I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
Cox obviously strikes as all as a bit an unviting pudding of a man. However he's very sharp. Labour must have something else, or think they do.
He's sharp, he's had his day in the sun, he doesn't give a toss, he hasn't done anything dishonest, he arguably hasn't even technically broken the rules, and he's a fatter and more successful mirror image of SKS.
Way, way more successful. Completely different class.
More financially successful, but probably less morally successful.
Without the full litany of the cases he has worked I'm not sure how one would be able to judge that, even if we judge them by the cases they've worked or who they have represented in the first place.
No, that in itself is a fairly open and shut case. SKS has worked on a succession of human rights cases, or for individuals against corporate or governmental bodies, and Cox has worked on defending a large number of corporate and governmental clients from fraud charges and similar.
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
"Oswald Mosley was a bad man". Perhaps, but I think we should just say that he has been viewed as such. I can't see much to say for him, but I see lirtle to say against too. He probably deserved his fate.
Johnson’s premiership is at a crossroads. The populist outsider has become the elitist insider, and stopped listening to wise counsel. It’s now down to Tory MPs to save the PM from himself. My @EveningStandard column today.
It does seem incredible that US inflation is over 6%, the highest for over 30 years, yet the Fed not only keeps interest rates at zero, but is also planning on continuing with QE until mid next year. It seems to be completely asleep at the wheel.
One assumes that the central banks are all assuming/hoping/praying that the inflation spike is transitory, which may very well turn out to be the case.
Governments, and an awful lot of businesses and households, are up to their eyeballs in debt. No-one wants to risk tanking the economy (and possibly triggering yet another banking crisis) by hiking rates substantially unless forced.
The word "transitory" is doing so much economic heavy lifting at the moment that it deserves an Olympic gold medal frankly.
L’Équipe reported that Diallo’s teammate and fellow midfielder Kheira Hamraoui had been dragged out of a car and assaulted by two masked men on 4 November.
L’Équipe reported that during the journey, as the car approached Hamraoui’s home, she had been pulled out by two people in masks, one of whom proceeded to violently assault her, beating her legs with iron bars, before fleeing. The attack reportedly lasted several minutes and resulted in Hamraoui needing stitches to her legs and hands, meaning she had to miss a match against Real Madrid in which Diallo played.
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
"Oswald Mosley was a bad man". Perhaps, but I think we should just say that he has been viewed as such. I can't see much to say for him, but I see lirtle to say against too. He probably deserved his fate.
I can think of many things to say against him, starting with his unabashed racism and his espousal of violence. In terms of his character, however, this by Skidelsky is probably as close as you could get to the nub of it:
'There is always something tragic about the spilling of prodigious gifts. Many attempts have been made to identify Mosley's flaw. To Jo Grimond he epitomizes the aristocratic bully; his son Nicholas sees him as an idealistic hedonist who sought through words to rationalize his crazy belief that he could get away with anything; to Harold Macmillan his flaw was insane impatience. All these interpretations suggest an immaturity, prefigured in his mother's view of him as her man-child. To someone who knew him only in old age the flaw seemed to lie in his mental rigidity: the unrealism of his assumptions led him, by strictly logical processes, to absurd conclusions for action. By the 1970s this mental machinery had become a defensive armour plating, a way of justifying his life. But one fancies it had always been there to some degree. He remained in some ways an extraordinarily intelligent child. This made him both vulnerable and dangerous. He wanted too much, too soon.'
Telegraph have got quite the headline on their front page:
“Duchess of Sussex apologises to court for forgetting she authorised senior aide to brief authors of her biography” “Plus: Duchess called her father 'Daddy' in letter believing it would 'pull at heartstrings' if leaked, court hears”
It does seem incredible that US inflation is over 6%, the highest for over 30 years, yet the Fed not only keeps interest rates at zero, but is also planning on continuing with QE until mid next year. It seems to be completely asleep at the wheel.
One assumes that the central banks are all assuming/hoping/praying that the inflation spike is transitory, which may very well turn out to be the case.
Governments, and an awful lot of businesses and households, are up to their eyeballs in debt. No-one wants to risk tanking the economy (and possibly triggering yet another banking crisis) by hiking rates substantially unless forced.
The word "transitory" is doing so much economic heavy lifting at the moment that it deserves an Olympic gold medal frankly.
L’Équipe reported that Diallo’s teammate and fellow midfielder Kheira Hamraoui had been dragged out of a car and assaulted by two masked men on 4 November.
L’Équipe reported that during the journey, as the car approached Hamraoui’s home, she had been pulled out by two people in masks, one of whom proceeded to violently assault her, beating her legs with iron bars, before fleeing. The attack reportedly lasted several minutes and resulted in Hamraoui needing stitches to her legs and hands, meaning she had to miss a match against Real Madrid in which Diallo played.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
If inflation and interest rates were 15%
Can we talk about more pleasent things please ? Like Covid.
OK.
Has anyone noticed the growing sense of panic emanating from Germany yet?
Who's panicking when they don't have a Government yet?
A lot of people who know how to read numbers. This apparently now includes the organisers of the Christmas markets, most of which have already been cancelled, and prominent scientists who are starting to panic flap about mass casualties in the Winter and muttering darkly about another lockdown.
Their vaccination rate is lower and their case rate may well be past ours in another week based on current trajectories, and that's with more restrictions in place and a substantially lower rate of testing. It's not ideal.
In the Mirror article linked to earlier, some Tory MP apparently/allegedly said Boris was like a "political Jose Mourinho". I quite like that. Mourinho could do no wrong; he was charismatic; he had his finger on the pulse of ordinary supporters; he walked on water. Until it all went wrong; the results slid; he became just another rather mediocre manager; the people, in this country at least, fell out of love with him and decided his act was, in fact, a bit tedious. He couldn't re-invent himself any more. Hopefully, Boris's trajectory is the same. Maybe his next job should be in Italy?
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
"Oswald Mosley was a bad man". Perhaps, but I think we should just say that he has been viewed as such. I can't see much to say for him, but I see lirtle to say against too. He probably deserved his fate.
Did he have a fate, particularly? I mean I know he died, but so have most of the Class of [18]96.
L’Équipe reported that Diallo’s teammate and fellow midfielder Kheira Hamraoui had been dragged out of a car and assaulted by two masked men on 4 November.
L’Équipe reported that during the journey, as the car approached Hamraoui’s home, she had been pulled out by two people in masks, one of whom proceeded to violently assault her, beating her legs with iron bars, before fleeing. The attack reportedly lasted several minutes and resulted in Hamraoui needing stitches to her legs and hands, meaning she had to miss a match against Real Madrid in which Diallo played.
Shades of Tonya Harding I fear ...
I always felt much more sympathetic to Tonya than Nancy.
On topic, when are we finally going to get the poll that will allow the headline, 'Broken, sleazy tories on the slide'? I'm so looking forward to it - it's gonna be just like the Abba revival.
L’Équipe reported that Diallo’s teammate and fellow midfielder Kheira Hamraoui had been dragged out of a car and assaulted by two masked men on 4 November.
L’Équipe reported that during the journey, as the car approached Hamraoui’s home, she had been pulled out by two people in masks, one of whom proceeded to violently assault her, beating her legs with iron bars, before fleeing. The attack reportedly lasted several minutes and resulted in Hamraoui needing stitches to her legs and hands, meaning she had to miss a match against Real Madrid in which Diallo played.
Shades of Tonya Harding I fear ...
I always felt much more sympathetic to Tonya than Nancy.
Yes, I really liked the film - which I think also sided that way.
On topic, when are we finally going to get the poll that will allow the headline, 'Broken, sleazy tories on the slide'? I'm so looking forward to it - it's gonna be just like the Abba revival.
As in, not be like it used to be and fizzle out before it really gets started? The Abba redux stuff is just not very good.
L’Équipe reported that Diallo’s teammate and fellow midfielder Kheira Hamraoui had been dragged out of a car and assaulted by two masked men on 4 November.
L’Équipe reported that during the journey, as the car approached Hamraoui’s home, she had been pulled out by two people in masks, one of whom proceeded to violently assault her, beating her legs with iron bars, before fleeing. The attack reportedly lasted several minutes and resulted in Hamraoui needing stitches to her legs and hands, meaning she had to miss a match against Real Madrid in which Diallo played.
Shades of Tonya Harding I fear ...
I always felt much more sympathetic to Tonya than Nancy.
Nancy Kerrigan, the first American athlete to take the knee.
This is the real heart of the routine corruption, and the real template for what happened last week. The last interview panel found Dacre both unemployable and a threat to Ofcom's independence, so not only have they rewritten the rules of the job description, they're now bringing in friendlier faces for the interview panel.
Exactly parallel to the two occurrences that the government tried to engineer last week with Paterson, but because this is one of its own, and the Media not the Commons, the Mail may stay relatively quiet.
For me, the past week has once again raised the hardy perennial questions - what kind of politicians do we want and do we have the politicians we deserve?
I once incurred the vitriol of PB for suggesting if Parliament is to be fully representative it needs to have sinners as well as saints - after all, we aren't all saints and why should a significant part of the population be unrepreented?
I can well imagine listening to @NickPalmer MPs in marginal seats needing and wanting to preserve their financial security - most aren't born into money and most don't have the chance to marry money so it's down to working hard and earning a living and MPs work extraordinarily hard often to be turned out by an apparently ungrateful electorate and effectively thrown out of work.
I'm not sure how many of us would like to have our economic livelihood decided by popular vote but I suppose if you stand as an MP you appreciate the risk.
I don't have an answer - we can't surrender the Commons to the independently wealthy nor can we allow political preference to be "bought" in whatever form that takes. Having a declared second job or income doesn't sound the biggest crime to this observer as long as in any relevant matters the conflict of interest (if one exists) is made public and the MP recuses himself or herself from any vote.
I'm also sceptical of MPs policing themselves - quis custodiet ipsos custodes comes readily to mind. A wholly independent body funded by MPs and peers through a licence fee (a bit like a BBC for politicians) is my only suggestion. Such a body polices the standards and behaviours of members through an agreed Charter or code of conduct and action.
This is the real heart of the routine corruption, and the real template for what happened last week with Patterson. The last interview panel found Dacre both unemployable and a threat to Ofcom's independence, so not only have they rewritten the rules of the job description, they're now bringing in friendlier faces for the interview panel.
Exactly the two occurrences that the government tried to engineer last week, but because this is one of it's own, and the Media not the Commons, the Mail may stay relatively quiet.
Can someone help me as to why on earth Johnson is so utterly desperate to get Dacre to oversee OfCom?
For a start, Johnson is Telegraph not Mail.
And any bollx Dacre comes up with respect to BBC long term funding future will happen after Johnson has left Downing Street surely?
If anything Dacre will get in the way of the levelling up agenda by bungering about with broadband regs.
This is the real heart of the routine corruption, and the real template for what happened last week with Patterson. The last interview panel found Dacre both unemployable and a threat to Ofcom's independence, so not only have they rewritten the rules of the job description, they're now bringing in friendlier faces for the interview panel.
Exactly the two occurrences that the government tried to engineer last week, but because this is one of it's own, and the Media not the Commons, the Mail may stay relatively quiet.
Can someone help me as to why on earth Johnson is so utterly desperate to get Dacre to oversee OfCom?
For a start, Johnson is Telegraph not Mail.
And any bollx Dacre comes up with respect to BBC long term funding future will happen after Johnson has left Downing Street surely?
If anything Dacre will get in the way of the levelling up agenda by bungering about with broadband regs.
Dacre is very likely to allow GB News, and broadcast outlets like it, to become equivalents of Fox News, or at least move closer to that form of broadcasting. The Ofcom job is primarily relevant to commercial channels, not the BBC, which already has a very rule-heavy structure.
Johnson’s premiership is at a crossroads. The populist outsider has become the elitist insider, and stopped listening to wise counsel. It’s now down to Tory MPs to save the PM from himself. My @EveningStandard column today.
"outsider"... With Eton, Oxford (Union president), the Times, the Telegraph, the Spectator, MP, Mayor of London and Foreign Secretary on his CV before he got the top job.
L’Équipe reported that Diallo’s teammate and fellow midfielder Kheira Hamraoui had been dragged out of a car and assaulted by two masked men on 4 November.
L’Équipe reported that during the journey, as the car approached Hamraoui’s home, she had been pulled out by two people in masks, one of whom proceeded to violently assault her, beating her legs with iron bars, before fleeing. The attack reportedly lasted several minutes and resulted in Hamraoui needing stitches to her legs and hands, meaning she had to miss a match against Real Madrid in which Diallo played.
Shades of Tonya Harding I fear ...
I always felt much more sympathetic to Tonya than Nancy.
The film about Tonya Harding a couple of years ago was good, and had a very moving theme song:
This tweet would be considered utterly extraordinary if it was say from a BBC anchor regarding a trial
Jon Cooper Flag of United States @joncoopertweets Is it just me, or does anyone else think the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is blatantly working for the DEFENSE? Pouting face.
Meanwhile the twitter right have their tails up about the case
Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet Find it incredibly funny how the Rittenhouse prosecution is acting like all they need to persuade is a far-left Twitter echo chamber, rather than an actual jury.
Sense it is going Rittenhouse's way
The left are going to go totally mad if he’s found not guilty, not just a few idiots on Twitter.
I'm sure it will go his way: in the US you only need to persuade one juror to ensure no Guilty verdict.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. If he'd been in his house defending his property, it would be one thing. If it was his street or town where there was a riot, even that would a key mitigating factor: we all want to defend our homes and towns.
But he went out - across state borders with his guns - looking for a fight. At some point it ceases to be righteous self defence.
Er - surely one dissenter leads to a hung jury and a mistrial? Not an automatic 'not guilty' verdict?
As I said, it just takes one "juror to ensure no Guilty verdict".
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
"Oswald Mosley was a bad man". Perhaps, but I think we should just say that he has been viewed as such. I can't see much to say for him, but I see lirtle to say against too. He probably deserved his fate.
Did he have a fate, particularly? I mean I know he died, but so have most of the Class of [18]96.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
Maybe capital will be more usefully engaged then, in improving economic productivity rather than thrown at a pumped-up housing market.
Ummm: it is generally agreed there is a housing shortage in the UK. Now, it may be that - with Brexit - that demand for housing diminishes.
But the UK definitely has an issue that the average age of home ownership has risen sharply. Reducing the number of new homes built does not seem like an obvious help with that.
The issue is the mix of housing actually built. The investor-led market, to date has supplied too many city-centre flats, sold off-plan to foreign investors, and not enough family houses - and definitely not enough self-build plots.
Restricting visa numbers to fewer than the number of houses (not flats) built the previous year might be a good starting point, and with exceptions such as healthcare subjecting the visas to an auction.
Barratt, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, Bellway and Redrow dominate the new build market. Berkeley - which operates in the space you mention - is only the eighth largest builder in the UK.
For me, the past week has once again raised the hardy perennial questions - what kind of politicians do we want and do we have the politicians we deserve?
I once incurred the vitriol of PB for suggesting if Parliament is to be fully representative it needs to have sinners as well as saints - after all, we aren't all saints and why should a significant part of the population be unrepreented?
I can well imagine listening to @NickPalmer MPs in marginal seats needing and wanting to preserve their financial security - most aren't born into money and most don't have the chance to marry money so it's down to working hard and earning a living and MPs work extraordinarily hard often to be turned out by an apparently ungrateful electorate and effectively thrown out of work.
I'm not sure how many of us would like to have our economic livelihood decided by popular vote but I suppose if you stand as an MP you appreciate the risk.
I don't have an answer - we can't surrender the Commons to the independently wealthy nor can we allow political preference to be "bought" in whatever form that takes. Having a declared second job or income doesn't sound the biggest crime to this observer as long as in any relevant matters the conflict of interest (if one exists) is made public and the MP recuses himself or herself from any vote.
I'm also sceptical of MPs policing themselves - quis custodiet ipsos custodes comes readily to mind. A wholly independent body funded by MPs and peers through a licence fee (a bit like a BBC for politicians) is my only suggestion. Such a body polices the standards and behaviours of members through an agreed Charter or code of conduct and action.
I would guess about 1 in 200 adults is a paedophile. Should there be 3 or 4 of them in the Commons? Should they stand on that ticket or should we just be quietly satisfied when they get convicted?
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
"Oswald Mosley was a bad man". Perhaps, but I think we should just say that he has been viewed as such. I can't see much to say for him, but I see lirtle to say against too. He probably deserved his fate.
Did he have a fate, particularly? I mean I know he died, but so have most of the Class of [18]96.
You can see he did above.
No I can't. I'm aware he was interned for a bit in the war, but plenty of people had a much worse time.
I know this is the Mirror but Pippa Crerar is political journalist of the year.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
This tweet would be considered utterly extraordinary if it was say from a BBC anchor regarding a trial
Jon Cooper Flag of United States @joncoopertweets Is it just me, or does anyone else think the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is blatantly working for the DEFENSE? Pouting face.
Meanwhile the twitter right have their tails up about the case
Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet Find it incredibly funny how the Rittenhouse prosecution is acting like all they need to persuade is a far-left Twitter echo chamber, rather than an actual jury.
Sense it is going Rittenhouse's way
The left are going to go totally mad if he’s found not guilty, not just a few idiots on Twitter.
I'm sure it will go his way: in the US you only need to persuade one juror to ensure no Guilty verdict.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. If he'd been in his house defending his property, it would be one thing. If it was his street or town where there was a riot, even that would a key mitigating factor: we all want to defend our homes and towns.
But he went out - across state borders with his guns - looking for a fight. At some point it ceases to be righteous self defence.
Er - surely one dissenter leads to a hung jury and a mistrial? Not an automatic 'not guilty' verdict?
As I said, it just takes one "juror to ensure no Guilty verdict".
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
"Oswald Mosley was a bad man". Perhaps, but I think we should just say that he has been viewed as such. I can't see much to say for him, but I see lirtle to say against too. He probably deserved his fate.
Did he have a fate, particularly? I mean I know he died, but so have most of the Class of [18]96.
You can see he did above.
No I can't. I'm aware he was interned for a bit in the war, but plenty of people had a much worse time.
He wasn't even interned for that long, and for most of it he and his wife were together in a sort of studio flat at Holloway.
I know this is the Mirror but Pippa Crerar is political journalist of the year.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
Johnson only won so convincingly in 2019 because he was "not Corbyn".
I know this is the Mirror but Pippa Crerar is political journalist of the year.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
Johnson only won so convincingly in 2019 because he was "not Corbyn".
I imagine every Tory in the country wants him to stand. Not so much of a threat.
Loving the auto correct in "Rory Stewart told Reaction last night that he’s considering a none-awaited political come back." I'm sure Rory is great, but I've had enough of OEs for the time being and I've always thought his backstory was a bit too obviously Based on an Idea by John Buchan..
I know this is the Mirror but Pippa Crerar is political journalist of the year.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
Johnson only won so convincingly in 2019 because he was "not Corbyn".
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
I had a great day f*x hunting from Kedleston, in the bad old days when that was a thing. Not quite Blenheim, but a fuck-off house by almost any other standard.
Lots of Woke people on Twitter are now complaining about the use of the word Woke, which is simultaneously vague, derogatory, pointless, lazy, biased, old-fashioned, inaccurate, or only used by old people. Or Trumpites. Or idiots. Or enemies of anti-racism.
"Let me say, again, the use of the word wokeness and/or woke by journalists is lazy and biased and counts on the reader/viewer filling in with his or her own stereotypes. If you can’t state specifically what you mean, why are you writing it?"
Lots of Woke people on Twitter are now complaining about the use of the word Woke, which is simultaneously vague, derogatory, pointless, lazy, biased, old-fashioned, inaccurate, or only used by old people. Or Trumpites. Or idiots. Or enemies of anti-racism.
"Let me say, again, the use of the word wokeness and/or woke by journalists is lazy and biased and counts on the reader/viewer filling in with his or her own stereotypes. If you can’t state specifically what you mean, why are you writing it?"
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
"Oswald Mosley was a bad man". Perhaps, but I think we should just say that he has been viewed as such. I can't see much to say for him, but I see lirtle to say against too. He probably deserved his fate.
Did he have a fate, particularly? I mean I know he died, but so have most of the Class of [18]96.
You can see he did above.
No I can't. I'm aware he was interned for a bit in the war, but plenty of people had a much worse time.
He wasn't even interned for that long, and for most of it he and his wife were together in a sort of studio flat at Holloway.
I remember from my childhood a couple of blokes meeting and saying "Bloody hell, last time I saw you was in Changi." Puts it in perspective.
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
I had a great day f*x hunting from Kedleston, in the bad old days when that was a thing. Not quite Blenheim, but a fuck-off house by almost any other standard.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
Maybe capital will be more usefully engaged then, in improving economic productivity rather than thrown at a pumped-up housing market.
Ummm: it is generally agreed there is a housing shortage in the UK. Now, it may be that - with Brexit - that demand for housing diminishes.
But the UK definitely has an issue that the average age of home ownership has risen sharply. Reducing the number of new homes built does not seem like an obvious help with that.
The issue is the mix of housing actually built. The investor-led market, to date has supplied too many city-centre flats, sold off-plan to foreign investors, and not enough family houses - and definitely not enough self-build plots.
Restricting visa numbers to fewer than the number of houses (not flats) built the previous year might be a good starting point, and with exceptions such as healthcare subjecting the visas to an auction.
There is no shortage of housebuilders wanting to build family houses, but the type of land the government want to encourage the development of is brownfield sites in existing built up areas; these are normally more suitable for flats.
Whenever the complaints about building on green fields in the south east start up, building on brownfield land is touted as the solution.
Lots of Woke people on Twitter are now complaining about the use of the word Woke, which is simultaneously vague, derogatory, pointless, lazy, biased, old-fashioned, inaccurate, or only used by old people. Or Trumpites. Or idiots. Or enemies of anti-racism.
"Let me say, again, the use of the word wokeness and/or woke by journalists is lazy and biased and counts on the reader/viewer filling in with his or her own stereotypes. If you can’t state specifically what you mean, why are you writing it?"
Clearly, they really hate the word Woke. It really stings. Good
People go back and forth on that, as sometimes its use as a pejorative is attacked on that basis (there are some rather silly overuses, particularly in the USA), and other times the initial non perjorative definition is highlighted on a 'and why would someone be against that' kind of basis.
I imagine every Tory in the country wants him to stand. Not so much of a threat.
Loving the auto correct in "Rory Stewart told Reaction last night that he’s considering a none-awaited political come back." I'm sure Rory is great, but I've had enough of OEs for the time being and I've always thought his backstory was a bit too obviously Based on an Idea by John Buchan..
Too politically green when he tried to make his move for the top job, as shown by his subsequent fall really over nothing. Total waste. Hard not to think it will taint him irreparably, maybe deservedly so. Tugenhardt now occupies the political space Stewart should / would have been sitting in.
I know this is the Mirror but Pippa Crerar is political journalist of the year.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
Johnson only won so convincingly in 2019 because he was "not Corbyn".
I know this is the Mirror but Pippa Crerar is political journalist of the year.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
Johnson only won so convincingly in 2019 because he was "not Corbyn".
I think we're in danger of revisionism to some extent. That was definitely a big factor, but I don't think anyone wins so big just because of push factors like the other option being unpalatable. I think you need pull factors as well, and I think it'd be a mistake to think Boris's personal qualities and policy choices he made were not a big factor in turning a win into very big win.
I think, though, that everything kind of came together at that time to work very well for him, and that his well known flaws before that point, are once again rising to the fore.
Lots of Woke people on Twitter are now complaining about the use of the word Woke, which is simultaneously vague, derogatory, pointless, lazy, biased, old-fashioned, inaccurate, or only used by old people. Or Trumpites. Or idiots. Or enemies of anti-racism.
"Let me say, again, the use of the word wokeness and/or woke by journalists is lazy and biased and counts on the reader/viewer filling in with his or her own stereotypes. If you can’t state specifically what you mean, why are you writing it?"
The problem is our very weird system which effectively provides so much risk in the planning process that only very large house builders have enough capital to operate.
The result is generally monopoly style housing provision: bog-standard, graceless, and unpopular with the broader population who resent the slow encroachment onto neighbouring fields.
Every county should have a spatial development *plan* which designates where new housing is to go, and the overall design spec or pattern which is to be allowed.
Any land newly designated for housing would be subject to a planning gain tax, the funds thereby hypothecated to infrastructure development.
Within those constraints, anything goes.
Among other things, this would allow for greater self-build which is miniscule in the U.K.
I know this is the Mirror but Pippa Crerar is political journalist of the year.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
Johnson only won so convincingly in 2019 because he was "not Corbyn".
So much truth in this point
It wasn’t just that though. Many, many people who voted remain thought the vote needed honouring. Plus the shambles of the parliament that couldn’t agree anything and had too many who wanted to overturn the result, or just hold new votes until they got the ‘correct’ answer, in true EU style.
Lots of Woke people on Twitter are now complaining about the use of the word Woke, which is simultaneously vague, derogatory, pointless, lazy, biased, old-fashioned, inaccurate, or only used by old people. Or Trumpites. Or idiots. Or enemies of anti-racism.
"Let me say, again, the use of the word wokeness and/or woke by journalists is lazy and biased and counts on the reader/viewer filling in with his or her own stereotypes. If you can’t state specifically what you mean, why are you writing it?"
I know this is the Mirror but Pippa Crerar is political journalist of the year.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
Johnson only won so convincingly in 2019 because he was "not Corbyn".
So much truth in this point
It wasn’t just that though. Many, many people who voted remain thought the vote needed honouring. Plus the shambles of the parliament that couldn’t agree anything and had too many who wanted to overturn the result, or just hold new votes until they got the ‘correct’ answer, in true EU style.
The referendum was reasonably close, not carried in two of the four constituent nations, and the process used (a one off referendum) a disgraceful way to make a constitutional decision.
If Brexit had been a decisive win, there would have much less resistance from Remainers. But it wasn’t.
I know this is the Mirror but Pippa Crerar is political journalist of the year.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
Johnson only won so convincingly in 2019 because he was "not Corbyn".
So much truth in this point
It wasn’t just that though. Many, many people who voted remain thought the vote needed honouring. Plus the shambles of the parliament that couldn’t agree anything and had too many who wanted to overturn the result, or just hold new votes until they got the ‘correct’ answer, in true EU style.
This is very old news now, but there was the vote, and the manner of departure. What was executed was not what was advertised to the public. We've been over this a thousand times however, and best to move on to more immediate matters, I think.
You live in a nice part of the world. It's not Edinburgh but much underrated. Where else do you have the sea an interesting City Centre with excellent art gallery buildings made of granite and a population that says 'hallo how are you?' everytime you pass a stranger? If they could get rid of the 4x4's with personalised number plates and the sun would shine for more than two days in a row. it would be perfect
I know this is the Mirror but Pippa Crerar is political journalist of the year.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
Johnson only won so convincingly in 2019 because he was "not Corbyn".
Comments
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/postbags-voters-anger-risk-boris-johnson-owen-paterson-tories-sleaze-row-b965443.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1636549589-1
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/nov/10/psgs-aminata-diallo-taken-into-custody-after-alleged-attack-on-teammate
L’Équipe reported that Diallo’s teammate and fellow midfielder Kheira Hamraoui had been dragged out of a car and assaulted by two masked men on 4 November.
L’Équipe reported that during the journey, as the car approached Hamraoui’s home, she had been pulled out by two people in masks, one of whom proceeded to violently assault her, beating her legs with iron bars, before fleeing. The attack reportedly lasted several minutes and resulted in Hamraoui needing stitches to her legs and hands, meaning she had to miss a match against Real Madrid in which Diallo played.
'There is always something tragic about the spilling of prodigious gifts. Many attempts have been made to identify Mosley's flaw. To Jo Grimond he epitomizes the aristocratic bully; his son Nicholas sees him as an idealistic hedonist who sought through words to rationalize his crazy belief that he could get away with anything; to Harold Macmillan his flaw was insane impatience. All these interpretations suggest an immaturity, prefigured in his mother's view of him as her man-child. To someone who knew him only in old age the flaw seemed to lie in his mental rigidity: the unrealism of his assumptions led him, by strictly logical processes, to absurd conclusions for action. By the 1970s this mental machinery had become a defensive armour plating, a way of justifying his life. But one fancies it had always been there to some degree. He remained in some ways an extraordinarily intelligent child. This made him both vulnerable and dangerous. He wanted too much, too soon.'
“Duchess of Sussex apologises to court for forgetting she authorised senior aide to brief authors of her biography”
“Plus: Duchess called her father 'Daddy' in letter believing it would 'pull at heartstrings' if leaked, court hears”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/11/10/duchess-sussex-called-father-daddy-letter-believing-would-pull/
(Edit: delete my own comment about the case…)
Their vaccination rate is lower and their case rate may well be past ours in another week based on current trajectories, and that's with more restrictions in place and a substantially lower rate of testing. It's not ideal.
Exactly parallel to the two occurrences that the government tried to engineer last week with Paterson, but because this is one of its own, and the Media not the Commons, the Mail may stay relatively quiet.
Two of my favourite things, AOC and Irn Bru, together at last.
For me, the past week has once again raised the hardy perennial questions - what kind of politicians do we want and do we have the politicians we deserve?
I once incurred the vitriol of PB for suggesting if Parliament is to be fully representative it needs to have sinners as well as saints - after all, we aren't all saints and why should a significant part of the population be unrepreented?
I can well imagine listening to @NickPalmer MPs in marginal seats needing and wanting to preserve their financial security - most aren't born into money and most don't have the chance to marry money so it's down to working hard and earning a living and MPs work extraordinarily hard often to be turned out by an apparently ungrateful electorate and effectively thrown out of work.
I'm not sure how many of us would like to have our economic livelihood decided by popular vote but I suppose if you stand as an MP you appreciate the risk.
I don't have an answer - we can't surrender the Commons to the independently wealthy nor can we allow political preference to be "bought" in whatever form that takes. Having a declared second job or income doesn't sound the biggest crime to this observer as long as in any relevant matters the conflict of interest (if one exists) is made public and the MP recuses himself or herself from any vote.
I'm also sceptical of MPs policing themselves - quis custodiet ipsos custodes comes readily to mind. A wholly independent body funded by MPs and peers through a licence fee (a bit like a BBC for politicians) is my only suggestion. Such a body polices the standards and behaviours of members through an agreed Charter or code of conduct and action.
For a start, Johnson is Telegraph not Mail.
And any bollx Dacre comes up with respect to BBC long term funding future will happen after Johnson has left Downing Street surely?
If anything Dacre will get in the way of the levelling up agenda by bungering about with broadband regs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvVjWR3zTQ
Barratt, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, Bellway and Redrow dominate the new build market. Berkeley - which operates in the space you mention - is only the eighth largest builder in the UK.
This is extraordinary reading. For the first time I'm wondering if Boris Johnson is going to be booted out by his own MPs. Even if he isn't, it's clear that there are a lot of angry tory MPs.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mps-fume-craven-lazy-25427877
The Jose Mourinho comparison is interesting. The idea is that Johnson got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch, like Jose (who is in real trouble at AS Roma).
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Approval_rating_for_Labour_leader,_Jeremy_Corbyn.png
"Let me say, again, the use of the word wokeness and/or woke by journalists is lazy and biased and counts on the reader/viewer filling in with his or her own stereotypes. If you can’t state specifically what you mean, why are you writing it?"
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1457141450450296837?s=20
Clearly, they really hate the word Woke. It really stings. Good
Whenever the complaints about building on green fields in the south east start up, building on brownfield land is touted as the solution.
So next week it might be back in vogue.
I think, though, that everything kind of came together at that time to work very well for him, and that his well known flaws before that point, are once again rising to the fore.
For once in his life he was telling the truth.
It cleverly captures an entire spectrum of stupid "progressive" belief in one short, spiteful word. WOKE
It even sounds oddly menacing. The Woke. The Wokeness. The Wokening. They Are Coming. Be Afraid
The problem is our very weird system which effectively provides so much risk in the planning process that only very large house builders have enough capital to operate.
The result is generally monopoly style housing provision: bog-standard, graceless, and unpopular with the broader population who resent the slow encroachment onto neighbouring fields.
Every county should have a spatial development *plan* which designates where new housing is to go, and the overall design spec or pattern which is to be allowed.
Any land newly designated for housing would be subject to a planning gain tax, the funds thereby hypothecated to infrastructure development.
Within those constraints, anything goes.
Among other things, this would allow for greater self-build which is miniscule in the U.K.
voted to stay open on Boris Johnson's orders, so must shut.
If Brexit had been a decisive win, there would have much less resistance from Remainers. But it wasn’t.