Tell China and India. They're the ones creating about 95% of the problem.
India will be one of the countries most profoundly affected by global climate change in terms of severe weather events.
The failure of the West has been to convince developing countries their route to economic growth cannot be the same as the developed world. We plundered the planet's resources to get rich - countries trying to get rich now don't have that luxury. That's a tough message and a much harder sell if we aren't practicing what we preach.
As we've seen in recent times, we remain conspicuously dependent on oil and as that price increases so do our economic problems. Moving away from an oil or carbon-based economy seems perfect sense on many levels.
We also need some fundamental thinking or re-thinking on how we live and how we work but that's far too much for the current batch of Conservative selling platers to even begin to contemplate.
Whilst not everyone's cup of tea (to put it mildly) I recall during the GE Guido had some handy summaries of the events of each day's campaigning, and what if anything cut through, and it is useful for the Tory campaign.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Sadly both 1 and 2 are true. I really hope we can get back within 10 years but its a long shot. Brexit was and remains a gigantic clusterf*ck peddled by disingenuous politicians and bought by the largely ignorant public.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
1. 2035 is the absolute earliest date I could see us rejoining. 2. I actually think this (or EEA membership itself) is probable (around 2030).
To be honest those numbers don't look ridiculous. If wage inflation is 5% this year (it could end up higher still), instead of 2.5%, how much extra revenue would that bring in?
Back of the envelope, 2.5% of approx £400bn = £10 bn, but think this should be a fair bit higher due to IT threshold rates increasing much more slowly than wage inflation.
Also extra tax from VAT from higher prices too. Cutting £15-20 bn of revenue from a budget that was based on wage growth of 2.5% should be fine.
Zahawi is having a bad day. First he cocks up his 20% cut line. Now he has been rebuked by the Governor of the BoE for announcing tax changes outside of a Budget.
He's had worse days since Rishi Sunak resigned as Chancellor, to be fair. He's cocked it up from Day One.
By the way, Monday weather model update: after some backtracking yesterday the GFS, UKMO and (this morning’s) ECMWF models are all back to taking a record hot airmass over the UK in a week’s time.
And Just how 'unconservative' was the GBP450bn Sunak splashed on COVID.....?
Just how 'unconservative' was the Chinese Communist Party's Lockdown policy? How 'unconservative' was furlough? How 'unconservative' was billions frittered away on fraud and wastage as Sunak tried to please SAGE and the unions.
Listening to Sunak's bullsh8t, you'd think he was just coming into government after a Corbyn administration had been deposed from office after running out of money and going to the IMF
This was his doing. He presided over this.
If the Tory’s didn’t have a sympathetic Fleet Street, Sunak would have taken a hammering for the billions lost to all different of fraud lost during his time in charge the treasury. His defence seems to be “I handed the money out to the banks to due diligence when handing it out, not my fault at all”.
Sure they mentioned it here and there, but not repeatedly in run up to local elections for example
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
It’s the situation we’ve got ourselves into as a country. We end up arguing as if you have to be an eco-zealot or an anti-science idiot.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
My engineering professor car-share (right up till Covid) asserted that electric cars would never work. Even in two years they are booming. Charging stations are tolling out. We have made huge strides in renewables. But there are a lot of challenges. I’d argue that net zero is a red herring. Ultimately we will transition completely from fossil fuels. Net zero is about exerting pressure to do it as fast as possible. Actually, external factors such as the price of fuel now will add their own stimulus.
Added bonuses would be less soil erosion, better and nore nourishing crops, and reduced need for nitrogen fertilisers.
The cynic in me says though, if we did this and it worked, senior politicians here and globally would try somehow exclude that result from our target - because punishing people sort of seems to be the point.
These kinds of things are really important. Too many opinion formers seem to see things in absolutes. Either one technology is the solution to everything or it’s all pointless. We need a portfolio approach.
It's the Silver Bullet fallacy - the idea that there we're looking for just one thing.
To be honest those numbers don't look ridiculous. If wage inflation is 5% this year (it could end up higher still), instead of 2.5%, how much extra revenue would that bring in?
Back of the envelope, 2.5% of approx £400bn = £10 bn, but think this should be a fair bit higher due to IT threshold rates increasing much more slowly than wage inflation.
Also extra tax from VAT from higher prices too. Cutting £15-20 bn of revenue from a budget that was based on wage growth of 2.5% should be fine.
So not really tax cuts then.
The weirder thing about the offerings is that a lot is based on corporation tax rather than the very obvious fuel duty, or the taxes on earnings or VAT. Guess it must be donor related.
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
It’s the situation we’ve got ourselves into as a country. We end up arguing as if you have to be an eco-zealot or an anti-science idiot.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
My engineering professor car-share (right up till Covid) asserted that electric cars would never work. Even in two years they are booming. Charging stations are tolling out. We have made huge strides in renewables. But there are a lot of challenges. I’d argue that net zero is a red herring. Ultimately we will transition completely from fossil fuels. Net zero is about exerting pressure to do it as fast as possible. Actually, external factors such as the price of fuel now will add their own stimulus.
Added bonuses would be less soil erosion, better and nore nourishing crops, and reduced need for nitrogen fertilisers.
The cynic in me says though, if we did this and it worked, senior politicians here and globally would try somehow exclude that result from our target - because punishing people sort of seems to be the point.
Professor Lysenko has entered the chat
"up to 45%" means something different from "45% (yep, 45)"
This is not about quarry dust (a by-product and therefore little to no marginal cost) it is specifically about mining tonnes of basalt specifically for putting on crops
Why does soil erode less because you put rock dust on it?
I can't see the actual article, but what the summary scrupulously refrains from doing is saying what effect this would have on crop yields. The answer is it would fucking halve them. NPK is a wonder drug, you chuck it on and you see the result within a week after the next decent rain. These long- decay mineral things work, a bit, in the long term. I know this because I enthusiastically deploy them because I don't want my horse pasture full of over-rich nitrogen fed grass, but the pay off is a reduction in horses per acre. It is exactly and precisely people like you which are why Sri Lanka is starving, and kooky theories about how the hugely reduced crops are better and more nourishing for the chakras of those who get their hands on them, ain't much consolation for them that's getting nothing at all.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Sadly both 1 and 2 are true. I really hope we can get back within 10 years but its a long shot. Brexit was and remains a gigantic clusterf*ck peddled by disingenuous politicians and bought by the largely ignorant public.
As with the grammar schools and private schools debate, I can't really take any view on Brexit seriously which cannot see shades of grey, positives and negatives, costs and benefits. Ditto Scottish independence, net zero, local government reorganisation or any one of a number of issues.
She is obsessed with the culture wars. Would be dreadful.
She just doesn't accept the premises of the other side.
No it's not that, she enflames it for no good reason.
Penny Morduant is the most sensible on this by a country mile.
No she isn't. She has lied about her position.
I don't mind Ms Mordaunt having different views on self-ID to mine but I do mind very much that she lies about them. She is now claiming, wrongly, that she was the one who fought to remove the gender neutral language in the Maternity Bill so that the word "woman" was used. This is a lie. She was the one who introduced the gender neutral language. It was the Lords who threw the gender neutral language out and she was forced to accept it.
Not the first time she has lied - see the nonsense she spoke during the Brexit campaign. Good at PR and getting herself on TV but in a campaign allegedly based on integrity she has more than a touch of Boris about her.
Badenoch recently gave an instruction that all new buildings should have male and female loos. Good as far as it goes but not good enough. It would have been more sensible to make it a requirement for all new buildings that they have gender neutral loos as well thus giving trans people their own option while also maintaining single sex spaces. That would have been a sensible practical solution.
It's simply because most Conservatives are stupid. And the fact is most of them are wrinklies so why do they care if the planet hots up by 2-3C!
Young people, aka the future think net zero is *very* important. I think I will go with the young folk here.
I dunno. The old folk are often grandparents.
What people want is action but not if it means somehow they have to find £15K for a new heating system when they can't afford Lurpack.
Is the new heating system on their BTL that stops their grandkids owning a property, their second home by the sea, or their 5 bedroom mansion with 2 people in it?
Added a price of a round of drinks to Truss for next PM.
Just a gut feeling.
My opposite intuition based on no data is that her chance is approx zero.
As is (similar lack of evidence) the chance of everyone except: Mordaunt Tugendhat Badenoch.
I wish I could add Hunt to that list but the intuition says No.
Obviously Rishi should be in the list but I can't see how he can survive the obstacles. Intuition, but not the bookies, says he is just too close to a decayed and corrupting government for too long.
Net zero is necessary to stop the planet literally burning.
It's not about left vs right, it is about facts vs lies.
And Labour isn't doing enough either.
Johnson was absolutely right on this. It may have only been because his wife told him to do it, but even so.
He was a clown and a liar but he was right on this and deserves credit for it.
Seems almost certain to be ditched now.
Meanwhile, next weekend could see weather we have never seen in this country.
He was right on it but could’ve pushed for more radical change: readying the country for a shift to green energy, electric vehicles, reduction in plastics etc is something that WOULD be benefitted by a big government - and without the EU state aid rules and comparatively strong central government we could’ve really stolen a march on the rest of the world on this.
She is obsessed with the culture wars. Would be dreadful.
She just doesn't accept the premises of the other side.
No it's not that, she enflames it for no good reason.
Penny Morduant is the most sensible on this by a country mile.
No she isn't. She has lied about her position.
I don't mind Ms Mordaunt having different views on self-ID to mine but I do mind very much that she lies about them. She is now claiming, wrongly, that she was the one who fought to remove the gender neutral language in the Maternity Bill so that the word "woman" was used. This is a lie. She was the one who introduced the gender neutral language. It was the Lords who threw the gender neutral language out and she was forced to accept it.
Not the first time she has lied - see the nonsense she spoke during the Brexit campaign. Good at PR and getting herself on TV but in a campaign allegedly based on integrity she has more than a touch of Boris about her.
Badenoch recently gave an instruction that all new buildings should have male and female loos. Good as far as it goes but not good enough. It would have been more sensible to make it a requirement for all new buildings that they have gender neutral loos as well thus giving trans people their own option while also maintaining single sex spaces. That would have been a sensible practical solution.
But you see this is why she has enflamed it.
What you said is a solution - but Badenoch just proposed a cheap headline grabber that isn't practically sensible.
In my work we have loos that anyone can use, they're all private/safe spaces, seems to work fine for us, I am not sure why this can't be done in more places?
Tory candidates care hardly a jot for Scotland - Our only use to Conservative candidates will be the threat of Jock Bogeyman propping up a Starmer government
The disagreeable reality for Scottish Conservatives — and for Scottish unionists more generally — is that Scotland is not a premier league issue in this Tory leadership election. Nor is it even of second-tier importance. It is not quite an afterthought because all the candidates will be required to say something about the Scottish Question but only an arrant optimist can expect any of them to issue statements that go beyond the bare minimum or reflect more than a surface-level engagement.
This is rational even if it is also regrettable. The candidates have three audiences in mind. The first, most obviously, is their parliamentary colleagues who will select the two candidates who make it to the final round. The second is the Tory party membership…
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Sadly both 1 and 2 are true. I really hope we can get back within 10 years but its a long shot. Brexit was and remains a gigantic clusterf*ck peddled by disingenuous politicians and bought by the largely ignorant public.
As with the grammar schools and private schools debate, I can't really take any view on Brexit seriously which cannot see shades of grey, positives and negatives, costs and benefits. Ditto Scottish independence, net zero, local government reorganisation or any one of a number of issues.
There are two facts that should be unarguable:
1) there was a positive case to make for EU membership; 2) the Remain campaign didn't make it.
That's because they will be dead well before 2050 so it's not their problem...
But it's their children's. And they are all abnout children and inheritance (as e.g. HYUFD and Mrs Leadsom tell us).
Well, quite. Much as I hate my own children (and everyone else I have ever met, or not met) I hate HMRC one degree more. No planet, no succession of generations down which inter vivos transfers to discretionary trusts to beat the 7 year rule can cascade.
Tory candidates care hardly a jot for Scotland - Our only use to Conservative candidates will be the threat of Jock Bogeyman propping up a Starmer government
The disagreeable reality for Scottish Conservatives — and for Scottish unionists more generally — is that Scotland is not a premier league issue in this Tory leadership election. Nor is it even of second-tier importance. It is not quite an afterthought because all the candidates will be required to say something about the Scottish Question but only an arrant optimist can expect any of them to issue statements that go beyond the bare minimum or reflect more than a surface-level engagement.
This is rational even if it is also regrettable. The candidates have three audiences in mind. The first, most obviously, is their parliamentary colleagues who will select the two candidates who make it to the final round. The second is the Tory party membership…
100% correct. The Tories (in the main) no longer care about Scotland but then in their terms that’s somewhat rational (though the lens watching carefully should have noticed Scotland actually kept them in power in 2017).
Were I Scottish, a unionist, and centre right, I would want my own party.
For Scottish Tories, a leadership vote is a post-lockdown leap in the dark - North of the border, several years of Covid-related restrictions have made it difficult for the party faithful to connect with MPs in-person
Now that the Scottish Tories have said good riddance to a Prime Minister most of them wanted shot of, they are faced with a bewildering array of alternatives in a list of 12 contenders for the top job....
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
It’s the situation we’ve got ourselves into as a country. We end up arguing as if you have to be an eco-zealot or an anti-science idiot.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
My engineering professor car-share (right up till Covid) asserted that electric cars would never work. Even in two years they are booming. Charging stations are tolling out. We have made huge strides in renewables. But there are a lot of challenges. I’d argue that net zero is a red herring. Ultimately we will transition completely from fossil fuels. Net zero is about exerting pressure to do it as fast as possible. Actually, external factors such as the price of fuel now will add their own stimulus.
Added bonuses would be less soil erosion, better and nore nourishing crops, and reduced need for nitrogen fertilisers.
The cynic in me says though, if we did this and it worked, senior politicians here and globally would try somehow exclude that result from our target - because punishing people sort of seems to be the point.
Professor Lysenko has entered the chat
"up to 45%" means something different from "45% (yep, 45)"
This is not about quarry dust (a by-product and therefore little to no marginal cost) it is specifically about mining tonnes of basalt specifically for putting on crops
Why does soil erode less because you put rock dust on it?
I can't see the actual article, but what the summary scrupulously refrains from doing is saying what effect this would have on crop yields. The answer is it would fucking halve them. NPK is a wonder drug, you chuck it on and you see the result within a week after the next decent rain. These long- decay mineral things work, a bit, in the long term. I know this because I enthusiastically deploy them because I don't want my horse pasture full of over-rich nitrogen fed grass, but the pay off is a reduction in horses per acre. It is exactly and precisely people like you which are why Sri Lanka is starving, and kooky theories about how the hugely reduced crops are better and more nourishing for the chakras of those who get their hands on them, ain't much consolation for them that's getting nothing at all.
I was counting down to when someone would utterly irrelevantly accuse me of starving Sri Lanka to death; congratulations. Clearly your last embarrassing foray into this debate wasn't abject humiliation enough.
I don't have any kooky theories about reducing the size of crops, a large yield is, all other things being equal, a sign of a healthy crop. The exception to this is crops treated extensively with nitrogen fertiliser, which focuses on bulk, and therefore results in larger crops with less nutritional value - I can't quite see what is 'kooky' or even a 'theory' about that; it's a simple case of no minerals going in, no minerals coming out. Neglecting all the minerals your body needs in favour of just nitrogen wouldn't create a healthy Ishmael, so why would it create a healthy turnip or bell pepper? Rock dust increases yield, *healthily* as the studies you requested last time out proved.
It seems that the only members of cabinet that agreed with the economic policy of the government were the chancellor and presumably the PM if he had bothered to read it.
Whilst not everyone's cup of tea (to put it mildly) I recall during the GE Guido had some handy summaries of the events of each day's campaigning, and what if anything cut through, and it is useful for the Tory campaign.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Sadly both 1 and 2 are true. I really hope we can get back within 10 years but its a long shot. Brexit was and remains a gigantic clusterf*ck peddled by disingenuous politicians and bought by the largely ignorant public.
As with the grammar schools and private schools debate, I can't really take any view on Brexit seriously which cannot see shades of grey, positives and negatives, costs and benefits. Ditto Scottish independence, net zero, local government reorganisation or any one of a number of issues.
Exactly. This is what makes binary issues (EU: In or Out; Scotland: Sovereign state or not etc) difficult, as we know in our hearts that at best a 'shades of grey' situation will be changed for another while those who think in black and white will be full of false rejoicing, or desolate, or (in all cases) ultimately disillusioned.
Local government reorganisation is a classic. Regional features established for centuries, now of course with anomalies, are carved up out of recognition (where I am, having done it once, they are about to do it unsatisfactorily again) for astonishingly little gain.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Sadly both 1 and 2 are true. I really hope we can get back within 10 years but its a long shot. Brexit was and remains a gigantic clusterf*ck peddled by disingenuous politicians and bought by the largely ignorant public.
As with the grammar schools and private schools debate, I can't really take any view on Brexit seriously which cannot see shades of grey, positives and negatives, costs and benefits. Ditto Scottish independence, net zero, local government reorganisation or any one of a number of issues.
There are two facts that should be unarguable:
1) there was a positive case to make for EU membership; 2) the Remain campaign didn't make it.
Then there are some logical inferences to draw.
Ah I see, the usual Tory point. Distract from the lying and corrupt leave campaign involving Russian interference, 10+ years of poison laying by the chief poisoner of all, leading to slurs on the remain campaign. Now it's unravelling you are looking for a scapegoat.
Net zero is necessary to stop the planet literally burning.
It's not about left vs right, it is about facts vs lies.
And Labour isn't doing enough either.
Johnson was absolutely right on this. It may have only been because his wife told him to do it, but even so.
He was a clown and a liar but he was right on this and deserves credit for it.
Seems almost certain to be ditched now.
Meanwhile, next weekend could see weather we have never seen in this country.
In this case, the opportunity to get lucky would have only been part of the reason. All other Western nations signed up to the same tripe. It would have taken a leader much braver than Boris to tell the 'liberal order' to get stuffed.
Just been buzzed by and followed the Dubai A380 directly along Mag Dale on its path into Manchester. Every sighting still something, especially framed by the valley.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Sadly both 1 and 2 are true. I really hope we can get back within 10 years but its a long shot. Brexit was and remains a gigantic clusterf*ck peddled by disingenuous politicians and bought by the largely ignorant public.
As with the grammar schools and private schools debate, I can't really take any view on Brexit seriously which cannot see shades of grey, positives and negatives, costs and benefits. Ditto Scottish independence, net zero, local government reorganisation or any one of a number of issues.
There are two facts that should be unarguable:
1) there was a positive case to make for EU membership; 2) the Remain campaign didn't make it.
Then there are some logical inferences to draw.
Ah I see, the usual Tory point. Distract from the lying and corrupt leave campaign involving Russian interference, 10+ years of poison laying by the chief poisoner of all, leading to slurs on the remain campaign. Now it's unravelling you are looking for a scapegoat.
Like the punishment budget, for example? The Remain campaign was every but as full of lies and dodgy half truths ad the Leave campaign, every bit as full of dodgy outside funding.
Net zero is necessary to stop the planet literally burning.
It's not about left vs right, it is about facts vs lies.
And Labour isn't doing enough either.
Johnson was absolutely right on this. It may have only been because his wife told him to do it, but even so.
He was a clown and a liar but he was right on this and deserves credit for it.
Seems almost certain to be ditched now.
Meanwhile, next weekend could see weather we have never seen in this country.
He was right on it but could’ve pushed for more radical change: readying the country for a shift to green energy, electric vehicles, reduction in plastics etc is something that WOULD be benefitted by a big government - and without the EU state aid rules and comparatively strong central government we could’ve really stolen a march on the rest of the world on this.
The issue I have with BoJO on Net Zero is that he has spent his time contemplatively sitting on his butt, and doing very little.
The current progress we are seeing on offshore wind, for example, is all related to processes started under Blair Brown, or the Coalition.
The new improved insulation programme is still missing.
Owner Occupiers have not been regulated to bring their houses into the 21C yet.
And so on and so on and so on. There has been ample opportunity, but they are still freewheeling.
Tory candidates care hardly a jot for Scotland - Our only use to Conservative candidates will be the threat of Jock Bogeyman propping up a Starmer government
The disagreeable reality for Scottish Conservatives — and for Scottish unionists more generally — is that Scotland is not a premier league issue in this Tory leadership election. Nor is it even of second-tier importance. It is not quite an afterthought because all the candidates will be required to say something about the Scottish Question but only an arrant optimist can expect any of them to issue statements that go beyond the bare minimum or reflect more than a surface-level engagement.
This is rational even if it is also regrettable. The candidates have three audiences in mind. The first, most obviously, is their parliamentary colleagues who will select the two candidates who make it to the final round. The second is the Tory party membership…
100% correct. The Tories (in the main) no longer care about Scotland but then in their terms that’s somewhat rational (though the lens watching carefully should have noticed Scotland actually kept them in power in 2017).
Were I Scottish, a unionist, and centre right, I would want my own party.
Not seen as consistent for a unionist. That's the trouble, I think.
In the old days there was the Unionist Party. But it subsumed itself into the London-based party decades ago. Now actually splitting would be seen as a sellout to independentistas. When Murdo Fraser ran for the ScoTories local leader against Ruth Davidson, he proposed to go it alone, but all he did was lose.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Sadly both 1 and 2 are true. I really hope we can get back within 10 years but its a long shot. Brexit was and remains a gigantic clusterf*ck peddled by disingenuous politicians and bought by the largely ignorant public.
As with the grammar schools and private schools debate, I can't really take any view on Brexit seriously which cannot see shades of grey, positives and negatives, costs and benefits. Ditto Scottish independence, net zero, local government reorganisation or any one of a number of issues.
There are two facts that should be unarguable:
1) there was a positive case to make for EU membership; 2) the Remain campaign didn't make it.
Then there are some logical inferences to draw.
Yes. The Leave campaign was an amoral abomination, but the Remain one even worse. The tone of 'this isn't much good but we have to be in it' was hopeless.
The Remain case had to persuade and inspire people to grasp a particular and great future which engaged politics, economics and statehood and pointed to a genuine EU democratic future (a present one being of course not available).
As a moderate Brexiteer (and am still) there was nothing at any point in the campaign which made me even think of switching. There should have been.
I have now watched most of the candidate's launch videos. I can only conclude that it would be piss funny if some of them get anywhere near power.
Seriously. Half are bonkers. Most are offering insane tax pledges. Michael Green has borrowed Govey's coked up dancing. And the Tory party want to parade this lot for the next few weeks do they?
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Sadly both 1 and 2 are true. I really hope we can get back within 10 years but its a long shot. Brexit was and remains a gigantic clusterf*ck peddled by disingenuous politicians and bought by the largely ignorant public.
As with the grammar schools and private schools debate, I can't really take any view on Brexit seriously which cannot see shades of grey, positives and negatives, costs and benefits. Ditto Scottish independence, net zero, local government reorganisation or any one of a number of issues.
There are two facts that should be unarguable:
1) there was a positive case to make for EU membership; 2) the Remain campaign didn't make it.
Then there are some logical inferences to draw.
Ah I see, the usual Tory point. Distract from the lying and corrupt leave campaign involving Russian interference, 10+ years of poison laying by the chief poisoner of all, leading to slurs on the remain campaign. Now it's unravelling you are looking for a scapegoat.
She is obsessed with the culture wars. Would be dreadful.
She just doesn't accept the premises of the other side.
No it's not that, she enflames it for no good reason.
Penny Morduant is the most sensible on this by a country mile.
No she isn't. She has lied about her position.
I don't mind Ms Mordaunt having different views on self-ID to mine but I do mind very much that she lies about them. She is now claiming, wrongly, that she was the one who fought to remove the gender neutral language in the Maternity Bill so that the word "woman" was used. This is a lie. She was the one who introduced the gender neutral language. It was the Lords who threw the gender neutral language out and she was forced to accept it.
Not the first time she has lied - see the nonsense she spoke during the Brexit campaign. Good at PR and getting herself on TV but in a campaign allegedly based on integrity she has more than a touch of Boris about her.
Badenoch recently gave an instruction that all new buildings should have male and female loos. Good as far as it goes but not good enough. It would have been more sensible to make it a requirement for all new buildings that they have gender neutral loos as well thus giving trans people their own option while also maintaining single sex spaces. That would have been a sensible practical solution.
But you see this is why she has enflamed it.
What you said is a solution - but Badenoch just proposed a cheap headline grabber that isn't practically sensible.
In my work we have loos that anyone can use, they're all private/safe spaces, seems to work fine for us, I am not sure why this can't be done in more places?
Male and female loos are not practically sensible?? Don't be daft. Saying that provision should be for made for single sex loos for women is sensible. It does not inflame anything. What is inflaming the situation is those who say that women should not longer have this option.
But my post was not really about Kemi but about Mordaunt's integrity. We've had another liar as PM. We don't need another one.
If Sunak doesn't win i think he will bugger off from the frontline, the rest i think will try and stay involved. Some won't get the chance *cough Priti cough*
She is obsessed with the culture wars. Would be dreadful.
She just doesn't accept the premises of the other side.
No it's not that, she enflames it for no good reason.
Penny Morduant is the most sensible on this by a country mile.
No she isn't. She has lied about her position.
I don't mind Ms Mordaunt having different views on self-ID to mine but I do mind very much that she lies about them. She is now claiming, wrongly, that she was the one who fought to remove the gender neutral language in the Maternity Bill so that the word "woman" was used. This is a lie. She was the one who introduced the gender neutral language. It was the Lords who threw the gender neutral language out and she was forced to accept it.
Not the first time she has lied - see the nonsense she spoke during the Brexit campaign. Good at PR and getting herself on TV but in a campaign allegedly based on integrity she has more than a touch of Boris about her.
Badenoch recently gave an instruction that all new buildings should have male and female loos. Good as far as it goes but not good enough. It would have been more sensible to make it a requirement for all new buildings that they have gender neutral loos as well thus giving trans people their own option while also maintaining single sex spaces. That would have been a sensible practical solution.
But you see this is why she has enflamed it.
What you said is a solution - but Badenoch just proposed a cheap headline grabber that isn't practically sensible.
In my work we have loos that anyone can use, they're all private/safe spaces, seems to work fine for us, I am not sure why this can't be done in more places?
Male and female loos are not practically sensible?? Don't be daft. Saying that provision should be for made for single sex loos for women is sensible. It does not inflame anything. What is inflaming the situation is those who say that women should not longer have this option.
But my post was not really about Kemi but about Mordaunt's integrity. We've had another liar as PM. We don't need another one.
What is wrong with having loos anyone can use? In our office it meant we used the space most effectively.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Sadly both 1 and 2 are true. I really hope we can get back within 10 years but its a long shot. Brexit was and remains a gigantic clusterf*ck peddled by disingenuous politicians and bought by the largely ignorant public.
As with the grammar schools and private schools debate, I can't really take any view on Brexit seriously which cannot see shades of grey, positives and negatives, costs and benefits. Ditto Scottish independence, net zero, local government reorganisation or any one of a number of issues.
There are two facts that should be unarguable:
1) there was a positive case to make for EU membership; 2) the Remain campaign didn't make it.
Then there are some logical inferences to draw.
Ah I see, the usual Tory point. Distract from the lying and corrupt leave campaign involving Russian interference, 10+ years of poison laying by the chief poisoner of all, leading to slurs on the remain campaign. Now it's unravelling you are looking for a scapegoat.
Like the punishment budget, for example? The Remain campaign was every but as full of lies and dodgy half truths ad the Leave campaign, every bit as full of dodgy outside funding.
What on earth are you talking about? The then Governor of the BOE had to move heaven and earth to stabilise things. Did you expect him to go hands off and watch everything go belly up? What outside funding are you talking about as well? Russian Oligarchs? The Leave side had greedy entrepreneurs funding them to stop their money being taxed by knew EU tax laws on dodgy moneys.
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
It’s the situation we’ve got ourselves into as a country. We end up arguing as if you have to be an eco-zealot or an anti-science idiot.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
My engineering professor car-share (right up till Covid) asserted that electric cars would never work. Even in two years they are booming. Charging stations are tolling out. We have made huge strides in renewables. But there are a lot of challenges. I’d argue that net zero is a red herring. Ultimately we will transition completely from fossil fuels. Net zero is about exerting pressure to do it as fast as possible. Actually, external factors such as the price of fuel now will add their own stimulus.
Added bonuses would be less soil erosion, better and nore nourishing crops, and reduced need for nitrogen fertilisers.
The cynic in me says though, if we did this and it worked, senior politicians here and globally would try somehow exclude that result from our target - because punishing people sort of seems to be the point.
Professor Lysenko has entered the chat
"up to 45%" means something different from "45% (yep, 45)"
This is not about quarry dust (a by-product and therefore little to no marginal cost) it is specifically about mining tonnes of basalt specifically for putting on crops
Why does soil erode less because you put rock dust on it?
I can't see the actual article, but what the summary scrupulously refrains from doing is saying what effect this would have on crop yields. The answer is it would fucking halve them. NPK is a wonder drug, you chuck it on and you see the result within a week after the next decent rain. These long- decay mineral things work, a bit, in the long term. I know this because I enthusiastically deploy them because I don't want my horse pasture full of over-rich nitrogen fed grass, but the pay off is a reduction in horses per acre. It is exactly and precisely people like you which are why Sri Lanka is starving, and kooky theories about how the hugely reduced crops are better and more nourishing for the chakras of those who get their hands on them, ain't much consolation for them that's getting nothing at all.
I was counting down to when someone would utterly irrelevantly accuse me of starving Sri Lanka to death; congratulations. Clearly your last embarrassing foray into this debate wasn't abject humiliation enough.
I don't have any kooky theories about reducing the size of crops, a large yield is, all other things being equal, a sign of a healthy crop. The exception to this is crops treated extensively with nitrogen fertiliser, which focuses on bulk, and results in larger crops with less nutritional value - I can't quite see what is 'kooky' or even a 'theory' about that; it's a simple case of no minerals going in, no minerals coming out. Neglecting all the minerals your body needs in favour of just nitrogen wouldn't create a healthy Ishmael, so why would it create a healthy turnip or bell pepper? Rock dust increases yield, as the studies you request last time out proved.
No. Let's recap that. Your hilarious apple tree studies started from the premise that the trees under consideration were 15 years old and suffering from "disease and old age." An apple tree's lifespan is way longer than a human being's [if growing them commercially on seriously dwarfing rootstocks like M9 or M27 you might grub them up after 35 years but that's a yield maximisation thing, you are killing them in early middle age].
It follows 1. that the authors of the study know fuck all about what they are talking about and 2. that the trees were not suffering from old age any more than a 15 year old human is. They were diseased. If applying rock dust to them makes them better, the disease was a micronutrient deficiency. It's like scurvy: if someone has it, administering vitamin C to them is like resurrecting Lazarus. If they don't, vitamin C is neither here nor there, except to a perplexingly large group of cranks and nutters. Micro nutrient deficient soils benefit from micro nutrients, non deficient ones don't. And I know this not from reading wannabe scientific papers from a parcel of grant-hunting dweebs, but from actually growing lots of healthy apples, and horses.
PM has timed her run very nicely, going under the radar for a long time, not resigning over Bojo, not being the Sunak frontrunner that everyone wants to bring down, getting it off the ground before Truss.
I respectfully disagree. I’m happy for Kemi to do well but I don’t want her put on the ballot alongside another candidate with limited government experience. Give members a choice of experience vs relatively new broom.
If Sunak doesn't win i think he will bugger off from the frontline, the rest i think will try and stay involved. Some won't get the chance *cough Priti cough*
If I were a new leader I’d probably offer Priti leader of the house or Lord President or something like that. Something that keeps her in the fold but doesn’t allow her to do too much damage.
I respectfully disagree. I’m happy for Kemi to do well but I don’t want her put on the ballot alongside another candidate with limited government experience. Give members a choice of experience vs relatively new broom.
If Sunak doesn't win i think he will bugger off from the frontline, the rest i think will try and stay involved. Some won't get the chance *cough Priti cough*
If I were a new leader I’d probably offer Priti leader of the house or Lord President or something like that. Something that keeps her in the fold but doesn’t allow her to do too much damage.
Oh God, yet again we have a conversation on here about a tiny issue, whilst much bigger issues go untalked about. How many conversations have we had on here about trans issues? About toilets?
Get over yourselves. let people be what they want to be as long as they don't hurt other people.
And talk about something that actually matters. Like (say) infrastructure. Or illiteracy and innumeracy. Not about an issue that is an unpoliceable and utterly irrelevant religion.
Bonkers Braverman tells ITV that there are loads of people sitting around of good health not working on benefits.
How? How can they be when they are harassed from dawn to dusk to prove they are looking for work and sanctions all over the place. It's just a fantasy in her head.
One thing to bear in mind is that where redistricting was carried out in Democrat states such as Illinois, it was done to maximise the number of House seats but at the risk of increased losses in a tsunami for the GOP.
Oh God, yet again we have a conversation on here about a tiny issue, whilst much bigger issues go untalked about. How many conversations have we had on here about trans issues? About toilets?
Get over yourselves. let people be what they want to be as long as they don't hurt other people.
And talk about something that actually matters. Like (say) infrastructure. Or illiteracy and innumeracy. Not about an issue that is an unpoliceable and utterly irrelevant religion.
This is what I say every time this comes up.
I want to talk about CoL, the environment, FTTP, communications. Real levelling up.
I respectfully disagree. I’m happy for Kemi to do well but I don’t want her put on the ballot alongside another candidate with limited government experience. Give members a choice of experience vs relatively new broom.
If Sunak doesn't win i think he will bugger off from the frontline, the rest i think will try and stay involved. Some won't get the chance *cough Priti cough*
If I were a new leader I’d probably offer Priti leader of the house or Lord President or something like that. Something that keeps her in the fold but doesn’t allow her to do too much damage.
I wouldn’t like Priti on the backbenches.
Give her the party chair maybe, keep her out the way of policy. Re Kemi, there is such chaos coming maybe entirely new and fresh is exactly what we need. Javid, Sunak, Zahawi, Truss etc are all stale now. Tine for radical change imo And, with tight times, a back story you can invest in. No trust funds, no banking background. Burger flipping, real human being. She is the future.
I respectfully disagree. I’m happy for Kemi to do well but I don’t want her put on the ballot alongside another candidate with limited government experience. Give members a choice of experience vs relatively new broom.
If Sunak doesn't win i think he will bugger off from the frontline, the rest i think will try and stay involved. Some won't get the chance *cough Priti cough*
If I were a new leader I’d probably offer Priti leader of the house or Lord President or something like that. Something that keeps her in the fold but doesn’t allow her to do too much damage.
I wouldn’t like Priti on the backbenches.
I would
I would too, but realistically I wouldn’t want her hanging around building dissent. I have a feeling she’s good at motivating the resistance.
Since the actual rules (if that's the word) for ongoing Tory leadership contest are still a work in progress, WHY not use a proven means of selection that will undoubtedly resonate with the Great British Public?
> Pop Idol = CUP Idol > Big Brother House = Little Englander Cave > The Apprentice = The Apprentice Prime Minister > I'm a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here! = I'm Otherwise Unemployable . . . Get Me Into Number Ten!
Net zero is necessary to stop the planet literally burning.
It's not about left vs right, it is about facts vs lies.
And Labour isn't doing enough either.
Your first sentence is nonsense. We have increased temperatures world wide by around 1.1deg C from pre industrial. Even if it goes past the 1.5 deg C target, the planet is not literally going to burn. This kind of rhetoric is one of the things that drives people away.
Bonkers Braverman tells ITV that there are loads of people sitting around of good health not working on benefits.
How? How can they be when they are harassed from dawn to dusk to prove they are looking for work and sanctions all over the place. It's just a fantasy in her head.
Bonkers Braverman tells ITV that there are loads of people sitting around of good health not working on benefits.
How? How can they be when they are harassed from dawn to dusk to prove they are looking for work and sanctions all over the place. It's just a fantasy in her head.
Shit.
The Ishmael theory of politics: people are exactly what they appear to be at first sight. No growing into roles, no hidden depths, none of that shit. She is going to be another Priti.
Comments
The failure of the West has been to convince developing countries their route to economic growth cannot be the same as the developed world. We plundered the planet's resources to get rich - countries trying to get rich now don't have that luxury. That's a tough message and a much harder sell if we aren't practicing what we preach.
As we've seen in recent times, we remain conspicuously dependent on oil and as that price increases so do our economic problems. Moving away from an oil or carbon-based economy seems perfect sense on many levels.
We also need some fundamental thinking or re-thinking on how we live and how we work but that's far too much for the current batch of Conservative selling platers to even begin to contemplate.
BTW (and FYI) didn't Lola Montez leave Bavarian politics just about same time HER high-flying beau went splat?
https://order-order.com/2022/07/11/6pm-campaign-update-day-5/
2. I actually think this (or EEA membership itself) is probable (around 2030).
Now awaiting this evening’s ECMWF run.
Sure they mentioned it here and there, but not repeatedly in run up to local elections for example
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9738735/Fraud-blunders-Covid-support-schemes-cost-taxpayers-30bn-MPs-warn.html
Just a gut feeling.
Young people, aka the future think net zero is *very* important. I think I will go with the young folk here.
It's not about left vs right, it is about facts vs lies.
And Labour isn't doing enough either.
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
1h
More eye-catching Tory hires...
Ousted Boris spinner Lee Caine's new PR agency Charlesbye is providing staff for Rishi Sunak's campaign...
===
Dear God, it's like the Bourbons.
"up to 45%" means something different from "45% (yep, 45)"
This is not about quarry dust (a by-product and therefore little to no marginal cost) it is specifically about mining tonnes of basalt specifically for putting on crops
Why does soil erode less because you put rock dust on it?
I can't see the actual article, but what the summary scrupulously refrains from doing is saying what effect this would have on crop yields. The answer is it would fucking halve them. NPK is a wonder drug, you chuck it on and you see the result within a week after the next decent rain. These long- decay mineral things work, a bit, in the long term. I know this because I enthusiastically deploy them because I don't want my horse pasture full of over-rich nitrogen fed grass, but the pay off is a reduction in horses per acre. It is exactly and precisely people like you which are why Sri Lanka is starving, and kooky theories about how the hugely reduced crops are better and more nourishing for the chakras of those who get their hands on them, ain't much consolation for them that's getting nothing at all.
He was a clown and a liar but he was right on this and deserves credit for it.
Seems almost certain to be ditched now.
Meanwhile, next weekend could see weather we have never seen in this country.
What people want is action but not if it means somehow they have to find £15K for a new heating system when they can't afford Lurpack.
Ditto Scottish independence, net zero, local government reorganisation or any one of a number of issues.
2.9 Rishi Sunak
4.6 Penny Mordaunt
7.8 Liz Truss
8.8 Tom Tugendhat
21 Kemi Badenoch
22 Jeremy Hunt
38 Priti Patel
46 Dominic Raab
46 Sajid Javid
50 Nadhim Zahawi
50 Suella Braverman
I don't mind Ms Mordaunt having different views on self-ID to mine but I do mind very much that she lies about them. She is now claiming, wrongly, that she was the one who fought to remove the gender neutral language in the Maternity Bill so that the word "woman" was used. This is a lie. She was the one who introduced the gender neutral language. It was the Lords who threw the gender neutral language out and she was forced to accept it.
Not the first time she has lied - see the nonsense she spoke during the Brexit campaign. Good at PR and getting herself on TV but in a campaign allegedly based on integrity she has more than a touch of Boris about her.
Badenoch recently gave an instruction that all new buildings should have male and female loos. Good as far as it goes but not good enough. It would have been more sensible to make it a requirement for all new buildings that they have gender neutral loos as well thus giving trans people their own option while also maintaining single sex spaces. That would have been a sensible practical solution.
As is (similar lack of evidence) the chance of everyone except:
Mordaunt
Tugendhat
Badenoch.
I wish I could add Hunt to that list but the intuition says No.
Obviously Rishi should be in the list but I can't see how he can survive
the obstacles. Intuition, but not the bookies, says he is just too close to a decayed and corrupting government for too long.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1546545390358503425?t=loaHWYkJ2b2Myj80b3Bt7w&s=19
What you said is a solution - but Badenoch just proposed a cheap headline grabber that isn't practically sensible.
In my work we have loos that anyone can use, they're all private/safe spaces, seems to work fine for us, I am not sure why this can't be done in more places?
- Our only use to Conservative candidates will be the threat of Jock Bogeyman propping up a Starmer government
The disagreeable reality for Scottish Conservatives — and for Scottish unionists more generally — is that Scotland is not a premier league issue in this Tory leadership election. Nor is it even of second-tier importance. It is not quite an afterthought because all the candidates will be required to say something about the Scottish Question but only an arrant optimist can expect any of them to issue statements that go beyond the bare minimum or reflect more than a surface-level engagement.
This is rational even if it is also regrettable. The candidates have three audiences in mind. The first, most obviously, is their parliamentary colleagues who will select the two candidates who make it to the final round. The second is the Tory party membership…
€
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-candidates-care-hardly-a-jot-for-scotland-2l9xk0jpc
1) there was a positive case to make for EU membership;
2) the Remain campaign didn't make it.
Then there are some logical inferences to draw.
Were I Scottish, a unionist, and centre right, I would want my own party.
- North of the border, several years of Covid-related restrictions have made it difficult for the party faithful to connect with MPs in-person
Now that the Scottish Tories have said good riddance to a Prime Minister most of them wanted shot of, they are faced with a bewildering array of alternatives in a list of 12 contenders for the top job....
€
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/11/scottish-tories-leadership-vote-post-lockdown-leap-dark/
I don't have any kooky theories about reducing the size of crops, a large yield is, all other things being equal, a sign of a healthy crop. The exception to this is crops treated extensively with nitrogen fertiliser, which focuses on bulk, and therefore results in larger crops with less nutritional value - I can't quite see what is 'kooky' or even a 'theory' about that; it's a simple case of no minerals going in, no minerals coming out. Neglecting all the minerals your body needs in favour of just nitrogen wouldn't create a healthy Ishmael, so why would it create a healthy turnip or bell pepper? Rock dust increases yield, *healthily* as the studies you requested last time out proved.
Local government reorganisation is a classic. Regional features established for centuries, now of course with anomalies, are carved up out of recognition (where I am, having done it once, they are about to do it unsatisfactorily again) for astonishingly little gain.
Life is GOOD
"The Uber whistleblower: I’m exposing a system that sold people a lie"
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/11/uber-files-whistleblower-lobbyist-mark-macgann
Rishi Sunak is in third place, Suella Braverman fourth, Liz Truss fifth and Tom Tugendhat sixth
https://conservativehome.com/2022/07/11/our-latest-next-tory-leader-survey-mordaunt-leads-badenoch-by-under-ten-votes-in-over-eight-hundred/
The current progress we are seeing on offshore wind, for example, is all related to processes started under Blair Brown, or the Coalition.
The new improved insulation programme is still missing.
Owner Occupiers have not been regulated to bring their houses into the 21C yet.
And so on and so on and so on. There has been ample opportunity, but they are still freewheeling.
In the old days there was the Unionist Party. But it subsumed itself into the London-based party decades ago. Now actually splitting would be seen as a sellout to independentistas. When Murdo Fraser ran for the ScoTories local leader against Ruth Davidson, he proposed to go it alone, but all he did was lose.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/04/scottish-tories-new-party-fraser
I did take part in that survey and ticked Penny on every option
The Remain case had to persuade and inspire people to grasp a particular and great future which engaged politics, economics and statehood and pointed to a genuine EU democratic future (a present one being of course not available).
As a moderate Brexiteer (and am still) there was nothing at any point in the campaign which made me even think of switching. There should have been.
Seriously. Half are bonkers. Most are offering insane tax pledges. Michael Green has borrowed Govey's coked up dancing. And the Tory party want to parade this lot for the next few weeks do they?
Crackers.
But my post was not really about Kemi but about Mordaunt's integrity. We've had another liar as PM. We don't need another one.
It follows 1. that the authors of the study know fuck all about what they are talking about and 2. that the trees were not suffering from old age any more than a 15 year old human is. They were diseased. If applying rock dust to them makes them better, the disease was a micronutrient deficiency. It's like scurvy: if someone has it, administering vitamin C to them is like resurrecting Lazarus. If they don't, vitamin C is neither here nor there, except to a perplexingly large group of cranks and nutters. Micro nutrient deficient soils benefit from micro nutrients, non deficient ones don't. And I know this not from reading wannabe scientific papers from a parcel of grant-hunting dweebs, but from actually growing lots of healthy apples, and horses.
Have any of the candidates said anything about these?
I wouldn’t like Priti on the backbenches.
Jesus wept......
3.05 Rishi Sunak
3.75 Penny Mordaunt
7.4 Liz Truss
9.2 Tom Tugendhat
15 Kemi Badenoch
22 Jeremy Hunt
40 Priti Patel
40 Sajid Javid
42 Dominic Raab
44 Suella Braverman
50 Nadhim Zahawi
Get over yourselves. let people be what they want to be as long as they don't hurt other people.
And talk about something that actually matters. Like (say) infrastructure. Or illiteracy and innumeracy. Not about an issue that is an unpoliceable and utterly irrelevant religion.
How? How can they be when they are harassed from dawn to dusk to prove they are looking for work and sanctions all over the place. It's just a fantasy in her head.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/11/house-gop-deeper-in-dem-terrain-00044988
One thing to bear in mind is that where redistricting was carried out in Democrat states such as Illinois, it was done to maximise the number of House seats but at the risk of increased losses in a tsunami for the GOP.
I want to talk about CoL, the environment, FTTP, communications. Real levelling up.
Re Kemi, there is such chaos coming maybe entirely new and fresh is exactly what we need. Javid, Sunak, Zahawi, Truss etc are all stale now. Tine for radical change imo
And, with tight times, a back story you can invest in. No trust funds, no banking background. Burger flipping, real human being.
She is the future.
> Pop Idol = CUP Idol
> Big Brother House = Little Englander Cave
> The Apprentice = The Apprentice Prime Minister
> I'm a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here! = I'm Otherwise Unemployable . . . Get Me Into Number Ten!
This kind of rhetoric is one of the things that drives people away.
The Ishmael theory of politics: people are exactly what they appear to be at first sight. No growing into roles, no hidden depths, none of that shit. She is going to be another Priti.
#PB4TOMT. Otherwise we are stuffed.