FPT: I find DavidL's response to partygate one of the more interesting on here. He had the same reaction right at the peak of the crisis for the PM.
I would've thought, given his background, that the principle of our lawmakers abiding by the law would be an important one, and he'd recognise that not doing so weakens our position when dealing with with lawless dictators such as Putin. Particularly when the laws are so personally restrictive, and unusual.
Perhaps exposure to the law burns you out, a bit like junior doctors and their care for patients. I'm still young, and naive, so I'm going to hold onto the idea that the parties were a serious betrayal of trust and a danger to a democracy where so much depends on personal integrity in the absence of a formal constitution.
I think I have bored people to death on this already but I am not saying that civil servants and ministers ignoring the law is not important or trivial, even although the penalty for breaching the law is a FPN. There clearly should be disciplinary implications for that and an investigation as to how such stupidity ever came to pass. But, for me, the key point is that Boris lied to the Commons when he told them that there were to the best of his knowledge no such parties and that he would be angry if there had been. Parties that he had attended and which had been organised by his PPS and which even took place in his own flat. That is unforgiveable.
What has seriously disappointed me is that the 640 odd Members of Parliament have not stepped up to their duty and removed a PM that has behaved like that. Instead, they sought to assign their duty and responsibility to a civil servant, Gray, then to the hapless police service. It is a disgrace and a derogation of duty.
We saw the consequences of tolerating lies from PMs over Iraq, another PM who got away with egregious lying. It undermines confidence in our politics and democracy. It is important. And it is not something that any MP conscious of their duty can derogate to someone else. He should be gone.
So when you bemoan that we're all stuck discussing parties and even Truss being a bumbling incompetent, it all comes back to the same issue. We cannot function with a government and a Prime Minister who are liars. Who cannot accept the self-evident facts. Who break the law.
You can't deal with the cost of living crisis because the PM repeatedly quotes stats which his own statisticians complain are lies. You can't deal with the Ukraine because "Kermit the Frog" and "what Brexit" and now Liz Truss have belittled us on the world stage. You can't tackle runaway inflation because he'd rather spread hard right smears then spend weeks having his loyal and stupid ministers arguinng in his defence rather than dealing with actual problems.
So when you attack those of us attacking the problem and say that we are the problem...
As a matter of interest, what economic stats are lies? Not doubting you but haven't heard this before.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
Gets home later and tells the wife -
"You'll never guess who I had in the back of the tuk today?" "A British tourist with naive and sentimental views about the Empire?" "Yep. Him." "So you did the usual then, did you babe?" "I did. Laid it on very thick." "Ha ha ha ... and?" "Bingo!" "Ha, love you babe." "Love you too."
FPT: I find DavidL's response to partygate one of the more interesting on here. He had the same reaction right at the peak of the crisis for the PM.
I would've thought, given his background, that the principle of our lawmakers abiding by the law would be an important one, and he'd recognise that not doing so weakens our position when dealing with with lawless dictators such as Putin. Particularly when the laws are so personally restrictive, and unusual.
Perhaps exposure to the law burns you out, a bit like junior doctors and their care for patients. I'm still young, and naive, so I'm going to hold onto the idea that the parties were a serious betrayal of trust and a danger to a democracy where so much depends on personal integrity in the absence of a formal constitution.
It seems to me that for some posters, party loyalty wins out every time.
I sometimes suspect that if Boris was filmed peeing on the roses in No.10's garden, his supporters on here would laud him for fertilising publicly owned plants and praise his selfless giving to the nation...
You pee on the compost heap. Not the roses.
Seriously. It works as an accelerator.
Given how incompetent , they would be doing it on the roses.
“Americans often despair at the way Sri Lankans, of all classes, idealise British rule. ‘But you were a colony!’ To which the Sri Lankans reply, with a shrug, ‘yes, but it was better’”
These days - just 7 years later - you could probably swap the Chinese for the Americans (the cultural presence of America here is basically zero, apart from Coca Cola and some music), but the other attitude abides
Russian invasion is 'not likely' - expert Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia, says he predicts that Russia will not invade Ukraine.
He tells Sky News: "My view is invasion or some substantial military escalation is not his Plan A is absolutely hoping to use all these other methods, intimidation, diplomacy, covert attacks, and so forth, to get enough of concessions that he feels he's actually made, managed to make his point and put Russia at the centre of the world again, which is why he thinks it should be."
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Well the 'envy of the world' would certainly like to have its part in the care homes deaths forgotten.
That said I don't think the government deserves any gratitude for its covid response - it got some things right and got some things wrong.
And many of the things it got wrong were senseless.
On the other hand a Starmer government would have handled things significantly worse.
The option wasn't a Starmer government. A *Corbyn* government would have handled it worse, thats for sure. Not sure about Starmer.
The main attack line thrown about by Liar is that Starmer would have stuck with the EU vaccines system which would have presented us from having developed and rolled out the vaccine. The rather basic problem with that attack line is that it isn't true. At least according to the person who signed off the vaccine for use when asked at a Downing Street press conference.
And yet:
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
And yet what? The attack line is "would have stayed in the EU vaccinations programme which means we wouldn't have developed the vaccine."
That categorically isn't true. The medic (I forget her name) who personally signed off the vaccine said so directly at a Downing Street press conference.
That the EU has become a totemic issue isn't in question. But EU Vaccines = no vaccine is just incorrect. Wrong. A lie.
Just much delayed vaccines. With the whiny, bitchy French complaining when they don't get their fair share on some weird metric.
Having a vaccine task force accountable only to HMG was a huge bonus. No pissing about with stupid EU diplomacy. I'll never forgive Macron for the "quasi" comment.
I say all this as a remainer - you have to accept that many elements of the EU are crap in an emergency. The biggest tell was that Sturgeon, canny as ever, stayed well clear despite Health being entirely devolved.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Probably angling to maximize the tip.
Only need the tuk tuk driver to say what is it with those Wokies destroying the Western canon and that the Jocks would be mad to go for independence for the full house.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
WTF is a British English accent, even for you that is bollox hyperbole.
On topic I rather agree with Mike that these approve/disapprove figures tell you more about the government's standing than a hypothetical vote related poll does. However, I also agree with @HYUFD that at the end of the day we make a choice that all too often seems dismal (if not quite on the Trump/Biden scale, which must be one of the worst choices ever) so best PM is also important.
Mike makes the point these are biased in favour of the incumbent and that is true but it is also why we have had 2 complete changes of government in 42 years. The system favours the incumbent and that does not disappear when elections come around.
At the moment we have an incumbent with a very comfortable majority. I think Boris's personal ratings are now so poor that the Tories would be bordering on reckless letting him lead them into another election. Whether Rishi or whoever can do better, and whether they can be a better choice than SKS will determine the next election. I disagree with @Heathener about it being over already. I think it is all to play for but the government undoubtedly has a tricky hand on the economic front.
Do you now accept that the reason politics can't move on to actually trying to face into these economic crises is because of the liar in Downing Street and the incompetents in cabinet?
No. I think the liar in Downing Street should be removed but the problems will not go away just because that happens. Any government would struggle to cope right now.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
Another Conservative supporter bleating on about what the Opposition would or wouldn't have done had they been in charge.
The fact is (and this may come as a surprise) - the Conservative Party won the last GE, they are the Government and it is therefore them and their decisions in Government we are holding to account and scrutiny.
Has the Government done some things right? Unquestionably - the speed of our vaccine roll out was one of the best in the world and undoubtedly saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. Has it done some things wrong? Unquestionably - the shambolic Christmas 2020 lockdown, care homes and the unwillingness to properly police th border to name but three.
The current problems aren't about generalities, they are about specifics - the specific notion what while telling us nightly to follow the rules, avoid contact and help prevent the onward transmission of the virus, those close to the centre of power were seemingly doing the opposite - that sticks in people's minds.
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Welcome to the dark side, Bev. Rich Tory pensioners were sacrificed so that young Labour voters had a hospital bed when they needed one. Outrageous.
Do not be so daft. It was not planned, it was just common-or-garden incompetence. However no one has been sanctioned for it. The unecessary, early deaths of thousands has been consequence free.
The vacated hospital beds were subsequently filled by people with no vaccine protection, but I cannot recall any of them being checked for political affiliations.
We don't need to check them for political affiliation. Countless opinion polls have done the work already. The bed-blocker clearance policy was an emergency political judgment that benefited the young at the expense of the old.
The young did not wind up in hospital, unless being in your 50's is "young". The people in hospital were predominately 50 and older and many over 65 came out in coffins.
If you are going to shill for the govt, at least try harder.
It is all relative Bev, I now see 50 as young unfortunately.
That is "younger" Malc, not "young".
Sadly, I share your perspective and for the same reasons!
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Apart from the fact that he wanted a good tip, I've encountered this in many parts of the world. It's commonly heard in parts of Africa, especially where African dictators have behaved as one lovely chap put it to me 'like the worst colonial exploiters.' Not the kind of thing you hear mentioned often in leftie circles, nor at SOAS.
I've heard it in Asia too, more surprisingly. Malaysia has a generally relaxed and friendly attitude to British rule and they don't see the need to tear up their past.
On the hand, please don't take this as me running up a white flag on my attitude to British imperialism. We were utterly disgraceful in many parts of the world, from India, through China and in the other direction in north America.
As for the ongoing disgusting situation in the Chagos Islands - we are complete hypocrites.
Actually, if you don't know your history of the Opium Wars you will never understand why the Chinese rightly resent our meddling in their affairs today.
FPT: I find DavidL's response to partygate one of the more interesting on here. He had the same reaction right at the peak of the crisis for the PM.
I would've thought, given his background, that the principle of our lawmakers abiding by the law would be an important one, and he'd recognise that not doing so weakens our position when dealing with with lawless dictators such as Putin. Particularly when the laws are so personally restrictive, and unusual.
Perhaps exposure to the law burns you out, a bit like junior doctors and their care for patients. I'm still young, and naive, so I'm going to hold onto the idea that the parties were a serious betrayal of trust and a danger to a democracy where so much depends on personal integrity in the absence of a formal constitution.
I think I have bored people to death on this already but I am not saying that civil servants and ministers ignoring the law is not important or trivial, even although the penalty for breaching the law is a FPN. There clearly should be disciplinary implications for that and an investigation as to how such stupidity ever came to pass. But, for me, the key point is that Boris lied to the Commons when he told them that there were to the best of his knowledge no such parties and that he would be angry if there had been. Parties that he had attended and which had been organised by his PPS and which even took place in his own flat. That is unforgiveable.
What has seriously disappointed me is that the 640 odd Members of Parliament have not stepped up to their duty and removed a PM that has behaved like that. Instead, they sought to assign their duty and responsibility to a civil servant, Gray, then to the hapless police service. It is a disgrace and a derogation of duty.
We saw the consequences of tolerating lies from PMs over Iraq, another PM who got away with egregious lying. It undermines confidence in our politics and democracy. It is important. And it is not something that any MP conscious of their duty can derogate to someone else. He should be gone.
So when you bemoan that we're all stuck discussing parties and even Truss being a bumbling incompetent, it all comes back to the same issue. We cannot function with a government and a Prime Minister who are liars. Who cannot accept the self-evident facts. Who break the law.
You can't deal with the cost of living crisis because the PM repeatedly quotes stats which his own statisticians complain are lies. You can't deal with the Ukraine because "Kermit the Frog" and "what Brexit" and now Liz Truss have belittled us on the world stage. You can't tackle runaway inflation because he'd rather spread hard right smears then spend weeks having his loyal and stupid ministers arguinng in his defence rather than dealing with actual problems.
So when you attack those of us attacking the problem and say that we are the problem...
As a matter of interest, what economic stats are lies? Not doubting you but haven't heard this before.
I think he keeps misrepresenting economic growth. I know they have been repeatedly told by UKSA to stop lying about crime figures - hence the insanity of Kwarteng trying to defend it by saying fraud really isn't a crime.
We do have UKSA on record writing to the PM telling him to stop lying - and he keeps going regardless. Hard to then move onto any subject to tackle any issue if he won't recognise reality.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
WTF is a British English accent, even for you that is bollox hyperbole.
Are you, er, doubting there is a British accent?!
My driver spoke near-perfect British English. Which is one thing that makes me believe he meant what he says. He’s a tuk tuk driver. He’s not a university graduate.
I asked him where he got the accent from. He said “I watch British TV on YouTube”.
I guess he might have spent years learning English with a British accent so he can then drive a three wheeled two stroke motorised tricycle around the polluted streets of Colombo and thereby get slightly larger tips from gullible British tourists by praising the empire, but to be honest this seems like a stretch.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Probably angling to maximize the tip.
Only need the tuk tuk driver to say what is it with those Wokies destroying the Western canon and that the Jocks would be mad to go for independence for the full house.
- that actually does sound rather like the authentic London cabbie experience.
They certainly do NOT tailor their banter to what the punter wants to hear. Not in my experience anyway. I've never once got in one and heard the sober rational case for gender self-Id floating back to me from upfront.
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
Another Conservative supporter bleating on about what the Opposition would or wouldn't have done had they been in charge.
The fact is (and this may come as a surprise) - the Conservative Party won the last GE, they are the Government and it is therefore them and their decisions in Government we are holding to account and scrutiny.
Has the Government done some things right? Unquestionably - the speed of our vaccine roll out was one of the best in the world and undoubtedly saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. Has it done some things wrong? Unquestionably - the shambolic Christmas 2020 lockdown, care homes and the unwillingness to properly police th border to name but three.
The current problems aren't about generalities, they are about specifics - the specific notion what while telling us nightly to follow the rules, avoid contact and help prevent the onward transmission of the virus, those close to the centre of power were seemingly doing the opposite - that sticks in people's minds.
Everything else is just an attempt at deflection.
It did not help the tens and tens of thousands killed by their incompetence however, hard to see how saving a few thousand later makes it seem they had a good covid. Add in the stealing , fraud , corruption etc and you cannot say anything other than they had a mare of a pandemic except in their bank accounts.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
On topic I rather agree with Mike that these approve/disapprove figures tell you more about the government's standing than a hypothetical vote related poll does. However, I also agree with @HYUFD that at the end of the day we make a choice that all too often seems dismal (if not quite on the Trump/Biden scale, which must be one of the worst choices ever) so best PM is also important.
Mike makes the point these are biased in favour of the incumbent and that is true but it is also why we have had 2 complete changes of government in 42 years. The system favours the incumbent and that does not disappear when elections come around.
At the moment we have an incumbent with a very comfortable majority. I think Boris's personal ratings are now so poor that the Tories would be bordering on reckless letting him lead them into another election. Whether Rishi or whoever can do better, and whether they can be a better choice than SKS will determine the next election. I disagree with @Heathener about it being over already. I think it is all to play for but the government undoubtedly has a tricky hand on the economic front.
Do you now accept that the reason politics can't move on to actually trying to face into these economic crises is because of the liar in Downing Street and the incompetents in cabinet?
No. I think the liar in Downing Street should be removed but the problems will not go away just because that happens. Any government would struggle to cope right now.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
And yet until we do get rid of the liar in Downing Street we cannot even begin to properly tackle these problems. Yes they will take a very long time and probably a lot of pain to put right, but that process needs to be planned and executed responsibly and that simply won't happen as long as Johnson is in charge. This is not even about blame. A lot (but by no means all) of the problems we face were beyond his control. But his utter and profound unsuitability for office makes any recovery stillborn.
Russian invasion is 'not likely' - expert Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia, says he predicts that Russia will not invade Ukraine.
He tells Sky News: "My view is invasion or some substantial military escalation is not his Plan A is absolutely hoping to use all these other methods, intimidation, diplomacy, covert attacks, and so forth, to get enough of concessions that he feels he's actually made, managed to make his point and put Russia at the centre of the world again, which is why he thinks it should be."
I think the position adopted by the UK and US re Russia - announce that we think a false flag in Donbass followed by invasion is about to happen - is tactically smart. Either the Russians do it, in which case the deniability currently expounded by the Russians is exposed as a sham; or they don't do it to save face, in which case we prevent the invasion from occurring.
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Well the 'envy of the world' would certainly like to have its part in the care homes deaths forgotten.
That said I don't think the government deserves any gratitude for its covid response - it got some things right and got some things wrong.
And many of the things it got wrong were senseless.
On the other hand a Starmer government would have handled things significantly worse.
The option wasn't a Starmer government. A *Corbyn* government would have handled it worse, thats for sure. Not sure about Starmer.
The main attack line thrown about by Liar is that Starmer would have stuck with the EU vaccines system which would have presented us from having developed and rolled out the vaccine. The rather basic problem with that attack line is that it isn't true. At least according to the person who signed off the vaccine for use when asked at a Downing Street press conference.
And yet:
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
And yet what? The attack line is "would have stayed in the EU vaccinations programme which means we wouldn't have developed the vaccine."
That categorically isn't true. The medic (I forget her name) who personally signed off the vaccine said so directly at a Downing Street press conference.
That the EU has become a totemic issue isn't in question. But EU Vaccines = no vaccine is just incorrect. Wrong. A lie.
Just much delayed vaccines. With the whiny, bitchy French complaining when they don't get their fair share on some weird metric.
Having a vaccine task force accountable only to HMG was a huge bonus. No pissing about with stupid EU diplomacy. I'll never forgive Macron for the "quasi" comment.
I say all this as a remainer - you have to accept that many elements of the EU are crap in an emergency. The biggest tell was that Sturgeon, canny as ever, stayed well clear despite Health being entirely devolved.
Again, what in the EU would have stopped us from doing what we did? Various countries did their own thing and the Doctor who signed off our efforts was very clear - with evidence - that suggestions we would not have been able to do what we did is simply wrong.
Politically we could have chosen to do things differently. But that isn't the attack line being used.
Russian invasion is 'not likely' - expert Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia, says he predicts that Russia will not invade Ukraine.
He tells Sky News: "My view is invasion or some substantial military escalation is not his Plan A is absolutely hoping to use all these other methods, intimidation, diplomacy, covert attacks, and so forth, to get enough of concessions that he feels he's actually made, managed to make his point and put Russia at the centre of the world again, which is why he thinks it should be."
The problem with that analysis is that it is predicated on the idea that the West can or should make any concessions at all. Apart from accepting the reality that Ukraine cannot now for the foreseeable future join the EU or NATO I don't really see what else the West can deliver for him. So he will eventually be forced back into the position of put up or shut up.
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Well the 'envy of the world' would certainly like to have its part in the care homes deaths forgotten.
That said I don't think the government deserves any gratitude for its covid response - it got some things right and got some things wrong.
And many of the things it got wrong were senseless.
On the other hand a Starmer government would have handled things significantly worse.
The option wasn't a Starmer government. A *Corbyn* government would have handled it worse, thats for sure. Not sure about Starmer.
The main attack line thrown about by Liar is that Starmer would have stuck with the EU vaccines system which would have presented us from having developed and rolled out the vaccine. The rather basic problem with that attack line is that it isn't true. At least according to the person who signed off the vaccine for use when asked at a Downing Street press conference.
And yet:
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
And yet what? The attack line is "would have stayed in the EU vaccinations programme which means we wouldn't have developed the vaccine."
That categorically isn't true. The medic (I forget her name) who personally signed off the vaccine said so directly at a Downing Street press conference.
That the EU has become a totemic issue isn't in question. But EU Vaccines = no vaccine is just incorrect. Wrong. A lie.
What you're babbling is a lie.
Nobody is claiming that the vaccines wouldn't have been developed but membership of the EU vaccination scheme would have seen a very different distribution of those produced.
Whether a Starmer government would have joined the EU vaccination scheme I don't know.
But your party, the LibDems, would certainly have done so.
On topic I rather agree with Mike that these approve/disapprove figures tell you more about the government's standing than a hypothetical vote related poll does. However, I also agree with @HYUFD that at the end of the day we make a choice that all too often seems dismal (if not quite on the Trump/Biden scale, which must be one of the worst choices ever) so best PM is also important.
Mike makes the point these are biased in favour of the incumbent and that is true but it is also why we have had 2 complete changes of government in 42 years. The system favours the incumbent and that does not disappear when elections come around.
At the moment we have an incumbent with a very comfortable majority. I think Boris's personal ratings are now so poor that the Tories would be bordering on reckless letting him lead them into another election. Whether Rishi or whoever can do better, and whether they can be a better choice than SKS will determine the next election. I disagree with @Heathener about it being over already. I think it is all to play for but the government undoubtedly has a tricky hand on the economic front.
Do you now accept that the reason politics can't move on to actually trying to face into these economic crises is because of the liar in Downing Street and the incompetents in cabinet?
No. I think the liar in Downing Street should be removed but the problems will not go away just because that happens. Any government would struggle to cope right now.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
That is all true. In the previous thread you were bemoaning people like me focusing on the minutiae rather than these mega issues. My point then and now is that you can't tackle any issues when the PM and government disregard the rule of law and facts.
We - the nation - needs to take collective decisions about what is an acceptable balance between things like more taxes and fixing the economy. The coalition managed to find that balance because it was seen as competent, honest and acting in the national interest. This government is none of those things. Hence not being able to attack the issues.
So the problem isn't the likes of me highlighting that the government can't be trusted and isn't trusted. Its the government and the people who continue to provide them succour. I am glad that you are now firmly in the "must be removed" camp because you have been providing them cover until now.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Well the 'envy of the world' would certainly like to have its part in the care homes deaths forgotten.
That said I don't think the government deserves any gratitude for its covid response - it got some things right and got some things wrong.
And many of the things it got wrong were senseless.
On the other hand a Starmer government would have handled things significantly worse.
The option wasn't a Starmer government. A *Corbyn* government would have handled it worse, thats for sure. Not sure about Starmer.
The main attack line thrown about by Liar is that Starmer would have stuck with the EU vaccines system which would have presented us from having developed and rolled out the vaccine. The rather basic problem with that attack line is that it isn't true. At least according to the person who signed off the vaccine for use when asked at a Downing Street press conference.
And yet:
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
And yet what? The attack line is "would have stayed in the EU vaccinations programme which means we wouldn't have developed the vaccine."
That categorically isn't true. The medic (I forget her name) who personally signed off the vaccine said so directly at a Downing Street press conference.
That the EU has become a totemic issue isn't in question. But EU Vaccines = no vaccine is just incorrect. Wrong. A lie.
Just much delayed vaccines. With the whiny, bitchy French complaining when they don't get their fair share on some weird metric.
Having a vaccine task force accountable only to HMG was a huge bonus. No pissing about with stupid EU diplomacy. I'll never forgive Macron for the "quasi" comment.
I say all this as a remainer - you have to accept that many elements of the EU are crap in an emergency. The biggest tell was that Sturgeon, canny as ever, stayed well clear despite Health being entirely devolved.
Again, what in the EU would have stopped us from doing what we did? Various countries did their own thing and the Doctor who signed off our efforts was very clear - with evidence - that suggestions we would not have been able to do what we did is simply wrong.
Politically we could have chosen to do things differently. But that isn't the attack line being used.
There would have been much more pressure to share our vaccines had we been part of the scheme. Outside it we were able to tell them to piss off.
To flip your question - why would you join the EU scheme, in retrospect? Do you think Sturgeon made a mistake not joining it? We did absolutely fine by ourselves.
The best rose ever is Gertrude Jekyll from David Austin. Can be a climber or a shrub. Gorgeous colour and scent and absolutely no bother at all.
The one thing to do is when you plant - ideally bare root - is to sprinkle lots of micorrhizal fungi (a small powder) over the roots to give them a cracking start. Then water well and watch it grow. Water plenty in summer if it's hot. You need rich soil too but that is why roses grow so well here because we have plenty of it. That's all I do and I have grown it successfully in London and the Lakes. No peeing required. It is utterly wonderful.
The best tall climber is Madame Alfred Carriere. Same method as above.
Neither of them cause any bother at all. So ideal for lazy gardeners.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
Gets home later and tells the wife -
"You'll never guess who I had in the back of the tuk today?" "A British tourist with naive and sentimental views about the Empire?" "Yep. Him." "So you did the usual then, did you babe?" "I did. Laid it on very thick." "Ha ha ha ... and?" "Bingo!" "Ha, love you babe." "Love you too."
When it's just me and my wife getting a Bajaj in Sri Lanka our usual trick is for me to hide while my wife flags one down and agrees a price. Then I appear and they shake their head ruefully. Being British Sri Lankan with ropey Sinhala my wife gets charged about double the going rate, but with me in tow it's more like double that again. It's all done in good humour though.
Nobody is claiming that the vaccines wouldn't have been developed but membership of the EU vaccination scheme would have seen a very different distribution of those produced.
Whether a Starmer government would have joined the EU vaccination scheme I don't know.
But your party, the Lib Dems, would certainly have done so.
And you're babbling on about what a party which won 11 seats would have done had it won a majority.
Why not ask what the SNP (who, after all won many more seats) would have done or the DUP or whoever?
More deflection - the only question is not what others would have done but what the elected Conservative majority Government did. Defend that record instead of deflection.
On topic I rather agree with Mike that these approve/disapprove figures tell you more about the government's standing than a hypothetical vote related poll does. However, I also agree with @HYUFD that at the end of the day we make a choice that all too often seems dismal (if not quite on the Trump/Biden scale, which must be one of the worst choices ever) so best PM is also important.
Mike makes the point these are biased in favour of the incumbent and that is true but it is also why we have had 2 complete changes of government in 42 years. The system favours the incumbent and that does not disappear when elections come around.
At the moment we have an incumbent with a very comfortable majority. I think Boris's personal ratings are now so poor that the Tories would be bordering on reckless letting him lead them into another election. Whether Rishi or whoever can do better, and whether they can be a better choice than SKS will determine the next election. I disagree with @Heathener about it being over already. I think it is all to play for but the government undoubtedly has a tricky hand on the economic front.
Do you now accept that the reason politics can't move on to actually trying to face into these economic crises is because of the liar in Downing Street and the incompetents in cabinet?
No. I think the liar in Downing Street should be removed but the problems will not go away just because that happens. Any government would struggle to cope right now.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
And yet until we do get rid of the liar in Downing Street we cannot even begin to properly tackle these problems. Yes they will take a very long time and probably a lot of pain to put right, but that process needs to be planned and executed responsibly and that simply won't happen as long as Johnson is in charge. This is not even about blame. A lot (but by no means all) of the problems we face were beyond his control. But his utter and profound unsuitability for office makes any recovery stillborn.
I think it's down to the public whether Johnson goes. Via polls and local elections Tory MPs must be given the message that unless he's removed a ton of them will be out on their ear at the GE. Unless this comes through loud and clear I don't think they'll act.
On topic I rather agree with Mike that these approve/disapprove figures tell you more about the government's standing than a hypothetical vote related poll does. However, I also agree with @HYUFD that at the end of the day we make a choice that all too often seems dismal (if not quite on the Trump/Biden scale, which must be one of the worst choices ever) so best PM is also important.
Mike makes the point these are biased in favour of the incumbent and that is true but it is also why we have had 2 complete changes of government in 42 years. The system favours the incumbent and that does not disappear when elections come around.
At the moment we have an incumbent with a very comfortable majority. I think Boris's personal ratings are now so poor that the Tories would be bordering on reckless letting him lead them into another election. Whether Rishi or whoever can do better, and whether they can be a better choice than SKS will determine the next election. I disagree with @Heathener about it being over already. I think it is all to play for but the government undoubtedly has a tricky hand on the economic front.
Do you now accept that the reason politics can't move on to actually trying to face into these economic crises is because of the liar in Downing Street and the incompetents in cabinet?
No. I think the liar in Downing Street should be removed but the problems will not go away just because that happens. Any government would struggle to cope right now.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
That is all true. In the previous thread you were bemoaning people like me focusing on the minutiae rather than these mega issues. My point then and now is that you can't tackle any issues when the PM and government disregard the rule of law and facts.
We - the nation - needs to take collective decisions about what is an acceptable balance between things like more taxes and fixing the economy. The coalition managed to find that balance because it was seen as competent, honest and acting in the national interest. This government is none of those things. Hence not being able to attack the issues.
So the problem isn't the likes of me highlighting that the government can't be trusted and isn't trusted. Its the government and the people who continue to provide them succour. I am glad that you are now firmly in the "must be removed" camp because you have been providing them cover until now.
I think, to an extent, the UK is hamstrung when it comes to dealing with inflation, supply issues. We are an importing nation and vulnerable. I agree with @DavidL on this.
It would take the US/China to come up with a plan. We don't have any sway in this - it's different to Brown 2008 because we had a huge, influential banking sector back then.
God, return journeys to wintry Britain are always tough. But this is one of the worst
I feel like I am being ripped untimely from the womb
Go with your heart then? Get off the flight.
I recently disembarked from a long haul business class seat just as they were about to close the doors. Admittedly not ideal as they had to remove my hold luggage.
If your heart says you don't want to come back, why do it? You only get one life.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Probably angling to maximize the tip.
Only need the tuk tuk driver to say what is it with those Wokies destroying the Western canon and that the Jocks would be mad to go for independence for the full house.
- that actually does sound rather like the authentic London cabbie experience.
They certainly do NOT tailor their banter to what the punter wants to hear. Not in my experience anyway. I've never once got in one and heard the sober rational case for gender self-Id floating back to me from upfront.
That's because there isn't one, my darling.
A drunken incoherent one, I'll grant you. But you wouldn't want to get into a taxi driven by an incoherent drunk, now would you? Bad enough having that @Leon in the back seat with you.
On topic I rather agree with Mike that these approve/disapprove figures tell you more about the government's standing than a hypothetical vote related poll does. However, I also agree with @HYUFD that at the end of the day we make a choice that all too often seems dismal (if not quite on the Trump/Biden scale, which must be one of the worst choices ever) so best PM is also important.
Mike makes the point these are biased in favour of the incumbent and that is true but it is also why we have had 2 complete changes of government in 42 years. The system favours the incumbent and that does not disappear when elections come around.
At the moment we have an incumbent with a very comfortable majority. I think Boris's personal ratings are now so poor that the Tories would be bordering on reckless letting him lead them into another election. Whether Rishi or whoever can do better, and whether they can be a better choice than SKS will determine the next election. I disagree with @Heathener about it being over already. I think it is all to play for but the government undoubtedly has a tricky hand on the economic front.
Do you now accept that the reason politics can't move on to actually trying to face into these economic crises is because of the liar in Downing Street and the incompetents in cabinet?
No. I think the liar in Downing Street should be removed but the problems will not go away just because that happens. Any government would struggle to cope right now.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
And yet until we do get rid of the liar in Downing Street we cannot even begin to properly tackle these problems. Yes they will take a very long time and probably a lot of pain to put right, but that process needs to be planned and executed responsibly and that simply won't happen as long as Johnson is in charge. This is not even about blame. A lot (but by no means all) of the problems we face were beyond his control. But his utter and profound unsuitability for office makes any recovery stillborn.
It's not exactly a help but I think you go too far. We have a competent Chancellor who is pretty much untouchable and therefore has a lot of discretion in using his own judgment. I think the Saj is highly competent and will work to get a grip of the Health Service. I have a lot of time for Kwasi Kwatang and think that he can make our business policies as effective as they can be in a difficult situation. I think Ben Wallace is doing a good job in difficult circumstances as Defence Secretary. I think Zahawi will do far less damage in Education than his immediate predecessors. I expect Gove to come up with some interesting ideas about levelling up (as well as some nonsense). The government can get on with governing with or without Boris. And it needs to do so.
The best rose ever is Gertrude Jekyll from David Austin. Can be a climber or a shrub. Gorgeous colour and scent and absolutely no bother at all.
The one thing to do is when you plant - ideally bare root - is to sprinkle lots of micorrhizal fungi (a small powder) over the roots to give them a cracking start. Then water well and watch it grow. Water plenty in summer if it's hot. You need rich soil too but that is why roses grow so well here because we have plenty of it. That's all I do and I have grown it successfully in London and the Lakes. No peeing required. It is utterly wonderful.
The best tall climber is Madame Alfred Carriere. Same method as above.
Neither of them cause any bother at all. So ideal for lazy gardeners.
The roses are safe from me these days. I moved into a gated apartment complex and they have gardeners who do all the green stuff
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Well the 'envy of the world' would certainly like to have its part in the care homes deaths forgotten.
That said I don't think the government deserves any gratitude for its covid response - it got some things right and got some things wrong.
And many of the things it got wrong were senseless.
On the other hand a Starmer government would have handled things significantly worse.
The option wasn't a Starmer government. A *Corbyn* government would have handled it worse, thats for sure. Not sure about Starmer.
The main attack line thrown about by Liar is that Starmer would have stuck with the EU vaccines system which would have presented us from having developed and rolled out the vaccine. The rather basic problem with that attack line is that it isn't true. At least according to the person who signed off the vaccine for use when asked at a Downing Street press conference.
And yet:
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
And yet what? The attack line is "would have stayed in the EU vaccinations programme which means we wouldn't have developed the vaccine."
That categorically isn't true. The medic (I forget her name) who personally signed off the vaccine said so directly at a Downing Street press conference.
That the EU has become a totemic issue isn't in question. But EU Vaccines = no vaccine is just incorrect. Wrong. A lie.
Just much delayed vaccines. With the whiny, bitchy French complaining when they don't get their fair share on some weird metric.
Having a vaccine task force accountable only to HMG was a huge bonus. No pissing about with stupid EU diplomacy. I'll never forgive Macron for the "quasi" comment.
I say all this as a remainer - you have to accept that many elements of the EU are crap in an emergency. The biggest tell was that Sturgeon, canny as ever, stayed well clear despite Health being entirely devolved.
Again, what in the EU would have stopped us from doing what we did? Various countries did their own thing and the Doctor who signed off our efforts was very clear - with evidence - that suggestions we would not have been able to do what we did is simply wrong.
Politically we could have chosen to do things differently. But that isn't the attack line being used.
There would have been much more pressure to share our vaccines had we been part of the scheme. Outside it we were able to tell them to piss off.
To flip your question - why would you join the EU scheme, in retrospect? Do you think Sturgeon made a mistake not joining it? We did absolutely fine by ourselves.
I don't remember enough of the details to make an argument either way. We were going to be developing vaccine regardless as we have a massive pharma industry and a massive research base. The Liar keeps standing there saying "we wouldn't have developed the vaccine" in the EU - the same line they have been using since mid 2020.
What I am pointing out is that the medical agency and the medics who developed and authorised the vaccine said at the time that this is incorrect. As they know more about it than I do - and the government - I'm happy to listen to them.
As for sharing it around, that has always been one of the primary aims. Get as many doses in as many arms as fast as possible. Doubly so when we have an open borders policy which allows new variants to travel here unimpeded. Even now we still need to refocus our efforts and get the world jabbed. The next variant may not be as unthreatening as Omicron turned out to be.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
The real problem is that much popular 'analysis' of the British Empire is heavily influenced by opinion and belief - either that it was a force for good, or (more commonly, in recent times) a force for evil.
The better starting point is to just believe that it was neither. It was something that happened in the past. The British nation that exists today is a post colonial construct in the same way that Sri Lanka is. When people in Sri Lanka are nostaligic for empire, they are nostalgic for a British nation that has long ceased to exist.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
No, the right way to respond to a bear poking around in your yard is to shoot it with a tranquilliser, tag it, and haul it back off into the woods where it belongs.
Then, if it comes back, shoot it for real.
Thank god you are nowhere near our foreign policy decision making and actions
God, return journeys to wintry Britain are always tough. But this is one of the worst
I feel like I am being ripped untimely from the womb
I remember getting on a plane in a pleasantly warm Mumbai and later that day standing on a windswept December platform at Woking station. I have of course been to other warm countries, but that sticks in my memory.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
On topic I rather agree with Mike that these approve/disapprove figures tell you more about the government's standing than a hypothetical vote related poll does. However, I also agree with @HYUFD that at the end of the day we make a choice that all too often seems dismal (if not quite on the Trump/Biden scale, which must be one of the worst choices ever) so best PM is also important.
Mike makes the point these are biased in favour of the incumbent and that is true but it is also why we have had 2 complete changes of government in 42 years. The system favours the incumbent and that does not disappear when elections come around.
At the moment we have an incumbent with a very comfortable majority. I think Boris's personal ratings are now so poor that the Tories would be bordering on reckless letting him lead them into another election. Whether Rishi or whoever can do better, and whether they can be a better choice than SKS will determine the next election. I disagree with @Heathener about it being over already. I think it is all to play for but the government undoubtedly has a tricky hand on the economic front.
Do you now accept that the reason politics can't move on to actually trying to face into these economic crises is because of the liar in Downing Street and the incompetents in cabinet?
No. I think the liar in Downing Street should be removed but the problems will not go away just because that happens. Any government would struggle to cope right now.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
That is all true. In the previous thread you were bemoaning people like me focusing on the minutiae rather than these mega issues. My point then and now is that you can't tackle any issues when the PM and government disregard the rule of law and facts.
We - the nation - needs to take collective decisions about what is an acceptable balance between things like more taxes and fixing the economy. The coalition managed to find that balance because it was seen as competent, honest and acting in the national interest. This government is none of those things. Hence not being able to attack the issues.
So the problem isn't the likes of me highlighting that the government can't be trusted and isn't trusted. Its the government and the people who continue to provide them succour. I am glad that you are now firmly in the "must be removed" camp because you have been providing them cover until now.
I think, to an extent, the UK is hamstrung when it comes to dealing with inflation, supply issues. We are an importing nation and vulnerable. I agree with @DavidL on this.
It would take the US/China to come up with a plan. We don't have any sway in this - it's different to Brown 2008 because we had a huge, influential banking sector back then.
We don't need the US and China to remove the GB-only extra costs. Inflation, energy and commodity prices are all going up. In my own industry some of the staple foodstuff price rises are entertainingly vast.
We can't tackle those by ourselves. We can tackle the extra cost of bringing them here. We can tackle our lack of influence by stopping shouting at the moon blaming the EU for the things we demanded to happen that we now don't like. We can work with business and industry instead of blaming them.
We can. But we won't whilst we have a congenital liar as PM.
On topic I rather agree with Mike that these approve/disapprove figures tell you more about the government's standing than a hypothetical vote related poll does. However, I also agree with @HYUFD that at the end of the day we make a choice that all too often seems dismal (if not quite on the Trump/Biden scale, which must be one of the worst choices ever) so best PM is also important.
Mike makes the point these are biased in favour of the incumbent and that is true but it is also why we have had 2 complete changes of government in 42 years. The system favours the incumbent and that does not disappear when elections come around.
At the moment we have an incumbent with a very comfortable majority. I think Boris's personal ratings are now so poor that the Tories would be bordering on reckless letting him lead them into another election. Whether Rishi or whoever can do better, and whether they can be a better choice than SKS will determine the next election. I disagree with @Heathener about it being over already. I think it is all to play for but the government undoubtedly has a tricky hand on the economic front.
Do you now accept that the reason politics can't move on to actually trying to face into these economic crises is because of the liar in Downing Street and the incompetents in cabinet?
No. I think the liar in Downing Street should be removed but the problems will not go away just because that happens. Any government would struggle to cope right now.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
And yet until we do get rid of the liar in Downing Street we cannot even begin to properly tackle these problems. Yes they will take a very long time and probably a lot of pain to put right, but that process needs to be planned and executed responsibly and that simply won't happen as long as Johnson is in charge. This is not even about blame. A lot (but by no means all) of the problems we face were beyond his control. But his utter and profound unsuitability for office makes any recovery stillborn.
I think it's down to the public whether Johnson goes. Via polls and local elections Tory MPs must be given the message that unless he's removed a ton of them will be out on their ear at the GE. Unless this comes through loud and clear I don't think they'll act.
I suspect there needs to be a critical mass of personal resentments and/or a critical mass of policy disagreements as well.
With the first and possibly the second requiring many years to build up.
Looking back they played a significant part in the removals of Thatcher and Blair.
I wonder if Wilson would have been forced out before 1979 if he hadn't jumped first.
FPT: I find DavidL's response to partygate one of the more interesting on here. He had the same reaction right at the peak of the crisis for the PM.
I would've thought, given his background, that the principle of our lawmakers abiding by the law would be an important one, and he'd recognise that not doing so weakens our position when dealing with with lawless dictators such as Putin. Particularly when the laws are so personally restrictive, and unusual.
Perhaps exposure to the law burns you out, a bit like junior doctors and their care for patients. I'm still young, and naive, so I'm going to hold onto the idea that the parties were a serious betrayal of trust and a danger to a democracy where so much depends on personal integrity in the absence of a formal constitution.
I think I have bored people to death on this already but I am not saying that civil servants and ministers ignoring the law is not important or trivial, even although the penalty for breaching the law is a FPN. There clearly should be disciplinary implications for that and an investigation as to how such stupidity ever came to pass. But, for me, the key point is that Boris lied to the Commons when he told them that there were to the best of his knowledge no such parties and that he would be angry if there had been. Parties that he had attended and which had been organised by his PPS and which even took place in his own flat. That is unforgiveable.
What has seriously disappointed me is that the 640 odd Members of Parliament have not stepped up to their duty and removed a PM that has behaved like that. Instead, they sought to assign their duty and responsibility to a civil servant, Gray, then to the hapless police service. It is a disgrace and a derogation of duty.
We saw the consequences of tolerating lies from PMs over Iraq, another PM who got away with egregious lying. It undermines confidence in our politics and democracy. It is important. And it is not something that any MP conscious of their duty can derogate to someone else. He should be gone.
So when you bemoan that we're all stuck discussing parties and even Truss being a bumbling incompetent, it all comes back to the same issue. We cannot function with a government and a Prime Minister who are liars. Who cannot accept the self-evident facts. Who break the law.
You can't deal with the cost of living crisis because the PM repeatedly quotes stats which his own statisticians complain are lies. You can't deal with the Ukraine because "Kermit the Frog" and "what Brexit" and now Liz Truss have belittled us on the world stage. You can't tackle runaway inflation because he'd rather spread hard right smears then spend weeks having his loyal and stupid ministers arguinng in his defence rather than dealing with actual problems.
So when you attack those of us attacking the problem and say that we are the problem...
As a matter of interest, what economic stats are lies? Not doubting you but haven't heard this before.
I think he keeps misrepresenting economic growth. I know they have been repeatedly told by UKSA to stop lying about crime figures - hence the insanity of Kwarteng trying to defend it by saying fraud really isn't a crime.
We do have UKSA on record writing to the PM telling him to stop lying - and he keeps going regardless. Hard to then move onto any subject to tackle any issue if he won't recognise reality.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
I think colonialism generally got less malign and more enlightened with time, as the colonising power became richer and more civilised and less dependent on raw brutal exploitation, and those enlightenment values of the universality of human rights had more time to work their magic. The colonialism of 1930s Ceylon on 19th century New Zealand was therefore very different from that of the Barbados sugar plantation. But don't underestimate as well the desire of people to say nice things to you, not just cynically because you might tip them more but also because you are a guest in their country and hospitality is important there, as it is in many Asian cultures. Because I am family I get to hear a less filtered set of opinions, perhaps. There is definitely a lot of affection for Britain but no desire to go back to the days of colonialism, in my experience.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Of course, we don't know what he says to Chinese passengers.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
God, return journeys to wintry Britain are always tough. But this is one of the worst
I feel like I am being ripped untimely from the womb
I remember getting on a plane in a pleasantly warm Mumbai and later that day standing on a windswept December platform at Woking station. I have of course been to other warm countries, but that sticks in my memory.
The depression can also work in reverse. I've flown to Scandinavia several times in early Spring. You leave the UK while it is mild and spring is starting, just to fly back in to the cold, ice and driving rain. Pretty depressing. I am doing it again in a few weeks time.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
Truss and now Wallace tying themselves in knots. Is that a careful calculation to save Big Dog or are they absolutely inept. Disappointed in Wallace!
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
Is there the possibility that something different than what we think is happening is actually happening here? That all depends on what you think Putin’s motivation is, wether he is winning this or not. I’m not going to call wether Putin has succeeded in his aim or not, but I will briefly explain how he might be.
Washington claim Putin will invade on Wednesday - the Ukraine President says to camera in English Washington have not shared that intel with him or his government. London says today incursion imminent.
On the possibility basis it doesn’t happen, exercise over, build up goes back to base, all sides claim they played a blinder in this Crisis, who has actually won it?
If Putin’s aim from this years Ukraine Crisis was to flag up the Minsk Agreement, to drive a wedge between EU thinking about Ukraine to become more distinct than the global power thinking of London and Washington, then, without a tank track out of place or shot fired in support of incursion, it would be a comprehensive win to Putin wouldn’t it?
At one point he even got the US President to talk about blowing up the pipeline of energy into the EU?
On topic I rather agree with Mike that these approve/disapprove figures tell you more about the government's standing than a hypothetical vote related poll does. However, I also agree with @HYUFD that at the end of the day we make a choice that all too often seems dismal (if not quite on the Trump/Biden scale, which must be one of the worst choices ever) so best PM is also important.
Mike makes the point these are biased in favour of the incumbent and that is true but it is also why we have had 2 complete changes of government in 42 years. The system favours the incumbent and that does not disappear when elections come around.
At the moment we have an incumbent with a very comfortable majority. I think Boris's personal ratings are now so poor that the Tories would be bordering on reckless letting him lead them into another election. Whether Rishi or whoever can do better, and whether they can be a better choice than SKS will determine the next election. I disagree with @Heathener about it being over already. I think it is all to play for but the government undoubtedly has a tricky hand on the economic front.
Do you now accept that the reason politics can't move on to actually trying to face into these economic crises is because of the liar in Downing Street and the incompetents in cabinet?
No. I think the liar in Downing Street should be removed but the problems will not go away just because that happens. Any government would struggle to cope right now.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
And yet until we do get rid of the liar in Downing Street we cannot even begin to properly tackle these problems. Yes they will take a very long time and probably a lot of pain to put right, but that process needs to be planned and executed responsibly and that simply won't happen as long as Johnson is in charge. This is not even about blame. A lot (but by no means all) of the problems we face were beyond his control. But his utter and profound unsuitability for office makes any recovery stillborn.
I think it's down to the public whether Johnson goes. Via polls and local elections Tory MPs must be given the message that unless he's removed a ton of them will be out on their ear at the GE. Unless this comes through loud and clear I don't think they'll act.
I suspect there needs to be a critical mass of personal resentments and/or a critical mass of policy disagreements as well.
With the first and possibly the second requiring many years to build up.
Looking back they played a significant part in the removals of Thatcher and Blair.
I wonder if Wilson would have been forced out before 1979 if he hadn't jumped first.
Wilson and Blair both got out at about the right time, even the best PMs have no more than an 8 to 10 years shelf life at their best.
Thatcher should have stepped down in June 1989 after 10 years and she would then have avoided the poll tax fiasco
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
No, the right way to respond to a bear poking around in your yard is to shoot it with a tranquilliser, tag it, and haul it back off into the woods where it belongs.
Then, if it comes back, shoot it for real.
Thank god you are nowhere near our foreign policy decision making and actions
You don't think countries should defend themselves, and defend each other collectively, from aggression?
The trouble with your analogy is it is unclear as to exactly whose yard the bear is poking around in.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
The real problem is that much popular 'analysis' of the British Empire is heavily influenced by opinion and belief - either that it was a force for good, or (more commonly, in recent times) a force for evil.
The better starting point is to just believe that it was neither. It was something that happened in the past. The British nation that exists today is a post colonial construct in the same way that Sri Lanka is. When people in Sri Lanka are nostaligic for empire, they are nostalgic for a British nation that has long ceased to exist.
Much talk about history is based more upon beliefs about the present than with what actually happened.
Loved the post about roses. I have several David Austen's including those. Beautiful.
Off for a siesta as I had an early start today. If Leon decides not to board can someone let me know later? Otherwise safe flight, but I warn you that the weather this week will be foul.
The best rose ever is Gertrude Jekyll from David Austin. Can be a climber or a shrub. Gorgeous colour and scent and absolutely no bother at all.
The one thing to do is when you plant - ideally bare root - is to sprinkle lots of micorrhizal fungi (a small powder) over the roots to give them a cracking start. Then water well and watch it grow. Water plenty in summer if it's hot. You need rich soil too but that is why roses grow so well here because we have plenty of it. That's all I do and I have grown it successfully in London and the Lakes. No peeing required. It is utterly wonderful.
The best tall climber is Madame Alfred Carriere. Same method as above.
Neither of them cause any bother at all. So ideal for lazy gardeners.
FPT: I find DavidL's response to partygate one of the more interesting on here. He had the same reaction right at the peak of the crisis for the PM.
I would've thought, given his background, that the principle of our lawmakers abiding by the law would be an important one, and he'd recognise that not doing so weakens our position when dealing with with lawless dictators such as Putin. Particularly when the laws are so personally restrictive, and unusual.
Perhaps exposure to the law burns you out, a bit like junior doctors and their care for patients. I'm still young, and naive, so I'm going to hold onto the idea that the parties were a serious betrayal of trust and a danger to a democracy where so much depends on personal integrity in the absence of a formal constitution.
I think I have bored people to death on this already but I am not saying that civil servants and ministers ignoring the law is not important or trivial, even although the penalty for breaching the law is a FPN. There clearly should be disciplinary implications for that and an investigation as to how such stupidity ever came to pass. But, for me, the key point is that Boris lied to the Commons when he told them that there were to the best of his knowledge no such parties and that he would be angry if there had been. Parties that he had attended and which had been organised by his PPS and which even took place in his own flat. That is unforgiveable.
What has seriously disappointed me is that the 640 odd Members of Parliament have not stepped up to their duty and removed a PM that has behaved like that. Instead, they sought to assign their duty and responsibility to a civil servant, Gray, then to the hapless police service. It is a disgrace and a derogation of duty.
We saw the consequences of tolerating lies from PMs over Iraq, another PM who got away with egregious lying. It undermines confidence in our politics and democracy. It is important. And it is not something that any MP conscious of their duty can derogate to someone else. He should be gone.
So when you bemoan that we're all stuck discussing parties and even Truss being a bumbling incompetent, it all comes back to the same issue. We cannot function with a government and a Prime Minister who are liars. Who cannot accept the self-evident facts. Who break the law.
You can't deal with the cost of living crisis because the PM repeatedly quotes stats which his own statisticians complain are lies. You can't deal with the Ukraine because "Kermit the Frog" and "what Brexit" and now Liz Truss have belittled us on the world stage. You can't tackle runaway inflation because he'd rather spread hard right smears then spend weeks having his loyal and stupid ministers arguinng in his defence rather than dealing with actual problems.
So when you attack those of us attacking the problem and say that we are the problem...
As a matter of interest, what economic stats are lies? Not doubting you but haven't heard this before.
I think he keeps misrepresenting economic growth. I know they have been repeatedly told by UKSA to stop lying about crime figures - hence the insanity of Kwarteng trying to defend it by saying fraud really isn't a crime.
We do have UKSA on record writing to the PM telling him to stop lying - and he keeps going regardless. Hard to then move onto any subject to tackle any issue if he won't recognise reality.
An excellent thread and a solid basis for thinking that Boris Johnson's tories are toast at the next General Election.
Tory MP's don't want to know? Fine by opposition supporters (apart from the wrecking ball on Britain in the meantime).
Tory MPs have pretty good smoke detectors. If Boris's numbers look irreparably terrible as the election approaches they'll likely replace him then, but there's plenty of time before we get to that point and he might still recover.
And which candidate can recover from the reputational damage inflicted by Boris?
There are loads of ministers in the government, you only need one of them to be a nice, refreshing contrast and they only have to keep it up for the month or two between a Tory leadership contest and a general election.
Fantasy
Actually it is not and you do not know the conservative party if you think it is
It’s fantasy to think the electorate, having seen the Tory party stick with the liar, will be fooled by a sudden volte face months before an election.
Radge is an interesting one. In Aberdeen where I was brought up it was definitely negative eg Mr X our psychopathic PE teacher was an absolute fcuking radge, while in East Lothian where I did part of my ill considered teacher training, when the kids said something was pure radge it meant most excellent.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
I think colonialism generally got less malign and more enlightened with time, as the colonising power became richer and more civilised and less dependent on raw brutal exploitation, and those enlightenment values of the universality of human rights had more time to work their magic. The colonialism of 1930s Ceylon on 19th century New Zealand was therefore very different from that of the Barbados sugar plantation. But don't underestimate as well the desire of people to say nice things to you, not just cynically because you might tip them more but also because you are a guest in their country and hospitality is important there, as it is in many Asian cultures. Because I am family I get to hear a less filtered set of opinions, perhaps. There is definitely a lot of affection for Britain but no desire to go back to the days of colonialism, in my experience.
Increased technology as well - machines became more profitable than exploiting people.
The best rose ever is Gertrude Jekyll from David Austin. Can be a climber or a shrub. Gorgeous colour and scent and absolutely no bother at all.
The one thing to do is when you plant - ideally bare root - is to sprinkle lots of micorrhizal fungi (a small powder) over the roots to give them a cracking start. Then water well and watch it grow. Water plenty in summer if it's hot. You need rich soil too but that is why roses grow so well here because we have plenty of it. That's all I do and I have grown it successfully in London and the Lakes. No peeing required. It is utterly wonderful.
The best tall climber is Madame Alfred Carriere. Same method as above.
Neither of them cause any bother at all. So ideal for lazy gardeners.
Photos below.
My roses were blighted by black spots on the leaves last year; the leaves turned yellow and dropped off and the flowers whitered up. Any advice?
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
No, the right way to respond to a bear poking around in your yard is to shoot it with a tranquilliser, tag it, and haul it back off into the woods where it belongs.
Then, if it comes back, shoot it for real.
Thank god you are nowhere near our foreign policy decision making and actions
You don't think countries should defend themselves, and defend each other collectively, from aggression?
The trouble with your analogy is it is unclear as to exactly whose yard the bear is poking around in.
The sovereign state that is Ukraine. If Ukraine wants the bear there, then knock on, why should we care? But they don't. So we should help if asked.
Why should we help? Why more so than shitty stuff happening all over the world, including (somewhat topically) in countries that used to be our colonies, where it could be argued that we have a measure of responsibility for the current state of affairs?
One to sicken Carlotta........... Part 1 Can Scotland Afford to pay the State Pension?
In summary:
Scottish state pensions will be more than covered by Scottish National Insurance.
Annual NI receipts = £11476m
Annual Pensions = £8517m
Leaves £2959m surplus for other benefits.
Source Table 1.1 & Box 3.2 GERS 2021
Full explanation:
Blackford and the First Minister skipping carefree into the pension minefield comes about from failing to answer the four key Indy questions over the last 8 years. Currency, Pensions, Europe and Borders.
The law of the Continuing State (Vienna Conventions 1978 etc) is clear that rUK gets the assets (embassies, gold, Falklands, etc) and the liabilities (UN fees, IMF fees, pensions, National Debt, etc), while Scotland gets what is physically located in Scotland or its territorial waters. rUK would be entitled to remove items from Scotland such as military vehicles and aircraft, paintings in military bases, etc where they can be shown to belong to rUK). For the avoidance of doubt the territorial waters are defined by the UN Law on the Sea, and not by any line drawn by Tony Blair.
Pensions, of course, are a liability. However, there are two distinct types - UK Gov employment pensions (UK civil service, army, diplomatic corps, etc) and the UK state pension. The first the UK absolutely has to pay in full. So that would be anyone resident in Scotland who served in the military or worked for a rUK central department such as HMRC, Foreign Office, Dept of Work & Pensions, and the like. Those will be paid in sterling and those people will have an exchange rate risk. There isn't an easy way to avoid that.
The second is different - it is a pay as you go welfare entitlement and there is no 'fund' behind it (whatever the name, the National Insurance Fund never has more than £20 billion in it because the Treasury clears it out). As ScotGov will be taking over all the tax revenues and NI, then it is obvious and reasonable that ScotGov take over the payment of the entitlements, i.e. the state pension. This should be a very easy deal. Also, since we are relieving the UK of a very large liability there has to be a quid pro quo, such as no discussion of taking any share of the so called 'National Debt'. Can ScotGov 'fund' the pension? Of course as we would get the tax (not that tax funds anything specific). In fact because our life expectancy, especially for men, is less than in England then it is likely we could increase the Scottish Universal Pension at no extra cost. Some calculations I have done suggest workers in Scotland currently subsidise pensioners in England on average precisely because we die younger but all pay the same NI. 72 for a man in Easterhouse vs 90 for a man in Chelsea. We should also look at increasing the SUP to the EU average, but that requires we have our own currency. Getting that currency is, of course, why the Scottish Currency Group exists.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
I think colonialism generally got less malign and more enlightened with time, as the colonising power became richer and more civilised and less dependent on raw brutal exploitation, and those enlightenment values of the universality of human rights had more time to work their magic. The colonialism of 1930s Ceylon on 19th century New Zealand was therefore very different from that of the Barbados sugar plantation. But don't underestimate as well the desire of people to say nice things to you, not just cynically because you might tip them more but also because you are a guest in their country and hospitality is important there, as it is in many Asian cultures. Because I am family I get to hear a less filtered set of opinions, perhaps. There is definitely a lot of affection for Britain but no desire to go back to the days of colonialism, in my experience.
Increased technology as well - machines became more profitable than exploiting people.
And actually late era British colonialism was still capable of some nasty stuff, eg vs the Mau Mau or for that matter our current shitty behaviour to the Chagossians.
An excellent thread and a solid basis for thinking that Boris Johnson's tories are toast at the next General Election.
Tory MP's don't want to know? Fine by opposition supporters (apart from the wrecking ball on Britain in the meantime).
Tory MPs have pretty good smoke detectors. If Boris's numbers look irreparably terrible as the election approaches they'll likely replace him then, but there's plenty of time before we get to that point and he might still recover.
And which candidate can recover from the reputational damage inflicted by Boris?
There are loads of ministers in the government, you only need one of them to be a nice, refreshing contrast and they only have to keep it up for the month or two between a Tory leadership contest and a general election.
Fantasy
Actually it is not and you do not know the conservative party if you think it is
It’s fantasy to think the electorate, having seen the Tory party stick with the liar, will be fooled by a sudden volte face months before an election.
If you want rid of him, now is the time.
You have to grant though, Nigel, that both the timing and the choice of successor are tricky. They cannot afford to get either wrong.
I agree that a sudden volte face shortly before the election is unlikely to work. The longer they procrastinate, the less the likelihood of the change having the desired effect. All the same it won't help to snatch at the decision and risk making things worse.
After the May locals seems the obvious moment to me, and Sunak the obvious replacement.
The redwall voted were loaned to Boris, note Boris not the Tories, in 2019 to get Brexit done.
Not true
"When asked about reasons for their vote in 2019, there were far more mentions of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party than of the prime minister, and little evidence that he was uniquely popular with these voters." Eye-opening from @p_surridge https://www.ft.com/content/6062ecf0-70d8-4433-bc3b-b2a66dfd162c
Exactly, HUFYD likes to focus on Johnson's landslide which is only true if you look at seats won.
There was no surge of support for Johnson, it's a total myth. May polled 13.6 million votes in 2017, Johnson polled 13.9 in 2019. He increased the Tory vote by a paltry 1.2%.
Johnson won lots of seats because the Labour vote dropped dramatically due to Corbyn. the 2019 outcome was far more down to Corbyn than it waste Johnson.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
I think colonialism generally got less malign and more enlightened with time, as the colonising power became richer and more civilised and less dependent on raw brutal exploitation, and those enlightenment values of the universality of human rights had more time to work their magic. The colonialism of 1930s Ceylon on 19th century New Zealand was therefore very different from that of the Barbados sugar plantation. But don't underestimate as well the desire of people to say nice things to you, not just cynically because you might tip them more but also because you are a guest in their country and hospitality is important there, as it is in many Asian cultures. Because I am family I get to hear a less filtered set of opinions, perhaps. There is definitely a lot of affection for Britain but no desire to go back to the days of colonialism, in my experience.
Increased technology as well - machines became more profitable than exploiting people.
And actually late era British colonialism was still capable of some nasty stuff, eg vs the Mau Mau or for that matter our current shitty behaviour to the Chagossians.
Certainly but that was political rather than economic.
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Welcome to the dark side, Bev. Rich Tory pensioners were sacrificed so that young Labour voters had a hospital bed when they needed one. Outrageous.
Do not be so daft. It was not planned, it was just common-or-garden incompetence. However no one has been sanctioned for it. The unecessary, early deaths of thousands has been consequence free.
The vacated hospital beds were subsequently filled by people with no vaccine protection, but I cannot recall any of them being checked for political affiliations.
It was a choice they made.
They were worried about overload in the hospital system (northern Italy was at the same time). They chose to empty beds as far as they could. They also felt that old people in hospital would be vulnerable to incoming covid patients.
Unfortunately they didn’t know about asymptomatic covid
They did know. They were given explicit warnings by the NHS which they ignored. They then tried to blame the NHS for it and said they knew nothing was done locally. Which was rather disproved by the leaked correspondence showing them ordering the NHS to do so.
Whether it was the least worst option as they saw it or not, they could have been honest and owned it. Instead it was lie after lie.
It’s not being wise after the event, either. You can look back on the threads here from early 2020.
It was a decision which killed my father, and about two thirds of his fellow residents at his care home. What still rankles is the dishonesty. I think we’ve all acknowledged that mistakes happen in government, and are almost inevitable in crises, but the spinning since has been pretty sickening.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
Well, he's ignorant about one thing. Six months non-means-tested unemployment benefit is still available, under the name JSA, and it was never "no questions asked", the legislation says you have to be available for and actively seeking work and as long as I can remember it has been the Jobcentre's role to enforce it. I know it's not central to his argument, but if he's wrong about one simple thing it hardly gives you confidence.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
I think colonialism generally got less malign and more enlightened with time, as the colonising power became richer and more civilised and less dependent on raw brutal exploitation, and those enlightenment values of the universality of human rights had more time to work their magic. The colonialism of 1930s Ceylon on 19th century New Zealand was therefore very different from that of the Barbados sugar plantation. But don't underestimate as well the desire of people to say nice things to you, not just cynically because you might tip them more but also because you are a guest in their country and hospitality is important there, as it is in many Asian cultures. Because I am family I get to hear a less filtered set of opinions, perhaps. There is definitely a lot of affection for Britain but no desire to go back to the days of colonialism, in my experience.
Increased technology as well - machines became more profitable than exploiting people.
And actually late era British colonialism was still capable of some nasty stuff, eg vs the Mau Mau or for that matter our current shitty behaviour to the Chagossians.
The Mau Mau did some pretty nasty stuff themselves
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
WTF is a British English accent, even for you that is bollox hyperbole.
Versus US English, I think, malcolm. Which is widespread elsewhere (almost universal in S Korea, for instance).
The redwall voted were loaned to Boris, note Boris not the Tories, in 2019 to get Brexit done.
Not true
"When asked about reasons for their vote in 2019, there were far more mentions of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party than of the prime minister, and little evidence that he was uniquely popular with these voters." Eye-opening from @p_surridge https://www.ft.com/content/6062ecf0-70d8-4433-bc3b-b2a66dfd162c
Exactly, HUFYD likes to focus on Johnson's landslide which is only true if you look at seats won.
There was no surge of support for Johnson, it's a total myth. May polled 13.6 million votes in 2017, Johnson polled 13.9 in 2019. He increased the Tory vote by a paltry 1.2%.
Johnson won lots of seats because the Labour vote dropped dramatically due to Corbyn. the 2019 outcome was far more down to Corbyn than it waste Johnson.
It was that increase in the Tory voteshare which won the Tories a big enough majority to get Brexit done.
Voters who disliked Corbyn and disliked Brexit mainly switched to LD in 2019 not Tory
An excellent thread and a solid basis for thinking that Boris Johnson's tories are toast at the next General Election.
Tory MP's don't want to know? Fine by opposition supporters (apart from the wrecking ball on Britain in the meantime).
Tory MPs have pretty good smoke detectors. If Boris's numbers look irreparably terrible as the election approaches they'll likely replace him then, but there's plenty of time before we get to that point and he might still recover.
And which candidate can recover from the reputational damage inflicted by Boris?
There are loads of ministers in the government, you only need one of them to be a nice, refreshing contrast and they only have to keep it up for the month or two between a Tory leadership contest and a general election.
Fantasy
Actually it is not and you do not know the conservative party if you think it is
It’s fantasy to think the electorate, having seen the Tory party stick with the liar, will be fooled by a sudden volte face months before an election.
If you want rid of him, now is the time.
You have to grant though, Nigel, that both the timing and the choice of successor are tricky. They cannot afford to get either wrong.
I agree that a sudden volte face shortly before the election is unlikely to work. The longer they procrastinate, the less the likelihood of the change having the desired effect. All the same it won't help to snatch at the decision and risk making things worse.
After the May locals seems the obvious moment to me, and Sunak the obvious replacement.
I agree - though I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for the hard choice they’re facing, since it’s of their own making. The impression I get is that a large number of MPs are swayed by the ‘just give him a bit more time’ argument … as if he might ever change.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
I think colonialism generally got less malign and more enlightened with time, as the colonising power became richer and more civilised and less dependent on raw brutal exploitation, and those enlightenment values of the universality of human rights had more time to work their magic. The colonialism of 1930s Ceylon on 19th century New Zealand was therefore very different from that of the Barbados sugar plantation. But don't underestimate as well the desire of people to say nice things to you, not just cynically because you might tip them more but also because you are a guest in their country and hospitality is important there, as it is in many Asian cultures. Because I am family I get to hear a less filtered set of opinions, perhaps. There is definitely a lot of affection for Britain but no desire to go back to the days of colonialism, in my experience.
Increased technology as well - machines became more profitable than exploiting people.
And actually late era British colonialism was still capable of some nasty stuff, eg vs the Mau Mau or for that matter our current shitty behaviour to the Chagossians.
The Mau Mau did some pretty nasty stuff themselves
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Probably angling to maximize the tip.
Only need the tuk tuk driver to say what is it with those Wokies destroying the Western canon and that the Jocks would be mad to go for independence for the full house.
- that actually does sound rather like the authentic London cabbie experience.
They certainly do NOT tailor their banter to what the punter wants to hear. Not in my experience anyway. I've never once got in one and heard the sober rational case for gender self-Id floating back to me from upfront.
That's because there isn't one, my darling.
A drunken incoherent one, I'll grant you. But you wouldn't want to get into a taxi driven by an incoherent drunk, now would you? Bad enough having that @Leon in the back seat with you.
😉
Well there is. But it's damned hard to get across, I'll concede that very readily. The trick is to uncouple it from some of the stuff that often gets wrapped up with it, eg on the language policing and the denial of biology. Not today, I sense, but it wouldn't surprise me one iota if we have another tumble on this quite soon.
As for Leon in the back seat, no thank you, harrowing thought, but he and I did share one for our covid jabs. We sat on the very same seat to get jabbed - just a couple of days apart. Forget now who was first. Hope it was me.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
The problem with anecdotes is that, mysteriously, they always seem to confirm the agenda of the person reporting them.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
Well, he's ignorant about one thing. Six months non-means-tested unemployment benefit is still available, under the name JSA, and it was never "no questions asked", the legislation says you have to be available for and actively seeking work and as long as I can remember it has been the Jobcentre's role to enforce it. I know it's not central to his argument, but if he's wrong about one simple thing it hardly gives you confidence.
You can't simultaneously claim GERS is unionist propaganda and also selectively quote parts of it to support your position.
GERS- Fiscal deficit including geographic share of North Sea:
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Welcome to the dark side, Bev. Rich Tory pensioners were sacrificed so that young Labour voters had a hospital bed when they needed one. Outrageous.
Do not be so daft. It was not planned, it was just common-or-garden incompetence. However no one has been sanctioned for it. The unecessary, early deaths of thousands has been consequence free.
The vacated hospital beds were subsequently filled by people with no vaccine protection, but I cannot recall any of them being checked for political affiliations.
It was a choice they made.
They were worried about overload in the hospital system (northern Italy was at the same time). They chose to empty beds as far as they could. They also felt that old people in hospital would be vulnerable to incoming covid patients.
Unfortunately they didn’t know about asymptomatic covid
They did know. They were given explicit warnings by the NHS which they ignored. They then tried to blame the NHS for it and said they knew nothing was done locally. Which was rather disproved by the leaked correspondence showing them ordering the NHS to do so.
Whether it was the least worst option as they saw it or not, they could have been honest and owned it. Instead it was lie after lie.
It’s not being wise after the event, either. You can look back on the threads here from early 2020.
It was a decision which killed my father, and about two thirds of his fellow residents at his care home. What still rankles is the dishonesty. I think we’ve all acknowledged that mistakes happen in government, and are almost inevitable in crises, but the spinning since has been pretty sickening.
Things can be a both/and rather than an either/or.
Depending upon their personal views some people want to blame the government for things which other organisations shared the mistake or praise the government for things which other organisations shared the correct decision.
And that can be taken down to the next level - for example the decision whether to have a lockdown for Omicron had both supporters and opponents within the government.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
I think colonialism generally got less malign and more enlightened with time, as the colonising power became richer and more civilised and less dependent on raw brutal exploitation, and those enlightenment values of the universality of human rights had more time to work their magic. The colonialism of 1930s Ceylon on 19th century New Zealand was therefore very different from that of the Barbados sugar plantation. But don't underestimate as well the desire of people to say nice things to you, not just cynically because you might tip them more but also because you are a guest in their country and hospitality is important there, as it is in many Asian cultures. Because I am family I get to hear a less filtered set of opinions, perhaps. There is definitely a lot of affection for Britain but no desire to go back to the days of colonialism, in my experience.
Increased technology as well - machines became more profitable than exploiting people.
And actually late era British colonialism was still capable of some nasty stuff, eg vs the Mau Mau or for that matter our current shitty behaviour to the Chagossians.
Certainly but that was political rather than economic.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
I disagree, Nick. The west was caught napping, and there was a growing belief that the US wasn’t going to respond. I think a fairly noisy response was probably necessary. Ukraine is not a small country, and they will fight whether or not we help them. Our assistance probably makes an invasion less, not more likely.
The redwall voted were loaned to Boris, note Boris not the Tories, in 2019 to get Brexit done.
Not true
"When asked about reasons for their vote in 2019, there were far more mentions of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party than of the prime minister, and little evidence that he was uniquely popular with these voters." Eye-opening from @p_surridge https://www.ft.com/content/6062ecf0-70d8-4433-bc3b-b2a66dfd162c
Exactly, HUFYD likes to focus on Johnson's landslide which is only true if you look at seats won.
There was no surge of support for Johnson, it's a total myth. May polled 13.6 million votes in 2017, Johnson polled 13.9 in 2019. He increased the Tory vote by a paltry 1.2%.
Johnson won lots of seats because the Labour vote dropped dramatically due to Corbyn. the 2019 outcome was far more down to Corbyn than it waste Johnson.
It was that increase in the Tory voteshare which won the Tories a big enough majority to get Brexit done.
Voters who disliked Corbyn and disliked Brexit mainly switched to LD in 2019 not Tory
My point was that Johnson barely got more votes than May 2 years earlier. He is not the fantastic vote magnet you keep trying to tell us is.
God, return journeys to wintry Britain are always tough. But this is one of the worst
I feel like I am being ripped untimely from the womb
Go with your heart then? Get off the flight.
I recently disembarked from a long haul business class seat just as they were about to close the doors. Admittedly not ideal as they had to remove my hold luggage.
If your heart says you don't want to come back, why do it? You only get one life.
Because my older daughter has done REALLY well in her mocks and I want to take her somewhere special during half term, as a present. She’s earned it
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
What's so interesting is that Scotland earns and pays tax at a similar rate as the UK.
The problem is with expenditure. And even then, Scotland's deficit has only diverged from the rest of the UK's since about 2012 - and that gap continued to grow pre-Covid.
2010 the Tories came in. In 2011 we elected a majority SNP government. And held a referendum in 2014. It's all very arguable whose fault it is.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
There is no Civil Service pension fund, it is a pay as you go scheme. It is "notionally funded" ie they work out contributions based on current and future liabilities as if there were a fund. I presume military pensions are paid on the same basis.
Comments
"You'll never guess who I had in the back of the tuk today?"
"A British tourist with naive and sentimental views about the Empire?"
"Yep. Him."
"So you did the usual then, did you babe?"
"I did. Laid it on very thick."
"Ha ha ha ... and?"
"Bingo!"
"Ha, love you babe."
"Love you too."
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Elephant-Complex-John-Gimlette/dp/1782067965
IIRC it says something like:
“Americans often despair at the way Sri Lankans, of all classes, idealise British rule. ‘But you were a colony!’ To which the Sri Lankans reply, with a shrug, ‘yes, but it was better’”
These days - just 7 years later - you could probably swap the Chinese for the Americans (the cultural presence of America here is basically zero, apart from Coca Cola and some music), but the other attitude abides
Russian invasion is 'not likely' - expert
Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia, says he predicts that Russia will not invade Ukraine.
He tells Sky News: "My view is invasion or some substantial military escalation is not his Plan A is absolutely hoping to use all these other methods, intimidation, diplomacy, covert attacks, and so forth, to get enough of concessions that he feels he's actually made, managed to make his point and put Russia at the centre of the world again, which is why he thinks it should be."
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-news-live-prime-minister-heads-to-europe-for-talks-with-nato-allies-as-police-continue-downing-street-parties-probe-12514080
Having a vaccine task force accountable only to HMG was a huge bonus. No pissing about with stupid EU diplomacy. I'll never forgive Macron for the "quasi" comment.
I say all this as a remainer - you have to accept that many elements of the EU are crap in an emergency. The biggest tell was that Sturgeon, canny as ever, stayed well clear despite Health being entirely devolved.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
The fact is (and this may come as a surprise) - the Conservative Party won the last GE, they are the Government and it is therefore them and their decisions in Government we are holding to account and scrutiny.
Has the Government done some things right? Unquestionably - the speed of our vaccine roll out was one of the best in the world and undoubtedly saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. Has it done some things wrong? Unquestionably - the shambolic Christmas 2020 lockdown, care homes and the unwillingness to properly police th border to name but three.
The current problems aren't about generalities, they are about specifics - the specific notion what while telling us nightly to follow the rules, avoid contact and help prevent the onward transmission of the virus, those close to the centre of power were seemingly doing the opposite - that sticks in people's minds.
Everything else is just an attempt at deflection.
I've heard it in Asia too, more surprisingly. Malaysia has a generally relaxed and friendly attitude to British rule and they don't see the need to tear up their past.
On the hand, please don't take this as me running up a white flag on my attitude to British imperialism. We were utterly disgraceful in many parts of the world, from India, through China and in the other direction in north America.
As for the ongoing disgusting situation in the Chagos Islands - we are complete hypocrites.
Actually, if you don't know your history of the Opium Wars you will never understand why the Chinese rightly resent our meddling in their affairs today.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/islanders-expelled-by-britain-return-50-years-on-with-anger-still-burning-m6tgx93t0
We do have UKSA on record writing to the PM telling him to stop lying - and he keeps going regardless. Hard to then move onto any subject to tackle any issue if he won't recognise reality.
My driver spoke near-perfect British English. Which is one thing that makes me believe he meant what he says. He’s a tuk tuk driver. He’s not a university graduate.
I asked him where he got the accent from. He said “I watch British TV on YouTube”.
I guess he might have spent years learning English with a British accent so he can then drive a three wheeled two stroke motorised tricycle around the polluted streets of Colombo and thereby get slightly larger tips from gullible British tourists by praising the empire, but to be honest this seems like a stretch.
They certainly do NOT tailor their banter to what the punter wants to hear. Not in my experience anyway. I've never once got in one and heard the sober rational case for gender self-Id floating back to me from upfront.
Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock.
It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official.
The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Politically we could have chosen to do things differently. But that isn't the attack line being used.
Nobody is claiming that the vaccines wouldn't have been developed but membership of the EU vaccination scheme would have seen a very different distribution of those produced.
Whether a Starmer government would have joined the EU vaccination scheme I don't know.
But your party, the LibDems, would certainly have done so.
We - the nation - needs to take collective decisions about what is an acceptable balance between things like more taxes and fixing the economy. The coalition managed to find that balance because it was seen as competent, honest and acting in the national interest. This government is none of those things. Hence not being able to attack the issues.
So the problem isn't the likes of me highlighting that the government can't be trusted and isn't trusted. Its the government and the people who continue to provide them succour. I am glad that you are now firmly in the "must be removed" camp because you have been providing them cover until now.
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
To flip your question - why would you join the EU scheme, in retrospect? Do you think Sturgeon made a mistake not joining it? We did absolutely fine by ourselves.
The best rose ever is Gertrude Jekyll from David Austin. Can be a climber or a shrub. Gorgeous colour and scent and absolutely no bother at all.
The one thing to do is when you plant - ideally bare root - is to sprinkle lots of micorrhizal fungi (a small powder) over the roots to give them a cracking start. Then water well and watch it grow. Water plenty in summer if it's hot. You need rich soil too but that is why roses grow so well here because we have plenty of it. That's all I do and I have grown it successfully in London and the Lakes. No peeing required. It is utterly wonderful.
The best tall climber is Madame Alfred Carriere. Same method as above.
Neither of them cause any bother at all. So ideal for lazy gardeners.
Photos below.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10507761/Putin-doesnt-s-t-sanctions-Russian-ambassador-says-amid-Ukraine-invasion-fears.html
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
Why not ask what the SNP (who, after all won many more seats) would have done or the DUP or whoever?
More deflection - the only question is not what others would have done but what the elected Conservative majority Government did. Defend that record instead of deflection.
I feel like I am being ripped untimely from the womb
It would take the US/China to come up with a plan. We don't have any sway in this - it's different to Brown 2008 because we had a huge, influential banking sector back then.
I recently disembarked from a long haul business class seat just as they were about to close the doors. Admittedly not ideal as they had to remove my hold luggage.
If your heart says you don't want to come back, why do it? You only get one life.
A drunken incoherent one, I'll grant you. But you wouldn't want to get into a taxi driven by an incoherent drunk, now would you? Bad enough having that @Leon in the back seat with you.
😉
What I am pointing out is that the medical agency and the medics who developed and authorised the vaccine said at the time that this is incorrect. As they know more about it than I do - and the government - I'm happy to listen to them.
As for sharing it around, that has always been one of the primary aims. Get as many doses in as many arms as fast as possible. Doubly so when we have an open borders policy which allows new variants to travel here unimpeded. Even now we still need to refocus our efforts and get the world jabbed. The next variant may not be as unthreatening as Omicron turned out to be.
The better starting point is to just believe that it was neither. It was something that happened in the past. The British nation that exists today is a post colonial construct in the same way that Sri Lanka is. When people in Sri Lanka are nostaligic for empire, they are nostalgic for a British nation that has long ceased to exist.
The doctor opens it up and then you get the wailing and the pain. It actually reminded me of a Spectator article I read a while back...
Later peeps!
Unfortunate phrasing, and obviously miles from the truth.
O, I see what you mean.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
We can't tackle those by ourselves. We can tackle the extra cost of bringing them here. We can tackle our lack of influence by stopping shouting at the moon blaming the EU for the things we demanded to happen that we now don't like. We can work with business and industry instead of blaming them.
We can. But we won't whilst we have a congenital liar as PM.
With the first and possibly the second requiring many years to build up.
Looking back they played a significant part in the removals of Thatcher and Blair.
I wonder if Wilson would have been forced out before 1979 if he hadn't jumped first.
But don't underestimate as well the desire of people to say nice things to you, not just cynically because you might tip them more but also because you are a guest in their country and hospitality is important there, as it is in many Asian cultures.
Because I am family I get to hear a less filtered set of opinions, perhaps. There is definitely a lot of affection for Britain but no desire to go back to the days of colonialism, in my experience.
If Putin could postpone WW3 until after that I'd appreciate it.
Washington claim Putin will invade on Wednesday - the Ukraine President says to camera in English Washington have not shared that intel with him or his government. London says today incursion imminent.
On the possibility basis it doesn’t happen, exercise over, build up goes back to base, all sides claim they played a blinder in this Crisis, who has actually won it?
If Putin’s aim from this years Ukraine Crisis was to flag up the Minsk Agreement, to drive a wedge between EU thinking about Ukraine to become more distinct than the global power thinking of London and Washington, then, without a tank track out of place or shot fired in support of incursion, it would be a comprehensive win to Putin wouldn’t it?
At one point he even got the US President to talk about blowing up the pipeline of energy into the EU?
Thatcher should have stepped down in June 1989 after 10 years and she would then have avoided the poll tax fiasco
Another thing that George Orwell was right about.
Off for a siesta as I had an early start today. If Leon decides not to board can someone let me know later? Otherwise safe flight, but I warn you that the weather this week will be foul.
If you want rid of him, now is the time.
Farooq Posts: 4,174
12:22P`M
The Raj was a radge.
Radge is an interesting one. In Aberdeen where I was brought up it was definitely negative eg Mr X our psychopathic PE teacher was an absolute fcuking radge, while in East Lothian where I did part of my ill considered teacher training, when the kids said something was pure radge it meant most excellent.
The 'Molineux' shrub rose. For obvious reasons.
Can Scotland Afford to pay the State Pension?
In summary:
Scottish state pensions will be more than covered by Scottish National Insurance.
Annual NI receipts = £11476m
Annual Pensions = £8517m
Leaves £2959m surplus for other benefits.
Source Table 1.1 & Box 3.2 GERS 2021
Full explanation:
Blackford and the First Minister skipping carefree into the pension minefield comes about from failing to answer the four key Indy questions over the last 8 years. Currency, Pensions, Europe and Borders.
The law of the Continuing State (Vienna Conventions 1978 etc) is clear that rUK gets the assets (embassies, gold, Falklands, etc) and the liabilities (UN fees, IMF fees, pensions, National Debt, etc), while Scotland gets what is physically located in Scotland or its territorial waters. rUK would be entitled to remove items from Scotland such as military vehicles and aircraft, paintings in military bases, etc where they can be shown to belong to rUK). For the avoidance of doubt the territorial waters are defined by the UN Law on the Sea, and not by any line drawn by Tony Blair.
Pensions, of course, are a liability. However, there are two distinct types - UK Gov employment pensions (UK civil service, army, diplomatic corps, etc) and the UK state pension. The first the UK absolutely has to pay in full. So that would be anyone resident in Scotland who served in the military or worked for a rUK central department such as HMRC, Foreign Office, Dept of Work & Pensions, and the like. Those will be paid in sterling and those people will have an exchange rate risk. There isn't an easy way to avoid that.
The second is different - it is a pay as you go welfare entitlement and there is no 'fund' behind it (whatever the name, the National Insurance Fund never has more than £20 billion in it because the Treasury clears it out). As ScotGov will be taking over all the tax revenues and NI, then it is obvious and reasonable that ScotGov take over the payment of the entitlements, i.e. the state pension. This should be a very easy deal. Also, since we are relieving the UK of a very large liability there has to be a quid pro quo, such as no discussion of taking any share of the so called 'National Debt'. Can ScotGov 'fund' the pension? Of course as we would get the tax (not that tax funds anything specific). In fact because our life expectancy, especially for men, is less than in England then it is likely we could increase the Scottish Universal Pension at no extra cost. Some calculations I have done suggest workers in Scotland currently subsidise pensioners in England on average precisely because we die younger but all pay the same NI. 72 for a man in Easterhouse vs 90 for a man in Chelsea. We should also look at increasing the SUP to the EU average, but that requires we have our own currency. Getting that currency is, of course, why the Scottish Currency Group exists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/13/world/europe/ukraine-russia-finland-sauli-niinisto-putin-nato.html
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
I agree that a sudden volte face shortly before the election is unlikely to work. The longer they procrastinate, the less the likelihood of the change having the desired effect. All the same it won't help to snatch at the decision and risk making things worse.
After the May locals seems the obvious moment to me, and Sunak the obvious replacement.
There was no surge of support for Johnson, it's a total myth. May polled 13.6 million votes in 2017, Johnson polled 13.9 in 2019. He increased the Tory vote by a paltry 1.2%.
Johnson won lots of seats because the Labour vote dropped dramatically due to Corbyn. the 2019 outcome was far more down to Corbyn than it waste Johnson.
It was a decision which killed my father, and about two thirds of his fellow residents at his care home. What still rankles is the dishonesty.
I think we’ve all acknowledged that mistakes happen in government, and are almost inevitable in crises, but the spinning since has been pretty sickening.
Which is widespread elsewhere (almost universal in S Korea, for instance).
Voters who disliked Corbyn and disliked Brexit mainly switched to LD in 2019 not Tory
The impression I get is that a large number of MPs are swayed by the ‘just give him a bit more time’ argument … as if he might ever change.
As for Leon in the back seat, no thank you, harrowing thought, but he and I did share one for our covid jabs. We sat on the very same seat to get jabbed - just a couple of days apart. Forget now who was first. Hope it was me.
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
We are going out again now, for lunch and rugby
Like Richard Tyndall said, life is not about waiting for the sun, but learning to dance in the rain. 🙋♀️
GERS- Fiscal deficit including geographic share of North Sea:
Scotland 22.4% (PY 8.8%)
UK 14.2% (2.6%)
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
Depending upon their personal views some people want to blame the government for things which other organisations shared the mistake or praise the government for things which other organisations shared the correct decision.
And that can be taken down to the next level - for example the decision whether to have a lockdown for Omicron had both supporters and opponents within the government.
The west was caught napping, and there was a growing belief that the US wasn’t going to respond. I think a fairly noisy response was probably necessary.
Ukraine is not a small country, and they will fight whether or not we help them. Our assistance probably makes an invasion less, not more likely.
The problem is with expenditure. And even then, Scotland's deficit has only diverged from the rest of the UK's since about 2012 - and that gap continued to grow pre-Covid.
2010 the Tories came in. In 2011 we elected a majority SNP government. And held a referendum in 2014. It's all very arguable whose fault it is.