I would like to see the PB Tory view is of the "Blue Wall". The remain seats with 30%+ graduates that the LDs have been working on.
Also there are few signs that the Tories can hold their red wall seats.
In Surrey alone, the Tories can kiss goodbye to Esher and Walton, Guildford, Woking and possibly Mole Valley. Jeremy Hunt will likely migrate to the new safer seat (assuming boundary changes happen), so should be OK) but the remaining SW Surrey constituency could well fall.
Definite losses are 3 and possibles 2
Ironic that at the next general election most of Surrey, much of Buckinghamshire, Kensington and Westminster will be marginal seats whereas in 1997 they were the safest Tory seats still left.
In 1997 though Kent and Essex for example had many marginal seats which went Labour but almost all seats there are safe Conservative now
While I agree it looks like that, why did Conservative Central Office get their knickers in a twist when it was suggested that the Maldon seat might become a site for a by-election?
Furthermore the ghost of Lord Tony Newton says hi.
Any government held seat is vulnerable in a by election.
Braintree was Labour in 1997 but has a 24,673 Conservative majority now, even bigger than the 17,494 Conservative majority in 1992.
So that does not really dispute what I said
I'm not really 'disputing'; I'm pointing out that big shifts do happen. And Braintree is a significantly different seat now from 1992 or 1997.
It isn't demographically that much different.
It is more the fact that the upper middle class are voting increasingly more for liberal parties, while the core vote for conservatives is now the skilled working class.
A trend across the western world
While I agree with you, I would suggest that the new Braintree is significantly more rural than the old. It's lost the semi industrial Witham area to which your comments apply.
Witham is the 18th safest Tory seat, one behind Braintree. The entire area is as safe Tory as anywhere apart from parts of Lincolnshire
Quite a few posters on the local Facebook site recently about Priti Patel. Yes she'd been helpful but no they didn't like her policies.
I can't help but wonder if Lord Geidt's resignation letter to the PM contains some dynamite. Normally, such letters, and the PM's "thanks for your service" response, are published as a matter of course, but this one is clearly being sat on. Why? Hopefully, Geidt himself will be brave and honourable enough to release it.
So far we know 3 things:-
1. Lord Geidt was the PM's ethics advisor. 2. According to Raab he was asked to advise on a "commercially sensitive matter". 3. The PM has decided not to publish the resignation letter.
There is an obvious potential explanation which screams out at me from those facts.
For the thick, please continue.
Can official resignation letters by Public Officials be FOI-d?
They would come under the personal information exemption, perhaps?
"I can't help but wonder if Lord Geidt's resignation letter to the PM contains some dynamite. Normally, such letters, and the PM's "thanks for your service" response, are published as a matter of course, but this one is clearly being sat on. Why? Hopefully, Geidt himself will be brave and honourable enough to release it."
So far we know 3 things:-
1. Lord Geidt was the PM's ethics advisor. 2. According to Raab he was asked to advise on a "commercially sensitive matter". 3. The PM has decided not to publish the resignation letter.
There is an obvious potential explanation which screams out at me from those facts.
I can't help but wonder if Lord Geidt's resignation letter to the PM contains some dynamite. Normally, such letters, and the PM's "thanks for your service" response, are published as a matter of course, but this one is clearly being sat on. Why? Hopefully, Geidt himself will be brave and honourable enough to release it.
So far we know 3 things:-
1. Lord Geidt was the PM's ethics advisor. 2. According to Raab he was asked to advise on a "commercially sensitive matter". 3. The PM has decided not to publish the resignation letter.
There is an obvious potential explanation which screams out at me from those facts.
For the thick, please continue.
Can official resignation letters by Public Officials be FOI-d?
Dunno but it has been announced that these particular letters will be published (deposited) today.
Swiss central bank surprisingly raises interest rates by 50 basis points.
25pbs from the BoE is going to look like it’s not enough.
Black Wednesday in miniature.
It won’t be that bad, but central banks do seem all rather surprised that the massive amounts of money-printing that went on during the pandemic, have led to inflation down the line.
The next few years are going to be a long ride.
Who knew that keeping interest rates at stupidly low crisis levels for 13 years whilst printing money like they were playing monopoly could be problematic?
Looked at this way - we've been propped up artificially for 15 years and can do it no longer - a big crash is inevitable quite soon.
Yes and will be much worse thsn it needed to be due to central bank and market incompetence and greed. Central bankers can join SAGE on the list
I would like to see the PB Tory view is of the "Blue Wall". The remain seats with 30%+ graduates that the LDs have been working on.
Also there are few signs that the Tories can hold their red wall seats.
In Surrey alone, the Tories can kiss goodbye to Esher and Walton, Guildford, Woking and possibly Mole Valley. Jeremy Hunt will likely migrate to the new safer seat (assuming boundary changes happen), so should be OK) but the remaining SW Surrey constituency could well fall.
Definite losses are 3 and possibles 2
Ironic that at the next general election most of Surrey, much of Buckinghamshire, Kensington and Westminster will be marginal seats whereas in 1997 they were the safest Tory seats still left.
In 1997 though Kent and Essex for example had many marginal seats which went Labour but almost all seats there are safe Conservative now
While I agree it looks like that, why did Conservative Central Office get their knickers in a twist when it was suggested that the Maldon seat might become a site for a by-election?
Furthermore the ghost of Lord Tony Newton says hi.
Any government held seat is vulnerable in a by election.
Braintree was Labour in 1997 but has a 24,673 Conservative majority now, even bigger than the 17,494 Conservative majority in 1992.
So that does not really dispute what I said
I'm not really 'disputing'; I'm pointing out that big shifts do happen. And Braintree is a significantly different seat now from 1992 or 1997.
It isn't demographically that much different.
It is more the fact that the upper middle class are voting increasingly more for liberal parties, while the core vote for conservatives is now the skilled working class.
A trend across the western world
While I agree with you, I would suggest that the new Braintree is significantly more rural than the old. It's lost the semi industrial Witham area to which your comments apply.
Witham is the 18th safest Tory seat, one behind Braintree. The entire area is as safe Tory as anywhere apart from parts of Lincolnshire
NEW: Spicy Geidt letter coming shortly... understand its not a personal financial issue about any minister, but he was asked for advice on a policy decision that could break an international treaty before any decision made... but it wont spell out exactly what that was... https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1537370532261289986
And yet they used the phrase "commercially sensitive"? Were they just trying to smear a bit of mud around and imply that Geidt was somehow financially motivated by his decision? If so, that didn't work.
I don't think that the implication was a smear on Geidt, to be fair.
It was a poor interview by Raab. He was floundering and speculated that the letter may touch on matters that are confidential for commercial reasons (e.g. relating to a current government contract negotiation) or even for personal reasons (e.g. relating to Geidt's own health). That was unhelpful as he was both saying he didn't know, and tossing out various reasons why you might not publish a letter, thus increasing interest in the real reason and inviting further speculation on points. But I don't actually think it implied any misconduct by Geidt.
The reality is presumably that the letter is embarrassing, and Number 10 were seeking legal advice that may justify not disclosing, but didn't get the answer they wanted in the end and decided to publish rather than draw it out and then publish.
Braverman didn't give the answer they wanted? That would be a welcome surprise.
"I would like to see the PB Tory view is of the "Blue Wall". The remain seats with 30%+ graduates that the LDs have been working on.
Also there are few signs that the Tories can hold their red wall seats."
As probables: just about anywhere between Cambridge and Bristol (in an arc going almost as far north as Milton Keynes and as far south as Winchester) that's currently electing any kind of ABT ("anything but Tory") local administration. How far further west depends on the outcome of H&T
And this isn't just about Johnson. The Tories have practically no activists left. Starmer's kind of dull managerialism offers precisely the kind of government the serious business community in Britain's economic heartland desperately craves. And the Greens and LDs provide the pragmatic enthusiasm on issues like the Single Market and climate change to campaign the Bejayzus out of a Tory party that's decided to abandon government and spend the rest of the century whining about Young People from its carehome.
I would like to see the PB Tory view is of the "Blue Wall". The remain seats with 30%+ graduates that the LDs have been working on.
Also there are few signs that the Tories can hold their red wall seats.
In Surrey alone, the Tories can kiss goodbye to Esher and Walton, Guildford, Woking and possibly Mole Valley. Jeremy Hunt will likely migrate to the new safer seat (assuming boundary changes happen), so should be OK) but the remaining SW Surrey constituency could well fall.
Definite losses are 3 and possibles 2
Ironic that at the next general election most of Surrey, much of Buckinghamshire, Kensington and Westminster will be marginal seats whereas in 1997 they were the safest Tory seats still left.
In 1997 though Kent and Essex for example had many marginal seats which went Labour but almost all seats there are safe Conservative now
While I agree it looks like that, why did Conservative Central Office get their knickers in a twist when it was suggested that the Maldon seat might become a site for a by-election?
Furthermore the ghost of Lord Tony Newton says hi.
Any government held seat is vulnerable in a by election.
Braintree was Labour in 1997 but has a 24,673 Conservative majority now, even bigger than the 17,494 Conservative majority in 1992.
So that does not really dispute what I said
I'm not really 'disputing'; I'm pointing out that big shifts do happen. And Braintree is a significantly different seat now from 1992 or 1997.
It isn't demographically that much different.
It is more the fact that the upper middle class are voting increasingly more for liberal parties, while the core vote for conservatives is now the skilled working class.
A trend across the western world
While I agree with you, I would suggest that the new Braintree is significantly more rural than the old. It's lost the semi industrial Witham area to which your comments apply.
Witham is the 18th safest Tory seat, one behind Braintree. The entire area is as safe Tory as anywhere apart from parts of Lincolnshire
Quite a few posters on the local Facebook site recently about Priti Patel. Yes she'd been helpful but no they didn't like her policies.
I used to live there when it was Labour, before boundary changes under Blair round the millenium. She will be back way over 50% with nobody within 25% of her.
"I can't help but wonder if Lord Geidt's resignation letter to the PM contains some dynamite. Normally, such letters, and the PM's "thanks for your service" response, are published as a matter of course, but this one is clearly being sat on. Why? Hopefully, Geidt himself will be brave and honourable enough to release it."
So far we know 3 things:-
1. Lord Geidt was the PM's ethics advisor. 2. According to Raab he was asked to advise on a "commercially sensitive matter". 3. The PM has decided not to publish the resignation letter.
There is an obvious potential explanation which screams out at me from those facts.
Yes. Let’s hope the letters contents appear. I think they will have to
How can they not do? PM's ethics advisor publishes various letters basically saying the PM is judge, jury and executioner and this makes his job untenable. Stays on. yet abruptly and unexpectedly resigns.
So having written a lengthy resignation letter which isn't being published the question is why. We know that it is appropriate to publish letters from Geidt to Johnson as hat has already happened. We also know it is appropriate to publish resignation letters.
So, this WILL come out. Someone will leak it. Perhaps Geidt himself channelling Lord Nicholson off The Thick of It. And I imagine is contents are extra spicy.
I would like to see the PB Tory view is of the "Blue Wall". The remain seats with 30%+ graduates that the LDs have been working on.
Also there are few signs that the Tories can hold their red wall seats.
In Surrey alone, the Tories can kiss goodbye to Esher and Walton, Guildford, Woking and possibly Mole Valley. Jeremy Hunt will likely migrate to the new safer seat (assuming boundary changes happen), so should be OK) but the remaining SW Surrey constituency could well fall.
Definite losses are 3 and possibles 2
Ironic that at the next general election most of Surrey, much of Buckinghamshire, Kensington and Westminster will be marginal seats whereas in 1997 they were the safest Tory seats still left.
In 1997 though Kent and Essex for example had many marginal seats which went Labour but almost all seats there are safe Conservative now
While I agree it looks like that, why did Conservative Central Office get their knickers in a twist when it was suggested that the Maldon seat might become a site for a by-election?
Furthermore the ghost of Lord Tony Newton says hi.
Any government held seat is vulnerable in a by election.
Braintree was Labour in 1997 but has a 24,673 Conservative majority now, even bigger than the 17,494 Conservative majority in 1992.
So that does not really dispute what I said
I'm not really 'disputing'; I'm pointing out that big shifts do happen. And Braintree is a significantly different seat now from 1992 or 1997.
It isn't demographically that much different.
It is more the fact that the upper middle class are voting increasingly more for liberal parties, while the core vote for conservatives is now the skilled working class.
A trend across the western world
While I agree with you, I would suggest that the new Braintree is significantly more rural than the old. It's lost the semi industrial Witham area to which your comments apply.
Witham is the 18th safest Tory seat, one behind Braintree. The entire area is as safe Tory as anywhere apart from parts of Lincolnshire
Watch the Greens though.
Yeah they might get to third this time and second next. They have something to work with here
I can't help but wonder if Lord Geidt's resignation letter to the PM contains some dynamite. Normally, such letters, and the PM's "thanks for your service" response, are published as a matter of course, but this one is clearly being sat on. Why? Hopefully, Geidt himself will be brave and honourable enough to release it.
So far we know 3 things:-
1. Lord Geidt was the PM's ethics advisor. 2. According to Raab he was asked to advise on a "commercially sensitive matter". 3. The PM has decided not to publish the resignation letter.
There is an obvious potential explanation which screams out at me from those facts.
For the thick, please continue.
Can official resignation letters by Public Officials be FOI-d?
Dunno but it has been announced that these particular letters will be published (deposited) today.
The Conservatives will win more seats at the next General Election.
PM Mordaunt will get a 3-figure majority.
Why?
She has impeccable credentials.
She is not Boris Johnson. She is not SKS. ...you need more than this??
I suspect she'd do as badly, probably much worse, than Theresa did in 2017. Both have a somewhat haughty, head-girl manner that many voters find a turn off.
Haughty? You mean naughty. Somehow I can't see Theresa May trying to get the word "cock" as many times as she could into a parliamentary speech. Or appear in a swimsuit in a celebrity diving competition.
"I can't help but wonder if Lord Geidt's resignation letter to the PM contains some dynamite. Normally, such letters, and the PM's "thanks for your service" response, are published as a matter of course, but this one is clearly being sat on. Why? Hopefully, Geidt himself will be brave and honourable enough to release it."
So far we know 3 things:-
1. Lord Geidt was the PM's ethics advisor. 2. According to Raab he was asked to advise on a "commercially sensitive matter". 3. The PM has decided not to publish the resignation letter.
There is an obvious potential explanation which screams out at me from those facts.
Tell us what the obvious is please
I might be wrong but I get the feeling the Northern Ireland bill might break the ministerial code.
Swiss central bank surprisingly raises interest rates by 50 basis points.
25pbs from the BoE is going to look like it’s not enough.
Black Wednesday in miniature.
It won’t be that bad, but central banks do seem all rather surprised that the massive amounts of money-printing that went on during the pandemic, have led to inflation down the line.
The next few years are going to be a long ride.
Who knew that keeping interest rates at stupidly low crisis levels for 13 years whilst printing money like they were playing monopoly could be problematic?
I know. Amazing, isn’t it, that going so far away from any economics textbooks results in a wildly unstable situation?
They’d all convinced themselves that the status quo of the past decade was now the new normal, that globalisation and just-in-time manufacturing would continue to grow forever - then a big shock happened, followed by another.
didnt fix the roof while the sun shined - The tories used that once as a justified jibe to Gordon Brown - (another on was a tax on jobs ) - the tories now are even more guilty of these jibes than Brown was - idiots and cowards for just always taking the media easy way out of fiscal problems so much so that we are now at a ridiculous situation of the highest tax take since WW2 yet the highest debt and still a structural deficit and inflation at near 10% .Sunak has to be the worst chancellor in modern history
One problem of many. But symptomatic of a government that has made a habit of trashing everything over the past decade for short term political gain. The economy - the one area that Cameron and Osbourne sought to protect - was the final thing to get trashed but Sunak is the fall guy for it, a yes man for Johnson's vain excesses.
Its quite interesting actually, much of what has unfolded over the past decade is the logical culmination of disregarding the advice of experts and elites. Adam Tooze commented a few years ago in 'crashed' that Britain is a less civilised country prior to the start of austerity. The decline has sped up, even after the end of austerity.
"I can't help but wonder if Lord Geidt's resignation letter to the PM contains some dynamite. Normally, such letters, and the PM's "thanks for your service" response, are published as a matter of course, but this one is clearly being sat on. Why? Hopefully, Geidt himself will be brave and honourable enough to release it."
So far we know 3 things:-
1. Lord Geidt was the PM's ethics advisor. 2. According to Raab he was asked to advise on a "commercially sensitive matter". 3. The PM has decided not to publish the resignation letter.
There is an obvious potential explanation which screams out at me from those facts.
Tell us what the obvious is please
I might be wrong but I get the feeling the Northern Ireland bill might break the ministerial code.
At the committee, Lord Geidt was asked about the leaking of legal advice on that and whether it would be a breach of the code. So far he had not investigated.
I would like to see the PB Tory view is of the "Blue Wall". The remain seats with 30%+ graduates that the LDs have been working on.
Also there are few signs that the Tories can hold their red wall seats.
In Surrey alone, the Tories can kiss goodbye to Esher and Walton, Guildford, Woking and possibly Mole Valley. Jeremy Hunt will likely migrate to the new safer seat (assuming boundary changes happen), so should be OK) but the remaining SW Surrey constituency could well fall.
Definite losses are 3 and possibles 2
Ironic that at the next general election most of Surrey, much of Buckinghamshire, Kensington and Westminster will be marginal seats whereas in 1997 they were the safest Tory seats still left.
In 1997 though Kent and Essex for example had many marginal seats which went Labour but almost all seats there are safe Conservative now
While I agree it looks like that, why did Conservative Central Office get their knickers in a twist when it was suggested that the Maldon seat might become a site for a by-election?
Furthermore the ghost of Lord Tony Newton says hi.
Any government held seat is vulnerable in a by election.
Braintree was Labour in 1997 but has a 24,673 Conservative majority now, even bigger than the 17,494 Conservative majority in 1992.
So that does not really dispute what I said
I'm not really 'disputing'; I'm pointing out that big shifts do happen. And Braintree is a significantly different seat now from 1992 or 1997.
It isn't demographically that much different.
It is more the fact that the upper middle class are voting increasingly more for liberal parties, while the core vote for conservatives is now the skilled working class.
A trend across the western world
While I agree with you, I would suggest that the new Braintree is significantly more rural than the old. It's lost the semi industrial Witham area to which your comments apply.
Witham is the 18th safest Tory seat, one behind Braintree. The entire area is as safe Tory as anywhere apart from parts of Lincolnshire
Quite a few posters on the local Facebook site recently about Priti Patel. Yes she'd been helpful but no they didn't like her policies.
I used to live there when it was Labour, before boundary changes under Blair round the millenium. She will be back way over 50% with nobody within 25% of her.
I live there now; I suspect you're right but I hope you're not! :-)
Electric cars. I thought they were more reliable due to being simpler.
I've had to cancel a meeting this morning because my visitor's nearly new electric car has gone phut.
Apparently it has turned itself off and is refusing to play ball - like a lazy corgi.
It is called a Cupra, which I had never heard of, despite driving a Skoda. This turns out to be an Electric Car brand from Seat. And this is the second time in a year - the first resulting in a large refund.
I can't help but wonder if Lord Geidt's resignation letter to the PM contains some dynamite. Normally, such letters, and the PM's "thanks for your service" response, are published as a matter of course, but this one is clearly being sat on. Why? Hopefully, Geidt himself will be brave and honourable enough to release it.
So far we know 3 things:-
1. Lord Geidt was the PM's ethics advisor. 2. According to Raab he was asked to advise on a "commercially sensitive matter". 3. The PM has decided not to publish the resignation letter.
There is an obvious potential explanation which screams out at me from those facts.
For the thick, please continue.
Can official resignation letters by Public Officials be FOI-d?
The point is somewht moot in this case as it is being published.
However, the answer is "yes, but".
As a general point, anything can be "FOI-d", but your real question is whether one of the exemptions to disclosure would apply.
For a resignation letter, the most common exemption to rely on would be the exemption for personal information. However, this only applies where this would breach the data protection principles under the GDPR. The key one of these is the first principle that data must be processed lawfully and fairly - disclosure is a form of processing, so one of the conditions for lawful and fair processing must be met. One of these is consent of the data subject (and Geidt may well consent), but even if not then another is public interest, balanced with the rights of the data subject. In this sort of case, it seems likely that public interest test would be met (whereas it may not if you're looking at the resignation of your parish rat-catcher).
Other exemptions may apply, although the key ones are qualified rather than absolute exemptions, so you always run into a public interest issue - and in a case like this the public interest weighs heavy.
The fact resignation letters and responses at this level of government are generally published is indicative of the fact that it's accepted that there is generally a high level of public interest in the information being available. It's also relevant as Geidt would know that when he wrote the letter.
That, I suspect, is the advice Number 10 received when they tried to withhold.
Electric cars. I thought they were more reliable due to being simpler.
I've had to cancel a meeting this morning because my visitor's nearly new electric car has gone phut.
Apparently it has turned itself off and is refusing to play ball - like a lazy corgi.
It is called a Cupra, which I had never heard of, despite driving a Skoda. This turns out to be an Electric Car brand from Seat. And this is the second time in a year - the first resulting in a large refund.
That doesn't sound great! In the long term there is fewer moving parts to wear out, and less extreme heat in the engine, but this sounds like software issues. Hope its sorted!
I would like to see the PB Tory view is of the "Blue Wall". The remain seats with 30%+ graduates that the LDs have been working on.
Also there are few signs that the Tories can hold their red wall seats.
In Surrey alone, the Tories can kiss goodbye to Esher and Walton, Guildford, Woking and possibly Mole Valley. Jeremy Hunt will likely migrate to the new safer seat (assuming boundary changes happen), so should be OK) but the remaining SW Surrey constituency could well fall.
Definite losses are 3 and possibles 2
Ironic that at the next general election most of Surrey, much of Buckinghamshire, Kensington and Westminster will be marginal seats whereas in 1997 they were the safest Tory seats still left.
In 1997 though Kent and Essex for example had many marginal seats which went Labour but almost all seats there are safe Conservative now
While I agree it looks like that, why did Conservative Central Office get their knickers in a twist when it was suggested that the Maldon seat might become a site for a by-election?
Furthermore the ghost of Lord Tony Newton says hi.
Any government held seat is vulnerable in a by election.
Braintree was Labour in 1997 but has a 24,673 Conservative majority now, even bigger than the 17,494 Conservative majority in 1992.
So that does not really dispute what I said
I'm not really 'disputing'; I'm pointing out that big shifts do happen. And Braintree is a significantly different seat now from 1992 or 1997.
It isn't demographically that much different.
It is more the fact that the upper middle class are voting increasingly more for liberal parties, while the core vote for conservatives is now the skilled working class.
A trend across the western world
A somewhat personal question, if I may, young HY. Do you consider yourself upper middle class or skilled working class? Just wondering about the future, you see, and looking for signs.
Electric cars. I thought they were more reliable due to being simpler.
I've had to cancel a meeting this morning because my visitor's nearly new electric car has gone phut.
Apparently it has turned itself off and is refusing to play ball - like a lazy corgi.
It is called a Cupra, which I had never heard of, despite driving a Skoda. This turns out to be an Electric Car brand from Seat. And this is the second time in a year - the first resulting in a large refund.
That doesn't sound great! In the long term there is fewer moving parts to wear out, and less extreme heat in the engine, but this sounds like software issues. Hope its sorted!
All modern cars are very susceptible to faults in the 12V DC system, usually a weak battery, causing mayhem. I've seen this happen in EVs too. Mrs DA's i4 throws an absolute fit if the resting voltage of the 12V battery ever drops below 12.6V or the internal resistance ever gets above 0.02Ω. The 12V system is charged via a DC-DC inverter from the Li-ion drivetrain powerpack but only while the car is 'on' so if it isn't used in cold weather for a couple of weeks the dash will light up like the Mariupol skyline with warnings and errors. Condition the 12V system with vigilence to avoid trouble is my counsel.
The Cupra Born is sort of interesting. I mean, I wouldn't have one, but it is interesting.
4 local by-elections today. Labour are defending a deferred election in Sunderland. There is also a Lab defence in Warwick, a Con defence in Rother, and an ICHC defence in Wyre Forest. There will be a change in the latter because ICHC are not in fact defending.
The Downing Street response implies that the request was simply over a conflict of domestic law and international obligations. However, that's a legal matter rather than an ethical one, and Geidt's implication is that it related to an intentional breach of the Ministerial Code.
This leaves major questions open. What was the proposal? Which parts of the Code were engaged? This story has some way to run.
That Geidt stayed put over Partygate but went over this rather mysterious matter is rather telling. It sounds like dynamite.
Electric cars. I thought they were more reliable due to being simpler.
I've had to cancel a meeting this morning because my visitor's nearly new electric car has gone phut.
Apparently it has turned itself off and is refusing to play ball - like a lazy corgi.
It is called a Cupra, which I had never heard of, despite driving a Skoda. This turns out to be an Electric Car brand from Seat. And this is the second time in a year - the first resulting in a large refund.
In my experience, the biggest differentiator in many cars these days (and especially electric cars) is the producer's capability with software.
Having extensively sampled an Audi e-tron and a Kia eniro, despite Audi's reputation and the far higher price, I'd go for the latter all the time. The software on the e-tron is glitchy and very much less user-friendly. It also falls into the "won't let you do what you think is best" bucket a lot of the time.
(Example: setting recharging times. You can get EV tariffs with heavily discounted times of the day for electricty and should recharge your car at those times. The eniro can be simply set to recharge solely between those times. The Audi has you set up when you want to drive next and preferential times for recharging and decides itself when to do it (and getting to any of this is bewildering to start with). It then goes ahead and charges mainly outside of those times, so if you want to take advantage, you literally have to wait to physically plug in at the right times).
And so much in cars these days (electric especially) is software-dependent.
What a load of waffling shit. Why didn't he just say what Johnson was trying to do if it's that egregious? He's like one of those women that put shit like "Getting the toxic people out of my life." on FB then expect to have the details wheedled out of them.
What a load of waffling shit. Why didn't he just say what Johnson was trying to do if it's that egregious? He's like one of those women that put shit like "Getting the toxic people out of my life." on FB then expect to have the details wheedled out of them.
See the response.
Tarrifs vs national interest vs WTO is what keeps office blocks of lawyers in employment. It is hard to think of such a tariff that would be egregious to the point of resignation.
The Downing Street response implies that the request was simply over a conflict of domestic law and international obligations. However, that's a legal matter rather than an ethical one, and Geidt's implication is that it related to an intentional breach of the Ministerial Code.
This leaves major questions open. What was the proposal? Which parts of the Code were engaged? This story has some way to run.
Yes, it doesn't scan. One of these 2 men is seeking to confuse rather than illuminate. I wonder which one it will be - Lord Geidt or Boris Johnson?
What a load of waffling shit. Why didn't he just say what Johnson was trying to do if it's that egregious? He's like one of those women that put shit like "Getting the toxic people out of my life." on FB then expect to have the details wheedled out of them.
'Unimpeachable integrity' means a reputation, established over decades, for not spilling the beans, Not worth risking that over a small matter like the integrity of the UK government.
What a load of waffling shit. Why didn't he just say what Johnson was trying to do if it's that egregious? He's like one of those women that put shit like "Getting the toxic people out of my life." on FB then expect to have the details wheedled out of them.
Equally, though, the PM's response fails to clear it up. Neither appears willing to state the specific question asked that Lord Geidt says made his position untenable. That has to come out.
The Number 10 letter implies Lord Geidt was being asked a sticky "conflict of laws" question. That surely cannot be right, however, as that plainly wouldn't be a question for him.
It's literally the worst of all worlds, borrowing costs will still rise and inflation will still rise. They'd have been better off doing nothing. We needed a 0.5% rise and £100bn reduction in the QE stockpile or a 0.75% rise.
We'll now get reams of compliant media articles repeating verbatim the excuses from the BoE about how this inflation is transitory (it isn't) and external (only to a certain extent) and not their fault (it is).
No one out there is asking the hard questions of the governor.
I agree. But if they keep being feeble each and every 6 weeks they'll get there.
No because we're too far behind the Fed, so all of the 0.25% rises take us even further back compared to the 0.5% and 0.75% rises coming from the US. That will further weaken sterling and increase inflationary pressures. This was an opportunity to claw back some credibility and follow the US rise with our own similar one and send sterling upwards to relieve pressure on import prices. The Bank has fucked it and given us a rate rise that will cause more inflation.
It's literally the worst of all worlds, borrowing costs will still rise and inflation will still rise. They'd have been better off doing nothing. We needed a 0.5% rise and £100bn reduction in the QE stockpile or a 0.75% rise.
We'll now get reams of compliant media articles repeating verbatim the excuses from the BoE about how this inflation is transitory (it isn't) and external (only to a certain extent) and not their fault (it is).
No one out there is asking the hard questions of the governor.
Is a tanking of the pound a real possibility? I mean. I know it is at 10 year lows, but a proper run?
After Geidt had put up with his crap for so long, it must have come out of the blue that he'd decided it was all just too much.
"I'd decided I could carry on in post but only by the smallest of margins."
"I nearly walked then, shoulda done really, but I thought I'd give you one last chance to mend your ways and what do you do? ... you throw it right back in my face, you utter utter scoundrel. Goodbye."
I agree. But if they keep being feeble each and every 6 weeks they'll get there.
No because we're too far behind the Fed, so all of the 0.25% rises take us even further back compared to the 0.5% and 0.75% rises coming from the US. That will further weaken sterling and increase inflationary pressures. This was an opportunity to claw back some credibility and follow the US rise with our own similar one and send sterling upwards to relieve pressure on import prices. The Bank has fucked it and given us a rate rise that will cause more inflation.
We are running a 1500m race at marathon pace right now.
It's literally the worst of all worlds, borrowing costs will still rise and inflation will still rise. They'd have been better off doing nothing. We needed a 0.5% rise and £100bn reduction in the QE stockpile or a 0.75% rise.
We'll now get reams of compliant media articles repeating verbatim the excuses from the BoE about how this inflation is transitory (it isn't) and external (only to a certain extent) and not their fault (it is).
No one out there is asking the hard questions of the governor.
Is a tanking of the pound a real possibility? I mean. I know it is at 10 year lows, but a proper run?
I don't think so, more likely to just be gradual but one way weakening that keeps inflation high for a longer period of time than is necessary. The base rate should be more like 2% already and sterling at around $1.25-1.27 for the next few months but because the Bank is institutionally weak and the governor is a Tory toady we're falling behind the Fed quite rapidly.
It's literally the worst of all worlds, borrowing costs will still rise and inflation will still rise. They'd have been better off doing nothing. We needed a 0.5% rise and £100bn reduction in the QE stockpile or a 0.75% rise.
We'll now get reams of compliant media articles repeating verbatim the excuses from the BoE about how this inflation is transitory (it isn't) and external (only to a certain extent) and not their fault (it is).
No one out there is asking the hard questions of the governor.
Is a tanking of the pound a real possibility? I mean. I know it is at 10 year lows, but a proper run?
I don't think so, more likely to just be gradual but one way weakening that keeps inflation high for a longer period of time than is necessary. The base rate should be more like 2% already and sterling at around $1.25-1.27 for the next few months but because the Bank is institutionally weak and the governor is a Tory toady we're falling behind the Fed quite rapidly.
It's literally the worst of all worlds, borrowing costs will still rise and inflation will still rise. They'd have been better off doing nothing. We needed a 0.5% rise and £100bn reduction in the QE stockpile or a 0.75% rise.
We'll now get reams of compliant media articles repeating verbatim the excuses from the BoE about how this inflation is transitory (it isn't) and external (only to a certain extent) and not their fault (it is).
No one out there is asking the hard questions of the governor.
Is a tanking of the pound a real possibility? I mean. I know it is at 10 year lows, but a proper run?
I don't think so, more likely to just be gradual but one way weakening that keeps inflation high for a longer period of time than is necessary. The base rate should be more like 2% already and sterling at around $1.25-1.27 for the next few months but because the Bank is institutionally weak and the governor is a Tory toady we're falling behind the Fed quite rapidly.
If the trigger is really over a question of tariffs that might be challengeable at the WTO it seems like a confected reason to resign.
It's weird, and surely cannot possibly be left like that. Geidt sounds as though his patience was being tried but the latest enquiry was so totally outrageous that he couldn't bear to be close to anyone who even thought of it, like a someone whose partner has suggested it'd be fun to mate with some goats with a bit of torture thrown in. I work professionally with WTO/tariff issues all the time, and I can't imagine how the Ministerial Code comes into it. But it's clearly not trivial, so surely it must come out?
On another subject, the RSPCA survey here on what people care about is quite interesting. It explains why MPs get more on animal welfare than anything else, though not the care who think it a key issue is much lower. Basically a limited number care intensely, and nearly everyone cares somewhat (and feels the Government should do more). https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/latest/kindnessindex
After Geidt had put up with his crap for so long, it must have come out of the blue that he'd decided it was all just too much.
"I'd decided I could carry on in post but only by the smallest of margins."
"I nearly walked then, shoulda done really, but I thought I'd give you one last chance to mend your ways and what do you do? ... you throw it right back in my face, you utter utter scoundrel. Goodbye."
Douglas Ross, Big G, Lord Geidt, your powers of consistent and decisive moral judgment over Boris have taken a helluva beating.
I have zero understanding of BoE interest rates. I presume I am the norm not the exception.
All you really need to know is that 1.25% really is a fart in the wind when trying to fight inflation running at ~10%
The classic example is Volcker at the Fed in the US in the 80s. To combat double digit inflation, he raised interest rates to a peak of 20%. 20%!
Raising interest rates now even to say 4% would crash the housing market, the stock market, would mean the government couldn't pay interest on its debts, people couldn't pay their mortgages, etc.
So it really does seem like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. High inflation is likely to be a feature of the next few years and we have to hope that the worst of the fire (supply chain issues due to Covid, war in Ukraine) burn themselves out naturally. Because there's sweet FA we can do about them.
Interesting that Geidt refers to being placed in an "odious" position by Boris. I can't decide whether he means "odious", or whether it's an error and he meant to write "invidious", which would make more sense. But I guess the use of "odious" must have been deliberate.
If the trigger is really over a question of tariffs that might be challengeable at the WTO it seems like a confected reason to resign.
It's weird, and surely cannot possibly be left like that. Geidt sounds as though his patience was being tried but the latest enquiry was so totally outrageous that he couldn't bear to be close to anyone who even thought of it, like a someone whose partner has suggested it'd be fun to mate with some goats with a bit of torture thrown in. I work professionally with WTO/tariff issues all the time, and I can't imagine how the Ministerial Code comes into it. But it's clearly not trivial, so surely it must come out?
On another subject, the RSPCA survey here on what people care about is quite interesting. It explains why MPs get more on animal welfare than anything else, though not the care who think it a key issue is much lower. Basically a limited number care intensely, and nearly everyone cares somewhat (and feels the Government should do more). https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/latest/kindnessindex
But the RSPCA are hardly unbiased in this are they? This is a general point of surveys being conducted by interested parities to get more of what they want. Animal welfare (certainly in the sense of government doing something) is never discussed in any social group I go out with - cost of living, brexit, housing, johnsons parties are but not animal welfare
I have zero understanding of BoE interest rates. I presume I am the norm not the exception.
All you really need to know is that 1.25% really is a fart in the wind when trying to fight inflation running at ~10%
The classic example is Volcker at the Fed in the US in the 80s. To combat double digit inflation, he raised interest rates to a peak of 20%. 20%!
Raising interest rates now even to say 4% would crash the housing market, the stock market, would mean the government couldn't pay interest on its debts, people couldn't pay their mortgages, etc.
So it really does seem like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. High inflation is likely to be a feature of the next few years and we have to hope that the worst of the fire (supply chain issues due to Covid, war in Ukraine) burn themselves out naturally. Because there's sweet FA we can do about them.
And this morning one of the military experts opined that Ukraine v Russia will go on for a generation
It's literally the worst of all worlds, borrowing costs will still rise and inflation will still rise. They'd have been better off doing nothing. We needed a 0.5% rise and £100bn reduction in the QE stockpile or a 0.75% rise.
We'll now get reams of compliant media articles repeating verbatim the excuses from the BoE about how this inflation is transitory (it isn't) and external (only to a certain extent) and not their fault (it is).
No one out there is asking the hard questions of the governor.
Is a tanking of the pound a real possibility? I mean. I know it is at 10 year lows, but a proper run?
What's to stop it? We have a trade deficit and a current account deficit. It's only inflows of foreign money that support the current value.
If Sterling looks weak and not much like a safe haven then a fall in the value of Sterling could be brutal. Could be bad enough that some Scots will decide they may as well chance their arm with their own currency (despite the popular saying, things can always get worse).
If the trigger is really over a question of tariffs that might be challengeable at the WTO it seems like a confected reason to resign.
It's weird, and surely cannot possibly be left like that. Geidt sounds as though his patience was being tried but the latest enquiry was so totally outrageous that he couldn't bear to be close to anyone who even thought of it, like a someone whose partner has suggested it'd be fun to mate with some goats with a bit of torture thrown in. I work professionally with WTO/tariff issues all the time, and I can't imagine how the Ministerial Code comes into it. But it's clearly not trivial, so surely it must come out?
On another subject, the RSPCA survey here on what people care about is quite interesting. It explains why MPs get more on animal welfare than anything else, though not the care who think it a key issue is much lower. Basically a limited number care intensely, and nearly everyone cares somewhat (and feels the Government should do more). https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/latest/kindnessindex
A very vivid analogy from you, reading too many Leon posts?
Comments
Central bankers can join SAGE on the list
Any idea when this is going to be published?
"I would like to see the PB Tory view is of the "Blue Wall". The remain seats with 30%+ graduates that the LDs have been working on.
Also there are few signs that the Tories can hold their red wall seats."
As probables: just about anywhere between Cambridge and Bristol (in an arc going almost as far north as Milton Keynes and as far south as Winchester) that's currently electing any kind of ABT ("anything but Tory") local administration. How far further west depends on the outcome of H&T
And this isn't just about Johnson. The Tories have practically no activists left. Starmer's kind of dull managerialism offers precisely the kind of government the serious business community in Britain's economic heartland desperately craves. And the Greens and LDs provide the pragmatic enthusiasm on issues like the Single Market and climate change to campaign the Bejayzus out of a Tory party that's decided to abandon government and spend the rest of the century whining about Young People from its carehome.
You can't fight demographic shifts.
She will be back way over 50% with nobody within 25% of her.
So having written a lengthy resignation letter which isn't being published the question is why. We know that it is appropriate to publish letters from Geidt to Johnson as hat has already happened. We also know it is appropriate to publish resignation letters.
So, this WILL come out. Someone will leak it. Perhaps Geidt himself channelling Lord Nicholson off The Thick of It. And I imagine is contents are extra spicy.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lord_geidt_resignation_letter
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1537372496537784320
Its quite interesting actually, much of what has unfolded over the past decade is the logical culmination of disregarding the advice of experts and elites. Adam Tooze commented a few years ago in 'crashed' that Britain is a less civilised country prior to the start of austerity. The decline has sped up, even after the end of austerity.
I've had to cancel a meeting this morning because my visitor's nearly new electric car has gone phut.
Apparently it has turned itself off and is refusing to play ball - like a lazy corgi.
It is called a Cupra, which I had never heard of, despite driving a Skoda. This turns out to be an Electric Car brand from Seat. And this is the second time in a year - the first resulting in a large refund.
However, the answer is "yes, but".
As a general point, anything can be "FOI-d", but your real question is whether one of the exemptions to disclosure would apply.
For a resignation letter, the most common exemption to rely on would be the exemption for personal information. However, this only applies where this would breach the data protection principles under the GDPR. The key one of these is the first principle that data must be processed lawfully and fairly - disclosure is a form of processing, so one of the conditions for lawful and fair processing must be met. One of these is consent of the data subject (and Geidt may well consent), but even if not then another is public interest, balanced with the rights of the data subject. In this sort of case, it seems likely that public interest test would be met (whereas it may not if you're looking at the resignation of your parish rat-catcher).
Other exemptions may apply, although the key ones are qualified rather than absolute exemptions, so you always run into a public interest issue - and in a case like this the public interest weighs heavy.
The fact resignation letters and responses at this level of government are generally published is indicative of the fact that it's accepted that there is generally a high level of public interest in the information being available. It's also relevant as Geidt would know that when he wrote the letter.
That, I suspect, is the advice Number 10 received when they tried to withhold.
(How many crowns and guineas can you carry in a wheelbarrow?)
PM's response https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1083400/PM_letter_to_Lord_Geidt.pdf
The Cupra Born is sort of interesting. I mean, I wouldn't have one, but it is interesting.
LOL everyone knows they're going up. How much is the question.
After Geidt had put up with his crap for so long, it must have come out of the blue that he'd decided it was all just too much.
The Downing Street response implies that the request was simply over a conflict of domestic law and international obligations. However, that's a legal matter rather than an ethical one, and Geidt's implication is that it related to an intentional breach of the Ministerial Code.
This leaves major questions open. What was the proposal? Which parts of the Code were engaged? This story has some way to run.
That Geidt stayed put over Partygate but went over this rather mysterious matter is rather telling. It sounds like dynamite.
Having extensively sampled an Audi e-tron and a Kia eniro, despite Audi's reputation and the far higher price, I'd go for the latter all the time. The software on the e-tron is glitchy and very much less user-friendly. It also falls into the "won't let you do what you think is best" bucket a lot of the time.
(Example: setting recharging times. You can get EV tariffs with heavily discounted times of the day for electricty and should recharge your car at those times. The eniro can be simply set to recharge solely between those times. The Audi has you set up when you want to drive next and preferential times for recharging and decides itself when to do it (and getting to any of this is bewildering to start with). It then goes ahead and charges mainly outside of those times, so if you want to take advantage, you literally have to wait to physically plug in at the right times).
And so much in cars these days (electric especially) is software-dependent.
Tarrifs vs national interest vs WTO is what keeps office blocks of lawyers in employment. It is hard to think of such a tariff that would be egregious to the point of resignation.
Strange.....
Not worth risking that over a small matter like the integrity of the UK government.
Bar a week at the start of the pandemic, that’s a 10-year low.
The Number 10 letter implies Lord Geidt was being asked a sticky "conflict of laws" question. That surely cannot be right, however, as that plainly wouldn't be a question for him.
We'll now get reams of compliant media articles repeating verbatim the excuses from the BoE about how this inflation is transitory (it isn't) and external (only to a certain extent) and not their fault (it is).
No one out there is asking the hard questions of the governor.
I mean. I know it is at 10 year lows, but a proper run?
"I nearly walked then, shoulda done really, but I thought I'd give you one last chance to mend your ways and what do you do? ... you throw it right back in my face, you utter utter scoundrel. Goodbye."
If I am being kind it looks as if he didn't want the hassle
However the BOE is more important and they seem to be ducking difficult decisions
Move to Liverpool. Cheapest fuel around![1]
[1] I've no idea if that's true or not.
On another subject, the RSPCA survey here on what people care about is quite interesting. It explains why MPs get more on animal welfare than anything else, though not the care who think it a key issue is much lower. Basically a limited number care intensely, and nearly everyone cares somewhat (and feels the Government should do more). https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/latest/kindnessindex
The classic example is Volcker at the Fed in the US in the 80s. To combat double digit inflation, he raised interest rates to a peak of 20%. 20%!
Raising interest rates now even to say 4% would crash the housing market, the stock market, would mean the government couldn't pay interest on its debts, people couldn't pay their mortgages, etc.
So it really does seem like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. High inflation is likely to be a feature of the next few years and we have to hope that the worst of the fire (supply chain issues due to Covid, war in Ukraine) burn themselves out naturally. Because there's sweet FA we can do about them.
This government isn't interested.
More taking the piss.
If Sterling looks weak and not much like a safe haven then a fall in the value of Sterling could be brutal. Could be bad enough that some Scots will decide they may as well chance their arm with their own currency (despite the popular saying, things can always get worse).
https://www.thenational.scot/news/20214578.scotland-europe-ferry-link-to-return-2023-amid-post-brexit-interest/?ref=ebbn
We are run by timid fools
A massive increase in tax and then the twits will cut the rates and pretend they're cutting taxes. Will the public be fooled?
Will Macron, Scholz and Draghi put their energy supplies ahead of European security, European unity and peace?
Will they give in to evil for very short-term gains?