"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
The 1st Epping Volunteer Tank Brigade only goes to Scotland and Spain.
I heard a conspiracy theory that Wales is kept off the agenda because they've been infiltrated by a closet Plaid supporter? Surely that can't be true.
I was utterly amazed when @HYUFD admitted voting for Plaid, after all the accusations that having voted for Blair twice I was not a true conservative disciple
I think the word is hypocrisy
Nope, as I also voted for every Tory candidate on that ballot paper for Aberystwyth Town Council and the Tory candidate for Ceredigion unitary Council. There were only 4 Tory candidates but I had 6 votes and as I always use all my votes I voted for the only 2 candidates left who were Plaid.
When you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 you were not voting for a Tory candidate as well, did you even vote for a Tory Council candidate even if you voted Labour nationally?
Fact remains, you made a conscious and deliberate choice to cast a ballot that was not optimal in terms of the Conservative candidates' chances of election.
Moreover, it isn’t accurate. They’re not to be tested *before* starting back, they are to be tested *on* starting back. Given the numbers to be tested that will have to go ahead as stated because there is no time to make changes (most schools starting back tomorrow).
I am very rapidly coming to the conclusion that every single member of the DfE is actively out to destroy education, rather than just being thick as mince. The whole thing is spinning to try and look as if they’re doing something to conceal the fact they have completely failed to take the only two measures that would work - smaller classes and air filters.
And yet the media aren’t even asking the basic questions about this.
Yep. I wasn't paying close attention TBH but they were interviewing Zahawi on the TV a few minutes ago, and most of the discussion seemed to revolve around masks, before it moved on to generic stuff about the NHS and staff absences.
Leaky cotton or paper masks are almost certainly useless against Omicron and, therefore, constitute futile something-must-be-done-ism, but they are also highly visible and a nuisance, divisive imposition which therefore attracts a lot of media attention and argument. Ventilation is boring so nobody's interested in talking about it.
It just shows how useless the government is. A year on from the last winter wave and bugger all done about school (and other crowded indoor space) ventilation. Sweet FA on preventing hospital acquired covid either, even though effective measures for each exist that don't impinge on freedoms or economy.
I suspect it is hugely expensive and complex in older school buildings and virtually impossible / prohibitive in schools built under New Labour’s crappy PFI contracts.
Question. How are New Labour's crappy PFI contracts different to Ken Clarke's brilliant PFI contracts or George Osborne's superb PFI contracts?
Either PFI is crappy or it is not. The notion that it was only crap under one party defies realities about how the civil service works. The notion that PFI was only under one party is laughable revisionism that is beneath you.
As for Labour-specific PFI my response for a long time has been "what was the alternative". 18 month waits to see a specialist to join the waiting list for actual treatment. Schools and hospitals literally crumbing around you. Public infrastructure unsafe and uncared for. Your party did not spend any money to "fix the roof when the sun was shining" hence the huge backlog.
Personally I would have borrowed to invest but politically that was impossible as people were so paranoid about spending money on anything even as they sent their kids into schools held up by steel endoskeletons.
"Either PFI is crappy or it is not."
That's utterly wrong. PFI is a tool. There are places where it is a perfectly acceptable tool to use: DBFO on roads, for instance. And there are places where it is a terrible tool - I'd argue that the more complex something is to run, the less applicable PFI is.
Hence roads are generally good for PFI (*). Schools can be difficult, but the tool may work. Hospitals are a poor fit IMO.
PFI-style projects first came under my radar in the late 1980s for road projects, then for a power station we were involved with in the early 1990s. Labour accelerated the number and scale of schemes for schools and hospitals, where IMV PFI is a much poorer fit.
Use the tool where it is appropriate.
(*) It depends on the contract, of course, but that's always the case.
I wonder about PFI on roads. Yes, with current interest rates it's a way of bringing forward due maintenance in an apparently affordable way. But it delivers a large wodge of £ upfront, and my own observation suggests that this sudden abundance of cash is easy to waste on peripheral projects, especially with councils keen to please their electors and PFI contractors eager to find more work.
And of course the money for maintenance will run out well before the end of the PFI 'mortgage' term, so what happens then? The idea that all the maintenance will be 'done' and hence there'll then be little more demand for spending on roads for the next ten or more years seems somewhat optimistic.
A classic example of PFI and roads. The A1 in North Yorkshire was upgraded in various phases. For a few years the motorway north ended at Leeming, until Leeming to Barton was done. There was a lane drop at Leeming because the 3 lane motorway needed to tie into the 2 lane A1.
Despite there now being continuous 3 lane motorway there remains a lane drop northbound - down to 2 lanes through the junction then back to 3 on the other side. No infrastructure issue, its simply that the PFI contract for the former section doesn't allow for the layout at the terminal junction to be changed. And changing line markings to remove the lane drop is sufficient for all kinds of contractual bullshit to be triggered...
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
I have been to the North East of the US, California, Pennsylvavia and briefly to Texas. I have not been to Canada as such but the voting patterns are clear enough.
Culturally economically Alberta is economically for small government and socially conservative ie closer to Wyoming than the socially liberal, more big government East of Canada.
Liberal left, socially liberal Democrat voting Massachussetts and Vermont are also closer to the culturally similar Canadian Atlantic States than they are to very rightwing Texas
I have not been to Canada sums it up
I haven't been to either, but I strongly suspect Albertian conservatism is very different to Trumpism. Just as British Conservatism is.
Alberta is the only part of Canada I've been to (in 2015) and I would say some of these comparisons are simplistic also given that Alberta elected an NDP provincial government in 2015 even while voters heavily back the Conservatives in national elections.
Clearly Alberta's economic needs are different from the rest of Canada but I don't think some of the comparisons with the US make sense.
We also saw the Canadian Liberals taking Alberta a bit more seriously in 2021, even if they only regained one riding in Calgary after they neglected it in 2019.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You sound more and more like a Corbynista every single day.
No, there is no point stating in power for its own sake if it means not pursuing conservatism but pursuing social democracy and high taxes on your core vote to do so. Better to rebuild in opposition
Have you ever considered that politics might be a means to an end, and not an end in itself?
(apart from for those making money from careers in it, obvs).
Management of government without any core belief and any ideology is pointless.
It would end up with a 1997 result anyway but worse for the Tories as it would see far greater betrayal of the Tory core vote than Major ever did
The drugs aren't working.
rly? That seems to me about the most lucid and bang on the money post in HYUFD's history
Johnson wants his legacy, but also doesn't want to be forgotten about too soon. I'm convinced he is determined to try and outdo his immediate predecessors in terms of length of tenure. For Brown and May, that's easy. He's not far off Brown's time as PM, and likewise May. He just has to hang on to about September to beat them both.
But Cameron is the problem. He managed over six years which proves a problem for both Johnson and the Conservative party. This length of time is AFTER the next general election, which is looking stickier and stickier for Johnson. Neither he, nor the Conservatives really want to lose this. It would tarnish Johnson's image and annoy the Conservatives to boot.
I do wonder whether Johnson will manage another eighteen months, declare 'job done' (whatever that means) and then retire. He beats May, he beats Brown and whilst he hasn't beat Cameron he can't have it all and flounces off to the after dinner circuit.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
Moreover, it isn’t accurate. They’re not to be tested *before* starting back, they are to be tested *on* starting back. Given the numbers to be tested that will have to go ahead as stated because there is no time to make changes (most schools starting back tomorrow).
I am very rapidly coming to the conclusion that every single member of the DfE is actively out to destroy education, rather than just being thick as mince. The whole thing is spinning to try and look as if they’re doing something to conceal the fact they have completely failed to take the only two measures that would work - smaller classes and air filters.
And yet the media aren’t even asking the basic questions about this.
Yep. I wasn't paying close attention TBH but they were interviewing Zahawi on the TV a few minutes ago, and most of the discussion seemed to revolve around masks, before it moved on to generic stuff about the NHS and staff absences.
Leaky cotton or paper masks are almost certainly useless against Omicron and, therefore, constitute futile something-must-be-done-ism, but they are also highly visible and a nuisance, divisive imposition which therefore attracts a lot of media attention and argument. Ventilation is boring so nobody's interested in talking about it.
It just shows how useless the government is. A year on from the last winter wave and bugger all done about school (and other crowded indoor space) ventilation. Sweet FA on preventing hospital acquired covid either, even though effective measures for each exist that don't impinge on freedoms or economy.
I suspect it is hugely expensive and complex in older school buildings and virtually impossible / prohibitive in schools built under New Labour’s crappy PFI contracts.
Question. How are New Labour's crappy PFI contracts different to Ken Clarke's brilliant PFI contracts or George Osborne's superb PFI contracts?
Either PFI is crappy or it is not. The notion that it was only crap under one party defies realities about how the civil service works. The notion that PFI was only under one party is laughable revisionism that is beneath you.
As for Labour-specific PFI my response for a long time has been "what was the alternative". 18 month waits to see a specialist to join the waiting list for actual treatment. Schools and hospitals literally crumbing around you. Public infrastructure unsafe and uncared for. Your party did not spend any money to "fix the roof when the sun was shining" hence the huge backlog.
Personally I would have borrowed to invest but politically that was impossible as people were so paranoid about spending money on anything even as they sent their kids into schools held up by steel endoskeletons.
"Either PFI is crappy or it is not."
That's utterly wrong. PFI is a tool. There are places where it is a perfectly acceptable tool to use: DBFO on roads, for instance. And there are places where it is a terrible tool - I'd argue that the more complex something is to run, the less applicable PFI is.
Hence roads are generally good for PFI (*). Schools can be difficult, but the tool may work. Hospitals are a poor fit IMO.
PFI-style projects first came under my radar in the late 1980s for road projects, then for a power station we were involved with in the early 1990s. Labour accelerated the number and scale of schemes for schools and hospitals, where IMV PFI is a much poorer fit.
Use the tool where it is appropriate.
(*) It depends on the contract, of course, but that's always the case.
I wonder about PFI on roads. Yes, with current interest rates it's a way of bringing forward due maintenance in an apparently affordable way. But it delivers a large wodge of £ upfront, and my own observation suggests that this sudden abundance of cash is easy to waste on peripheral projects, especially with councils keen to please their electors and PFI contractors eager to find more work.
And of course the money for maintenance will run out well before the end of the PFI 'mortgage' term, so what happens then? The idea that all the maintenance will be 'done' and hence there'll then be little more demand for spending on roads for the next ten or more years seems somewhat optimistic.
A classic example of PFI and roads. The A1 in North Yorkshire was upgraded in various phases. For a few years the motorway north ended at Leeming, until Leeming to Barton was done. There was a lane drop at Leeming because the 3 lane motorway needed to tie into the 2 lane A1.
Despite there now being continuous 3 lane motorway there remains a lane drop northbound - down to 2 lanes through the junction then back to 3 on the other side. No infrastructure issue, its simply that the PFI contract for the former section doesn't allow for the layout at the terminal junction to be changed. And changing line markings to remove the lane drop is sufficient for all kinds of contractual bullshit to be triggered...
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
I have been to the North East of the US, California, Pennsylvavia and briefly to Texas. I have not been to Canada as such but the voting patterns are clear enough.
Culturally economically Alberta is economically for small government and socially conservative ie closer to Wyoming than the socially liberal, more big government East of Canada.
Liberal left, socially liberal Democrat voting Massachussetts and Vermont are also closer to the culturally similar Canadian Atlantic States than they are to very rightwing Texas
I have not been to Canada sums it up
I haven't been to either, but I strongly suspect Albertian conservatism is very different to Trumpism. Just as British Conservatism is.
Alberta is the only part of Canada I've been to (in 2015) and I would say some of these comparisons are simplistic also given that Alberta elected an NDP provincial government in 2015 even while voters heavily back the Conservatives in national elections.
Clearly Alberta's economic needs are different from the rest of Canada but I don't think some of the comparisons with the US make sense.
We also saw the Canadian Liberals taking Alberta a bit more seriously in 2021, even if they only regained one riding in Calgary after they neglected it in 2019.
55% of Albertans voted Conservative last year even when Trudeau's Liberals were re elected nationally. In the 1990s of course it was the stronghold of the populist Conservative Reform Party of Canada when the Liberals were in power, Reform eventually merging with the more One Nation Progressive Conservative party who had fallen back to the Atlantic States to form today's Conservative Party of Canada in 2003
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
There is your real Tory speaking , as long as "I am all right Jack" you peasants can F off. There will never be levelling up under the Tories , they are too selfish and greedy.
You must not attack his entitlement to a one million pound tax free inheritance Malc
And happy new year to you and your family
Hello G, Hope 2022 is a great one for you and your family. I am almost over Covid , just in time to go back to work. be happier when this miserable weather is gone .
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You sound more and more like a Corbynista every single day.
No, there is no point stating in power for its own sake if it means not pursuing conservatism but pursuing social democracy and high taxes on your core vote to do so. Better to rebuild in opposition
Have you ever considered that politics might be a means to an end, and not an end in itself?
(apart from for those making money from careers in it, obvs).
Management of government without any core belief and any ideology is pointless.
It would end up with a 1997 result anyway but worse for the Tories as it would see far greater betrayal of the Tory core vote than Major ever did
The drugs aren't working.
rly? That seems to me about the most lucid and bang on the money post in HYUFD's history
Maybe, but first you have to explain to me this Government's "core belief and any ideology".
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
The 1st Epping Volunteer Tank Brigade only goes to Scotland and Spain.
I heard a conspiracy theory that Wales is kept off the agenda because they've been infiltrated by a closet Plaid supporter? Surely that can't be true.
I was utterly amazed when @HYUFD admitted voting for Plaid, after all the accusations that having voted for Blair twice I was not a true conservative disciple
I think the word is hypocrisy
Nope, as I also voted for every Tory candidate on that ballot paper for Aberystwyth Town Council and the Tory candidate for Ceredigion unitary Council. There were only 4 Tory candidates but I had 6 votes and as I always use all my votes I voted for the only 2 candidates left who were Plaid.
When you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 you were not voting for a Tory candidate as well, did you even vote for a Tory Council candidate even if you voted Labour nationally?
As the local conservative councillor was a personal family friend of course I voted for her and I was voting in Wales anyway
Many French officials find it normal that Russia should claim a sphere of influence. They resemble those who in 1939 believed that Hitler’s demands would be limited to Danzig. However, one only has to look at the texts proposed by Moscow to understand that the stakes are quite different.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
You have not opposed suggestions to tax the South more to pay for spending in the North.
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
You have not opposed proposals to tax the South more to pay for more spending in the North.
One of the proposals of the Indian deal is to allow young Indians to come the UK for 3 years to work regardless of skills needed, which Patel opposes
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
There is your real Tory speaking , as long as "I am all right Jack" you peasants can F off. There will never be levelling up under the Tories , they are too selfish and greedy.
You must not attack his entitlement to a one million pound tax free inheritance Malc
And happy new year to you and your family
Hello G, Hope 2022 is a great one for you and your family. I am almost over Covid , just in time to go back to work. be happier when this miserable weather is gone .
Hello Malky. It is indeed dreich and I don't have Covid! Edit: weather's grey enough in itself without that as well, I mean ...
Moreover, it isn’t accurate. They’re not to be tested *before* starting back, they are to be tested *on* starting back. Given the numbers to be tested that will have to go ahead as stated because there is no time to make changes (most schools starting back tomorrow).
I am very rapidly coming to the conclusion that every single member of the DfE is actively out to destroy education, rather than just being thick as mince. The whole thing is spinning to try and look as if they’re doing something to conceal the fact they have completely failed to take the only two measures that would work - smaller classes and air filters.
And yet the media aren’t even asking the basic questions about this.
Yep. I wasn't paying close attention TBH but they were interviewing Zahawi on the TV a few minutes ago, and most of the discussion seemed to revolve around masks, before it moved on to generic stuff about the NHS and staff absences.
Leaky cotton or paper masks are almost certainly useless against Omicron and, therefore, constitute futile something-must-be-done-ism, but they are also highly visible and a nuisance, divisive imposition which therefore attracts a lot of media attention and argument. Ventilation is boring so nobody's interested in talking about it.
It just shows how useless the government is. A year on from the last winter wave and bugger all done about school (and other crowded indoor space) ventilation. Sweet FA on preventing hospital acquired covid either, even though effective measures for each exist that don't impinge on freedoms or economy.
I suspect it is hugely expensive and complex in older school buildings and virtually impossible / prohibitive in schools built under New Labour’s crappy PFI contracts.
Question. How are New Labour's crappy PFI contracts different to Ken Clarke's brilliant PFI contracts or George Osborne's superb PFI contracts?
Either PFI is crappy or it is not. The notion that it was only crap under one party defies realities about how the civil service works. The notion that PFI was only under one party is laughable revisionism that is beneath you.
As for Labour-specific PFI my response for a long time has been "what was the alternative". 18 month waits to see a specialist to join the waiting list for actual treatment. Schools and hospitals literally crumbing around you. Public infrastructure unsafe and uncared for. Your party did not spend any money to "fix the roof when the sun was shining" hence the huge backlog.
Personally I would have borrowed to invest but politically that was impossible as people were so paranoid about spending money on anything even as they sent their kids into schools held up by steel endoskeletons.
"Either PFI is crappy or it is not."
That's utterly wrong. PFI is a tool. There are places where it is a perfectly acceptable tool to use: DBFO on roads, for instance. And there are places where it is a terrible tool - I'd argue that the more complex something is to run, the less applicable PFI is.
Hence roads are generally good for PFI (*). Schools can be difficult, but the tool may work. Hospitals are a poor fit IMO.
PFI-style projects first came under my radar in the late 1980s for road projects, then for a power station we were involved with in the early 1990s. Labour accelerated the number and scale of schemes for schools and hospitals, where IMV PFI is a much poorer fit.
Use the tool where it is appropriate.
(*) It depends on the contract, of course, but that's always the case.
I wonder about PFI on roads. Yes, with current interest rates it's a way of bringing forward due maintenance in an apparently affordable way. But it delivers a large wodge of £ upfront, and my own observation suggests that this sudden abundance of cash is easy to waste on peripheral projects, especially with councils keen to please their electors and PFI contractors eager to find more work.
And of course the money for maintenance will run out well before the end of the PFI 'mortgage' term, so what happens then? The idea that all the maintenance will be 'done' and hence there'll then be little more demand for spending on roads for the next ten or more years seems somewhat optimistic.
A classic example of PFI and roads. The A1 in North Yorkshire was upgraded in various phases. For a few years the motorway north ended at Leeming, until Leeming to Barton was done. There was a lane drop at Leeming because the 3 lane motorway needed to tie into the 2 lane A1.
Despite there now being continuous 3 lane motorway there remains a lane drop northbound - down to 2 lanes through the junction then back to 3 on the other side. No infrastructure issue, its simply that the PFI contract for the former section doesn't allow for the layout at the terminal junction to be changed. And changing line markings to remove the lane drop is sufficient for all kinds of contractual bullshit to be triggered...
That’s a screwed-up contract, not to have a variation agreement in place for when the next phase of the upgrade took place.
The sort of thing that needs a government minister to get all the related parties in the same room, and bang their heads together until they agree a sensible way forward.
@MattW burning wood is inherently renewable and therefore possibly sustainable by the simple fact that we can regrow trees
I disagree. I see several problems.
1 - Woodburning creates significant pollution problems, and even worse for those with eg asthma (now a lot of people, whom a log burner next door may keep locked up in their houses with the windows shut). The research on this was partly what lay behind Mayor Sadiq's intiative.
2 - If you are burning wood the C02 etc is goes straight back into the atmosphere. The only bit of carbon that is kept out of the atmosphere is that which is currently growing in the trees, however you are cutting those down and burning them every 5-15 years - really it is only a short delay where we need reductions.
Never mind all the energy used processing and delivering the fuel to your door.
Compare with eg building it into a house where the carbon is fixed for the lifetime of the building in the construction timber. Or fixing it into a peatbed where it stays for centuries.
3 - If you want an environmentally friendly 'home fire', then one displayed on an screen is far better, or an electric one with zero-carbon energy.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
I think we're all going to have to face the fact that taxes are going to have to go up, and that means they'll have to go up more for the more well-off than the poorer-off. Given the current situation, I cannot find any realistic alternative, and it would be good if all politicians were honest about this.
And I'm cool about that. What I do have grave doubts about is whether this government - or any government - will use that extra income well.
(I still like my idea of governments allocating set amounts of GDP to various areas of public spending at election time, and having to meet that. Like the 0.7% foreign aid aim, but to all areas of spending.)
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
You have not opposed suggestions to tax the South more to pay for spending in the North.
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
One of the proposals of the Indian deal is to allow young Indians to come the UK for 3 years to work regardless of skills needed, which Patel opposes
That's not one of the proposals as was pointed out to you already. Once again once you have an idea in your head that replaces all logic and reason.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
You have not opposed suggestions to tax the South more to pay for spending in the North.
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
One of the proposals of the Indian deal is to allow young Indians to come the UK for 3 years to work regardless of skills needed, which Patel opposes
I assume from that comment that you now finally accept that you were wrong in suggesting it was an open door immigration policy with India's proposed trade deal
Many French officials find it normal that Russia should claim a sphere of influence. They resemble those who in 1939 believed that Hitler’s demands would be limited to Danzig. However, one only has to look at the texts proposed by Moscow to understand that the stakes are quite different.
Concluding:
The lessons of 1946-7 are still relevant today. The pioneers of the Cold War were the British, who formed a Western bloc around the Anglo-French core and persuaded isolationist Americans to stay in Europe. In the spring of 1947, the French, Italian and Belgian governments expelled Communist ministers, aware of the threat linked to Moscow’s fifth column in Europe. This clear willingness to resist Stalin finally persuaded Washington to commit itself to European security. We could draw lessons from this experience today, instead of engaging in a childish war with Britain. But to do that, we have to learn to face the facts, to think in political terms, instead of drifting rudderless in media passions and polls. In 1946-7 we knew that freedom was worth dying for, something that is obviously forgotten today. After Munich in 1938, the West was ashamed to have abandoned Czechoslovakia into Hitler’s clutches. Today we are cowardly letting down Ukraine, but we do not even realize our dishonor, nor the danger of giving in to an aggressor. We are like the Byzantines who were discussing the sex of angels while the Ottoman forces were destroying the city walls.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
I think we're all going to have to face the fact that taxes are going to have to go up, and that means they'll have to go up more for the more well-off than the poorer-off. Given the current situation, I cannot find any realistic alternative, and it would be good if all politicians were honest about this.
And I'm cool about that. What I do have grave doubts about is whether this government - or any government - will use that extra income well.
(I still like my idea of governments allocating set amounts of GDP to various areas of public spending at election time, and having to meet that. Like the 0.7% foreign aid aim, but to all areas of spending.)
Nice idea about the GDP commitments per department, but counter-cyclical spending such an unemployment benefit would also need to be accounted for somehow.
@MattW burning wood is inherently renewable and therefore possibly sustainable by the simple fact that we can regrow trees
CO2 issues and local air pollution issues are different things, @MattW is talking about the second one.
On CO2, wood burning is really complicated:
* A tree is carbon-neutral over its lifetime * But burning the tree rather than just leaving it there on the mountain immediately releases the CO2 * But if you left it there long enough it would decay and put the CO2 back * But the biggest problem right now is short-term, so sequestering CO2 in a tree trunk for 20 years or whatever is probably useful * And then there's the petrol in the truck to get it here * It's not far, just wherever around the town the treecutter guy said we could pick it up from * But to get up the slope I need a 4x4 so I'm using my 1982 Subaru Agricultural Sambar k-truck, it goes through the petrol pretty fast despite only having a teensy little 550 cc engine * But the particles from the smoke and probably also the Sambar exhaust apparently reduce global warming * Unless they land on snow in which case they make it less reflective and increase global warming * But there's not much snow around here thanks to global warming
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You sound more and more like a Corbynista every single day.
No, there is no point stating in power for its own sake if it means not pursuing conservatism but pursuing social democracy and high taxes on your core vote to do so. Better to rebuild in opposition
Have you ever considered that politics might be a means to an end, and not an end in itself?
(apart from for those making money from careers in it, obvs).
Management of government without any core belief and any ideology is pointless.
It would end up with a 1997 result anyway but worse for the Tories as it would see far greater betrayal of the Tory core vote than Major ever did
The drugs aren't working.
rly? That seems to me about the most lucid and bang on the money post in HYUFD's history
Maybe, but first you have to explain to me this Government's "core belief and any ideology".
But he says "without." OK he thinks it's a hypothetical, but it is the actualite and will have precisely the result forecast.
I am about to write to Sir G Cox (my) MP and say that I will not vote tory next election if x. In fact I will not vote tory anyway. Does the panel feel this is morally acceptable?
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You sound more and more like a Corbynista every single day.
No, there is no point stating in power for its own sake if it means not pursuing conservatism but pursuing social democracy and high taxes on your core vote to do so. Better to rebuild in opposition
Have you ever considered that politics might be a means to an end, and not an end in itself?
(apart from for those making money from careers in it, obvs).
Management of government without any core belief and any ideology is pointless.
It would end up with a 1997 result anyway but worse for the Tories as it would see far greater betrayal of the Tory core vote than Major ever did
The drugs aren't working.
rly? That seems to me about the most lucid and bang on the money post in HYUFD's history
Maybe, but first you have to explain to me this Government's "core belief and any ideology".
It doesn't have any because the head of government is simply there for the satisfaction of his own ego. The one dogmatic thing he was elected for (Brexit) he almost certainly doesn't truly believe in anyway. This is government by knee-jerk; it is quite simply the worst led Conservative government of all time (including Theresa May's).
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
You have not opposed suggestions to tax the South more to pay for spending in the North.
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
One of the proposals of the Indian deal is to allow young Indians to come the UK for 3 years to work regardless of skills needed, which Patel opposes
That's not one of the proposals as was pointed out to you already. Once again once you have an idea in your head that replaces all logic and reason.
One of the proposals is to allow young Indians to live and work in the UK for 3 years, going far beyond the current points based immigration system for Indian migrants we have based on the skills we need
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Or you shift from current spending to capital investment
Just to add the economic disparity in our society hs become too great. Left unaddressed society will become increasingly dysfunctional and we will all suffer. Resources should be redirected.
The other elephant in the room is global levelling up. The developed world will need to address the abject poverty of billions of people in the non too distant future. That will cost us all.
Well said, and how good to hear it from your side of the fence. Those two points are actually what keep me in politics - I'm not too bothered about most of the other issues.
Where we differ is that I trust labour to level down too much, which to me is suboptimal within the UK. I would hope (note it is hope rather than expect) Conservatives would make a better play on the level up side thus minimising the down for the better off South, but still getting the disparity to acceptable levels.
We agree on the target, just the means of reaching it may be different.
Fair enough, agreement on objectives is a good start. I'm pragmatic enough not to favour much levelling down in the south, as we need to win a consensus. Where I would tend to level down is wealth rathrer than income. The fuss about stock market brokers (and Truss) having boozy lunches is a distraction from the quite astonishing gap between people with vast, often mostly inherited, stockpiles and people who are permanently in debt and see every payday as a desperate glint of temporary relief.
I really like the Swiss model of a small wealth tax levied each year on assets over a large sum (let's say £2 million in assets, including homes), which also serves an economic function, as it encourages wealth-owners to do something with their wealth rather than have it just sit there. Anecdotally, my father used to talk about his cousin John (the elder brother of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Stuart_of_Findhorn), who was apparently a charming, other-worldly man with no real idea or interest in how far his estate extended. If he'd been nudged to sell off half a per cent of it each year for development or farming or even rewilding, I expect he'd have been fine with it.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Or you shift from current spending to capital investment
Indeed, that is what a Tory government should do. He is just pushing what a Starmer Labour government might do
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
The 1st Epping Volunteer Tank Brigade only goes to Scotland and Spain.
I heard a conspiracy theory that Wales is kept off the agenda because they've been infiltrated by a closet Plaid supporter? Surely that can't be true.
I was utterly amazed when @HYUFD admitted voting for Plaid, after all the accusations that having voted for Blair twice I was not a true conservative disciple
I think the word is hypocrisy
Nope, as I also voted for every Tory candidate on that ballot paper for Aberystwyth Town Council and the Tory candidate for Ceredigion unitary Council. There were only 4 Tory candidates but I had 6 votes and as I always use all my votes I voted for the only 2 candidates left who were Plaid.
When you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 you were not voting for a Tory candidate as well, did you even vote for a Tory Council candidate even if you voted Labour nationally?
As the local conservative councillor was a personal family friend of course I voted for her and I was voting in Wales anyway
I have never before come across someone with such beliefs in political purity. HYUFD is really only supportive of name recognition. If the label states "Conservative" or ""Right Wing" it is good. Which is why he often apologises on behalf of Trump and Le Pen. If Johnson were to post a war with China leading to anihilation of the British Isles in the next Conservative Party manifesto, HYUFD would canvass for it because it says Conservative on the cover, so it must be right and good.
I like HYUFD, and in many respects he is very knowledgeable, but he is off the scale wierd today.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
You have not opposed suggestions to tax the South more to pay for spending in the North.
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
One of the proposals of the Indian deal is to allow young Indians to come the UK for 3 years to work regardless of skills needed, which Patel opposes
I assume from that comment that you now finally accept that you were wrong in suggesting it was an open door immigration policy with India's proposed trade deal
The visas that India is wanting from the trade deal, are for investors, skilled workers, inter-company transfers, and students. All of which benefit the UK.
They’re also interested in reducing paperwork issues in professions such as medicine, law and banking.
* But to get up the slope I need a 4x4 so I'm using my 1982 Subaru Agricultural Sambar k-truck, it goes through the petrol pretty fast despite only having a teensy little 550 cc engine
Finally, somebody else on pb.com with a cool vehicle. Kei trucks are great.
Just to add the economic disparity in our society hs become too great. Left unaddressed society will become increasingly dysfunctional and we will all suffer. Resources should be redirected.
The other elephant in the room is global levelling up. The developed world will need to address the abject poverty of billions of people in the non too distant future. That will cost us all.
Well said, and how good to hear it from your side of the fence. Those two points are actually what keep me in politics - I'm not too bothered about most of the other issues.
Where we differ is that I trust labour to level down too much, which to me is suboptimal within the UK. I would hope (note it is hope rather than expect) Conservatives would make a better play on the level up side thus minimising the down for the better off South, but still getting the disparity to acceptable levels.
We agree on the target, just the means of reaching it may be different.
Fair enough, agreement on objectives is a good start. I'm pragmatic enough not to favour much levelling down in the south, as we need to win a consensus. Where I would tend to level down is wealth rathrer than income. The fuss about stock market brokers (and Truss) having boozy lunches is a distraction from the quite astonishing gap between people with vast, often mostly inherited, stockpiles and people who are permanently in debt and see every payday as a desperate glint of temporary relief.
I really like the Swiss model of a small wealth tax levied each year on assets over a large sum (let's say £2 million in assets, including homes), which also serves an economic function, as it encourages wealth-owners to do something with their wealth rather than have it just sit there. Anecdotally, my father used to talk about his cousin John (the elder brother of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Stuart_of_Findhorn), who was apparently a charming, other-worldly man with no real idea or interest in how far his estate extended. If he'd been nudged to sell off half a per cent of it each year for development or farming or even rewilding, I expect he'd have been fine with it.
Assets to include net present value of defined benefit pensions I take it ?
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You sound more and more like a Corbynista every single day.
No, there is no point stating in power for its own sake if it means not pursuing conservatism but pursuing social democracy and high taxes on your core vote to do so. Better to rebuild in opposition
Have you ever considered that politics might be a means to an end, and not an end in itself?
(apart from for those making money from careers in it, obvs).
Management of government without any core belief and any ideology is pointless.
It would end up with a 1997 result anyway but worse for the Tories as it would see far greater betrayal of the Tory core vote than Major ever did
The drugs aren't working.
rly? That seems to me about the most lucid and bang on the money post in HYUFD's history
Maybe, but first you have to explain to me this Government's "core belief and any ideology".
But he says "without." OK he thinks it's a hypothetical, but it is the actualite and will have precisely the result forecast.
I am about to write to Sir G Cox (my) MP and say that I will not vote tory next election if x. In fact I will not vote tory anyway. Does the panel feel this is morally acceptable?
A letter might not reach him in time for the next GE bearing in mind his likely location. Best to try a zoom call.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
I think we're all going to have to face the fact that taxes are going to have to go up, and that means they'll have to go up more for the more well-off than the poorer-off. Given the current situation, I cannot find any realistic alternative, and it would be good if all politicians were honest about this.
And I'm cool about that. What I do have grave doubts about is whether this government - or any government - will use that extra income well.
(I still like my idea of governments allocating set amounts of GDP to various areas of public spending at election time, and having to meet that. Like the 0.7% foreign aid aim, but to all areas of spending.)
Nice idea about the GDP commitments per department, but counter-cyclical spending such an unemployment benefit would also need to be accounted for somehow.
Yeah, in the scheme I was pondering, there would be a certain amount set up as 'spare' money that could either pay off debt, be invested, or spent on emergencies or such spending. Say 3-4% of GDP.
But for the main departments, it makes things much easier. At election time, the Conservatives may offer defence 3%, the NHS 10%, education 3.5%, etc. Labour may fo defence 25, NHS 12%, education 5%, etc. Instead of wittering on about how they'll do 'better' than the other party on each of these, voters will be able to have a real choice.
It is then up to the government to ensure these allocated targets are met according to GDP. IMO its better than the current chaotic system we have atm.
Johnson wants his legacy, but also doesn't want to be forgotten about too soon. I'm convinced he is determined to try and outdo his immediate predecessors in terms of length of tenure. For Brown and May, that's easy. He's not far off Brown's time as PM, and likewise May. He just has to hang on to about September to beat them both.
But Cameron is the problem. He managed over six years which proves a problem for both Johnson and the Conservative party. This length of time is AFTER the next general election, which is looking stickier and stickier for Johnson. Neither he, nor the Conservatives really want to lose this. It would tarnish Johnson's image and annoy the Conservatives to boot.
I do wonder whether Johnson will manage another eighteen months, declare 'job done' (whatever that means) and then retire. He beats May, he beats Brown and whilst he hasn't beat Cameron he can't have it all and flounces off to the after dinner circuit.
Yes, but not equally Cameron would be too much for the pathetic little man's ego to bear methinks.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
You have not opposed suggestions to tax the South more to pay for spending in the North.
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
One of the proposals of the Indian deal is to allow young Indians to come the UK for 3 years to work regardless of skills needed, which Patel opposes
I assume from that comment that you now finally accept that you were wrong in suggesting it was an open door immigration policy with India's proposed trade deal
The visas that India is wanting from the trade deal, are for investors, skilled workers, inter-company transfers, and students. All of which benefit the UK.
They’re also interested in reducing paperwork issues in professions such as medicine, law and banking.
I really think it is a good job @HYUFD is not our Foreign Secretary/Trade negotiator
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
The 1st Epping Volunteer Tank Brigade only goes to Scotland and Spain.
I heard a conspiracy theory that Wales is kept off the agenda because they've been infiltrated by a closet Plaid supporter? Surely that can't be true.
I was utterly amazed when @HYUFD admitted voting for Plaid, after all the accusations that having voted for Blair twice I was not a true conservative disciple
I think the word is hypocrisy
Nope, as I also voted for every Tory candidate on that ballot paper for Aberystwyth Town Council and the Tory candidate for Ceredigion unitary Council. There were only 4 Tory candidates but I had 6 votes and as I always use all my votes I voted for the only 2 candidates left who were Plaid.
When you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 you were not voting for a Tory candidate as well, did you even vote for a Tory Council candidate even if you voted Labour nationally?
Fact remains, you made a conscious and deliberate choice to cast a ballot that was not optimal in terms of the Conservative candidates' chances of election.
I don't think HYUFD understands that in wards where there several positions to be filled then by using any spare votes you have you can be reducing your own candidates chances of being elected.
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
The 1st Epping Volunteer Tank Brigade only goes to Scotland and Spain.
I heard a conspiracy theory that Wales is kept off the agenda because they've been infiltrated by a closet Plaid supporter? Surely that can't be true.
I was utterly amazed when @HYUFD admitted voting for Plaid, after all the accusations that having voted for Blair twice I was not a true conservative disciple
I think the word is hypocrisy
Nope, as I also voted for every Tory candidate on that ballot paper for Aberystwyth Town Council and the Tory candidate for Ceredigion unitary Council. There were only 4 Tory candidates but I had 6 votes and as I always use all my votes I voted for the only 2 candidates left who were Plaid.
When you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 you were not voting for a Tory candidate as well, did you even vote for a Tory Council candidate even if you voted Labour nationally?
As the local conservative councillor was a personal family friend of course I voted for her and I was voting in Wales anyway
I have never before come across someone with such beliefs in political purity. HYUFD is really only supportive of name recognition. If the label states "Conservative" or ""Right Wing" it is good. Which is why he often apologises on behalf of Trump and Le Pen. If Johnson were to post a war with China leading to anihilation of the British Isles in the next Conservative Party manifesto, HYUFD would canvass for it because it says Conservative on the cover, so it must be right and good.
I like HYUFD, and in many respects he is very knowledgeable, but he is off the scale wierd today.
That is the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that a high tax Tory government now it has achieved its objectives of beating Corbyn and getting Brexit done would be pointless.
Even if we did go to war with China, it would almost certainly only be with the US and Australia and maybe India and likely after China had invaded Japan or South Korea, not even for an invasion of Taiwan. The British Isles itself would likely be less directly affected as it is on the other side of the world from Cbina
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You sound more and more like a Corbynista every single day.
I said in 2019 that Johnson and Corbyn were two cheeks of the same arse.
I get a lovely warm smug feeling now everyone agrees with me.
* But to get up the slope I need a 4x4 so I'm using my 1982 Subaru Agricultural Sambar k-truck, it goes through the petrol pretty fast despite only having a teensy little 550 cc engine
Finally, somebody else on pb.com with a cool vehicle. Kei trucks are great.
It's kind of a piece of foolishness because it's old enough to be troublesome to maintain, but the 1982 Subaru Sambar kei-truck was where they discovered the perfect recipe for a kei-truck after which they needed no further improvements, so it basically looks the same as if I'd bought a normal newish one.
Many French officials find it normal that Russia should claim a sphere of influence. They resemble those who in 1939 believed that Hitler’s demands would be limited to Danzig. However, one only has to look at the texts proposed by Moscow to understand that the stakes are quite different.
Concluding:
The lessons of 1946-7 are still relevant today. The pioneers of the Cold War were the British, who formed a Western bloc around the Anglo-French core and persuaded isolationist Americans to stay in Europe. In the spring of 1947, the French, Italian and Belgian governments expelled Communist ministers, aware of the threat linked to Moscow’s fifth column in Europe. This clear willingness to resist Stalin finally persuaded Washington to commit itself to European security. We could draw lessons from this experience today, instead of engaging in a childish war with Britain. But to do that, we have to learn to face the facts, to think in political terms, instead of drifting rudderless in media passions and polls. In 1946-7 we knew that freedom was worth dying for, something that is obviously forgotten today. After Munich in 1938, the West was ashamed to have abandoned Czechoslovakia into Hitler’s clutches. Today we are cowardly letting down Ukraine, but we do not even realize our dishonor, nor the danger of giving in to an aggressor. We are like the Byzantines who were discussing the sex of angels while the Ottoman forces were destroying the city walls.
Two comments:
1 - One thing I have found interesting is the commentary from the EU-focussed media to try and characterise the UK's position as an attempt to create a culture war between 'the Anglosphere' and the 'European' approach.
eg the virulent abuse of Liz Truss and particularly Penny Mordaunt in commentary around the replacement of BY is interesting.
"A UK minister gives a speech in the United States framing #Brexit as a new Cold War between democracy and statism, saying "now America has a choice to make" about which side it takes.
Pretty meaningless. I thought that Brexit was the most pointless and stupid self harm that this country could do itself short of needlessly declaring war on Russia, but I wouldn't be in favour of rejoining. Main reason is that it would continue to be very divisive while there is still a significant proportion of the country that is thoroughly prejudiced about our nearest neighbours. It may be a different picture in another 20 years. That will put me in my late 70s. If we went back in then with full-fat EU integration it would give me cause to chuckle though.
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
The 1st Epping Volunteer Tank Brigade only goes to Scotland and Spain.
I heard a conspiracy theory that Wales is kept off the agenda because they've been infiltrated by a closet Plaid supporter? Surely that can't be true.
I was utterly amazed when @HYUFD admitted voting for Plaid, after all the accusations that having voted for Blair twice I was not a true conservative disciple
I think the word is hypocrisy
Nope, as I also voted for every Tory candidate on that ballot paper for Aberystwyth Town Council and the Tory candidate for Ceredigion unitary Council. There were only 4 Tory candidates but I had 6 votes and as I always use all my votes I voted for the only 2 candidates left who were Plaid.
When you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 you were not voting for a Tory candidate as well, did you even vote for a Tory Council candidate even if you voted Labour nationally?
Fact remains, you made a conscious and deliberate choice to cast a ballot that was not optimal in terms of the Conservative candidates' chances of election.
I don't think HYUFD understands that in wards where there several positions to be filled then by using any spare votes you have you can be reducing your own candidates chances of being elected.
So what I always use all my votes on principle and this was only a town council election ie virtually the only scenario where there would not be a Tory candidate for every elected post
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas ---------------- Ayn Rand libertarianism and Thatcherite free market economics are in direct opposition to socialism. Social democracy is just watered down socialism like Christian democracy and One Nation Toryism is watered down capitalism. Social Democrats accept the role of the market unlike socialists but they still want a government led and big state, high tax and high spend and high regulation economy --------------
It's alarming how often I agree with you, HYUFD - I think both those statements are right (though I also think that Canada will stay Canada and that labels are of limited use as a guide to what people think). Your last sentence pretty much sums me up.
I don't agree. The idea of one ideology being described as a "watered down" version of another it deeply problematic. It is a cousin to the "slippery slope" argument, and equally invalid. Opponents of one ideology try to harness more widespread distaste for a separate ideology by linking the two of them in ways the proponents of either would not. It's the same process by which everyone on Twitter is seemingly either a communist or a fascist, when in reality almost nobody is either.
Lastly, don't ignore the Marxist influence in libertarianism. Libertarianism is a mixed-heritage system of thought, with elements of liberalism, anarchism, and socialism. There is a hard-left route into libertarianism, so to describe is as directly opposite is either mischievous or ignorant of the history and topography of political ideology.
Those of the right and left love all polarising arguments. It's what keeps them in or close to power.
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
I have been to the North East of the US, California, Pennsylvavia and briefly to Texas. I have not been to Canada as such but the voting patterns are clear enough.
Culturally economically Alberta is economically for small government and socially conservative ie closer to Wyoming than the socially liberal, more big government East of Canada.
Liberal left, socially liberal Democrat voting Massachussetts and Vermont are also closer to the culturally similar Canadian Atlantic States than they are to very rightwing Texas
I have not been to Canada sums it up
Indeed. Culturally Alberta is the Texas of Canada but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that there'd be any desire for Albertans to join the USA ... or coastal US states to join Canada.
It is simply not something anyone is interested in. Actually Albertans if there were to want constitutional reform then the one thing I've heard discussed over there is the idea of Western Independence.
They consider, quite rightly, that a lot of taxes go from West to East while the politics is dominated by the East so Western Independence could be a thing but joining the USA simply isn't on the radar.
Here is an article from a right wing site discussing that very option.
The issue with Alberta is this. Oil, oil, oil, oil. You might think, given it is effectively a Petro Province that they might have better education or health outcomes than the rest of Canada. They don't really. You might think they could diversify so they weren't at the mercy of world prices. They don't. What they do is whinge when the oil price is low. Cos their economy goes to pot. And whinge when it is high that they are subsidising the rest of Canada. Western Independence has fallen off the radar a little, as BC has moved steadily to the Left. It simply won't work as a landlocked entity. BC doesn't want their pipeline. Ironically, Trudeau has been a supporter of it. For which he gets much grief and no credit.
Many French officials find it normal that Russia should claim a sphere of influence. They resemble those who in 1939 believed that Hitler’s demands would be limited to Danzig. However, one only has to look at the texts proposed by Moscow to understand that the stakes are quite different.
Concluding:
The lessons of 1946-7 are still relevant today. The pioneers of the Cold War were the British, who formed a Western bloc around the Anglo-French core and persuaded isolationist Americans to stay in Europe. In the spring of 1947, the French, Italian and Belgian governments expelled Communist ministers, aware of the threat linked to Moscow’s fifth column in Europe. This clear willingness to resist Stalin finally persuaded Washington to commit itself to European security. We could draw lessons from this experience today, instead of engaging in a childish war with Britain. But to do that, we have to learn to face the facts, to think in political terms, instead of drifting rudderless in media passions and polls. In 1946-7 we knew that freedom was worth dying for, something that is obviously forgotten today. After Munich in 1938, the West was ashamed to have abandoned Czechoslovakia into Hitler’s clutches. Today we are cowardly letting down Ukraine, but we do not even realize our dishonor, nor the danger of giving in to an aggressor. We are like the Byzantines who were discussing the sex of angels while the Ottoman forces were destroying the city walls.
Nobody, na zapade, is going to life a finger militarily to help Ukraine. Russia knows and Ukraine certainly knows it. It's a useless fantasy to pretend that it is viable strategic option.
Putin has already got some of what he wants because Ukraine is never going to be admitted to NATO because nobody wants the hassle. The US is making a strategic pivot to Asia and Europe, including the UK, will be reluctantly comfortable with a Russian sphere of influence if that's the price of peace.
What he needs next is a land bridge and water supply to Crimea; so the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. The border on the Dnieper would be defensible and the Russian occupied zone would be more economically viable than the current mafia statelets of Donetsk and Luhansk.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
I think we're all going to have to face the fact that taxes are going to have to go up, and that means they'll have to go up more for the more well-off than the poorer-off. Given the current situation, I cannot find any realistic alternative, and it would be good if all politicians were honest about this.
And I'm cool about that. What I do have grave doubts about is whether this government - or any government - will use that extra income well.
(I still like my idea of governments allocating set amounts of GDP to various areas of public spending at election time, and having to meet that. Like the 0.7% foreign aid aim, but to all areas of spending.)
Nice idea about the GDP commitments per department, but counter-cyclical spending such an unemployment benefit would also need to be accounted for somehow.
Yeah, in the scheme I was pondering, there would be a certain amount set up as 'spare' money that could either pay off debt, be invested, or spent on emergencies or such spending. Say 3-4% of GDP.
But for the main departments, it makes things much easier. At election time, the Conservatives may offer defence 3%, the NHS 10%, education 3.5%, etc. Labour may fo defence 25, NHS 12%, education 5%, etc. Instead of wittering on about how they'll do 'better' than the other party on each of these, voters will be able to have a real choice.
It is then up to the government to ensure these allocated targets are met according to GDP. IMO its better than the current chaotic system we have atm.
Here's one for you. Whatever happened to Malaysian Airways flight 370....
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
I have been to them all apart from Wyoming and just cannot believe the rubbish @HYUFD comes up with
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
You have not opposed suggestions to tax the South more to pay for spending in the North.
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
One of the proposals of the Indian deal is to allow young Indians to come the UK for 3 years to work regardless of skills needed, which Patel opposes
That's not one of the proposals as was pointed out to you already. Once again once you have an idea in your head that replaces all logic and reason.
One of the proposals is to allow young Indians to live and work in the UK for 3 years, going far beyond the current points based immigration system for Indian migrants we have based on the skills we need
No that was not listed as one of the proposals.
One of the proposals under discussion is to have a scheme "like" that one. A scheme like that, doesn't mean a scheme identical to that. That's your problem you're overly literal expecting past election results to be replicated, or past deals to be replicated in completely different circumstances.
In the real world evolution exists. A scheme "like" the Australian one but evolved to fit India would not be identically the same. A proposal to allow some young Indians to live in the UK but with the numbers capped would fit with controlled immigration and still be "like" the Australian one albeit with the addition of a cap.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You sound more and more like a Corbynista every single day.
No, there is no point staying in power for its own sake if it means not pursuing conservatism but pursuing social democracy and high taxes on your core vote to do so. Better to rebuild in opposition.
Winning the redwall was useful to get Brexit done and through Parliament but if keeping it means pursuing high tax social democracy no thanks, better to go into opposition than that
Maybe the South is under taxed. All my neighbours who can afford a four bedroom detached house in Hampshire, and have two SUVs on the drive plus Minis for the kids, have a bit more to spare for the public purse, methinks.
Didn't house prices rise by £24K in 2021? There are just over 14 million home owners in the UK. So that is an increase of over £300 billion in unearned, untaxed wealth in just one year.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
You have not opposed suggestions to tax the South more to pay for spending in the North.
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
One of the proposals of the Indian deal is to allow young Indians to come the UK for 3 years to work regardless of skills needed, which Patel opposes
I assume from that comment that you now finally accept that you were wrong in suggesting it was an open door immigration policy with India's proposed trade deal
The visas that India is wanting from the trade deal, are for investors, skilled workers, inter-company transfers, and students. All of which benefit the UK.
They’re also interested in reducing paperwork issues in professions such as medicine, law and banking.
The proposal to allow young Indians to come to the UK for 3 years which is also on the table goes way beyond just the above and would go down like a lead balloon in the redwall and with the Tory core vote
Moreover, it isn’t accurate. They’re not to be tested *before* starting back, they are to be tested *on* starting back. Given the numbers to be tested that will have to go ahead as stated because there is no time to make changes (most schools starting back tomorrow).
I am very rapidly coming to the conclusion that every single member of the DfE is actively out to destroy education, rather than just being thick as mince. The whole thing is spinning to try and look as if they’re doing something to conceal the fact they have completely failed to take the only two measures that would work - smaller classes and air filters.
And yet the media aren’t even asking the basic questions about this.
Yep. I wasn't paying close attention TBH but they were interviewing Zahawi on the TV a few minutes ago, and most of the discussion seemed to revolve around masks, before it moved on to generic stuff about the NHS and staff absences.
Leaky cotton or paper masks are almost certainly useless against Omicron and, therefore, constitute futile something-must-be-done-ism, but they are also highly visible and a nuisance, divisive imposition which therefore attracts a lot of media attention and argument. Ventilation is boring so nobody's interested in talking about it.
They had a go on R4, but Zahawi rather determinedly avoided the awkward questions.
What questions did they ask, can you remember?
So far nothing from my school, but they may simply have been caught by surprise.
Something along the lines of are basic masks if any utility against Omicron, but Zahawi just moved on to other stuff and ignored the attempt at a follow up question.
Thanks for the reply but - Hmph. That says a lot. Not in a good way.
I had hopes when Zahawi was appointed that he would finally kick some arse at the DfE. So far, he has mostly been a disappointment.
Just another windbag chancer, none of this lot have any talent. Just a large team of grifters and /or dumplings.
Yes but TBF Malc you think that of every politician except Alex Salmond, Ken Clarke and possibly Joanna Cherry.
I occasionally get the (slightly unfair) impression that malcolm despises anyone who isn't him.
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
I have been to the North East of the US, California, Pennsylvavia and briefly to Texas. I have not been to Canada as such but the voting patterns are clear enough.
Culturally economically Alberta is economically for small government and socially conservative ie closer to Wyoming than the socially liberal, more big government East of Canada.
Liberal left, socially liberal Democrat voting Massachussetts and Vermont are also closer to the culturally similar Canadian Atlantic States than they are to very rightwing Texas
I have not been to Canada sums it up
I haven't been to either, but I strongly suspect Albertian conservatism is very different to Trumpism. Just as British Conservatism is.
Alberta is the only part of Canada I've been to (in 2015) and I would say some of these comparisons are simplistic also given that Alberta elected an NDP provincial government in 2015 even while voters heavily back the Conservatives in national elections.
Clearly Alberta's economic needs are different from the rest of Canada but I don't think some of the comparisons with the US make sense.
We also saw the Canadian Liberals taking Alberta a bit more seriously in 2021, even if they only regained one riding in Calgary after they neglected it in 2019.
55% of Albertans voted Conservative last year even when Trudeau's Liberals were re elected nationally. In the 1990s of course it was the stronghold of the populist Conservative Reform Party of Canada when the Liberals were in power, Reform eventually merging with the more One Nation Progressive Conservative party who had fallen back to the Atlantic States to form today's Conservative Party of Canada in 2003
Which merger led to the Maritimes becoming a Liberal redoubt barely a decade later.
Pretty meaningless. I thought that Brexit was the most pointless and stupid self harm that this country could do itself short of needlessly declaring war on Russia, but I wouldn't be in favour of rejoining. Main reason is that it would continue to be very divisive while there is still a significant proportion of the country that is thoroughly prejudiced about our nearest neighbours. It may be a different picture in another 20 years. That will put me in my late 70s. If we went back in then with full-fat EU integration it would give me cause to chuckle though.
I can assure you that when you reach your late 70's chuckling keeps you going
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
The 1st Epping Volunteer Tank Brigade only goes to Scotland and Spain.
I heard a conspiracy theory that Wales is kept off the agenda because they've been infiltrated by a closet Plaid supporter? Surely that can't be true.
I was utterly amazed when @HYUFD admitted voting for Plaid, after all the accusations that having voted for Blair twice I was not a true conservative disciple
I think the word is hypocrisy
Nope, as I also voted for every Tory candidate on that ballot paper for Aberystwyth Town Council and the Tory candidate for Ceredigion unitary Council. There were only 4 Tory candidates but I had 6 votes and as I always use all my votes I voted for the only 2 candidates left who were Plaid.
When you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 you were not voting for a Tory candidate as well, did you even vote for a Tory Council candidate even if you voted Labour nationally?
Fact remains, you made a conscious and deliberate choice to cast a ballot that was not optimal in terms of the Conservative candidates' chances of election.
I don't think HYUFD understands that in wards where there several positions to be filled then by using any spare votes you have you can be reducing your own candidates chances of being elected.
So what I always use all my votes on principle and this was only a town council election ie virtually the only scenario where there would not be a Tory candidate for every elected post
You did not vote conservative no matter how you cut it
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
I have been to the North East of the US, California, Pennsylvavia and briefly to Texas. I have not been to Canada as such but the voting patterns are clear enough.
Culturally economically Alberta is economically for small government and socially conservative ie closer to Wyoming than the socially liberal, more big government East of Canada.
Liberal left, socially liberal Democrat voting Massachussetts and Vermont are also closer to the culturally similar Canadian Atlantic States than they are to very rightwing Texas
I have not been to Canada sums it up
Indeed. Culturally Alberta is the Texas of Canada but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that there'd be any desire for Albertans to join the USA ... or coastal US states to join Canada.
It is simply not something anyone is interested in. Actually Albertans if there were to want constitutional reform then the one thing I've heard discussed over there is the idea of Western Independence.
They consider, quite rightly, that a lot of taxes go from West to East while the politics is dominated by the East so Western Independence could be a thing but joining the USA simply isn't on the radar.
Here is an article from a right wing site discussing that very option.
The issue with Alberta is this. Oil, oil, oil, oil. You might think, given it is effectively a Petro Province that they might have better education or health outcomes than the rest of Canada. They don't really. You might think they could diversify so they weren't at the mercy of world prices. They don't. What they do is whinge when the oil price is low. Cos their economy goes to pot. And whinge when it is high that they are subsidising the rest of Canada. Western Independence has fallen off the radar a little, as BC has moved steadily to the Left. It simply won't work as a landlocked entity. BC doesn't want their pipeline. Ironically, Trudeau has been a supporter of it. For which he gets much grief and no credit.
That article suggests it might have been possible under Trump but Biden's Green New Deal would be as bad for Alberta as Trudeau is, if not worse
Not really that sobering. Scott is entitled to his view. It is a snap shot of the current time. See my other comment on this. In another 20 years things will be very different.
@MattW yes, you’ve highlighted the disadvantages, but it is still renewable.
Basic wood burners also offer some low level energy security in the event of power cuts, etc.
I don’t have one myself, but they are not a fossil fuel.
I might go with "partially renewable", as they do not recover anything like 100%. But there's also the issue of overall heat footprint.
On a related point, I think a better approach for an emergency is a house which only cools 1C every 24 hours through being well-built. If someone has a woodburner, their house is likely to be of poor energy-efficiency, as any properly insulated house will overheat very quickly with that much input.
No justification for having them in cities, though.
I have several friends who have self-built in Scotland, and have their own small coppice plantations. That's the sort of place a woodburner can be justified. Self-building properly, they usually need woodburners from small boats, as anything else is too powerful.
Pretty meaningless. I thought that Brexit was the most pointless and stupid self harm that this country could do itself short of needlessly declaring war on Russia, but I wouldn't be in favour of rejoining. Main reason is that it would continue to be very divisive while there is still a significant proportion of the country that is thoroughly prejudiced about our nearest neighbours. It may be a different picture in another 20 years. That will put me in my late 70s. If we went back in then with full-fat EU integration it would give me cause to chuckle though.
It is significant as it suggests only closer alignment to the SM or CU not rejoining the full EU would be possible
It is apparent from that poll that a better relationship is very much the way to go but at 24% rejoin that is a very poor position for those who want membership again
@MattW are your solar panels setup to work if the grid is down though? Most aren’t.
I 100% agree with good building standards but I don’t agree with passivhaus mech ventilation for the same reason as above - its another thing that needs regular servicing and maintenance, and active power.
Pretty meaningless. I thought that Brexit was the most pointless and stupid self harm that this country could do itself short of needlessly declaring war on Russia, but I wouldn't be in favour of rejoining. Main reason is that it would continue to be very divisive while there is still a significant proportion of the country that is thoroughly prejudiced about our nearest neighbours. It may be a different picture in another 20 years. That will put me in my late 70s. If we went back in then with full-fat EU integration it would give me cause to chuckle though.
It is significant as it suggests only closer alignment to the SM or CU not rejoining the full EU would be possible
Would a Remainer such as yourself be content with such an outcome?
PFI - Why borrow at 0.5% when you can do so at 7 ?
A question memorably asked by Ken Livingstone when the Labour government would not let TfL issue bonds to cover investment.
I deal with PFI on a daily basis. It isn't the internal rate of return which gets me, it's what is described downthread as the "A1 problem" (whether or not the A1 is actually an example).
PFI contain a lot of moving parts, which are one by one falling apart - the idea was to move a lot of the cost/expertise to the private sector, but that means the NHS is badly placed to deal with issues when they arise and is currently building the capacity necessary to take back that role.
Pretty meaningless. I thought that Brexit was the most pointless and stupid self harm that this country could do itself short of needlessly declaring war on Russia, but I wouldn't be in favour of rejoining. Main reason is that it would continue to be very divisive while there is still a significant proportion of the country that is thoroughly prejudiced about our nearest neighbours. It may be a different picture in another 20 years. That will put me in my late 70s. If we went back in then with full-fat EU integration it would give me cause to chuckle though.
It is significant as it suggests only closer alignment to the SM or CU not rejoining the full EU would be possible
...at the moment! Times change, as I am sure you know. I personally would be quite happy with a EEA type solution in perpetuity. It makes much more sense than the current farce.
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You talk as a right wing southern Englishman who is only interested in protecting your entitlement and privileges and quite frankly deserve to be in opposition, permanently
If we pursued your chosen new goals of high taxes and open door immigration from India we would be in opposition permanently beyond doubt
You have not opposed suggestions to tax the South more to pay for spending in the North.
I am going to call you out right there
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
One of the proposals of the Indian deal is to allow young Indians to come the UK for 3 years to work regardless of skills needed, which Patel opposes
I assume from that comment that you now finally accept that you were wrong in suggesting it was an open door immigration policy with India's proposed trade deal
The visas that India is wanting from the trade deal, are for investors, skilled workers, inter-company transfers, and students. All of which benefit the UK.
They’re also interested in reducing paperwork issues in professions such as medicine, law and banking.
The proposal to allow young Indians to come to the UK for 3 years which is also on the table goes way beyond just the above and would go down like a lead balloon in the redwall and with the Tory core vote
Here’s an Indian report on the Times article about the visas. It notes that the Australian trade deal includes three-year working visas for young people, and says that something similar might be possible, but doesn’t say it’s on the table. (Remember that there are a couple of hundred million “Young Indians”).
The main thrust of the article is about professionals, investors and others, including high prices for tourist visas.
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
I have been to the North East of the US, California, Pennsylvavia and briefly to Texas. I have not been to Canada as such but the voting patterns are clear enough.
Culturally economically Alberta is economically for small government and socially conservative ie closer to Wyoming than the socially liberal, more big government East of Canada.
Liberal left, socially liberal Democrat voting Massachussetts and Vermont are also closer to the culturally similar Canadian Atlantic States than they are to very rightwing Texas
I have not been to Canada sums it up
I haven't been to either, but I strongly suspect Albertian conservatism is very different to Trumpism. Just as British Conservatism is.
Alberta is the only part of Canada I've been to (in 2015) and I would say some of these comparisons are simplistic also given that Alberta elected an NDP provincial government in 2015 even while voters heavily back the Conservatives in national elections.
Clearly Alberta's economic needs are different from the rest of Canada but I don't think some of the comparisons with the US make sense.
We also saw the Canadian Liberals taking Alberta a bit more seriously in 2021, even if they only regained one riding in Calgary after they neglected it in 2019.
55% of Albertans voted Conservative last year even when Trudeau's Liberals were re elected nationally. In the 1990s of course it was the stronghold of the populist Conservative Reform Party of Canada when the Liberals were in power, Reform eventually merging with the more One Nation Progressive Conservative party who had fallen back to the Atlantic States to form today's Conservative Party of Canada in 2003
Yes although the Conservatives got 59% of the vote in Saskatchewan in 2021 so Alberta is no longer the Conservatives strongest province in Canada at the federal level. Trudeau was an extremely bad fit for Alberta but his Deputy and likely successor is actually from there and has a greater understanding of the province. The idea of Alberta breaking away is absurd and it can continue to have influence by voting Conservative at the national level while occasionally voting NDP etc at the provincial level.
Not really that sobering. Scott is entitled to his view. It is a snap shot of the current time. See my other comment on this. In another 20 years things will be very different.
I did read your comment and have commented on chuckling
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
The 1st Epping Volunteer Tank Brigade only goes to Scotland and Spain.
I heard a conspiracy theory that Wales is kept off the agenda because they've been infiltrated by a closet Plaid supporter? Surely that can't be true.
I was utterly amazed when @HYUFD admitted voting for Plaid, after all the accusations that having voted for Blair twice I was not a true conservative disciple
I think the word is hypocrisy
Nope, as I also voted for every Tory candidate on that ballot paper for Aberystwyth Town Council and the Tory candidate for Ceredigion unitary Council. There were only 4 Tory candidates but I had 6 votes and as I always use all my votes I voted for the only 2 candidates left who were Plaid.
When you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 you were not voting for a Tory candidate as well, did you even vote for a Tory Council candidate even if you voted Labour nationally?
Fact remains, you made a conscious and deliberate choice to cast a ballot that was not optimal in terms of the Conservative candidates' chances of election.
I don't think HYUFD understands that in wards where there several positions to be filled then by using any spare votes you have you can be reducing your own candidates chances of being elected.
So what I always use all my votes on principle and this was only a town council election ie virtually the only scenario where there would not be a Tory candidate for every elected post
The so what is as a consequence you could have prevented Tories from being elected. If the 2 Plaid candidates only needed one vote each to pass two of the Tories you would have just unelected the two Tories.
So there is an important 'so what'. This is a real issue with multi representative wards, trying to convince your supporters not to use their spare votes on others. As a seasoned activist I would have thought you would have known about this issue. It is why you should try and get a full slate. Something the Tories are very good at normally as it can be a challenge at town/parish level.
Yes, loads of people who don't want another referendum - but if there is one it looks winnable for rejoin to me.
Indeed. I would say no to another divisive referendum, but if one arose I would vote for rejoin because I would not want to be in the unpleasant company of a large part of the "Leave" coalition.
It is apparent from that poll that a better relationship is very much the way to go but at 24% rejoin that is a very poor position for those who want membership again
It's going to be rejoin by stealth gradually over the next 10-15 years. Until the UK ends up with all of the obligations, some of the benefits but none of the influence.
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
I have been to the North East of the US, California, Pennsylvavia and briefly to Texas. I have not been to Canada as such but the voting patterns are clear enough.
Culturally economically Alberta is economically for small government and socially conservative ie closer to Wyoming than the socially liberal, more big government East of Canada.
Liberal left, socially liberal Democrat voting Massachussetts and Vermont are also closer to the culturally similar Canadian Atlantic States than they are to very rightwing Texas
I have not been to Canada sums it up
I haven't been to either, but I strongly suspect Albertian conservatism is very different to Trumpism. Just as British Conservatism is.
Alberta is the only part of Canada I've been to (in 2015) and I would say some of these comparisons are simplistic also given that Alberta elected an NDP provincial government in 2015 even while voters heavily back the Conservatives in national elections.
Clearly Alberta's economic needs are different from the rest of Canada but I don't think some of the comparisons with the US make sense.
We also saw the Canadian Liberals taking Alberta a bit more seriously in 2021, even if they only regained one riding in Calgary after they neglected it in 2019.
The NDP was elected against a split right though. Wildrose emerged as a challenger to the Conservatives' revolving door with big oil. Amongst other things. They have now merged to have a crushing majority again. However, Jason Kenney is vying for least popular PM. His pandemic response has been all over the place, buffeted by the inherent contradictions between One Nation Toryism, extreme libertarianism and quasi Trumpism. Rather like the CPC in general
It is hard to see Truss not making the final two and if she is there then she's in with a strong chance.
Why are you sure she will make the final two? Do you know what level of MP support she has?
From above, if say Sunak, Truss, Gove, Javid, Hunt and either Baker/Harper stood in a contest, which two would come through.
I don't know but my best guess would be Sunak and Hunt. Possibly Sunak and Baker/or Harper. And Gove had decent support in the 2019 (narrowly beaten by Hunt into second place). I'm far from convinced that Truss has the MPs' support.
My feel at the moment is the candidate from the pro-Brexit / Blue Collar / economically interventionist wing will make the final round. That grouping is clearly on manoeuvres (eg the letter to the Telegraph), know they have the numbers to get far (the near 100 MPs rebelling against Boris for a start) and have opinions that should appeal to many of the base.
What might be interesting are the shorts. Jeremy Hunt is a classic example of a bet where us sophisticated elites of PB.com project our own views onto the base. Truss is close by.
Do you think blue collar/interventionist has a significant following amongst the Tory members?
I think they will base their vote on who is the best placed leader to keep the Tories in power. I’m sure @HYUFD has a better view than me but I would imagine the base has moved right wards in recent years as many of the pro-EU, socially liberal types have become less comfortable.
From a betting standpoint for next Tory leader, I think the value bets are from that part of the party.
Yes. But the membership is overwhelmingly older, wealthier and more SE based than the electorate as a whole. I can't see them wanting anything approaching a levelling up agenda. Culture War and cuts yes. Culture War isn't blue collar necessarily.
Who would be against levelling up? On what basis? As an old fart of Conservative disposition in the Home Counties I would love to see successful levelling up.
Levelling up yes, as long as it does not mean levelling you down with higher tax rises on the South to pay for more spending on the redwall
By definition levelling up implies making the lower deciles better off. There is obviously a cost to that aka taxation. So long as it is levelling up to generate a better outcome and not levelling down I'm relaxed about it. Extra taxation isn't a deal breaker.
But you can't have levelling up without someone being levelled down. That's pure fantasy.
Of course you can.
That’s the fundamental difference between left and right.
Equality of opportunity and extra investment; more growth overall but the north gets richer faster (hence levelling up). That’s the right’s approach
The left would prefer equality of outcome, delivered through taxation and redistribution, which results in levelling down
Lazy.
The South is currently relatively much richer than the North. If you point the limited national resources at the North at the expense of the South (which is what is required), the South will relatively become poorer compared to the North.
This is just a fact of life. It doesn’t mean that the South doesn’t get objectively richer during the time, it just gets relatively poorer.
If the South doesn’t get relatively poorer, then its not true levelling up as the North/South divide remains.
May be we are talking at cross purposes.
If the South remains flat and the North improves its relative position that is levelling up.
It’s only if you take from the south (increasing tax to pay for current spending in the north - which was the historical labour approach under Blair/brown) that you get levelling down.
This is because the increased tax redistributes wealth without generating additional growth (because it’s current spending not investment). IMV “crowding out” is one of the biggest issues for the North and other less well off parts of the UK. But unfortunately national pay bargaining is a sine qua non for public sector unions
Levying extra tax on the South is what is required because otherwise you have to scale back investment in the South to free up funds for the North and that won’t be acceptable.
The South has to choose, more tax or less investment.
Neither increased tax on the South or less investment in the South would be acceptable. Better for the Tories to go into opposition and let a Starmer Labour government tax the South and spend on the North if it wants than for a Tory government to so betray its core vote like that
You sound more and more like a Corbynista every single day.
No, there is no point staying in power for its own sake if it means not pursuing conservatism but pursuing social democracy and high taxes on your core vote to do so. Better to rebuild in opposition.
Winning the redwall was useful to get Brexit done and through Parliament but if keeping it means pursuing high tax social democracy no thanks, better to go into opposition than that
Maybe the South is under taxed. All my neighbours who can afford a four bedroom detached house in Hampshire, and have two SUVs on the drive plus Minis for the kids, have a bit more to spare for the public purse, methinks.
Didn't house prices rise by £24K in 2021? There are just over 14 million home owners in the UK. So that is an increase of over £300 billion in unearned, untaxed wealth in just one year.
It is not the South that is undertaxed but homeowners, especially multiple homeowners. QE, a public policy, has massively benefited them at the direct expense of non homeowning working taxpayers. Youngsters not on the housing ladder in the South have it at least as bad as those in the North.
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
I have been to the North East of the US, California, Pennsylvavia and briefly to Texas. I have not been to Canada as such but the voting patterns are clear enough.
Culturally economically Alberta is economically for small government and socially conservative ie closer to Wyoming than the socially liberal, more big government East of Canada.
Liberal left, socially liberal Democrat voting Massachussetts and Vermont are also closer to the culturally similar Canadian Atlantic States than they are to very rightwing Texas
I have not been to Canada sums it up
I haven't been to either, but I strongly suspect Albertian conservatism is very different to Trumpism. Just as British Conservatism is.
Alberta is the only part of Canada I've been to (in 2015) and I would say some of these comparisons are simplistic also given that Alberta elected an NDP provincial government in 2015 even while voters heavily back the Conservatives in national elections.
Clearly Alberta's economic needs are different from the rest of Canada but I don't think some of the comparisons with the US make sense.
We also saw the Canadian Liberals taking Alberta a bit more seriously in 2021, even if they only regained one riding in Calgary after they neglected it in 2019.
55% of Albertans voted Conservative last year even when Trudeau's Liberals were re elected nationally. In the 1990s of course it was the stronghold of the populist Conservative Reform Party of Canada when the Liberals were in power, Reform eventually merging with the more One Nation Progressive Conservative party who had fallen back to the Atlantic States to form today's Conservative Party of Canada in 2003
Yes although the Conservatives got 59% of the vote in Saskatchewan in 2021 so Alberta is no longer the Conservatives strongest province in Canada at the federal level. Trudeau was an extremely bad fit for Alberta but his Deputy and likely successor is actually from there and has a greater understanding of the province. The idea of Alberta breaking away is absurd and it can continue to have influence by voting Conservative at the national level while occasionally voting NDP etc at the provincial level.
Even Montana once voted for Bill Clinton, does not mean it is anything but ultra conservative overall like Alberta. Alberta has never voted Liberal or NDP at the national level.
As for Trudeau, he is the leader who got the Liberals back into government after 9 years in opposition, if he steps down at the next general election after 10 years in power I would expect O'Toole's Conservatives to win an return to power nationally while easily holding Alberta
* But to get up the slope I need a 4x4 so I'm using my 1982 Subaru Agricultural Sambar k-truck, it goes through the petrol pretty fast despite only having a teensy little 550 cc engine
Finally, somebody else on pb.com with a cool vehicle. Kei trucks are great.
After a poll that suggests 54% think we were barking mad LEAVING and only 34% thinking it was a good decision? Despite having a Tory/UKIP government?
Are you being serious?
I'd say it's time for the REJOINERS (or similar) to mobilise.
At the lowest point in the conservative administration with problems everywhere including with the EU only 24% seek to rejoin, then that has to be a sobering thought no matter you want to see it differently
Moreover, it isn’t accurate. They’re not to be tested *before* starting back, they are to be tested *on* starting back. Given the numbers to be tested that will have to go ahead as stated because there is no time to make changes (most schools starting back tomorrow).
I am very rapidly coming to the conclusion that every single member of the DfE is actively out to destroy education, rather than just being thick as mince. The whole thing is spinning to try and look as if they’re doing something to conceal the fact they have completely failed to take the only two measures that would work - smaller classes and air filters.
And yet the media aren’t even asking the basic questions about this.
Yep. I wasn't paying close attention TBH but they were interviewing Zahawi on the TV a few minutes ago, and most of the discussion seemed to revolve around masks, before it moved on to generic stuff about the NHS and staff absences.
Leaky cotton or paper masks are almost certainly useless against Omicron and, therefore, constitute futile something-must-be-done-ism, but they are also highly visible and a nuisance, divisive imposition which therefore attracts a lot of media attention and argument. Ventilation is boring so nobody's interested in talking about it.
They had a go on R4, but Zahawi rather determinedly avoided the awkward questions.
What questions did they ask, can you remember?
So far nothing from my school, but they may simply have been caught by surprise.
Something along the lines of are basic masks if any utility against Omicron, but Zahawi just moved on to other stuff and ignored the attempt at a follow up question.
Thanks for the reply but - Hmph. That says a lot. Not in a good way.
I had hopes when Zahawi was appointed that he would finally kick some arse at the DfE. So far, he has mostly been a disappointment.
Just another windbag chancer, none of this lot have any talent. Just a large team of grifters and /or dumplings.
Yes but TBF Malc you think that of every politician except Alex Salmond, Ken Clarke and possibly Joanna Cherry.
I occasionally get the (slightly unfair) impression that malcolm despises anyone who isn't him.
I seem to get on with him ok. He has made some very pleasant responses to some of my posts. Should I be worried?
Pretty meaningless. I thought that Brexit was the most pointless and stupid self harm that this country could do itself short of needlessly declaring war on Russia, but I wouldn't be in favour of rejoining. Main reason is that it would continue to be very divisive while there is still a significant proportion of the country that is thoroughly prejudiced about our nearest neighbours. It may be a different picture in another 20 years. That will put me in my late 70s. If we went back in then with full-fat EU integration it would give me cause to chuckle though.
It is significant as it suggests only closer alignment to the SM or CU not rejoining the full EU would be possible
Would a Remainer such as yourself be content with such an outcome?
Had staying in the EU required joining the Euro in 2016 I would have voted Leave.
I am happy with the current deal but SM or a CU only would still be better than full EU
Yes, loads of people who don't want another referendum - but if there is one it looks winnable for rejoin to me.
Indeed. I would say no to another divisive referendum, but if one arose I would vote for rejoin because I would not want to be in the unpleasant company of a large part of the "Leave" coalition.
I expect what will happen long term is that when (And it is always when) a party of the left (Probably Labour) get into power 'sovereignty' will be given up for more beneficial trading terms with the EU. It probably won't be undone by conservative Gov'ts as it'll be difficult, expensive & for no economic benefit.
Nearly 20° in Alaska at the end of December. We are destroying this world.
I take it you'll be protesting outside the Chinese embassy ?
Per capita, including historical emissions, UK has contributed 4-5x China.
What possible reason would you include historical emissions, except to show how much progress the UK has made?
Plus of course the UK and China don't have the same population.
Unless you want to act like 1984's Big Brother you can't undo the past, you can only determine the future.
If we are assigning responsibility, it's helpful to look at what has happened in the past. Since the UK has had a large role in causing the problem, we ought to be at the forefront of trying to fix it.
I'm prepared to give people of the 19th and early 20th century a pass because they probably didn't know climate change would be a problem.
"The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then? Thomas Homer-Dixon"
Gilead is coming. They aren't going to accept being voted out of power again.
Could be a very large refugee problem at the Canada border in a few years time. The Canadians would do well to prepare.
If Trump returns to power in 2024 you could even get some of the conservative western Canadian States like Alberta looking to join the US while some of the liberal US States in New England, the upper Midwest and Pacific West coast seek to break away and join Trudeau's Canada
No way will that happen!
Culturally however there is no doubt Alberta has more in common with Wyoming for example than Ontario. New England too has more in common with the Atlantic States of Canada than Texas
If you really believe that then I refuse to believe you've ever been to any of the places you mention.
I have been to the North East of the US, California, Pennsylvavia and briefly to Texas. I have not been to Canada as such but the voting patterns are clear enough.
Culturally economically Alberta is economically for small government and socially conservative ie closer to Wyoming than the socially liberal, more big government East of Canada.
Liberal left, socially liberal Democrat voting Massachussetts and Vermont are also closer to the culturally similar Canadian Atlantic States than they are to very rightwing Texas
I have not been to Canada sums it up
I haven't been to either, but I strongly suspect Albertian conservatism is very different to Trumpism. Just as British Conservatism is.
Alberta is the only part of Canada I've been to (in 2015) and I would say some of these comparisons are simplistic also given that Alberta elected an NDP provincial government in 2015 even while voters heavily back the Conservatives in national elections.
Clearly Alberta's economic needs are different from the rest of Canada but I don't think some of the comparisons with the US make sense.
We also saw the Canadian Liberals taking Alberta a bit more seriously in 2021, even if they only regained one riding in Calgary after they neglected it in 2019.
55% of Albertans voted Conservative last year even when Trudeau's Liberals were re elected nationally. In the 1990s of course it was the stronghold of the populist Conservative Reform Party of Canada when the Liberals were in power, Reform eventually merging with the more One Nation Progressive Conservative party who had fallen back to the Atlantic States to form today's Conservative Party of Canada in 2003
Yes although the Conservatives got 59% of the vote in Saskatchewan in 2021 so Alberta is no longer the Conservatives strongest province in Canada at the federal level. Trudeau was an extremely bad fit for Alberta but his Deputy and likely successor is actually from there and has a greater understanding of the province. The idea of Alberta breaking away is absurd and it can continue to have influence by voting Conservative at the national level while occasionally voting NDP etc at the provincial level.
Even Montana once voted for Bill Clinton, does not mean it is anything but ultra conservative overall like Alberta. Alberta has never voted Liberal or NDP at the national level.
As for Trudeau, he is the leader who got the Liberals back into government after 9 years in opposition, if he steps down at the next general election after 10 years in power I would expect O'Toole's Conservatives to win an return to power nationally while easily holding Alberta
Alberta is conservative, but it is Canadian conservative. It is not US conservative.
Your proposal that if the Americans elect a conservative and the Canadians don't that Canadian conservative provinces will join the USA and vice-versa is as prima facie absurd as suggesting that if the French elect a Conservative President and the UK elects a left-winger that Conservative areas like Epping Forest would elect to leave the UK and join France.
Nearly 20° in Alaska at the end of December. We are destroying this world.
I take it you'll be protesting outside the Chinese embassy ?
Per capita, including historical emissions, UK has contributed 4-5x China.
What possible reason would you include historical emissions, except to show how much progress the UK has made?
Plus of course the UK and China don't have the same population.
Unless you want to act like 1984's Big Brother you can't undo the past, you can only determine the future.
No, but "protesting" is mere moral posturing anyway, so it is even more pointless than usual if you are doing it from the moral low ground.
In fact your position spookily mirrors that of all those nimbys who haunt your dreams. Nimby: I have my des res in the country, thanks, we don't need any more. You to China: we have had our industrial revolution and lifted ourselves out of poverty, thanks, and that is quite enough IRs. Shame you never got on the ladder in time.
Nearly 20° in Alaska at the end of December. We are destroying this world.
I take it you'll be protesting outside the Chinese embassy ?
Per capita, including historical emissions, UK has contributed 4-5x China.
What possible reason would you include historical emissions, except to show how much progress the UK has made?
Plus of course the UK and China don't have the same population.
Unless you want to act like 1984's Big Brother you can't undo the past, you can only determine the future.
If we are assigning responsibility, it's helpful to look at what has happened in the past. Since the UK has had a large role in causing the problem, we ought to be at the forefront of trying to fix it.
I'm prepared to give people of the 19th and early 20th century a pass because they probably didn't know climate change would be a problem.
And looking at the change from the UK's emissions of the past to the emissions of the present its clear that we are at the forefront of trying to fix it.
Moreover, it isn’t accurate. They’re not to be tested *before* starting back, they are to be tested *on* starting back. Given the numbers to be tested that will have to go ahead as stated because there is no time to make changes (most schools starting back tomorrow).
I am very rapidly coming to the conclusion that every single member of the DfE is actively out to destroy education, rather than just being thick as mince. The whole thing is spinning to try and look as if they’re doing something to conceal the fact they have completely failed to take the only two measures that would work - smaller classes and air filters.
And yet the media aren’t even asking the basic questions about this.
Yep. I wasn't paying close attention TBH but they were interviewing Zahawi on the TV a few minutes ago, and most of the discussion seemed to revolve around masks, before it moved on to generic stuff about the NHS and staff absences.
Leaky cotton or paper masks are almost certainly useless against Omicron and, therefore, constitute futile something-must-be-done-ism, but they are also highly visible and a nuisance, divisive imposition which therefore attracts a lot of media attention and argument. Ventilation is boring so nobody's interested in talking about it.
They had a go on R4, but Zahawi rather determinedly avoided the awkward questions.
What questions did they ask, can you remember?
So far nothing from my school, but they may simply have been caught by surprise.
Something along the lines of are basic masks if any utility against Omicron, but Zahawi just moved on to other stuff and ignored the attempt at a follow up question.
Thanks for the reply but - Hmph. That says a lot. Not in a good way.
I had hopes when Zahawi was appointed that he would finally kick some arse at the DfE. So far, he has mostly been a disappointment.
Just another windbag chancer, none of this lot have any talent. Just a large team of grifters and /or dumplings.
Yes but TBF Malc you think that of every politician except Alex Salmond, Ken Clarke and possibly Joanna Cherry.
I occasionally get the (slightly unfair) impression that malcolm despises anyone who isn't him.
I seem to get on with him ok. He has made some very pleasant responses to some of my posts. Should I be worried?
Yes! This is the man that is still a fan of Alex Salmond, the only politician that I am aware of that has been described by his own QC as "a bully and a sex pest", and also described IIRC as similar by his successor.
Nearly 20° in Alaska at the end of December. We are destroying this world.
I take it you'll be protesting outside the Chinese embassy ?
Per capita, including historical emissions, UK has contributed 4-5x China.
What possible reason would you include historical emissions, except to show how much progress the UK has made?
Plus of course the UK and China don't have the same population.
Unless you want to act like 1984's Big Brother you can't undo the past, you can only determine the future.
If we are assigning responsibility, it's helpful to look at what has happened in the past. Since the UK has had a large role in causing the problem, we ought to be at the forefront of trying to fix it.
I'm prepared to give people of the 19th and early 20th century a pass because they probably didn't know climate change would be a problem.
And looking at the change from the UK's emissions of the past to the emissions of the present its clear that we are at the forefront of trying to fix it.
Because we have a. offshored our emissions to China and b. installed a huge number of renewable energy gizmos which are designed and manufactured in Hull (kidding).
Comments
Despite there now being continuous 3 lane motorway there remains a lane drop northbound - down to 2 lanes through the junction then back to 3 on the other side. No infrastructure issue, its simply that the PFI contract for the former section doesn't allow for the layout at the terminal junction to be changed. And changing line markings to remove the lane drop is sufficient for all kinds of contractual bullshit to be triggered...
Clearly Alberta's economic needs are different from the rest of Canada but I don't think some of the comparisons with the US make sense.
We also saw the Canadian Liberals taking Alberta a bit more seriously in 2021, even if they only regained one riding in Calgary after they neglected it in 2019.
Johnson wants his legacy, but also doesn't want to be forgotten about too soon.
I'm convinced he is determined to try and outdo his immediate predecessors in terms of length of tenure. For Brown and May, that's easy. He's not far off Brown's time as PM, and likewise May. He just has to hang on to about September to beat them both.
But Cameron is the problem. He managed over six years which proves a problem for both Johnson and the Conservative party. This length of time is AFTER the next general election, which is looking stickier and stickier for Johnson. Neither he, nor the Conservatives really want to lose this. It would tarnish Johnson's image and annoy the Conservatives to boot.
I do wonder whether Johnson will manage another eighteen months, declare 'job done' (whatever that means) and then retire. He beats May, he beats Brown and whilst he hasn't beat Cameron he can't have it all and flounces off to the after dinner circuit.
https://twitter.com/ChrisCEOHopson/status/1477941212648808451?s=20
I have not suggested high taxes, just fairer taxes and you know from yesterdays conversation that the India and Australia trade deals involve controlled visa approved immigration which even Patel has been quoted as supporting
You did however claim in great delight that Patel was cracking down on immigration in a article just released but when I read it it was asylum seekers, and unfortunately you did not have the wit to realise that controlled visa immigration in a trade deal is not the same as dealing with asylum seekers
Many French officials find it normal that Russia should claim a sphere of influence. They resemble those who in 1939 believed that Hitler’s demands would be limited to Danzig. However, one only has to look at the texts proposed by Moscow to understand that the stakes are quite different.
One of the proposals of the Indian deal is to allow young Indians to come the UK for 3 years to work regardless of skills needed, which Patel opposes
The sort of thing that needs a government minister to get all the related parties in the same room, and bang their heads together until they agree a sensible way forward.
1 - Woodburning creates significant pollution problems, and even worse for those with eg asthma (now a lot of people, whom a log burner next door may keep locked up in their houses with the windows shut). The research on this was partly what lay behind Mayor Sadiq's intiative.
2 - If you are burning wood the C02 etc is goes straight back into the atmosphere. The only bit of carbon that is kept out of the atmosphere is that which is currently growing in the trees, however you are cutting those down and burning them every 5-15 years - really it is only a short delay where we need reductions.
Never mind all the energy used processing and delivering the fuel to your door.
Compare with eg building it into a house where the carbon is fixed for the lifetime of the building in the construction timber. Or fixing it into a peatbed where it stays for centuries.
3 - If you want an environmentally friendly 'home fire', then one displayed on an screen is far better, or an electric one with zero-carbon energy.
And I'm cool about that. What I do have grave doubts about is whether this government - or any government - will use that extra income well.
(I still like my idea of governments allocating set amounts of GDP to various areas of public spending at election time, and having to meet that. Like the 0.7% foreign aid aim, but to all areas of spending.)
The lessons of 1946-7 are still relevant today. The pioneers of the Cold War were the British, who formed a Western bloc around the Anglo-French core and persuaded isolationist Americans to stay in Europe. In the spring of 1947, the French, Italian and Belgian governments expelled Communist ministers, aware of the threat linked to Moscow’s fifth column in Europe. This clear willingness to resist Stalin finally persuaded Washington to commit itself to European security. We could draw lessons from this experience today, instead of engaging in a childish war with Britain. But to do that, we have to learn to face the facts, to think in political terms, instead of drifting rudderless in media passions and polls. In 1946-7 we knew that freedom was worth dying for, something that is obviously forgotten today. After Munich in 1938, the West was ashamed to have abandoned Czechoslovakia into Hitler’s clutches. Today we are cowardly letting down Ukraine, but we do not even realize our dishonor, nor the danger of giving in to an aggressor. We are like the Byzantines who were discussing the sex of angels while the Ottoman forces were destroying the city walls.
On CO2, wood burning is really complicated:
* A tree is carbon-neutral over its lifetime
* But burning the tree rather than just leaving it there on the mountain immediately releases the CO2
* But if you left it there long enough it would decay and put the CO2 back
* But the biggest problem right now is short-term, so sequestering CO2 in a tree trunk for 20 years or whatever is probably useful
* And then there's the petrol in the truck to get it here
* It's not far, just wherever around the town the treecutter guy said we could pick it up from
* But to get up the slope I need a 4x4 so I'm using my 1982 Subaru Agricultural Sambar k-truck, it goes through the petrol pretty fast despite only having a teensy little 550 cc engine
* But the particles from the smoke and probably also the Sambar exhaust apparently reduce global warming
* Unless they land on snow in which case they make it less reflective and increase global warming
* But there's not much snow around here thanks to global warming
etc etc
I am about to write to Sir G Cox (my) MP and say that I will not vote tory next election if x. In fact I will not vote tory anyway. Does the panel feel this is morally acceptable?
I really like the Swiss model of a small wealth tax levied each year on assets over a large sum (let's say £2 million in assets, including homes), which also serves an economic function, as it encourages wealth-owners to do something with their wealth rather than have it just sit there. Anecdotally, my father used to talk about his cousin John (the elder brother of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Stuart_of_Findhorn), who was apparently a charming, other-worldly man with no real idea or interest in how far his estate extended. If he'd been nudged to sell off half a per cent of it each year for development or farming or even rewilding, I expect he'd have been fine with it.
I like HYUFD, and in many respects he is very knowledgeable, but he is off the scale wierd today.
They’re also interested in reducing paperwork issues in professions such as medicine, law and banking.
https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1477930856811487236?s=20
But for the main departments, it makes things much easier. At election time, the Conservatives may offer defence 3%, the NHS 10%, education 3.5%, etc. Labour may fo defence 25, NHS 12%, education 5%, etc. Instead of wittering on about how they'll do 'better' than the other party on each of these, voters will be able to have a real choice.
It is then up to the government to ensure these allocated targets are met according to GDP. IMO its better than the current chaotic system we have atm.
Basic wood burners also offer some low level energy security in the event of power cuts, etc.
I don’t have one myself, but they are not a fossil fuel.
Even if we did go to war with China, it would almost certainly only be with the US and Australia and maybe India and likely after China had invaded Japan or South Korea, not even for an invasion of Taiwan. The British Isles itself would likely be less directly affected as it is on the other side of the world from Cbina
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zgmWDqYopk
1 - One thing I have found interesting is the commentary from the EU-focussed media to try and characterise the UK's position as an attempt to create a culture war between 'the Anglosphere' and the 'European' approach.
eg the virulent abuse of Liz Truss and particularly Penny Mordaunt in commentary around the replacement of BY is interesting.
eg Mordaunt speech to the Carter Centre here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-trade-revolution
characterised as (16 December 2021):
"A UK minister gives a speech in the United States framing #Brexit as a new Cold War between democracy and statism, saying "now America has a choice to make" about which side it takes.
The delusions of grandeur with these people never ceases to astound me."
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1475115612032716805
My take is that competition should properly exist, but it is nothing like that level.
2 - That site seems very respectable, but there are a lot of fake Russia-related thinktanks around.
Would make a good thread header
https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1477930856811487236?s=20
It's what keeps them in or close to power.
https://troymedia.com/albertas-business2/alberta-can-forget-becoming-the-51st-american-state/amp/
The issue with Alberta is this.
Oil, oil, oil, oil.
You might think, given it is effectively a Petro Province that they might have better education or health outcomes than the rest of Canada. They don't really.
You might think they could diversify so they weren't at the mercy of world prices. They don't.
What they do is whinge when the oil price is low. Cos their economy goes to pot.
And whinge when it is high that they are subsidising the rest of Canada.
Western Independence has fallen off the radar a little, as BC has moved steadily to the Left. It simply won't work as a landlocked entity. BC doesn't want their pipeline. Ironically, Trudeau has been a supporter of it. For which he gets much grief and no credit.
Putin has already got some of what he wants because Ukraine is never going to be admitted to NATO because nobody wants the hassle. The US is making a strategic pivot to Asia and Europe, including the UK, will be reluctantly comfortable with a Russian sphere of influence if that's the price of peace.
What he needs next is a land bridge and water supply to Crimea; so the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. The border on the Dnieper would be defensible and the Russian occupied zone would be more economically viable than the current mafia statelets of Donetsk and Luhansk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd2KEHvK-q8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I've_Never_Been_to_Me
One of the proposals under discussion is to have a scheme "like" that one. A scheme like that, doesn't mean a scheme identical to that. That's your problem you're overly literal expecting past election results to be replicated, or past deals to be replicated in completely different circumstances.
In the real world evolution exists. A scheme "like" the Australian one but evolved to fit India would not be identically the same. A proposal to allow some young Indians to live in the UK but with the numbers capped would fit with controlled immigration and still be "like" the Australian one albeit with the addition of a cap.
There are just over 14 million home owners in the UK. So that is an increase of over £300 billion in unearned, untaxed wealth in just one year.
You lost your purity
On a related point, I think a better approach for an emergency is a house which only cools 1C every 24 hours through being well-built. If someone has a woodburner, their house is likely to be of poor energy-efficiency, as any properly insulated house will overheat very quickly with that much input.
No justification for having them in cities, though.
I have several friends who have self-built in Scotland, and have their own small coppice plantations. That's the sort of place a woodburner can be justified. Self-building properly, they usually need woodburners from small boats, as anything else is too powerful.
For my situation, I have solar panels.
I 100% agree with good building standards but I don’t agree with passivhaus mech ventilation for the same reason as above - its another thing that needs regular servicing and maintenance, and active power.
Are you being serious?
I'd say it's time for the REJOINERS (or similar) to mobilise.
Plus of course the UK and China don't have the same population.
Unless you want to act like 1984's Big Brother you can't undo the past, you can only determine the future.
PFI contain a lot of moving parts, which are one by one falling apart - the idea was to move a lot of the cost/expertise to the private sector, but that means the NHS is badly placed to deal with issues when they arise and is currently building the capacity necessary to take back that role.
The main thrust of the article is about professionals, investors and others, including high prices for tourist visas.
https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/business/2022/01/01/fgn18-uk-india-visas.html
So there is an important 'so what'. This is a real issue with multi representative wards, trying to convince your supporters not to use their spare votes on others. As a seasoned activist I would have thought you would have known about this issue. It is why you should try and get a full slate. Something the Tories are very good at normally as it can be a challenge at town/parish level.
Rather like the CPC in general
As for Trudeau, he is the leader who got the Liberals back into government after 9 years in opposition, if he steps down at the next general election after 10 years in power I would expect O'Toole's Conservatives to win an return to power nationally while easily holding Alberta
I am happy with the current deal but SM or a CU only would still be better than full EU
I'm prepared to give people of the 19th and early 20th century a pass because they probably didn't know climate change would be a problem.
Your proposal that if the Americans elect a conservative and the Canadians don't that Canadian conservative provinces will join the USA and vice-versa is as prima facie absurd as suggesting that if the French elect a Conservative President and the UK elects a left-winger that Conservative areas like Epping Forest would elect to leave the UK and join France.
In fact your position spookily mirrors that of all those nimbys who haunt your dreams. Nimby: I have my des res in the country, thanks, we don't need any more. You to China: we have had our industrial revolution and lifted ourselves out of poverty, thanks, and that is quite enough IRs. Shame you never got on the ladder in time.