UK Politics: This Country is Going to the Moggs

[Spockydog]

15 minutes ago, lacuna said:

I remember a time when eating a sandwich unattractively made you unelectable in the UK. Oh, those halcyon days...

Yeah, but that was weird and freaky. 

[mankytoes]

8 hours ago, Lord Sidious said:

Agreed, although I found both candidates intolerable to be honest, however this is the U.K. politics thread so we probably shouldn’t derail it further.

In other news it seems Boris has really put his foot in it with yet another stupid comment along the lines of May is putting the U.K. in a suicide vest over Brexit.

How on earth would anyone want him as PM?.

Honestly has neither main party got anyone remotley palatable.

That implies he didn't mean to say it. I disagree, I believe strongly that most of his controversial moments are pre planned. He's a fully fledged "celebrity politician". For example, I'd bet my right nut that the zip wire thing was a stunt. 

Everyone says they are sick of boring, scripted politicians, which the "Maybot" somewhat embodies. Boris is a bit mad, bit controversial, just like your local loudmouth twat up the pub, but with the bonus of speaking all posh so we all subliminally feel he probably should be in charge anyway. 

[Spockydog]

Just now, mankytoes said:

Everyone says they are sick of boring, scripted politicians, which the "Maybot" somewhat embodies. Boris is a bit mad, bit controversial, just like your local loudmouth twat up the pub, but with the bonus of speaking all posh so we all subliminally feel he probably should be in charge anyway. 

Bollocks to that. He is a traitor and a menace. The British people will not stand for his bullshit, as demonstrated by the crowd at the Oval yesterday.

[Errant Bard]

28 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Everyone says they are sick of boring, scripted politicians

Nothing is better than boring and previsible for a manager. He is probably also sick of driving on smooth roads and plans to change for a dirt track with pigeon holes and rocks sometime next year, this everyone guy, isn't he?

[williamjm]

10 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So PM Johnson it is, it's arguably somewhat better than JRM (who doesn't want the job anyway).

It seems a bit premature to assume his victory. I think he probably will be the favourite when a leadership contest starts, but he was last time as well and that went nowhere. If he can get through to the vote of Tory party members I think he'd probably win, but he first needs to persuade his colleagues to rank him in the top two. The Remainers loathe him and many of the Brexiteers questioned his commitment to Brexit last time leading to them preferring the hopelessly underqualified Andrea Leadsom. The big question is probably whether he's convinced enough of them that he's now a True Believer in Brexit, of course if he can't convince them we might end up with an even worse candidate.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 minutes ago, williamjm said:

It seems a bit premature to assume his victory. I think he probably will be the favourite when a leadership contest starts, but he was last time as well and that went nowhere. If he can get through to the vote of Tory party members I think he'd probably win, but he first needs to persuade his colleagues to rank him in the top two. The Remainers loathe him and many of the Brexiteers questioned his commitment to Brexit last time leading to them preferring the hopelessly underqualified Andrea Leadsom. The big question is probably whether he's convinced enough of them that he's now a True Believer in Brexit.

I think you are underestimating his timing here (or I put too much into it).

The big imaginary Brexit clock is ticking, and the Irish border issue needs to be resolved by some point in November (the latest) in some shape or form. Check the above posts. A leadership contest in the Tory party now throws a big spanner with a ridiculous haircut into the workings of the negotiation process (I use the word term process generously here). So let's assume, he succeeds in launching a leadership challenge, do you think you will have a working goverment (again, I use the term working goverment rather generously for the current lot) till this thing is resolved? May has thus far avoided making rather unpleasent choices (or rather go public with them, I presume) and has more or less post poned them for after the Tory conference to avoid a challenge. 

So in a way, his timing is perfect if he wants to become PM with the support of the Brexit MPs, as it more or less kills the negotiations. If that's their endgame, then launching a leadership challenge with Boris seems like a pretty straight forward way to do so. Unless they assume PM Johnson would revoke article 50. But I think that one would even be beyond Boris.

 

[williamjm]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So in a way, his timing is perfect if he wants to become PM with the support of the Brexit MPs, as it more or less kills the negotiations. If that's their endgame, then launching a leadership challenge with Boris seems like a pretty straight forward way to do so. Unless they assume PM Johnson would revoke article 50. But I think that one would even be beyond Boris. 

I agree he dooms May when he launches his leadership campaign, I think there's a good chance she won't even stand, and it probably is the ideal time for him if he wants to become PM. What I'm not entirely sure about is whether he'll actually win the resulting contest, past history suggests being the person to start a leadership contest and being the early frontrunner often isn't the path to victory. His best bet is probably to try to build up an unassailable lead before any rival candidate has time to build momentum, but there are plenty of ambitious people in the Tory party who will also see this as their best opportunity to become PM and will be watching for any sign of weakness.

[mankytoes]

3 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Bollocks to that. He is a traitor and a menace. The British people will not stand for his bullshit, as demonstrated by the crowd at the Oval yesterday.

Well I hope you're right, but I'm really not sure on that one. Politics is all about timing, he might have played this one right.

2 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

Nothing is better than boring and previsible for a manager. He is probably also sick of driving on smooth roads and plans to change for a dirt track with pigeon holes and rocks sometime next year, this everyone guy, isn't he?

I'm with you, I like a dour technocrat. But charisma has always been an important quality in leadership, that hasn't changed. 

Although I do think the tiny majority May is working with is under emphasised. Yes, she lacks traditional leadership qualities, but who has ever been seen as a strong leader with a majority of six seats, and that only provided by some Northern Irish weirdos? Yes, this argument is a bit chicken and egg because she lost the bigger majority herself, but that doesn't change the fact that Boris or whoever else would have the same situation until they call an election. 

[BigFatCoward]

Who is the least worst possible Tory leader should a contest occur?

[mankytoes]

7 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Who is the least worst possible Tory leader should a contest occur?

Better the devil you know...

[mormont]

13 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

What? They're celebrities, marketability and fame are their jobs.

No, presenting the show is their job. As I say, having a marketable name as presenter might have helped when QI was a new show, but not for a show fifteen seasons in. 

It's also worth noting that Toksvig had significant amounts of experience presenting comedy panel shows when she got the gig, which Fry did not, and had appeared on QI many times, so she was not an unknown quantity to the audience or the makers. Trying to justify the lower salary on the grounds of her being a novice is not a winning argument.

I'm more interested in why people feel the need to try to justify the lower salary in the first place. Is it because entertainment is an area that is famous for treating women well and paying them equally? No, the reverse is true. So why the urge to defend this?

7 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Who is the least worst possible Tory leader should a contest occur?

A question many Tory MPs are asking themselves, I'm sure. 

[mankytoes]

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

No, presenting the show is their job. As I say, having a marketable name as presenter might have helped when QI was a new show, but not for a show fifteen seasons in. 

It's also worth noting that Toksvig had significant amounts of experience presenting comedy panel shows when she got the gig, which Fry did not, and had appeared on QI many times, so she was not an unknown quantity to the audience or the makers. Trying to justify the lower salary on the grounds of her being a novice is not a winning argument.

I'm more interested in why people feel the need to try to justify the lower salary in the first place. Is it because entertainment is an area that is famous for treating women well and paying them equally? No, the reverse is true. So why the urge to defend this?

She's comparing her salary to his when he left, I assume it had gone up significantly over the years? I mean that would be usual in other industries. And yes, she has hosted other shows, but nothing with the same profile. 

Well, as the BBC is taxpayer funded, we all have an interest in them not overpaying salaries. 

I would expect her to get a lower salary, Stephen Fry is a bigger name and really built that show up. I'd expect her to get more than 40% of what he got, though. 

Is it sexist? I don't know. Seeing how much that talentless lump Chris Evans gets, these things are a mystery to me. I do think it's detrimental to the cause of equality when people assume discrimination without seriously considering other reasons, though. 

[mormont]

50 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

She's comparing her salary to his when he left, I assume it had gone up significantly over the years?

It's not clear to me whether that is the case: she's definitely using the present tense with regard to Davies' salary, though. 

In any case, it would simply not be remotely credible to believe that if, say, Rich Hall had been offered the job instead, he'd have been offered 40% of Fry's salary. He wouldn't have got 100%, no, but he wouldn't have got 40% either. So this is another fairly specious argument, I'm afraid. 

50 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Is it sexist? I don't know. Seeing how much that talentless lump Chris Evans gets, these things are a mystery to me. I do think it's detrimental to the cause of equality when people assume discrimination without seriously considering other reasons, though. 

I kind of think it's much more detrimental to the cause of equality when people insist, without evidence and for no clear reason, on inventing arguments that even the employer themselves has not put forward to justify a staggeringly huge pay gap. It implies that there is no such thing as a prima facie case of inequality, that the burden of proof is always on the woman, and that the starting assumption should be that women complaining about a pay gap are being irrational and unfair. 

I mean, do you imagine Sandi Toksvig - an intelligent woman - had never thought of these arguments you all are making? That she had not taken them into account before speaking?

[mankytoes]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

It's not clear to me whether that is the case: she's definitely using the present tense with regard to Davies' salary, though. 

In any case, it would simply not be remotely credible to believe that if, say, Rich Hall had been offered the job instead, he'd have been offered 40% of Fry's salary. He wouldn't have got 100%, no, but he wouldn't have got 40% either. So this is another fairly specious argument, I'm afraid. 

I kind of think it's much more detrimental to the cause of equality when people insist, without evidence and for no clear reason, on inventing arguments that even the employer themselves has not put forward to justify a staggeringly huge pay gap. It implies that there is no such thing as a prima facie case of inequality, that the burden of proof is always on the woman, and that the starting assumption should be that women complaining about a pay gap are being irrational and unfair. 

I mean, do you imagine Sandi Toksvig - an intelligent woman - had never thought of these arguments you all are making? That she had not taken them into account before speaking?

Based on what? Rich Hall is a lot less famous in the UK than Stephen Fry. Do you have any comparable examples for that this statement? Or do you work in the industry? 

I've just looked it up, and Chris Evans gets a ridiculous 2.2 million quid a year for his awful Radio 2 presenting. If his successor is lower profile, would you be shocked if they get 1 million a year, which would still make them the highest paid person on BBC radio? 

We're missing an important piece of information- 40% of what? It might be the case that Fry's salary had got over inflated. And that the desire to reduce that expenditure (remember the BBC has been under a lot of pressure over the amount it pays presenters) might be linked to Fry's departure. 

Well, the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. If I accuse you of antisemitism, I assume you'd expect the burden of proof to be on me. 

Well, remember she's founded a political party here, so she's really speaking as a politician. "I get paid less than Stephen Fry, but obviously that largely reflects my lower profile and his experience in the role" isn't a great rallying cry for the Women's Equality Party. 

[mormont]

18 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Based on what? Rich Hall is a lot less famous in the UK than Stephen Fry.

Again, this is a specious argument. You're assuming that fame is the biggest determining factor of the salary offered with no evidence whatsoever. Fremantle Productions haven't made this claim: indeed they haven't defended the rate at all, so far as I'm aware. It's purely an assumption on your part.

(I should point out that even if it were true, for a company to base pay on a qualification that they know women are less likely to have is indirect discrimination, in law. Fremantle certainly know that women are less likely to be famous in the world of comedy, purely because of their sex. So this would require them legally to establish that fame is such an important quality for the host to have that it overrides the indirect discrimination. As noted, with a mature series into its fifteenth season with substantial overseas sales plus spinoffs such as books which reliably hit the bestseller lists, this is not an argument that holds water. The series is quite well enough known in its own right that it no longer requires a famous host. In fact, this is demonstrated by the fact that they did actually appoint Sandi Toksvig. If it needed to appoint someone more famous than her, it would have appointed someone more famous than her instead.)

There's also a weird assumption here that either the entire discrepancy is down to one factor (whether that be fame or gender), or none of it is. My point was to introduce the correct comparator here, which is not Stephen Fry, but a hypothetical male successor to Stephen Fry. Pick someone else if it works better for you. David Mitchell. Dara O'Briain. Rob Brydon. It doesn't matter. The hypothetical male appointee has been determined in multiple EAT cases to be the correct comparator in sex discrimination claims. Now, do you think any hypothetical male host with similar qualifications and experience would have been paid the same as a team captain? Because that would be very unlikely. The job is not equivalent, so why would it be paid the same?

18 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

We're missing an important piece of information- 40% of what? It might be the case that Fry's salary had got over inflated. And that the desire to reduce that expenditure (remember the BBC has been under a lot of pressure over the amount it pays presenters) might be linked to Fry's departure. 

You're missing quite an important piece of information in that you don't seem to realise that Fremantle Productions, not the BBC, pay the salary of the QI host. 

But in any case, I return to my point above: we can invent any number of hypothetical reasons why the salary may be less. I don't know why we would, but we could. But unless and until you can prove the entire discrepancy relates to these factors - and that would seem hard to do without access to internal documents - all you're doing is inventing excuses and, by implication, attacking women for suggesting that they may possibly, perhaps, be facing bias. 

[mankytoes]

I've just remembered that when I was on here before one of my rules was don't get in a debate with mormont...

[A Horse Named Stranger]

12 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Who is the least worst possible Tory leader should a contest occur?

Soubry, but since she won't be on the ballot... Amusing thought, name a potential Tory Leader (who has a chance to win a leadership contest), who is better than May. 

From the not in the running, I'd go with Soubry or Morgan.

[Nevarfeather]

41 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Soubry, but since she won't be on the ballot... Amusing thought, name a potential Tory Leader (who has a chance to win a leadership contest), who is better than May. 

From the not in the running, I'd go with Soubry or Morgan.

I'd go with any of the rebels...Soubry, Morgan, Grieve, Clarke etc
but yeah, none of them are even in the race. 

So looking forward to standing in the voting booth looking at Boris or Corbyn, what a day that will be eh, I'll just close my eyes and vomit on the ballot paper. 

[Spockydog]

Soubrey is a drunkard and an idiot.

[Liffguard]

3 hours ago, Nevarfeather said:

I'd go with any of the rebels...Soubry, Morgan, Grieve, Clarke etc
but yeah, none of them are even in the race. 

So looking forward to standing in the voting booth looking at Boris or Corbyn, what a day that will be eh, I'll just close my eyes and vomit on the ballot paper. 

I'm in the somewhat fortunate position (relatively speaking) of being able to vote for a viable, anti-brexit, left-of-centre independent candidate with a not entirely unrealistic chance of beating my current Tory MP. I mean, when it comes to the next election she'll still probably lose, but at least I get to endorse someone I think is halfway competent without feeling guilty about splitting the left wing vote. Small blessings.