign.
  • HYUFD said:

    I have a soft spot for Mrs May. She is from the same town as me. She is only a couple of years older than me. I lived in Maidenhead for 13 years and noticed just how conscientious she was as a local MP. I also approve of politicians stealing the policies of other politicians - it shows a commendable lack of ego. So I liked the way she purloined several of Ed Miliband's plans.

    So take my bias into account.

    But it seems to me that she is simply the best option the Tories have to get them over the line at the next election. Nobody will remember the details of what went wrong in 2017 in 4.5 years time. But if she lasts a couple of years she'll at least look like a survivor.

    There was a Survation poll over the summer comparing how the Tories would fare against Corbyn relative to May, with Rudd, Boris, Hammond and Davis as alternative leaders. Only Boris got a higher Tory voteshare than May and then only fractionally and only Davis saw a narrower gap with Labour and then only marginally. Both Rudd and Hammond got lower Tory voteshare than May and a bigger Labour lead than May, Hammond significantly so.
    These hypothetical polls are best taken with a large pinch of salt. If Boris, Rudd or whoever would have the same policies and campaign in precisely the same way as Theresa May did, then perhaps the poll might be valid but what would be the point of ever changing the leader if the new one would never do anything different?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    The average GP gets an average £90 000 a year, comfortably in the top 10% of earners and just under 4 times the average UK salary.

    There are far more things to be worried about than medics.
    And 'full time' GPs only work 4 days a week.
    Yes, being a local GP is a cushy job however much they moan
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,688
    If the Tories think that painting Corbyn as a security risk will win them the election they are deluded.

    I don’t think that Corbyn should be in charge of the nation’s security. But I have made up my mind about him. He leads a party which has become institutionally anti-semitic and I find this such a moral failing that I simply cannot place my trust in leaders who preside over such a change in what used to be a decent party. I feel sorry for decent Labour people. But I cannot join them. There is a fundamental dishonesty and moral evasion in Corbyn and McDonnell’s leadership, despite all their claims to be principled. If they are ever put into power they will I think be found out and it will be a painful lesson for their supporters.

    But for now Corbyn speaks attractively and correctly identifies many problems. Still, any fool can do the latter. Even May has done so. It’s finding effective solutions which is difficult and both she and Corbyn are useless on that score.

    It is those voters who see someone speaking about austerity in a way that resonates and who appears to have answers whom the Tories need to persuade.

    The security line was tried (somewhat ineptly) at the last election and didn’t work. The Tories need to demolish his economic policies and have something positive to offer themselves. That’s the test for any possible replacement for Mrs May.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    The average GP gets an average £90 000 a year, comfortably in the top 10% of earners and just under 4 times the average UK salary.

    There are far more things to be worried about than medics.
    Yet, GP's have very poor morale and either quit or go part time very quickly.

    You make the fundamental Tory error of seeing money as the only motivator. In most jobs other factors are equally or more important as motivators. Team spirit, workload, respect and self respect, altruism, tolerable work life balance, a supportive attitude to personal and professional development etc etc.

    There is much that could be done to improve morale and often quite cheaply. I am not agitating for a pay rise.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited December 2017

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    I'm not either because no matter how much money is provided it's never enough, a combination presumably of ever increasing cost from increased pressure and failure to reduce costs in those areas of it which are horribly inefficient. Add in training concerns and maybe it will all go tits up, and I see no solutions on offer as politicians only suggestions are more money, or reforms that apoatently never work since all of them are condemned, in general.

    I've long had crisis overload on it, and am now dispassionately waiting for the actual collapse.
    My concerns are more existential. The NHS will remain a ragpatch ricketty ship taking on water. The existential issue is that the deterioration in quality of training in UK medicine and nursing is such that there will be no adequate crew for whatever replaces the NHS, whatever flag it flies.
    The government is expanding nursing training places and there are still over 600 000 nurses on the register in the UK and almost 300 000 doctors.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    The average GP gets an average £90 000 a year, comfortably in the top 10% of earners and just under 4 times the average UK salary.

    There are far more things to be worried about than medics.
    Yet, GP's have very poor morale and either quit or go part time very quickly.

    You make the fundamental Tory error of seeing money as the only motivator. In most jobs other factors are equally or more important as motivators. Team spirit, workload, respect and self respect, altruism, tolerable work life balance, a supportive attitude to personal and professional development etc etc.

    There is much that could be done to improve morale and often quite cheaply. I am not agitating for a pay rise.
    GPs are amongst the top earners in the UK with the most holiday, I have little time for complaints from them.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,688
    Anyway, it is very windy here in the Lakes. A beautiful clear day so the hound will be walked, wood will be chopped and preparations made for a party later.

    I have - gulp! - written 32 thread headers in the last two years. So I would like to thank OGH and TSE for allowing me the privilege and you all for your comments and the lively debate. Thanks too to all the other very good header writers.

    Best wishes to all for a good celebration tonight, whatever you are doing, and for 2018.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    I'm not either because no matter how much money is provided it's never enough, a combination presumably of ever increasing cost from increased pressure and failure to reduce costs in those areas of it which are horribly inefficient. Add in training concerns and maybe it will all go tits up, and I see no solutions on offer as politicians only suggestions are more money, or reforms that apoatently never work since all of them are condemned, in general.

    I've long had crisis overload on it, and am now dispassionately waiting for the actual collapse.
    My concerns are more existential. The NHS will remain a ragpatch ricketty ship taking on water. The existential issue is that the deterioration in quality of training in UK medicine and nursing is such that there will be no adequate crew for whatever replaces the NHS, whatever flag it flies.
    The government is expanding nursing training places and there are still over 600 000 nurses on the register in the UK
    Increasingly the NHS workforce is looking like the Wehrmacht in 1945. Full of paper divisions, inadequately equipped for the task and with commanders that fear the higher command.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,994
    Cyclefree said:

    If the Tories think that painting Corbyn as a security risk will win them the election they are deluded.

    I don’t think that Corbyn should be in charge of the nation’s security. But I have made up my mind about him. He leads a party which has become institutionally anti-semitic and I find this such a moral failing that I simply cannot place my trust in leaders who preside over such a change in what used to be a decent party. I feel sorry for decent Labour people. But I cannot join them. There is a fundamental dishonesty and moral evasion in Corbyn and McDonnell’s leadership, despite all their claims to be principled. If they are ever put into power they will I think be found out and it will be a painful lesson for their supporters.

    But for now Corbyn speaks attractively and correctly identifies many problems. Still, any fool can do the latter. Even May has done so. It’s finding effective solutions which is difficult and both she and Corbyn are useless on that score.

    It is those voters who see someone speaking about austerity in a way that resonates and who appears to have answers whom the Tories need to persuade.

    The security line was tried (somewhat ineptly) at the last election and didn’t work. The Tories need to demolish his economic policies and have something positive to offer themselves. That’s the test for any possible replacement for Mrs May.

    What do you mean by institutionally ant -semitic ? Are you comparing it with institutional racism ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited December 2017

    HYUFD said:

    I have a soft spot for Mrs May. She is from the same town as me. She is only a couple of years older than me. I lived in Maidenhead for 13 years and noticed just how conscientious she was as a local MP. I also approve of politicians stealing the policies of other politicians - it shows a commendable lack of ego. So I liked the way she purloined several of Ed Miliband's plans.

    So take my bias into account.

    But it seems to me that she is simply the best option the Tories have to get them over the line at the next election. Nobody will remember the details of what went wrong in 2017 in 4.5 years time. But if she lasts a couple of years she'll at least look like a survivor.

    There was a Survation poll over the summer comparing how the Tories would fare against Corbyn relative to May, with Rudd, Boris, Hammond and Davis as alternative leaders. Only Boris got a higher Tory voteshare than May and then only fractionally and only Davis saw a narrower gap with Labour and then only marginally. Both Rudd and Hammond got lower Tory voteshare than May and a bigger Labour lead than May, Hammond significantly so.
    These hypothetical polls are best taken with a large pinch of salt. If Boris, Rudd or whoever would have the same policies and campaign in precisely the same way as Theresa May did, then perhaps the poll might be valid but what would be the point of ever changing the leader if the new one would never do anything different?
    It does show though that no leader would automatically get a poll bounce relative to May.

    In 1990 by contrast polls showed both Major and Heseltine would get a poll bounce relative to Thatcher.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, it is very windy here in the Lakes. A beautiful clear day so the hound will be walked, wood will be chopped and preparations made for a party later.

    I have - gulp! - written 32 thread headers in the last two years. So I would like to thank OGH and TSE for allowing me the privilege and you all for your comments and the lively debate. Thanks too to all the other very good header writers.

    Best wishes to all for a good celebration tonight, whatever you are doing, and for 2018.

    Happy New Year to you too.

    Your thread headers have been terrific.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    The average GP gets an average £90 000 a year, comfortably in the top 10% of earners and just under 4 times the average UK salary.

    There are far more things to be worried about than medics.
    Yet, GP's have very poor morale and either quit or go part time very quickly.

    You make the fundamental Tory error of seeing money as the only motivator. In most jobs other factors are equally or more important as motivators. Team spirit, workload, respect and self respect, altruism, tolerable work life balance, a supportive attitude to personal and professional development etc etc.

    There is much that could be done to improve morale and often quite cheaply. I am not agitating for a pay rise.
    GPs are amongst the top earners in the UK with the most holiday, I have little time for complaints from them.

    Like I said, you make the fundamental Tory error of seeing the issue purely in terms of money. It isn't.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    kle4 said:

    Mr. L, not an especial fan of Hamilton but it is curious he gets more opprobrium than, say, Button for living in Monaco. I suspect it's because he's flashier than other drivers, but people wanting to pay less tax (and F1 drivers living in Monaco) is nothing new.

    He's not as likable as Button, he's flashier as you say, I think it's as simple as that as to why he gets more opprobrium, fairly or not. People for give a lot if someone comes across as likable, and while he might be a very nice man, his image Is not as kind as some.
    If LH really wants a Knighthood - and there’s been no indication so far that he does, unlike say David Backam who’s clearly desperate for one - the best thing he could do is set up a motorsport charity to help poor and disadvantaged kids in his community, something along the lines of what the excellent Mission Motorsport do for disabled ex-servicemen.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited December 2017
    Yorkcity said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If the Tories think that painting Corbyn as a security risk will win them the election they are deluded.

    I don’t think that Corbyn should be in charge of the nation’s security. But I have made up my mind about him. He leads a party which has become institutionally anti-semitic and I find this such a moral failing that I simply cannot place my trust in leaders who preside over such a change in what used to be a decent party. I feel sorry for decent Labour people. But I cannot join them. There is a fundamental dishonesty and moral evasion in Corbyn and McDonnell’s leadership, despite all their claims to be principled. If they are ever put into power they will I think be found out and it will be a painful lesson for their supporters.

    But for now Corbyn speaks attractively and correctly identifies many problems. Still, any fool can do the latter. Even May has done so. It’s finding effective solutions which is difficult and both she and Corbyn are useless on that score.

    It is those voters who see someone speaking about austerity in a way that resonates and who appears to have answers whom the Tories need to persuade.

    The security line was tried (somewhat ineptly) at the last election and didn’t work. The Tories need to demolish his economic policies and have something positive to offer themselves. That’s the test for any possible replacement for Mrs May.

    What do you mean by institutionally ant -semitic ? Are you comparing it with institutional racism ?
    While there certainly are individual anti-semites in Labour, and very close to the leadership, I wouldn't regard the party as a whole as institutionally anti-semitic.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,419


    Yes, I was thinking about a technical Oscar. I agree that plot and characterisation were particularly weak.

    The central soldier character was essentially a coward, with only one motivation of escape. The film takes the fashionable view of soldier as victim, but in Hollywood they rather prefer more heroic images of the military.

    The Academy had the perfect opportunity this year, in the shape of Hacksaw Ridge - real life story of conscientous objector as ultimate war hero. They heaped Oscars on the pile of shite that was La La Land instead. I can't help thinking if the director had been other than Mel Gibson, it would have fared better. Still a top drawer war movie (if maybe 15-20 minutes too long).
  • Jonathan said:
    McCain fails to note that the Brexit vote was about national sovereignty, and not the ethno-nationalism or protectionism he caricatures it as.
  • HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    In pure competence and vision terms it ought to be Gove, but TSE assembles an impressive array of reasons why it won't be. Hunt is at risk of events - he's managing the NHS on a seriously inadequate budget and at some point a crisis will occur: we'll have to see how he handles it.

    It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.
    I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources is becoming critical in certain areas. Hunt's biggest flaw is in failing to create a positive work culture. The new junior contract is wrecking all continuity of care, and continuity of medical teams. Continuity is the basis of learning in postgraduate training, as experience without seeing results is very poor motivation.

    Money matters, and to cope on projected budgets there needs to be explicit areas that fall outside the NHS, a nettle unlikely to be grasped in a hung parliament. Ultimately though, the NHS can run a bare bones service on a shoestring, but the biggest threat is the shortage of skilled personnel. The senior cadres are retiring early, and the junior ranks are not getting the adequate training to replace them.

    I am not optomistic about the long term prospects of medicine in the UK.
    I'm not either because no matter how much money is provided it's never enough, a combination presumably of ever increasing cost from increased pressure and failure to reduce costs in those areas of it which are horribly inefficient. Add in training concerns and maybe it will all go tits up, and I see no solutions on offer as politicians only suggestions are more money, or reforms that apoatently never work since all of them are condemned, in general.

    I've long had crisis overload on it, and am now dispassionately waiting for the actual collapse.
    My concerns are more existential. The NHS will remain a ragpatch ricketty ship taking on water. The existential issue is that the deterioration in quality of training in UK medicine and nursing is such that there will be no adequate crew for whatever replaces the NHS, whatever flag it flies.
    The government is expanding nursing training places and there are still over 600 000 nurses on the register in the UK
    Increasingly the NHS workforce is looking like the Wehrmacht in 1945. Full of paper divisions, inadequately equipped for the task and with commanders that fear the higher command.
    And trying to hide their stolen gains 'off-shore'? Oh, whilst blaming deaths upon 'Das System'?

    Happy retirement DrFauxSux.
This discussion has been closed.