Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Toby Young quits so helping TMay by taking the attention away

245

Comments

  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,642

    Fenman said:

    For those few still vaguely interested in the fate of the Lib Dems a quick look at Lib Dem Voice today where they are explaining their new policy of total censorship might amuse. This goes a long way towards explaining why I, as a lifetime Liberal and Lib Dem, have to join others in seeing the party as being in its death throes. Liberalism has never been more needed and never more poorly represented.

    I think it's a positive move. The LDV comment section is full of boors drowning everyone else out. A little moderation would make it a whole bunch better.
    If you remove the boors from the comments section of a Lib Dem blog, are there any comments left?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,778
    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,177

    JackW said:

    Meanwhile ....

    News is breaking of more reshuffle difficulties as it has emerged that Cabinet tea lady, Mrs Nora Buggins refused a move to 11 Downing Street. Mrs May offered Mrs Biggins a sideways move to make room for Justin Greening to hand round the custard creams at Cabinet.

    This difficulty follows on from the Budget spat when Chancellor Hammond proposed to reduce the size of Nora's urn(ings) by 10%. Nora responded by threatening to cut off Hammond's ginger nuts. Unsurprisingly the Chancellor caved and his ginger nuts remain intact.

    Crude and unfunny, all in one 'joke'
    Sadly not a little bit harsh on Mrs May's cabinet reshuffle.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,463

    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".

    I don't think the challenge is to manage old tweets so that no one knows about them. The issue is whether we appoint to public bodies people who have had verbal (twittoral?) diarrhoea in their past lives but who would do a good job on that public body. Do we separate such action and behaviour from their ability to do the job to which they may be appointed.

    cf. Kevin Spacey
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343

    Tax Credits were a simple concept - work doesn't pay. So lets subsidise low wages.

    A stupid concept, but simple to understand. What should have happened was that instead of subsidising Tesco, government should have incentivised Tesco to pay appropriate wages. They want to pay less Corporation Tax, fine as long as you pay a living wage.

    Capitalism is simple. You want to sell your products you need punters with enough cash in their pockets who can afford to buy them. Low wages + high costs = less cash too spend = lower economic output. You can only substitute this lack of disposable income with cheap loans for so long

    Wow, I agree with you. It’s bonkers when governments subsidise low pay, and doubly bonkers when they do it with companies like Amazon who pay little in corporation tax thanks to overseas transfers.

    Esther McVey is trying to do a difficult job in a difficult department. That shouldn’t mean that she needs a police car stationed outside her house to protect her from those who think Osama bin Laden is a better person. The language needs toning down, just saying.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,870
    Well there's one positive about all of this, we know for sure that 2022 will have a different Tory leader. May will never be able to hang on now. She's created too many enemies and botched everything up one too many times.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,392

    John_M said:

    Mortimer said:

    Ploughing through Fall Out; it's now clear that the only people who think we could remain in the SM and or CU are our very own - WG etc....

    The Govt decided in early 2017 that it wasn't possible.

    Mortimer said:

    Ploughing through Fall Out; it's now clear that the only people who think we could remain in the SM and or CU are our very own - WG etc....

    The Govt decided in early 2017 that it wasn't possible.

    Good morning all.

    It's one of the aspects of Brexit that has puzzled me. The Single Market is a club, with clear rules - among which are the four freedoms. HMG has decided that freedom of movement must end. That renders us ineligible. I think there has been deliberate conflation of 'access to' and 'membership of' by some politicians.

    We will leave the SM in name only. We will restrict freedom of movement in name only. From here on in it is all going to be about symbolism. On a practical basis, nothing much is going to change. It will literally all come down to the colour of passports and other things like that - and for most people that will be enough.

    Sorry but I think that is wishful thinking. The EU is a club with rules for a reason. They are not going to let us become semi detached and undermine the basic principles of their club just to make things easy for May.

    Anything that undermines or circumvents the four freedoms will end up in front of the ECJ very quickly indeed. And they certainly won't be interested in smokescreens.

    I agree. There is going to be a lot of legal contorting going on - not least to provide coiver for the total humiliation of the Brexit-backing Tory elite - and it will all be done on terms dictated by the EU.
    Again more wishful thinking. Either we leave with a deal we are satisfied with or we leave without a deal. Legal contorting does not feature.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,778
    TOPPING said:

    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".

    I don't think the challenge is to manage old tweets so that no one knows about them. The issue is whether we appoint to public bodies people who have had verbal (twittoral?) diarrhoea in their past lives but who would do a good job on that public body. Do we separate such action and behaviour from their ability to do the job to which they may be appointed.

    cf. Kevin Spacey
    I don't see how Kevin Spacey is relevant to the discussion. There's a whole world of difference between attempting to [allegedly] statutory rape an underage child (teenager) ... and making crude and inappropriate jokes.

    If you think bad jokes online are remotely in the same league as molesting people both underage and adults then that says more about you than anyone else.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,809
    Mr. Topping, that Spacey comment reminds me: there's a lot of talk in Hollywood about victimisation of women, and they still mention Spacey, even though his alleged actions pertain to male victims.

    The problem of sex and power in Hollywood isn't limited to women being preyed upon by men, but there's a weird lack of desire to acknowledge male victims. [We see it also with Rotherham, where a third of victims were boys].
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    TOPPING said:

    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".

    I don't think the challenge is to manage old tweets so that no one knows about them. The issue is whether we appoint to public bodies people who have had verbal (twittoral?) diarrhoea in their past lives but who would do a good job on that public body. Do we separate such action and behaviour from their ability to do the job to which they may be appointed.

    cf. Kevin Spacey
    No, not cf Kevin Spacey. He committed possibly criminal sexual acts against young boys under his control.

    Very different to Toby Young who has never been accused of touching anyone and has done nothing more than use his keyboard to denigrate the perpetually offended.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,809
    Mr. Thompson, some lunatics online genuinely equate speech they dislike to violence.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,778
    Indeed Mr Dancer.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343

    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".

    Sadly it’s not that simple. There exist archives of Tweets and sites that archive Twitter and highlight deleted Tweets in a searchable index. There is no delete button on the internet.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 572
    Sandpit said:

    Tax Credits were a simple concept - work doesn't pay. So lets subsidise low wages.

    A stupid concept, but simple to understand. What should have happened was that instead of subsidising Tesco, government should have incentivised Tesco to pay appropriate wages. They want to pay less Corporation Tax, fine as long as you pay a living wage.

    Capitalism is simple. You want to sell your products you need punters with enough cash in their pockets who can afford to buy them. Low wages + high costs = less cash too spend = lower economic output. You can only substitute this lack of disposable income with cheap loans for so long

    Wow, I agree with you. It’s bonkers when governments subsidise low pay, and doubly bonkers when they do it with companies like Amazon who pay little in corporation tax thanks to overseas transfers.

    Esther McVey is trying to do a difficult job in a difficult department. That shouldn’t mean that she needs a police car stationed outside her house to protect her from those who think Osama bin Laden is a better person. The language needs toning down, just saying.
    You have Mrs Thatcher to blame for first introducing the so-called bonkers system, in her desperation to reduce the massive unemployment of the mid 80s it seemed sensible to encourage hiring by subsidising low wages. Note that without Labour's minimum wage the tax credit subsidy would now be even higher. You cant really blame Labour for making benefits more generous as that is what they are elected to do.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,654
    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".

    I don't think the challenge is to manage old tweets so that no one knows about them. The issue is whether we appoint to public bodies people who have had verbal (twittoral?) diarrhoea in their past lives but who would do a good job on that public body. Do we separate such action and behaviour from their ability to do the job to which they may be appointed.

    cf. Kevin Spacey
    No, not cf Kevin Spacey. He committed possibly criminal sexual acts against young boys under his control.

    Very different to Toby Young who has never been accused of touching anyone and has done nothing more than use his keyboard to denigrate the perpetually offended.
    "done nothing more than use his keyboard to denigrate the perpetually offended."
    So he shouldn't have resigned?
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 572
    edited January 9
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Meanwhile ....

    News is breaking of more reshuffle difficulties as it has emerged that Cabinet tea lady, Mrs Nora Buggins refused a move to 11 Downing Street. Mrs May offered Mrs Biggins a sideways move to make room for Justin Greening to hand round the custard creams at Cabinet.

    This difficulty follows on from the Budget spat when Chancellor Hammond proposed to reduce the size of Nora's urn(ings) by 10%. Nora responded by threatening to cut off Hammond's ginger nuts. Unsurprisingly the Chancellor caved and his ginger nuts remain intact.

    Crude and unfunny, all in one 'joke'
    Sadly not a little bit harsh on Mrs May's cabinet reshuffle.
    Are you going to be resurrecting your ARSE or was it pounded beyond repair by Brexit and Trump?
  • Sandpit said:

    Tax Credits were a simple concept - work doesn't pay. So lets subsidise low wages.

    A stupid concept, but simple to understand. What should have happened was that instead of subsidising Tesco, government should have incentivised Tesco to pay appropriate wages. They want to pay less Corporation Tax, fine as long as you pay a living wage.

    Capitalism is simple. You want to sell your products you need punters with enough cash in their pockets who can afford to buy them. Low wages + high costs = less cash too spend = lower economic output. You can only substitute this lack of disposable income with cheap loans for so long

    Wow, I agree with you. It’s bonkers when governments subsidise low pay, and doubly bonkers when they do it with companies like Amazon who pay little in corporation tax thanks to overseas transfers.

    Esther McVey is trying to do a difficult job in a difficult department. That shouldn’t mean that she needs a police car stationed outside her house to protect her from those who think Osama bin Laden is a better person. The language needs toning down, just saying.
    The UC policy is the problem. If the policy didn't seem designed and implemented to screw as many vulnerable people as hard as possible the language wouldn't be there. I know that the objection will be that the policy isn't that, but in practice it very much is.

    Across the country in places that haven't yet been hit by UC Charities Housing Associations and Councils are doing their best to prepare for the onslaught thats to come. That can't be a sustainable policy.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    OchEye said:

    Anyhoo, praise unto Mrs May for promoting Esther McVey.

    If she becomes Chancellor before the next election then Esther McVey will be using John McDonnell’s bollocks for garters.

    She's already being set up for the UC mess and fail, her "nickname" doing the rounds is McVile. If she can sort it out then she has a chance, however small, to be Chancellor, but I'm certainly putting any money on it. Even Greening could see the job was a poisoned chalice...
    McVile is the name the vile cretins that want to hang her use.

    It is a useful moron/troll detector.
    Tax credits, possibly the most pernicious government policy of my lifetime.

    Borrow £50bn a year, use a misleading name to hand it out in cash to 60% of households at an average of £4k per household per year - but that all the journalists don’t understand because they all either live in London and earn too much to claim it, or don’t understand why a household earning considerably more than the median wage should be able to claim benefits at all.

    A policy almost completely designed so that when the Tories came back into power and had to deal with the deficit, they’d be called heartless bastards (and a lot worse in the case of Ms McVey) for trying to undo the almighty mess this policy created.
    Tax credits were first introduced by the Thatcher government in 1988
    Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit were introduced by Gordon Brown in 2002 and expanded massively since then.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,463

    TOPPING said:

    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".

    I don't think the challenge is to manage old tweets so that no one knows about them. The issue is whether we appoint to public bodies people who have had verbal (twittoral?) diarrhoea in their past lives but who would do a good job on that public body. Do we separate such action and behaviour from their ability to do the job to which they may be appointed.

    cf. Kevin Spacey
    I don't see how Kevin Spacey is relevant to the discussion. There's a whole world of difference between attempting to [allegedly] statutory rape an underage child (teenager) ... and making crude and inappropriate jokes.

    If you think bad jokes online are remotely in the same league as molesting people both underage and adults then that says more about you than anyone else.
    Yes I'm not surprised you weren't able to make the jump, no matter.

    I was using Kevin Spacey to broaden the general point out to whether the fact that people have done something we view as bad should be separated from their ability to do a job.

    cf. Picasso.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,189

    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".

    As a bold champion of free speech he had nothing to hide so would never have thought of doing so.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,392
    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tax Credits were a simple concept - work doesn't pay. So lets subsidise low wages.

    A stupid concept, but simple to understand. What should have happened was that instead of subsidising Tesco, government should have incentivised Tesco to pay appropriate wages. They want to pay less Corporation Tax, fine as long as you pay a living wage.

    Capitalism is simple. You want to sell your products you need punters with enough cash in their pockets who can afford to buy them. Low wages + high costs = less cash too spend = lower economic output. You can only substitute this lack of disposable income with cheap loans for so long

    Wow, I agree with you. It’s bonkers when governments subsidise low pay, and doubly bonkers when they do it with companies like Amazon who pay little in corporation tax thanks to overseas transfers.

    Esther McVey is trying to do a difficult job in a difficult department. That shouldn’t mean that she needs a police car stationed outside her house to protect her from those who think Osama bin Laden is a better person. The language needs toning down, just saying.
    You have Mrs Thatcher to blame for first introducing the so-called bonkers system, in her desperation to reduce the massive unemployment of the mid 80s it seemed sensible to encourage hiring by subsidising low wages. Note that without Labour's minimum wage the tax credit subsidy would now be even higher. You cant really blame Labour for making benefits more generous as that is what they are elected to do.
    Not true.

    Thatcher introduced Family Credit in 1986 but that was only a replacement for Family Income Supplement which was introduced by Heath in 1970.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071

    John_M said:

    Mortimer said:

    Ploughing through Fall Out; it's now clear that the only people who think we could remain in the SM and or CU are our very own - WG etc....

    The Govt decided in early 2017 that it wasn't possible.

    Mortimer said:

    Ploughing through Fall Out; it's now clear that the only people who think we could remain in the SM and or CU are our very own - WG etc....

    The Govt decided in early 2017 that it wasn't possible.

    Good morning all.

    It's one of the aspects of Brexit that has puzzled me. The Single Market is a club, with clear rules - among which are the four freedoms. HMG has decided that freedom of movement must end. That renders us ineligible. I think there has been deliberate conflation of 'access to' and 'membership of' by some politicians.

    We will leave the SM in name only. We will restrict freedom of movement in name only. From here on in it is all going to be about symbolism. On a practical basis, nothing much is going to change. It will literally all come down to the colour of passports and other things like that - and for most people that will be enough.

    Sorry but I think that is wishful thinking. The EU is a club with rules for a reason. They are not going to let us become semi detached and undermine the basic principles of their club just to make things easy for May.

    Anything that undermines or circumvents the four freedoms will end up in front of the ECJ very quickly indeed. And they certainly won't be interested in smokescreens.

    I agree. There is going to be a lot of legal contorting going on - not least to provide coiver for the total humiliation of the Brexit-backing Tory elite - and it will all be done on terms dictated by the EU.
    Again more wishful thinking. Either we leave with a deal we are satisfied with or we leave without a deal. Legal contorting does not feature.

    It depends on how you define "we", of course. I think most people will be fine with the final deal the EU gives the UK to sign.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,778
    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tax Credits were a simple concept - work doesn't pay. So lets subsidise low wages.

    A stupid concept, but simple to understand. What should have happened was that instead of subsidising Tesco, government should have incentivised Tesco to pay appropriate wages. They want to pay less Corporation Tax, fine as long as you pay a living wage.

    Capitalism is simple. You want to sell your products you need punters with enough cash in their pockets who can afford to buy them. Low wages + high costs = less cash too spend = lower economic output. You can only substitute this lack of disposable income with cheap loans for so long

    Wow, I agree with you. It’s bonkers when governments subsidise low pay, and doubly bonkers when they do it with companies like Amazon who pay little in corporation tax thanks to overseas transfers.

    Esther McVey is trying to do a difficult job in a difficult department. That shouldn’t mean that she needs a police car stationed outside her house to protect her from those who think Osama bin Laden is a better person. The language needs toning down, just saying.
    You have Mrs Thatcher to blame for first introducing the so-called bonkers system, in her desperation to reduce the massive unemployment of the mid 80s it seemed sensible to encourage hiring by subsidising low wages. Note that without Labour's minimum wage the tax credit subsidy would now be even higher. You cant really blame Labour for making benefits more generous as that is what they are elected to do.
    Did Thatcher introduce it to cover 60% of families?

    There's a world of difference between covering the very most marginal and lowest paid who are transitioning from unemployment to work and having a system where it is a lifestyle and expected for everyone. There's a difference between incentivising work and disincentivising work.

    The best solution is to merge everything income related into a single system. Merge Income Tax, National Insurance and Tax Credits etc all into a single, simple, solitary "Negative Income Tax". Universal Credit seems to be a step towards that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,137
    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 572
    Sandpit said:

    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    OchEye said:

    Anyhoo, praise unto Mrs May for promoting Esther McVey.

    If she becomes Chancellor before the next election then Esther McVey will be using John McDonnell’s bollocks for garters.

    She's already being set up for the UC mess and fail, her "nickname" doing the rounds is McVile. If she can sort it out then she has a chance, however small, to be Chancellor, but I'm certainly putting any money on it. Even Greening could see the job was a poisoned chalice...
    McVile is the name the vile cretins that want to hang her use.

    It is a useful moron/troll detector.
    Tax credits, possibly the most pernicious government policy of my lifetime.

    Borrow £50bn a year, use a misleading name to hand it out in cash to 60% of households at an average of £4k per household per year - but that all the journalists don’t understand because they all either live in London and earn too much to claim it, or don’t understand why a household earning considerably more than the median wage should be able to claim benefits at all.

    A policy almost completely designed so that when the Tories came back into power and had to deal with the deficit, they’d be called heartless bastards (and a lot worse in the case of Ms McVey) for trying to undo the almighty mess this policy created.
    Tax credits were first introduced by the Thatcher government in 1988
    Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit were introduced by Gordon Brown in 2002 and expanded massively since then.
    Family Credit was introduced by the Tories in the 1980s and renamed by Gordon Brown

    Why are you surprised about Labour increasing benefits? When they win elections that is what voters have given them a mandate to do. Ditto Tories and tax/spending cuts.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,177
    HHemmelig said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Meanwhile ....

    News is breaking of more reshuffle difficulties as it has emerged that Cabinet tea lady, Mrs Nora Buggins refused a move to 11 Downing Street. Mrs May offered Mrs Biggins a sideways move to make room for Justin Greening to hand round the custard creams at Cabinet.

    This difficulty follows on from the Budget spat when Chancellor Hammond proposed to reduce the size of Nora's urn(ings) by 10%. Nora responded by threatening to cut off Hammond's ginger nuts. Unsurprisingly the Chancellor caved and his ginger nuts remain intact.

    Crude and unfunny, all in one 'joke'
    Sadly not a little bit harsh on Mrs May's cabinet reshuffle.
    Are you going to be resurrecting your ARSE or was it pounded beyond repair by Brexit and Trump?
    My ARSE continues to enjoy a fruitful retirement with the occasional wistful glance in the mirror at both the decadent triumphs and the unfortunate crack in the end.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,128
    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    My wallet hopes so!! As long as she runs as a Democrat. That might actually be more of an issue...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tax Credits were a simple concept - work doesn't pay. So lets subsidise low wages.

    A stupid concept, but simple to understand. What should have happened was that instead of subsidising Tesco, government should have incentivised Tesco to pay appropriate wages. They want to pay less Corporation Tax, fine as long as you pay a living wage.

    Capitalism is simple. You want to sell your products you need punters with enough cash in their pockets who can afford to buy them. Low wages + high costs = less cash too spend = lower economic output. You can only substitute this lack of disposable income with cheap loans for so long

    Wow, I agree with you. It’s bonkers when governments subsidise low pay, and doubly bonkers when they do it with companies like Amazon who pay little in corporation tax thanks to overseas transfers.

    Esther McVey is trying to do a difficult job in a difficult department. That shouldn’t mean that she needs a police car stationed outside her house to protect her from those who think Osama bin Laden is a better person. The language needs toning down, just saying.
    You have Mrs Thatcher to blame for first introducing the so-called bonkers system, in her desperation to reduce the massive unemployment of the mid 80s it seemed sensible to encourage hiring by subsidising low wages. Note that without Labour's minimum wage the tax credit subsidy would now be even higher. You cant really blame Labour for making benefits more generous as that is what they are elected to do.
    There’s a huge difference between 1980s “income support” and 2000s tax credits, the latter of which costs £50bn a year of borrowed money and has done for a decade - adding half a TRILLION pounds (c.28% of GDP) of extra debt which has to be serviced.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,189
    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    Trump wanted Oprah as his VP during his 2000 presidential run.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,778
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".

    I don't think the challenge is to manage old tweets so that no one knows about them. The issue is whether we appoint to public bodies people who have had verbal (twittoral?) diarrhoea in their past lives but who would do a good job on that public body. Do we separate such action and behaviour from their ability to do the job to which they may be appointed.

    cf. Kevin Spacey
    I don't see how Kevin Spacey is relevant to the discussion. There's a whole world of difference between attempting to [allegedly] statutory rape an underage child (teenager) ... and making crude and inappropriate jokes.

    If you think bad jokes online are remotely in the same league as molesting people both underage and adults then that says more about you than anyone else.
    Yes I'm not surprised you weren't able to make the jump, no matter.

    I was using Kevin Spacey to broaden the general point out to whether the fact that people have done something we view as bad should be separated from their ability to do a job.

    cf. Picasso.
    Are we talking about something criminally abusive, or just something frowned upon? Kevin Spacey if the accusations are true has abused his power to attempt to rape and molest people.

    Young at worst is accused of hurting people's feelings entirely within the law.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,392
    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    OchEye said:

    Anyhoo, praise unto Mrs May for promoting Esther McVey.

    If she becomes Chancellor before the next election then Esther McVey will be using John McDonnell’s bollocks for garters.

    She's already being set up for the UC mess and fail, her "nickname" doing the rounds is McVile. If she can sort it out then she has a chance, however small, to be Chancellor, but I'm certainly putting any money on it. Even Greening could see the job was a poisoned chalice...
    McVile is the name the vile cretins that want to hang her use.

    It is a useful moron/troll detector.
    Tax credits, possibly the most pernicious government policy of my lifetime.

    Borrow £50bn a year, use a misleading name to hand it out in cash to 60% of households at an average of £4k per household per year - but that all the journalists don’t understand because they all either live in London and earn too much to claim it, or don’t understand why a household earning considerably more than the median wage should be able to claim benefits at all.

    A policy almost completely designed so that when the Tories came back into power and had to deal with the deficit, they’d be called heartless bastards (and a lot worse in the case of Ms McVey) for trying to undo the almighty mess this policy created.
    Tax credits were first introduced by the Thatcher government in 1988
    Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit were introduced by Gordon Brown in 2002 and expanded massively since then.
    Family Credit was introduced by the Tories in the 1980s and renamed by Gordon Brown

    Why are you surprised about Labour increasing benefits? When they win elections that is what voters have given them a mandate to do. Ditto Tories and tax/spending cuts.
    Again no it wasn't. It was introduced by Heath in 1970.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,124
    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.
  • HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tax Credits were a simple concept - work doesn't pay. So lets subsidise low wages.

    A stupid concept, but simple to understand. What should have happened was that instead of subsidising Tesco, government should have incentivised Tesco to pay appropriate wages. They want to pay less Corporation Tax, fine as long as you pay a living wage.

    Capitalism is simple. You want to sell your products you need punters with enough cash in their pockets who can afford to buy them. Low wages + high costs = less cash too spend = lower economic output. You can only substitute this lack of disposable income with cheap loans for so long

    Wow, I agree with you. It’s bonkers when governments subsidise low pay, and doubly bonkers when they do it with companies like Amazon who pay little in corporation tax thanks to overseas transfers.

    Esther McVey is trying to do a difficult job in a difficult department. That shouldn’t mean that she needs a police car stationed outside her house to protect her from those who think Osama bin Laden is a better person. The language needs toning down, just saying.
    You have Mrs Thatcher to blame for first introducing the so-called bonkers system, in her desperation to reduce the massive unemployment of the mid 80s it seemed sensible to encourage hiring by subsidising low wages. Note that without Labour's minimum wage the tax credit subsidy would now be even higher. You cant really blame Labour for making benefits more generous as that is what they are elected to do.
    Did Thatcher introduce it to cover 60% of families?

    There's a world of difference between covering the very most marginal and lowest paid who are transitioning from unemployment to work and having a system where it is a lifestyle and expected for everyone. There's a difference between incentivising work and disincentivising work.

    The best solution is to merge everything income related into a single system. Merge Income Tax, National Insurance and Tax Credits etc all into a single, simple, solitary "Negative Income Tax". Universal Credit seems to be a step towards that.
    Given the current historically low level of unemployment, the tax credit system seems to have done a pretty good job of incentivising work.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,809
    Mr. B, now I'm annoyed I didn't back her at 50. *sighs* I have a poor history with that sort of bet.
  • HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    OchEye said:

    Anyhoo, praise unto Mrs May for promoting Esther McVey.

    If she becomes Chancellor before the next election then Esther McVey will be using John McDonnell’s bollocks for garters.

    She's already being set up for the UC mess and fail, her "nickname" doing the rounds is McVile. If she can sort it out then she has a chance, however small, to be Chancellor, but I'm certainly putting any money on it. Even Greening could see the job was a poisoned chalice...
    McVile is the name the vile cretins that want to hang her use.

    It is a useful moron/troll detector.
    Tax credits, possibly the most pernicious government policy of my lifetime.

    Borrow £50bn a year, use a misleading name to hand it out in cash to 60% of households at an average of £4k per household per year - but that all the journalists don’t understand because they all either live in London and earn too much to claim it, or don’t understand why a household earning considerably more than the median wage should be able to claim benefits at all.

    A policy almost completely designed so that when the Tories came back into power and had to deal with the deficit, they’d be called heartless bastards (and a lot worse in the case of Ms McVey) for trying to undo the almighty mess this policy created.
    Tax credits were first introduced by the Thatcher government in 1988
    Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit were introduced by Gordon Brown in 2002 and expanded massively since then.
    Family Credit was introduced by the Tories in the 1980s and renamed by Gordon Brown

    Why are you surprised about Labour increasing benefits? When they win elections that is what voters have given them a mandate to do. Ditto Tories and tax/spending cuts.
    I refer you back to Capitalism 101 - you need punters with disposable income able to consume. If their employers aren't keeping up with the rising cost of living that reduces cash circulating through the economy.

    The "increasing benefits" was to replace money not being paid in wages. Everyone agrees the better solution would be corporates to pay more wages, but that seems to be the leap too far. There was a golden opportunity to transfer this burden away from the government (as they're doing with so many other things) when Osbrown put in the last big Corporation Tax cuts. He missed it...
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,769
    I suppose the good news is that Toby can return to Twitter. We await with bated breath his views on the black-clad Golden Globe attendees.

    (The paramilitary wing of luvvydom?)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    Lay at the shortest price you dare.

    Do you think the Democrats want to go through what the Republicans did in the primary season last time out?

    Oh, and Oprah’s got three or four decades of skeletons, you think she’s not pissed off anyone or done anything underhand in that time?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,653

    I suppose the good news is that Toby can return to Twitter. We await with bated breath his views on the black-clad Golden Globe attendees.

    (The paramilitary wing of luvvydom?)

    The degree of self-congratulation at that event was pretty nauseating.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,262

    Mr. Topping, that Spacey comment reminds me: there's a lot of talk in Hollywood about victimisation of women, and they still mention Spacey, even though his alleged actions pertain to male victims.

    The problem of sex and power in Hollywood isn't limited to women being preyed upon by men, but there's a weird lack of desire to acknowledge male victims. [We see it also with Rotherham, where a third of victims were boys].

    I've no idea if it's the case, but it's possible that the percentage of homosexuals in Hollywood's power elite may reflect the general population, ie small, so the proportion of men preyed upon compared to women may be similarly small.

    Of course the predators will be almost entirely men either way.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 572
    JackW said:

    HHemmelig said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Meanwhile ....

    News in intact.

    Crude and unfunny, all in one 'joke'
    Sadly not a little bit harsh on Mrs May's cabinet reshuffle.
    Are you going to be resurrecting your ARSE or was it pounded beyond repair by Brexit and Trump?
    My ARSE continues to enjoy a fruitful retirement with the occasional wistful glance in the mirror at both the decadent triumphs and the unfortunate crack in the end.

    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tax Credits were a simple concept - work doesn't pay. So lets subsidise low wages.

    Capitalism is simple. You want to sell your products you need punters with enough cash in their pockets who can afford to buy them. Low wages + high costs = less cash too spend = lower economic output. You can only substitute this lack of disposable income with cheap loans for so long

    Wow, I agree with you. It’s bonkers when governments subsidise low pay, and doubly bonkers when they do it with companies like Amazon who pay little in corporation tax thanks to overseas transfers.

    The language needs toning down, just saying.
    You have Mrs Thatcher to blame for first introducing the so-called bonkers system, in her desperation to reduce the massive unemployment of the mid 80s it seemed sensible to encourage hiring by subsidising low wages. Note that without Labour's minimum wage the tax credit subsidy would now be even higher. You cant really blame Labour for making benefits more generous as that is what they are elected to do.
    Did Thatcher introduce it to cover 60% of families?

    There's a world of difference between covering the very most marginal and lowest paid who are transitioning from unemployment to work and having a system where it is a lifestyle and expected for everyone. There's a difference between incentivising work and disincentivising work.

    The best solution is to merge everything income related into a single system. Merge Income Tax, National Insurance and Tax Credits etc all into a single, simple, solitary "Negative Income Tax". Universal Credit seems to be a step towards that.
    The only thing universal credit is a step towards is a Corbyn government. Your idea sounds OK on paper but would be an administrative disaster and impose an even larger amount of misery on people falling between the cracks.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,463

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".

    I don't think the challenge is to manage old tweets so that no one knows about them. The issue is whether we appoint to public bodies people who have had verbal (twittoral?) diarrhoea in their past lives but who would do a good job on that public body. Do we separate such action and behaviour from their ability to do the job to which they may be appointed.

    cf. Kevin Spacey
    I don't see how Kevin Spacey is relevant to the discussion. There's a whole world of difference between attempting to [allegedly] statutory rape an underage child (teenager) ... and making crude and inappropriate jokes.

    If you think bad jokes online are remotely in the same league as molesting people both underage and adults then that says more about you than anyone else.
    Yes I'm not surprised you weren't able to make the jump, no matter.

    I was using Kevin Spacey to broaden the general point out to whether the fact that people have done something we view as bad should be separated from their ability to do a job.

    cf. Picasso.
    Are we talking about something criminally abusive, or just something frowned upon? Kevin Spacey if the accusations are true has abused his power to attempt to rape and molest people.

    Young at worst is accused of hurting people's feelings entirely within the law.
    I was pondering the greater point about whether we disqualify people from doing a job they are good at on account of their personal behaviour.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,778
    edited January 9

    I refer you back to Capitalism 101 - you need punters with disposable income able to consume. If their employers aren't keeping up with the rising cost of living that reduces cash circulating through the economy.

    The "increasing benefits" was to replace money not being paid in wages. Everyone agrees the better solution would be corporates to pay more wages, but that seems to be the leap too far. There was a golden opportunity to transfer this burden away from the government (as they're doing with so many other things) when Osbrown put in the last big Corporation Tax cuts. He missed it...

    Except tax credits aren't linked just to full time wages! They're linked to the number of children you have and they reduce the more you work.

    Someone with 5 children working 16 hours a week doing a job may get a lot of Tax Credits.
    Two people with no children working full time in the same job may not get any Tax Credits.

    Why are "corporates" responsible for people working part time with lots of children? Should we expect "corporates" to dictate how many children their employees have?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,137
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    Lay at the shortest price you dare.

    Do you think the Democrats want to go through what the Republicans did in the primary season last time out?

    Oh, and Oprah’s got three or four decades of skeletons, you think she’s not pissed off anyone or done anything underhand in that time?
    No, I don't - I agree with your analysis. But this is a betting site, and trading bets aren't the same thing as predictions.

    This is a good article pointing out some of her crankier ideas:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-power-and-perils-of-speaking-your-truth/549968/

  • Given the current historically low level of unemployment, the tax credit system seems to have done a pretty good job of incentivising work.

    There are still millions of economically inactive people, where the cost of living outweighs a job + credits. So often its the cost of child care that sinks it, I know many many middle class women who find that full time nursery costs are the same as their salary so they stop work.

    But yes, tax credits subsidise wages that would otherwise be too low to be viable. It is a subsidy for employers not for employees.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,413
    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    The next thread will be about Oprah. It was ready to be published just as the TYoung news came through.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,809
    Mr. Divvie, until and unless we have stats on that, we don't know. What we do know is that there are numerous allegations involving male victims, but the narrative excludes them completely.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,870
    A Corbyn government would be an utter disaster, but I think it's what this country needs, in terms of shaking both the establisment and the country out of the current rut it's in.

    The right needs to evovle and re-define itself for the 21st century, and it can't do that with the tory party at the moment. We need radical idea and you can't do that in government.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Surely the lesson from this Toby Young issue is for anyone who has been routinely offensive on the likes of Twitter and is then going to be appointed to a serious role is to delete their old Tweets BEFORE the announcement is made?

    As soon as Toby Young was appointed people started going through his old Tweets. He then a few days into the storm deleted them but that was closing the door after the horse was bolted, by that point everyone had screenshoted the offensive ones and were circulating them.

    Had he just deleted them first then they wouldn't be there to go through anymore. Sure someone might happen to have an old copy (less likely) but then "here's something he said years ago that was already deleted" is different to "here's something he's said, oh look now we've highlighted it he's trying to cover it up by deleting it".

    I don't think the challenge is to manage old tweets so that no one knows about them. The issue is whether we appoint to public bodies people who have had verbal (twittoral?) diarrhoea in their past lives but who would do a good job on that public body. Do we separate such action and behaviour from their ability to do the job to which they may be appointed.

    cf. Kevin Spacey
    I don't see how Kevin Spacey is relevant to the discussion. There's a whole world of difference between attempting to [allegedly] statutory rape an underage child (teenager) ... and making crude and inappropriate jokes.

    If you think bad jokes online are remotely in the same league as molesting people both underage and adults then that says more about you than anyone else.
    Yes I'm not surprised you weren't able to make the jump, no matter.

    I was using Kevin Spacey to broaden the general point out to whether the fact that people have done something we view as bad should be separated from their ability to do a job.

    cf. Picasso.
    Are we talking about something criminally abusive, or just something frowned upon? Kevin Spacey if the accusations are true has abused his power to attempt to rape and molest people.

    Young at worst is accused of hurting people's feelings entirely within the law.
    I was pondering the greater point about whether we disqualify people from doing a job they are good at on account of their personal behaviour.
    To which there are a number of degrees of behaviour.

    A few possibly sexist Tweets from years ago is not as serious as allegations of rape or coerced sexual encounters from last year.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,248
    edited January 9
    I feel a touch of sympathy for Toby Young, as the man was clearly trying to reinvent himself as a philanthropist. Nevertheless, if he had any feeling for politics at all, he would have known that his previous incarnation as smart-arse PC taunter extraordinaire was bound to cause trouble. I suspect he spends all his time with his right-wing friends and has little understanding of real-world sensibilities. He should have got out more.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,262
    edited January 9

    Mr. Divvie, until and unless we have stats on that, we don't know. What we do know is that there are numerous allegations involving male victims, but the narrative excludes them completely.

    Perhaps, but the battlecry of 'my gender is being horribly abused by..er..my gender' isn't an easy sell.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,211

    Mr. Palmer, whilst that might be true the lack of contingency plan (as you mention with the lack of shortlist) just seems odd.

    It's common for reshuffles to have people who either won't move or will but only to job X etc. This isn't a weird thing that couldn't've been predicted.

    According to Huffinhton, contradicting my earlier post, May actually rates Clark highly and planned to make him Health Secretary in a job swap with Hunt. So when Hunt wouldn't move, keeping Clark was the natural consequence.

    That actually seems quite reasonable, but raises a quite different question: why did Government sources leak for days that Clark was poised to be sacked?

    One way or another, the Government seems simply dysfunctional - too many people jockeying for position and plotting against each other, and nobody able or willing to keep them in line.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 572

    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    HHemmelig said:

    Sandpit said:

    OchEye said:

    Anyhoo, praise unto Mrs May for promoting Esther McVey.

    If she becomes Chancellor before the next election then Esther McVey will be using John McDonnell’s bollocks for garters.

    She's already being set up for the UC mess and fail, her "nickname" doing the rounds is McVile. If she can sort it out then she has a chance, however small, to be Chancellor, but I'm certainly putting any money on it. Even Greening could see the job was a poisoned chalice...
    McVile is the name the vile cretins that want to hang her use.

    It is a useful moron/troll detector.
    Tax credits, possibly the most pernicious government policy of my lifetime.

    A policy almost completely designed so that when the Tories came back into power and had to deal with the deficit, they’d be called heartless bastards (and a lot worse in the case of Ms McVey) for trying to undo the almighty mess this policy created.
    Tax credits were first introduced by the Thatcher government in 1988
    Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit were introduced by Gordon Brown in 2002 and expanded massively since then.
    Family Credit was introduced by the Tories in the 1980s and renamed by Gordon Brown

    Why are you surprised about Labour increasing benefits? When they win elections that is what voters have given them a mandate to do. Ditto Tories and tax/spending cuts.
    I refer you back to Capitalism 101 - you need punters with disposable income able to consume. If their employers aren't keeping up with the rising cost of living that reduces cash circulating through the economy.

    The "increasing benefits" was to replace money not being paid in wages. Everyone agrees the better solution would be corporates to pay more wages, but that seems to be the leap too far. There was a golden opportunity to transfer this burden away from the government (as they're doing with so many other things) when Osbrown put in the last big Corporation Tax cuts. He missed it...
    There is too much cash circulating in the economy not too little. The problems are far too much debt (public and private), overconsumption, persistent trade gap, overvalued assets esp housing, exacerbated by zero interest rates and perpetual QE.

    In a fully globalised economy it isnt easy for businesses to remain here with wage rates which are 5x the level of eg China
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,870

    I feel a touch of sympathy for Toby Young, as the man was clearly trying to reinvent himself as a philanthropist. Nevertheless, if he had any feeling for politics at all, he would have known that his previous manifestation as smart-arse PC taunter extraordinaire was bound to cause trouble. I suspect he spends all his time with his right-wing friends and has little understanding of real-world sensibilities. He should have got out more.

    I pretty much agree. There's a tendancy (see SeanT and Boris as prime examples) for writers on the right to push the envelope and be risque to show their cleverness and wordplay. Whilst it makes their writing colourful and entertaining, it can clearly backfire.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,809
    Mr. Divvie, is it not?

    It should be. By that rationale we shouldn't have any sympathy for oppression in Iran. After all, it's just Iranians being oppressed by Iranians. Likewise North Korea.

    Same applies to domestic violence in homosexual relationships.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,778
    For those blaming companies for Tax Credits, I am an employer and most of my employees do not get Tax Credits. Some of them do. Yet they're almost all on the same pay rate doing the same job. Am I paying enough because the majority of employees are not on Tax Credits or not enough because of the minority that are?

    The difference is that the minority are single parents who work part time and point blank refuse to do more than 16 or 20 hours a week. How is that my responsibility? The only bedroom I've ever been in is my own.

    The pernicious part of Tax Credits and the reason its got nothing to do with pay is the Child Tax Credit element. Child Tax Credits should be abolished altogether and the child element should be put into Child Benefit. If we want to pay parents then fine put it in Child Benefit but that has nothing to do with working or employment.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,444

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,256
    edited January 9
    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    The Americans will never elect as President a TV personality whose has never won elected office before.

    They'll never elect anyone that egregiously unqualified.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,137

    I feel a touch of sympathy for Toby Young, as the man was clearly trying to reinvent himself as a philanthropist. Nevertheless, if he had any feeling for politics at all, he would have known that his previous incarnation as smart-arse PC taunter extraordinaire was bound to cause trouble. I suspect he spends all his time with his right-wing friends and has little understanding of real-world sensibilities. He should have got out more.

    I don't disagree with that comment - but educational philanthropist/innovator is one thing; regulator is quite another.

    OFSTED has had analogous problems, with various leaders pursuing their own hobby horses...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,444

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    The Americans will never elect as President a TV personality whose has never won elected office before.

    They'll never elect anyone that egregiously unqualified.
    When will there be a viable Latino candidate ?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,124
    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Toby Young has absolutely no qualification to perform that role. Other than being chums with the family of the relevant minister. So his Neanderthal views assumed disproportionate importance.
  • TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    The Americans will never elect as President a TV personality whose has never won elected office before.

    They'll never elect anyone that egregiously unqualified.
    When will there be a viable Latino candidate ?
    I have hopes on this fella.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,262

    Mr. Divvie, is it not?

    It should be. By that rationale we shouldn't have any sympathy for oppression in Iran. After all, it's just Iranians being oppressed by Iranians. Likewise North Korea.

    Same applies to domestic violence in homosexual relationships.

    I thought as a conservative you'd have seen the market implications of 'not an easy sell'; if male dominated society is resistant to taking up this cause then saying 'it should be' won't change things. If you've got some narrative changing ideas I'm sure there are pressure groups and charities that would love to hear from you.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,189

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    The Americans will never elect as President a TV personality whose has never won elected office before.

    They'll never elect anyone that egregiously unqualified.
    When will there be a viable Latino candidate ?
    I have hopes on this fella.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush
    By analogy with Dubya, wouldn't he end up being called "Pee"?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,688

    I feel a touch of sympathy for Toby Young, as the man was clearly trying to reinvent himself as a philanthropist. Nevertheless, if he had any feeling for politics at all, he would have known that his previous manifestation as smart-arse PC taunter extraordinaire was bound to cause trouble. I suspect he spends all his time with his right-wing friends and has little understanding of real-world sensibilities. He should have got out more.

    I pretty much agree. There's a tendancy (see SeanT and Boris as prime examples) for writers on the right to push the envelope and be risque to show their cleverness and wordplay. Whilst it makes their writing colourful and entertaining, it can clearly backfire.
    The trouble with Toby Young's writing is that he was not really particularly witty or insightful, certainly not as much as he seemed to think. It is easier to forgive risqué comments if there is some real substance behind what is being written. But too often risqué writers think that putting in a lot of rude words and offensive comments is enough. And it isn't. It's childish at best and deeply boorish and offensive at worst. It's not the rudeness that is the worst. It's the lack of any real substance behind what is being said.

    If you are going to try to epater the bourgeoisie of the day, you need to do so sparingly and with some care. Choose your target carefully and aim to kill. Firing off offensive comments morning, noon and night in the general direction of the liberal elite like some drunken man raving in the park is not the way to do it.

    Sharp savage satire takes real skill. Pointing out hypocrisies and pretentiousness amongst those who govern us is worthwhile. But it takes a bit more subtlety than the verbal equivalent of mooning.

    Take TY's comment about poor children in Africa. Pointing out the hypocrisy of those emoting about poverty while doing nothing is a legitimate point to make. But the audience member at a Bono concert who, when Bono announced on stage, that "Every time I clap an African child dies from hunger", shouted back: "Well, stop bloody clapping then!" punctured Bono's pretentiousness rather more wittily than Young's stupid comment.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,262

    I feel a touch of sympathy for Toby Young, as the man was clearly trying to reinvent himself as a philanthropist. Nevertheless, if he had any feeling for politics at all, he would have known that his previous incarnation as smart-arse PC taunter extraordinaire was bound to cause trouble. I suspect he spends all his time with his right-wing friends and has little understanding of real-world sensibilities. He should have got out more.

    Perhaps a Profumoesque period of self-effacing good works in the East End may help Toby to the respectability he craves.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,444

    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Toby Young has absolutely no qualification to perform that role. Other than being chums with the family of the relevant minister. So his Neanderthal views assumed disproportionate importance.
    Apart from setting up 3 excellent schools - yeah what would he know about what pupils and parents want from education..
  • TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    The Americans will never elect as President a TV personality whose has never won elected office before.

    They'll never elect anyone that egregiously unqualified.
    When will there be a viable Latino candidate ?
    I have hopes on this fella.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush
    By analogy with Dubya, wouldn't he end up being called "Pee"?
    If I were his political adviser I'd be telling him to style himself as 'Jorge Bush'
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    Lay at the shortest price you dare.

    Do you think the Democrats want to go through what the Republicans did in the primary season last time out?

    Oh, and Oprah’s got three or four decades of skeletons, you think she’s not pissed off anyone or done anything underhand in that time?
    No, I don't - I agree with your analysis. But this is a betting site, and trading bets aren't the same thing as predictions.

    This is a good article pointing out some of her crankier ideas:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-power-and-perils-of-speaking-your-truth/549968/
    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Yes, the idea was that raising the fees to £9k would lead to some sort of fees differentiation, whereby the top unis would charge top fees and others less. But what happened in practice was that every damn overpromoted sixth form college charged £9k and millions of students will graduate with something that’s worthless in the marketplace and tens of thousands of pounds in debt - which the government underwrites and after a number of years writes off completely.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,809
    Mr. Divvie, 'male-dominated society' is a fiction. There's still sexism in some areas against women, and likewise against men in others. I have yet to hear the call for boardroom gender quotas echoed when it comes to workers in sewage plants and binmen, and those suggesting child custody courts are loaded towards fathers can only be drunken fools.

    Alas, I'm not much of a salesman (my books might be doing better if I were). That's one nice thing about gambling. Your bet comes off, or it doesn't, and how many people you persuaded to back it is irrelevant.
  • For those blaming companies for Tax Credits, I am an employer and most of my employees do not get Tax Credits. Some of them do. Yet they're almost all on the same pay rate doing the same job. Am I paying enough because the majority of employees are not on Tax Credits or not enough because of the minority that are?

    The difference is that the minority are single parents who work part time and point blank refuse to do more than 16 or 20 hours a week. How is that my responsibility? The only bedroom I've ever been in is my own.

    The pernicious part of Tax Credits and the reason its got nothing to do with pay is the Child Tax Credit element. Child Tax Credits should be abolished altogether and the child element should be put into Child Benefit. If we want to pay parents then fine put it in Child Benefit but that has nothing to do with working or employment.

    I'm not blaming them for Tax Credits. I'm pointing out that low wages paid by corporates (as encouraged by government policy) created the gap in incomes that led to tax credits.

    Where we are at now is that companies like Tesco pay wages which we then subsidise. It would be better for them to pay more wages so that the subsidy to the employee can be withdrawn. Would be easier and cheaper to subsidise the corporate at the top and have them pass the extra wage on through the pay packet
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,994





    When existing claimants are transferred onto UC starting in July 2019 to march 22 that will be the test.At the moment only new claimants and non complex cases are going onto the system and they are struggling with that.Once millions are transferred it could be the step towards a Labour government.It will have much more precedence to many than Brexit.https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/Universal-Credit-Timetable
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,063
    edited January 9

    For those blaming companies for Tax Credits, I am an employer and most of my employees do not get Tax Credits. Some of them do. Yet they're almost all on the same pay rate doing the same job. Am I paying enough because the majority of employees are not on Tax Credits or not enough because of the minority that are?

    The difference is that the minority are single parents who work part time and point blank refuse to do more than 16 or 20 hours a week. How is that my responsibility? The only bedroom I've ever been in is my own.

    The pernicious part of Tax Credits and the reason its got nothing to do with pay is the Child Tax Credit element. Child Tax Credits should be abolished altogether and the child element should be put into Child Benefit. If we want to pay parents then fine put it in Child Benefit but that has nothing to do with working or employment.


    Would be easier and cheaper to subsidise the corporate at the top and have them pass the extra wage on through the pay packet
    Which is pretty much where we are heading to now with Osborne's Corporation Tax cuts and National Living wage.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,124
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Toby Young has absolutely no qualification to perform that role. Other than being chums with the family of the relevant minister. So his Neanderthal views assumed disproportionate importance.
    Apart from setting up 3 excellent schools - yeah what would he know about what pupils and parents want from education..
    This may come as a revelation to you but schools are not universities.

    Universities are one part of this country that function pretty well by any objective measure. It is hard to see why the government should wish to let their unqualified chums meddle with them.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,444
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    Lay at the shortest price you dare.

    Do you think the Democrats want to go through what the Republicans did in the primary season last time out?

    Oh, and Oprah’s got three or four decades of skeletons, you think she’s not pissed off anyone or done anything underhand in that time?
    No, I don't - I agree with your analysis. But this is a betting site, and trading bets aren't the same thing as predictions.

    This is a good article pointing out some of her crankier ideas:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-power-and-perils-of-speaking-your-truth/549968/
    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Yes, the idea was that raising the fees to £9k would lead to some sort of fees differentiation, whereby the top unis would charge top fees and others less. But what happened in practice was that every damn overpromoted sixth form college charged £9k and millions of students will graduate with something that’s worthless in the marketplace and tens of thousands of pounds in debt - which the government underwrites and after a number of years writes off completely.
    Nothing worse than a distorted market - problem is raising the cap would mean Oxbridge would be full of toffs and Chinese.

    So no change really.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,688

    TGOHF said:

    IanB2 said:

    If only the same standards were applies to Boris, whose indiscretions are never-ending.

    Vaz, O Mara, Corbyn - they must all be next right ?
    By seeking to appoint and then defend Toby Young, the Tories have managed to inoculate Corbyn - even more than they have done already - against attacks on him about the things he has said and done over the years.

    That is the real consequence of this affair.

    It is all very well pointing out that, for instance, Corbyn said that a noted and convicted anti-Semite's voice was one "which should be heard" in Parliament (a, to me, far more offensive and dangerous comment than Young's sexual habits). But it will be easy for Corbyn's more idiotic defenders to say that (a) it was all a long time ago; (b) he has made some vague comments about being anti-racist so this shouldn't be held against him; and (c) it's all a conspiracy by the pro-Israel lobby.

    And this echoes the sort of defence we've had of Young - a long time ago, look at what he's done recently, all a witch hunt by leftish trolls etc.....

    Since ineptly attacking Corbyn is all the Tories seem to have left, it leaves them in a bit of a pickle.

    As I've said before, no strategic sense or tactical nous. Hard to believe that this is the same party which pulled off a stunning victory in 2015 against the apparent odds.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,870
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    Lay at the shortest price you dare.

    Do you think the Democrats want to go through what the Republicans did in the primary season last time out?

    Oh, and Oprah’s got three or four decades of skeletons, you think she’s not pissed off anyone or done anything underhand in that time?
    No, I don't - I agree with your analysis. But this is a betting site, and trading bets aren't the same thing as predictions.

    This is a good article pointing out some of her crankier ideas:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-power-and-perils-of-speaking-your-truth/549968/
    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Yes, the idea was that raising the fees to £9k would lead to some sort of fees differentiation, whereby the top unis would charge top fees and others less. But what happened in practice was that every damn overpromoted sixth form college charged £9k and millions of students will graduate with something that’s worthless in the marketplace and tens of thousands of pounds in debt - which the government underwrites and after a number of years writes off completely.
    Our entire university system needs re-structuring. Apart from a few very technical/professional courses (sciences/engineering/medicine, no doubt law etc), most students seem to be shortchanged by their studies. They either should be much shorter, or much cheaper and local.

    For myself my university expensive was the following: 1st year ,all new and novel and fun when I a naive fresher. 2nd year, dossing around and getting disillusioned. and 3rd, just wanting to be done with it and to get on and get a job.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,063
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    Lay at the shortest price you dare.

    Do you think the Democrats want to go through what the Republicans did in the primary season last time out?

    Oh, and Oprah’s got three or four decades of skeletons, you think she’s not pissed off anyone or done anything underhand in that time?
    No, I don't - I agree with your analysis. But this is a betting site, and trading bets aren't the same thing as predictions.

    This is a good article pointing out some of her crankier ideas:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-power-and-perils-of-speaking-your-truth/549968/
    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes, the idea was that raising the fees to £9k would lead to some sort of fees differentiation, whereby the top unis would charge top fees and others less. But what happened in practice was that every damn overpromoted sixth form college charged £9k and millions of students will graduate with something that’s worthless in the marketplace and tens of thousands of pounds in debt - which the government underwrites and after a number of years writes off completely.
    The problem is that the Universities have no skin in the game. To them it does not matter what the earning situation of one of their graduates is and how much of the loan they repay. There needs to be some transfer of repayment risk to the uni's
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,769
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Toby Young has absolutely no qualification to perform that role. Other than being chums with the family of the relevant minister. So his Neanderthal views assumed disproportionate importance.
    Apart from setting up 3 excellent schools - yeah what would he know about what pupils and parents want from education..
    Setting up a school... for his own children to attend. Funded by the taxpayer. So he didn't have to pay fees. Very philanthropic.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071
    Cyclefree said:

    TGOHF said:

    IanB2 said:

    If only the same standards were applies to Boris, whose indiscretions are never-ending.

    Vaz, O Mara, Corbyn - they must all be next right ?
    By seeking to appoint and then defend Toby Young, the Tories have managed to inoculate Corbyn - even more than they have done already - against attacks on him about the things he has said and done over the years.

    That is the real consequence of this affair.

    It is all very well pointing out that, for instance, Corbyn said that a noted and convicted anti-Semite's voice was one "which should be heard" in Parliament (a, to me, far more offensive and dangerous comment than Young's sexual habits). But it will be easy for Corbyn's more idiotic defenders to say that (a) it was all a long time ago; (b) he has made some vague comments about being anti-racist so this shouldn't be held against him; and (c) it's all a conspiracy by the pro-Israel lobby.

    And this echoes the sort of defence we've had of Young - a long time ago, look at what he's done recently, all a witch hunt by leftish trolls etc.....

    Since ineptly attacking Corbyn is all the Tories seem to have left, it leaves them in a bit of a pickle.

    As I've said before, no strategic sense or tactical nous. Hard to believe that this is the same party which pulled off a stunning victory in 2015 against the apparent odds.

    It's not the same party.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,296
    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.
    If they want someone outside the 'academic bubble', why wasn't I considered? After all, as was pointed out yesterday, I don't have a degree, and you can't get much more outside the academic bubble than that. ;)

    Or yourself, for that matter? Or anyone else? Why was Young a suitable candidate for the role, unless that role has absolutely no purpose and is essentially a sinecure to reward the faithful?

    This appointments stunk. I have a little sympathy for Young, as he probably could not guess the heat this would generate. But perhaps that lack of awareness is also a sign he's not suitable for the role ...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,262
    edited January 9

    Mr. Divvie, 'male-dominated society' is a fiction. There's still sexism in some areas against women, and likewise against men in others. I have yet to hear the call for boardroom gender quotas echoed when it comes to workers in sewage plants and binmen, and those suggesting child custody courts are loaded towards fathers can only be drunken fools.

    Alas, I'm not much of a salesman (my books might be doing better if I were). That's one nice thing about gambling. Your bet comes off, or it doesn't, and how many people you persuaded to back it is irrelevant.

    Yes, it's a well known fact that sewage plant workers & binmen have a similar amount of societal influence to boardroom members.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    Lay at the shortest price you dare.

    Do you think the Democrats want to go through what the Republicans did in the primary season last time out?

    Oh, and Oprah’s got three or four decades of skeletons, you think she’s not pissed off anyone or done anything underhand in that time?
    No, I don't - I agree with your analysis. But this is a betting site, and trading bets aren't the same thing as predictions.

    This is a good article pointing out some of her crankier ideas:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-power-and-perils-of-speaking-your-truth/549968/
    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Yes, the idea was that raising the fees to £9k would lead to some sort of fees differentiation, whereby the top unis would charge top fees and others less. But what happened in practice was that every damn overpromoted sixth form college charged £9k and millions of students will graduate with something that’s worthless in the marketplace and tens of thousands of pounds in debt - which the government underwrites and after a number of years writes off completely.
    Nothing worse than a distorted market - problem is raising the cap would mean Oxbridge would be full of toffs and Chinese.

    So no change really.
    Not necessarily, the Ivy league has plenty of scholarships. Ideally a market should develop so student fees are based on the earnings premium of the degree and the league table position of the university
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,444

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Toby Young has absolutely no qualification to perform that role. Other than being chums with the family of the relevant minister. So his Neanderthal views assumed disproportionate importance.
    Apart from setting up 3 excellent schools - yeah what would he know about what pupils and parents want from education..
    Universities are one part of this country that function pretty well by any objective measure. It is hard to see why the government should wish to let their unqualified chums meddle with them.
    Are they ? They seem quite effective at taking in state cash - who is monitoring their added value ?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,444
    HYUFD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Oprah thing is gathering a head of steam:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/08/president-oprah-2020-216257?lo=ap_b1

    I'm not a fan of celebrities as political candidates, but from a betting perspective, it need to be acknowledged as a real possibility.

    Lay at the shortest price you dare.

    Do you think the Democrats want to go through what the Republicans did in the primary season last time out?

    Oh, and Oprah’s got three or four decades of skeletons, you think she’s not pissed off anyone or done anything underhand in that time?
    No, I don't - I agree with your analysis. But this is a betting site, and trading bets aren't the same thing as predictions.

    This is a good article pointing out some of her crankier ideas:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-power-and-perils-of-speaking-your-truth/549968/
    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Yes, the idea was that raising the fees to £9k would lead to some sort of fees differentiation, whereby the top unis would charge top fees and others less. But what happened in practice was that every damn overpromoted sixth form college charged £9k and millions of students will graduate with something that’s worthless in the marketplace and tens of thousands of pounds in debt - which the government underwrites and after a number of years writes off completely.
    Nothing worse than a distorted market - problem is raising the cap would mean Oxbridge would be full of toffs and Chinese.

    So no change really.
    Not necessarily, the Ivy league has plenty of scholarships. Ideally a market should develop so student fees are based on the earnings premium of the degree and the league table position of the university
    Ideally yes - we are a long way from that though. Meanwhile Mr Meeks thinks the current closed shop system is perfect.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,355
    edited January 9


    Again more wishful thinking. Either we leave with a deal we are satisfied with or we leave without a deal. Legal contorting does not feature.

    We will get access as specified by whatever new treaty we agree with the EU after we leave. Our obligations will be equally tightly drawn. We won't do things that are not spelt out in the treaty, which is why it will be very unfudged.

    The fudge may be in the "deal we are satisfied with" bit. If we agree a treaty, we are by definition satisfied with it. People haven't taken on board the fact that the status quo is not the default, including remarkably our Minister for Exiting the EU who has been in the job for a year an a half. Article 50 mandates the lapse of all treaties. We will only get our partners to reinstate some of the benefits of membership if we make a compelling offer to them for things they want and which they don't already have. The ability to sell us their cars won't cut it because they can do that anyway. In practice we will pay more to get less. Once people eventually realise the default is no agreement and everything else has to be paid for, the Single Market may look more attractive and they will be "satisfied" with Freedom of Movement and no say over our affairs. They will want the deal.





  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,653
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    A shame as Young has some good ideas despite his mistakes. Of course Bullingdon Club indiscretions did not stop Cameron winning general elections or Boris mayoral elections

    we have enough obnoxious odious elite creeps F******* up the country, good riddance to bad rubbish.
    And then they get jobs on RT......
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    Hope he's not walking. That usually takes him months.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Toby Young has absolutely no qualification to perform that role. Other than being chums with the family of the relevant minister. So his Neanderthal views assumed disproportionate importance.
    Apart from setting up 3 excellent schools - yeah what would he know about what pupils and parents want from education..

    He set up schools at huge expense that are now performing at a decent standard in a city that has the best state school system in the country. That he worked hard to do it is beyond dispute, but the results at the schools themselves are nothing special in London. A real achievement would have been to do what he has done in a part of the country where the schools generally are not performing.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,688

    Cyclefree said:

    TGOHF said:

    IanB2 said:

    If only the same standards were applies to Boris, whose indiscretions are never-ending.

    Vaz, O Mara, Corbyn - they must all be next right ?
    By seeking to appoint and then defend Toby Young, the Tories have managed to inoculate Corbyn - even more than they have done already - against attacks on him about the things he has said and done over the years.

    That is the real consequence of this affair.

    It is all very well pointing out that, for instance, Corbyn said that a noted and convicted anti-Semite's voice was one "which should be heard" in Parliament (a, to me, far more offensive and dangerous comment than Young's sexual habits). But it will be easy for Corbyn's more idiotic defenders to say that (a) it was all a long time ago; (b) he has made some vague comments about being anti-racist so this shouldn't be held against him; and (c) it's all a conspiracy by the pro-Israel lobby.

    And this echoes the sort of defence we've had of Young - a long time ago, look at what he's done recently, all a witch hunt by leftish trolls etc.....

    Since ineptly attacking Corbyn is all the Tories seem to have left, it leaves them in a bit of a pickle.

    As I've said before, no strategic sense or tactical nous. Hard to believe that this is the same party which pulled off a stunning victory in 2015 against the apparent odds.

    It's not the same party.


    No it's not. Sadly.

    Nor is Corbyn's Labour the party that my father voted for and the one I voted for when younger. (And, no, I did not vote for Blair - I never trusted him, the narcissistic weasel.)

    I like the fact that Labour has got the young interested in politics - that seems to me a good thing. But the moral blindness and obtuseness and a level of nastiness at the top is, for me, a complete no-no.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,296
    DavidL said:

    Hope he's not walking. That usually takes him months.
    A good reason why he should be PM. ;)

    After all, it's not as if we've had a PM who loves walking who's been a failure, is it?

    Ahem.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,444

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Toby Young has absolutely no qualification to perform that role. Other than being chums with the family of the relevant minister. So his Neanderthal views assumed disproportionate importance.
    Apart from setting up 3 excellent schools - yeah what would he know about what pupils and parents want from education..

    He set up schools at huge expense that are now performing at a decent standard in a city that has the best state school system in the country. That he worked hard to do it is beyond dispute, but the results at the schools themselves are nothing special in London. A real achievement would have been to do what he has done in a part of the country where the schools generally are not performing.
    Well what is stopping the shrieking ninnies of Labour twitter setting up schools in other parts of the country ? Perhaps it's easier to tweet than do.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,990
    DavidL said:

    Hope he's not walking. That usually takes him months.
    :lol:
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,124
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Toby Young has absolutely no qualification to perform that role. Other than being chums with the family of the relevant minister. So his Neanderthal views assumed disproportionate importance.
    Apart from setting up 3 excellent schools - yeah what would he know about what pupils and parents want from education..
    Universities are one part of this country that function pretty well by any objective measure. It is hard to see why the government should wish to let their unqualified chums meddle with them.
    Are they ? They seem quite effective at taking in state cash - who is monitoring their added value ?
    There are numerous league tables comparing universities internationally. Britain's universities always do remarkably well.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400

    DavidL said:

    Hope he's not walking. That usually takes him months.
    A good reason why he should be PM. ;)

    After all, it's not as if we've had a PM who loves walking who's been a failure, is it?

    Ahem.
    Maybe she didn't walk far enough. There are a few piers and planks she could have gone further on for a start.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    Yorkcity said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    This will be spoiling a few Guardian breakfasts:

    Corbyn is more ideologically opposed to the single market and ECJ than May, it is just free movement May has an issue with
    Morning all,

    And what an excellent summary of the current position. When will the cultists wake up, and see who Corbyn really is?
    They look at the idiots in the Government and think this clown cannot be any worse than this shower.
    Yes there was two focus groups on the ITV news at 1O last night.One younger mainly Labour supporters , the second one older mainly conservative voters.It said worryingly for the government both groups came to a similar conclusion, that Corbyn might not be any worse that the current government led by May.
    Which is why on current polls they will make Corbyn PM but without a working majority
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,956
    edited January 9
    Though there are issues with the education system in this country, the biggest problem is educational aspiration - it's a culture thing. Until the culture changes, WWC children in particular will continue to underperform. It's that simple...
  • Ugh, this has to be the worst sartorial choice since England's second kit looked exactly like an All Black shirt.

    I blame Eddie Jones

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,444

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Toby Young's essential problem was that he was entirely unqualified for the job. He would have been able to ride out the media storm if he had something to offer. But he didn't.

    Yes - the last thing Universities need is someone outside the academia bubble representing the consumers of their product - the prospective students.

    They should queue up to hand over £9k a year and take what they are given.

    Toby Young has absolutely no qualification to perform that role. Other than being chums with the family of the relevant minister. So his Neanderthal views assumed disproportionate importance.
    Apart from setting up 3 excellent schools - yeah what would he know about what pupils and parents want from education..
    Universities are one part of this country that function pretty well by any objective measure. It is hard to see why the government should wish to let their unqualified chums meddle with them.
    Are they ? They seem quite effective at taking in state cash - who is monitoring their added value ?
    There are numerous league tables comparing universities internationally. Britain's universities always do remarkably well.
    Oxbridge certainly does well.

    In other news if you include Eton and Harrow, our education system is the best in the world.
This discussion has been closed.