Best Of

A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.

Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.

So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.

Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.

Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?

So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?

The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."

That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".

Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.

But, populists rarely have good solutions.

That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.

The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.

Yet it is part of policy.

The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.

Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*

When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".

I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.

There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.

It is basically impossible, in domestic small building (think loft conversion scale) to not be massively in breach of regulations. Because paying double for paperwork is simply not pssoible Mr & Mrs Miggin of No 32. Who just want to do a loft conversion so their son can have a proper room.

I had mine house done safely and to the intent of regs - insulation etc. The paperwork - no.

Two doors down, they've just had a nice cheap job done. It's will burn well, I think, when the electrics they've had bodged go.

But bad drives out good.

We are constantly told that it is not good enough to comply with the regulations. You must record and document your compliance, and establish a paper trail which can be audited.

It’s debatable whether one would have any time left to practise law, if one did so.

This, I think, is what will kill off small charities reliant on volunteer leadership.

yeah hmrc are forcing them all to register for vat / corporation tax too at which point I'd be noping out

One of the medium sized charities told the government that this is “rationalisation” of the charity sector.

Same charity is about to be done for grotesque violations of just about all the rules.

Name and shame as there must be far more than just one.

The formal complaints are in, with the charity commission. I’ve been asked not to name them, by the complainants. Until the Private Eye story on it comes out.

Johnson was the most pro-immigration PM we’ve ever had.

It’s absolutely astonishing how anyone says the Tories are good on lowering immigration.

And, quite possibly, he killed the Conservative Party.

Liverpool’s council elections, where the Conservatives went from 48% in 1970, to 1.4% in 2023, from 6,000 votes in Aigburth in 1979, to 8 on Thursday, show that a big party can die.

Rubbish, it was Boris who won the biggest Conservative landslide since Thatcher in 2019 when under May we were heading for a hung parliament and possibly Corbyn as PM. It was removing Boris that saw Reform surge

You could argue the way Johnson comported himself in office brought the Parliamentary Party to the point when they could no longser support him as leader - you will of course argue the MPs sould have shown more loyalty and spine and stuck with Boris who would have recovered and won the 2024 election.

The problem is the very MPs for whom you go and pound the streets are profoundly ungrateful - look what they did to Margaret Thatcher after she won three election victories. They challenged John Major after he won an election and then conspired to weaken his Government so much they were comprehensively defeated by Blair.

Had Boris stayed PM 100 more Tory MPs would have held their seats, so those Tory MPs sealed their own fate.

Replacing Thatcher with Major at least made some electoral sense as the Tories won a general election in 1992 Thatcher would probably have lost to Kinnock after the poll tax which Major dumped

If the US wanted to destroy the whole of Kharg island they could so it seems like a game of chicken here .

Destroying the islands oil infrastructure will stop nearly all exports from Iran , this surely would cause a further oil spike .

Iran could retaliate with trying to cause further damage to the Gulf states oil refineries .

The sensible thing for the US to do is capture Kharg Island, and hold it hostage against the enriched uranium Iran possesses and free flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, the UAE is reminding Iran that most of the regime’s banking is done in Dubai. There’s a lot of Iranian money all over the GCC.

When they FINALLY get their ducks in a row, the US is in a very strong negotiating position.

Their planning should have got them there sooner.

If that was the plan, why did they try bombing Tehran instead of seizing Kharg Island in the first hour?

A plan? Plans are for pussies.

A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.

Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.

So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.

Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.

Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?

So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?

The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."

That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".

Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.

But, populists rarely have good solutions.

That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.

The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.

Yet it is part of policy.

The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.

Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*

When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".

I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.

There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.

It is basically impossible, in domestic small building (think loft conversion scale) to not be massively in breach of regulations. Because paying double for paperwork is simply not pssoible Mr & Mrs Miggin of No 32. Who just want to do a loft conversion so their son can have a proper room.

I had mine house done safely and to the intent of regs - insulation etc. The paperwork - no.

Two doors down, they've just had a nice cheap job done. It's will burn well, I think, when the electrics they've had bodged go.

But bad drives out good.

We are constantly told that it is not good enough to comply with the regulations. You must record and document your compliance, and establish a paper trail which can be audited.

It’s debatable whether one would have any time left to practise law, if one did so.

This, I think, is what will kill off small charities reliant on volunteer leadership.

I do that right now.

You get all the liability (bear in mind: for no money or reward) and lots of criticism by people who don't lift a finger.

It is becoming very hard to find volunteers.

Shirley you just pull a Kids Company and deny legal responsibility for the legal responsibilities you’d voluntarily assumed for the prestige of being on a charity board?

No, wait, you can’t.

Not #NU10K

Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.

It leaves Iran with nowhere to go except sink every ship they possibly can, which I am sure is exactly the outcome Donny boy was aiming for...

Something they're already doing.

Cut their oil revenue and choke their finances.

Bankruptcy is a plausible route to regime change. Grunts want to be paid.

I don't buy that at all. I don't think terrorists demand the National Living Wage. They are in it for the "love of the game", as my Gen Z colleagues say all the time.

Who said terrorists? You mock, but soldiers absolutely expect to be paid.

The regime is hated, but they have the military.

Several regime collapses have been in no small part due to the inability to pay the military properly, which undercuts their survival.

Ceaușescu ran out of money and could not pay his soldiers properly. When protests occured and soldiers decided not to shoot them, the result was regime change.

There are plenty of other authoritarian regimes that have changed because they could no longer pay the military, so the military turned against them.

US military action has cost over $11.3 billion so far. The US could just have offered every Iranian armed forces serviceman $18,500 instead.

That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.

I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence

I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.

Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o

Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.

We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.

We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.

Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.

(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)

Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.

It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.

This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.

Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.

Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.

Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.

(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).

Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.

I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in

What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?

O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.

Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.

It is the tax take of billions over time that is the benefit

It is economic vandalism not to add it to the exchequer over the next 20 years as we transaction away from fossil fuels

I don't disagree. But don't pretend it solves what we are currently dealing with.

(and the cumulative impact is still relatively tiny. Over 25 years, taking the OEUK figures, it will represent about 0.1% of our tax revenues).

Billions here, billions there and soon we are talking real money.

The same can be said about any sector. Deflating figures by counting them as a percentage of the total economy is disingenuous, unless you can come up with cuts to our expenditure equivalent to at least that 0.1% too. Good luck with that!

I don't disagree at all - just trying to put to bed the notion this the panacea to both our economic and tax challenges, and our energy security issues. It's whataboutery from people who can't accept that getting onto domestic renewables is the only rational response to what is going on right now (and I think the economic gains from doing that massively outweigh squeezing a little bit more oil and gas out of the North Sea, conditional on market reform).

Well do not accuse me of that because I support renewables, have solar panels, and expect over the next 20 years we will have largely transitioned away from fossil fuels

It is just madness not to take as much tax revenue from the North Sea as we can in that period