|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 13, 2020 12:12:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 13, 2020 12:15:33 GMT
Saw that.
Perhaps Javid has done the sums and is wondering where the money is coming from?
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 13, 2020 12:16:26 GMT
As the Guardian puts it "Sajid Javid now joins the long list of people who have been let down by Boris Johnson. During the general election, in a Q&A after a speech to the CBI, Johnson committed to keeping Javid as his chancellor after the election. Javid was doing an excellent job, he said. No other cabinet minister received a job security guarantee of this kind during the campaign."
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 13, 2020 12:37:19 GMT
Hmm and now I see Rishi Sunak is going to be Chancellor.
I heard a lot of him in the run up to the election and he struck me as one of these shallow, sounbite politicians who just bend with the wind all the time.
I got to the stage where I had to listen to music whenever he was getting interviewed
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 13, 2020 12:53:30 GMT
I heard a lot of him in the run up to the election and he struck me as one of these shallow, sounbite politicians who just bend with the wind all the time. He certainly isn't that. He's career minded like any politician and a nice guy but he's a Boris loyalist who was championing him for leader when David Cameron stood down. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 13, 2020 13:16:13 GMT
Ah ok, I hadn't heard of him before about October!
Apparently his promotion increases the chance of cuts to pension tax relief for the wealthy that was being discussed elsewhere on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Feb 13, 2020 13:17:17 GMT
The conflict between the PM and Chancellor (which is usually the Chancellor effectively trying to undermine or even control the PM and claim some sort of veto or gate-keeper role on domestic policy) seems to be an all too common event in current times - Thatcher and Major; Blair and Brown; Corbyn and McDonnell; May and Hammond; now Boris and Savid. It seems as if the Chancellor often thinks themselves a step ahead of the other top roles in Cabinet. Which they are not.
Savid resigning is just the latest in this line of conflicts. Personally I think his ego was getting too big. Going public on his views on HS2 before the crunch meeting; leaking stuff about tax ideas etc. So if this means that no.10 can control what is done financially then that probably helps the government run better.
I'd caveat the not working with the one time it has worked in the UK's favour - when Brown kept us out of the Euro. His one good act!
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 13, 2020 13:50:58 GMT
I heard a lot of him in the run up to the election and he struck me as one of these shallow, sounbite politicians who just bend with the wind all the time. He certainly isn't that. He's career minded like any politician and a nice guy but he's a Boris loyalist who was championing him for leader when David Cameron stood down. Whether he's a nice guy I have no idea but he's definitely an interesting character. A Brahmin Hindu (the top caste in India) born to a GP and a pharmacist who immigrated to the UK from East Africa. Head boy at Winchester, followed by PPE at Oxford and then a Fulbright scholarship at Stanford. Clearly very smart. He's also very well connected - at Stanford he met the daughter of another Brahmin, whose father happened to be the billionaire founder of Infosys. He then worked for Goldman Sachs and then for Chris Hohn at TCI, where he became a partner, becoming a wealthy man in his own right. He's a Brexiteer (like many very wealthy and well-connected people, who can afford to be Brexiteers because they are entirely insulated from its potential downsides). |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 13, 2020 14:06:02 GMT
So we’ve established he’s a nice guy and clearly very bright. Are we going to hinge the conspiracy theories on his in-laws being loaded?
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 13, 2020 14:39:44 GMT
What conspiracy theory?
I have nothing against him barring that he's a Brexiteer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Feb 13, 2020 14:46:17 GMT
The irony of judging someone on their wealth and privileged upbringing...  |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 13, 2020 14:59:32 GMT
The irony of judging someone on their wealth and privileged upbringing... Didn't judge him either. I judged his view. |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 13, 2020 15:06:47 GMT
The irony of judging someone on their wealth and privileged upbringing... Didn't judge him either. I judged his view. One of his views. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 13, 2020 15:15:06 GMT
Mmm. And indeed I used the singular.
Anyway. A victory for Britain's answer to Rasputin at any rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 13, 2020 15:55:51 GMT
Just out of interest then how many of the two front benches HAVEN'T followed some well worn fast track of public school, Oxbridge and then sucessful (albeit inevitably short lived) business career into a high flying role into politics?
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 13, 2020 16:45:18 GMT
Just out of interest then how many of the two front benches HAVEN'T followed some well worn fast track of public school, Oxbridge and then sucessful (albeit inevitably short lived) business career into a high flying role into politics? Well, the man who resigned as Chancellor earlier today for one. He didn't go to public school or Oxbridge, but did have a high-flying City career. None of the four remaining candidates to be Labour leader went to private school or Oxbridge, and none has worked in the City. Prior to becoming MPs, Long-Bailey was a commercial solicitor at a regional law firm, Starmer and Thornberry were both barristers specialising in human rights laws and Starmer was later Director of Public Prosecutions, and Nandy worked for Centrepoint and other charities. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 13, 2020 17:01:27 GMT
And the rest? Here's a rogue's gallery of the Government front bench. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49043973A couple of things though:- 1. You can filter by various categories - new roles, newcomers, women, BAME. But you can't filter by men or white. That's a bit sexist and racist isn't it? 2. Michael Gove. WTF. Can somebody photoshop a normal expression on that mans face? |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 13, 2020 17:26:23 GMT
I actually think Rishi Sunak is the only member of the Cabinet to have gone to public school and Oxbridge, and then worked in the City.
There are 22 members of the Cabinet (Rees-Mogg isn't one - he only attends Cabinet).
15 went to private schools, 4 went to grammar schools (Raab, Patel, Jenrick & Shapps) and 2 went to comprehensives (Truss and Williamson).
10 went to Oxbridge (7 to Oxford), 9 went to other universities and 2 apparently didn’t go to university (George Eustice and Alister Jack).
Only 6 have had worked in the City (Sunak (Goldman Sachs, TCI), Raab (Linklaters), Patel (Weber Shandwick), Hancock (Bank of England), Jenrick (Skadden Arps and Sullivan & Cromwell), Trevelyan (PwC)).
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Feb 13, 2020 18:14:21 GMT
Why do so many lawyers think they’re qualified for running the country?
|
|
|
|
Post by cbeaks1 on Feb 13, 2020 19:25:57 GMT
Why would anyone think they were qualified?
A League of Nations is required where you have to get a smaller country promoted and then get a bigger job. Only Big Sam can save us now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2020 20:34:05 GMT
Hang on, which cereal packet does he come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 13, 2020 21:05:41 GMT
Why do so many lawyers think they’re qualified for running the country? Possibly because the government concerns itself with making laws? Anyway, not all lawyers...historically it's mainly been barristers...all that practice at talking convincingly in public and a taste for the theatrical combined with a sense of justice perhaps? In total, 15 Prime Ministers have been barristers - in the past 100 years, just Clement Atlee, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. And by the looks of things, the last and only solicitor to ever be PM was David Lloyd George. And to be fair there are only four lawyers in the current Cabinet (so 18%) - two former barristers (Robert Buckland (who as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice really should be a lawyer) and Brandon Lewis) and two former solicitors (Raab and Jenrick). |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 14, 2020 9:26:33 GMT
15 went to private schools, 4 went to grammar schools (Raab, Patel, Jenrick & Shapps) and 2 went to comprehensives (Truss and Williamson). 10 went to Oxbridge (7 to Oxford), 9 went to other universities and 2 apparently didn’t go to university (George Eustice and Alister Jack). That seems like a large % who are private school and Oxbridge then compared to the wider population. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 14, 2020 10:49:30 GMT
27% (6 out of 22) are both private school and Oxbridge (Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Rishi Sunak, Matt Hancock, Therese Coffey and Baroness Evans).
Certainly that's high compared to the 7% of the population who goes to private school and the 1% who graduates from Oxbridge.
But on the other hand parents pay for a private education for a reason and Oxbridge represents two of the world's finest universities.
I reckon you'd find a high percentage of US senators and members of congress who are either privately educated or went to Ivy League colleges.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 14, 2020 11:14:46 GMT
I'm sure that's the case but isn't that at least part of what the recent electoral shifts have been about?
Once again our politicians are disconnected from the people ticking the boxes so we end up with the odd situation where a bunch of die-hard Labour supporters vote for a Tory who might or might not be a moderate but is probably not someone they would've considered voting for even 5 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Feb 14, 2020 17:22:11 GMT
Why do so many lawyers think they’re qualified for running the country? Possibly because the government concerns itself with making laws? Anyway, not all lawyers...historically it's mainly been barristers...all that practice at talking convincingly in public and a taste for the theatrical combined with a sense of justice perhaps? In total, 15 Prime Ministers have been barristers - in the past 100 years, just Clement Atlee, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. And by the looks of things, the last and only solicitor to ever be PM was David Lloyd George. And to be fair there are only four lawyers in the current Cabinet (so 18%) - two former barristers (Robert Buckland (who as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice really should be a lawyer) and Brandon Lewis) and two former solicitors (Raab and Jenrick). Is the sole purpose of government to make laws? If we think it is then is that where we’ve been going wrong? My comment was in response to your post about all the contenders for the Labour leadership coming from the legal professions. If we think the job of our Government is to steer GB PLC through choppy international waters do we have too many lawyers? You wouldn’t fill the board of a major PLC with lawyers and expect success, you need a mix of talents. Lawyers tell you why something isn’t possible, I’m not sure they are the right people to drive an agenda forwards. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 15, 2020 13:06:02 GMT
Indeed I agree that the job of government is as you state, but along the way laws are made. That both requires and attracts lawyers unsurprisingly.
Certainly bad lawyers tend to focus on what isn't possible. Good barristers exist to win cases and are masters of the art of persuasion, and good commercial solicitors concern themselves with the art of the possible and finding solutions. Nobody pays my hourly rate merely to be told what they can't do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Feb 17, 2020 10:33:50 GMT
Certainly bad lawyers tend to focus on what isn't possible. Good barristers exist to win cases and are masters of the art of persuasion, and good commercial solicitors concern themselves with the art of the possible and finding solutions. Nobody pays my hourly rate merely to be told what they can't do. Ahem. On my last project using what may or may not have been your previous employer there may or may not have been a partner who seemed more likely to advise what we couldn't do than what we could..... He had good reason though as we were in the realms of policy and statute |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 17, 2020 11:46:39 GMT
Well, yes, there are areas where it's more cut and dried, and that's certainly one of them.
Was he a rotund and somewhat eccentric chap?
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Feb 17, 2020 13:59:32 GMT
Well, yes, there are areas where it's more cut and dried, and that's certainly one of them. Was he a rotund and somewhat eccentric chap? Yes. Had the ability to make Prince Philip sound like a bit of a chav.... I got on well with him actually. Bit stressed that they'd always refer back to their procurement legal team who then gave advice I'd already given or knew but they were the lead adviser so only to be expected. |
|
