Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
Yep, and Scotland and Wales is exactly where all the existing sites are. Pretty sure you need something a bit more specific than just any old hill, though.
I found a 2021 news article about some proposed new sites, which makes it sound like part of the problem is they're kind of borderline in pure economic terms, possibly for weird electricity generation market regulation reasons rather than inherently so. Sounds like the usual "free market very bad at long-term investment for strategic reasons, government unwilling to do it" problem (see also lack of new nuclear).
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
The problem is that people like those hills as they are.
Chopping the top of mountains will be strongly resisted.
Lots of landowners would bloody love any munros on their patch to be whittled down
Right now, I have my doubts Penny Mordaunt will make the final round.
Axing the fiscal rules is a huge misstep. She needs to walk it back asap because not only is it a terrible idea, it probably has close to zero popularity within the Tory party.
Wait, Penny is suggesting we axe the fiscal rules?!
Wtf, Tory MPs need to axe her. Borrowing to fund current spending is a terrible idea.
It seems to be a widespread mentality in real life:
The research revealed one in four adults in the UK feel they are financially stretched, but are still reluctant to let worrying about the rising cost of living impact their spending habits.
These "squeezed spenders" recognise the need to cut back some of their spending but generally prefer to borrow, dip into savings or use buy-now-pay-later schemes, rather than allow money worries to get in the way of purchases.
Any discretionary income is typically spent on non-essential items, with a lack of willpower cited as the main barrier to saving more regularly.
"This group of squeezed spenders is interesting, precisely because it's counterintuitive," Richard Lim, head of Retail Economics, told the BBC.
"These people realise their personal finances are under pressure, but at the same time, they really don't want to cut back and so they carry on spending, including on things that aren't essential."
Its interesting to note that almost none of this conversation is about transmen.
Is it? I would have thought the reason for that was obvious.
It is men who are responsible for the vast majority of violence in society and so it is men that society has taken most steps to protect more vulnerable groups from, and a person doesn't stop being a man, and a potential threat on that basis, just by saying so.
Someone who wasn't a man, but says that they are, doesn't then acquire the threat to other people that men have by saying so. Therefore no-one cares because there's no risk.
The Tory leadership race is like a trippy optical illusion. Each time you look long and hard at one of the candidates you think "well obviously they can't win" and the other candidates in the periphery of your vision look perfectly electable. Only, when you switch your gaze onto them, it's the same thing. The one that looked hopeless suddenly appears much better because NOW you're staring at this other one and oh God no, THIS one is worse.
To get more growth we need to improve productivity. That is the key. It reduces inflation, increases wages, makes domestic production more competitive, reduces the pressure on the supply of labour. What do the candidates have to say about that?
I can honestly say I don't recall ever hearing any British politician say something substantive about the issue. Identifying a problem is easy peasy. Fixing it, that's what we want to hear ideas about.
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
But it's not just about having 'hills': it's about having the right conditions, both in terms of height and geology. Then wait until the environmentalists complain that the upper pond's are going to destroy the environment (and I do have some sympathy with that...)
Cruachan is another dam that can do the storage thing, I think? Huge height difference (as anyone who has done the Munros will tell you). Other dams like Monar, Clunie etc have bigger reservoirs but less drop.
An engineer friend told me that Cruachan could be used to kick-start the entire UK grid in the event of nuclear war or a big cyber attack. Used to have MoD types guarding it.
This threader is an example of the People cannot think about more than one thing at once fallacy. It is reasonable at this stage for the conservatives to think about where as a party they want to stand on all sorts of points. It may even be strategically very smart to resolve it now to increase the chances of Labour disarray at the next GE
People might be able to think about more than one thing, but you can only talk about one thing at a time. If you waste the precious oxygen of publicity on a third-tier issue, it's a huge opportunity cost.
It isn't even third tier - going off the number of real world cases it's more like thirtieth tier. That isn't to say that there isn't the need to rethink how we manage these occasional edge cases, but the associated moral panic is more "it's ok to hate the gayers" than there is an actual societal problem.
But your preferred policy would make these sorts of events more likely to happen. Surely you can see why that would cause concern?
I don't believe I even have a preferred policy, not have I expressed a view on a specific policy on here. And yet you know what that is...
Apologies for making an assumption on the basis that you were arguing against people who have a clear position on opposing version policies on this area. I took that as implying support for the policies in question.
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
But it's not just about having 'hills': it's about having the right conditions, both in terms of height and geology. Then wait until the environmentalists complain that the upper pond's are going to destroy the environment (and I do have some sympathy with that...)
Well, clearly I don't have the information to say that's untrue, but the environment at the top of a lot of these hills is pretty bleak. Not much flora and fauna up there.
I have been to the top of a lot of these hills. What there is, is pretty bloody interesting. And rare.
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
The problem is that people like those hills as they are.
Chopping the top of mountains will be strongly resisted.
Doesn't stop people building the damn ugly windmills all over them in the first place. I'd imagine such a scheme would be less transformative to the lansdscape than that.
It would involve changing the shape of the mountain concerned. Good luck with planning permission to decapitate Snowden….
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
But it's not just about having 'hills': it's about having the right conditions, both in terms of height and geology. Then wait until the environmentalists complain that the upper pond's are going to destroy the environment (and I do have some sympathy with that...)
Well, clearly I don't have the information to say that's untrue, but the environment at the top of a lot of these hills is pretty bleak. Not much flora and fauna up there.
I have been to the top of a lot of these hills. What there is, is pretty bloody interesting. And rare.
It's a moot point - it seems from helpful links provided above that there are plenty of schemes that already have planning permission.
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
The problem is that people like those hills as they are.
Chopping the top of mountains will be strongly resisted.
Doesn't stop people building the damn ugly windmills all over them in the first place. I'd imagine such a scheme would be less transformative to the lansdscape than that.
It would involve changing the shape of the mountain concerned. Good luck with planning permission to decapitate Snowden….
It's the huge, permanent roads that have to be built on the peat bogs that are the problem.
Its interesting to note that almost none of this conversation is about transmen.
Is it? I would have thought the reason for that was obvious.
It is men who are responsible for the vast majority of violence in society and so it is men that society has taken most steps to protect more vulnerable groups from, and a person doesn't stop being a man, and a potential threat on that basis, just by saying so.
Someone who wasn't a man, but says that they are, doesn't then acquire the threat to other people that men have by saying so. Therefore no-one cares because there's no risk.
Wait, Penny is suggesting we axe the fiscal rules?!
Wtf, Tory MPs need to axe her. Borrowing to fund current spending is a terrible idea.
So is Truss. Both argue, to varying degrees that we are not borrowing as much as many other countries and this is one of the reason we are forecast to grow more slowly.
Personally, I think that this is rubbish. We are running a huge trade deficit. We have virtually full employment. We already have a large fiscal deficit. We have a serious problem with inflation. Rishi made the last point very forcefully in the Friday debate: more borrowing and spending is not an answer to inflation.
To get more growth we need to improve productivity. That is the key. It reduces inflation, increases wages, makes domestic production more competitive, reduces the pressure on the supply of labour. What do the candidates have to say about that?
Improving productivity requires investment and usually some hard work.
Increasing spending is easier and enjoyable.
Rishi did introduce a massive tax break for investment in equipment. Which seems to have had a major effect on the JCB order book, among other things.
Agreed with the thread header. Unfortunately Badenoch especially seems to be too interested in the "woke" issues, so I'd have her as my last choice preference.
From what I've seen of the candidates so far, ignoring my betting position (which puts Sunak as #1 preference for entirely book-related reasons) my preference would be:
1. Truss - Seems very sound on the economy etc, also came up with the excellent NI solution 2. Tugendhat - Less dry, but pro more housing which is always a big tick 3. Mordaunt - Neutral, seems to change her positions based on what's popular today, ironically like a continuity Boris 4. Sunak - Too high tax 5. Badenoch - Anti-woke
I appreciate that's probably a pretty unusual preference list.
I'm surprised that you have Truss as sound on the economy when her policy is to massively expand public borrowing in order to add masses more money to an inflation crisis.
I can't imagine you regarding the policy as sound if it were suggested by a Labour politician. I can understand that you would be well-disposed towards Truss because of her Brexit policy, but I think you're showing that to distort your judgement.
From what I understand she's suggesting that Covid-related borrowing should be spread over a longer time period, like war bonds.
That's exactly what I suggested at the time of Sunak's stupid NI tax rise.
Day to day spending should not be getting borrowed, but Covid-spending should be
A large sum of the money Sunak's tax rise is going to clear the Covid backlog, despite hundreds of billions of borrowing. What I suggested is that previously was that the Treasury should calculate the cost of clearing the Covid backlog and add that to the Covid borrowing. That borrowing should then be amortised over a timespan rather than just a couple of years as Sunak wanted. We should then return to standard borrowing targets, taking into account the amortisation of Covid borrowing.
That's completely different to Brownian borrowing for day-to-day expenditure.
I don't think you can just magic half our existing debt into war bonds. But that's by-the-by, because, when challenged on the policy during the debate, Truss defended it by explicitly arguing we could borrow more because our current debt levels were lower than other countries.
That is an explicit argument for borrowing to pay for tax cuts, to borrow to cover day-to-day expenditure rather than take the hard choice of taxing or cutting spending. And it's a massive inflationary kick to the economy when inflation is already high.
Of course you can treat half our existing debt as war bonds, war bonds are just bonds with an attitude attached to them not a different type of bond.
Borrowing to reverse the tax rise may be a tax cut but limited to Covid borrowing is also absolutely the right thing to do and what should have been done all along.
Reversing the NI hike may be "inflationary" but it is the right thing to do. If non-working people have to face a bit more inflation rather than putting all the burden on working people, then that's not an issue for me.
You can't unilaterally change the terms of a bond issued without defaulting. That's the point of the bonds issue. So talk about turning them into war bonds is just a distraction from more borrowing.
And on inflation, my pay is up 5%, my Dad's pensions are up by the rate of inflation. It's the working people who are losing out from inflation and will lose out from more inflation.
The Treasury already sells gilts with 50 year maturity I believe, so what's the difference to a "War Bond"?
iirc War Bonds were sold to the general public in UK, not the usual sovereign debt investors (e.g. pension companies, insurance companies, foreign banks etc).
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
But it's not just about having 'hills': it's about having the right conditions, both in terms of height and geology. Then wait until the environmentalists complain that the upper pond's are going to destroy the environment (and I do have some sympathy with that...)
Cruachan is another dam that can do the storage thing, I think? Huge height difference (as anyone who has done the Munros will tell you). Other dams like Monar, Clunie etc have bigger reservoirs but less drop.
An engineer friend told me that Cruachan could be used to kick-start the entire UK grid in the event of nuclear war or a big cyber attack. Used to have MoD types guarding it.
Cruachan IS a pumped storage site - that's why it was built: to store base load off Hunterston A Magnox nuke.
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
Yep, and Scotland and Wales is exactly where all the existing sites are. Pretty sure you need something a bit more specific than just any old hill, though.
I found a 2021 news article about some proposed new sites, which makes it sound like part of the problem is they're kind of borderline in pure economic terms, possibly for weird electricity generation market regulation reasons rather than inherently so. Sounds like the usual "free market very bad at long-term investment for strategic reasons, government unwilling to do it" problem (see also lack of new nuclear).
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
But it's not just about having 'hills': it's about having the right conditions, both in terms of height and geology. Then wait until the environmentalists complain that the upper pond's are going to destroy the environment (and I do have some sympathy with that...)
Cruachan is another dam that can do the storage thing, I think? Huge height difference (as anyone who has done the Munros will tell you). Other dams like Monar, Clunie etc have bigger reservoirs but less drop.
An engineer friend told me that Cruachan could be used to kick-start the entire UK grid in the event of nuclear war or a big cyber attack. Used to have MoD types guarding it.
Cruachan is a marvellous piece of engineering and is one of the grid emergency restart systems. The other is in Wales (Dinorwig I think). It also happens to be near a lot of wind power which is rather useful.
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
The problem is that people like those hills as they are.
Chopping the top of mountains will be strongly resisted.
Doesn't stop people building the damn ugly windmills all over them in the first place. I'd imagine such a scheme would be less transformative to the lansdscape than that.
It would involve changing the shape of the mountain concerned. Good luck with planning permission to decapitate Snowden….
The schemes are already in place. Yet again, the energy market is holding them up. Actually, there could be something on this in the bill, I did not look at the renewables part.
Agreed with the thread header. Unfortunately Badenoch especially seems to be too interested in the "woke" issues, so I'd have her as my last choice preference.
From what I've seen of the candidates so far, ignoring my betting position (which puts Sunak as #1 preference for entirely book-related reasons) my preference would be:
1. Truss - Seems very sound on the economy etc, also came up with the excellent NI solution 2. Tugendhat - Less dry, but pro more housing which is always a big tick 3. Mordaunt - Neutral, seems to change her positions based on what's popular today, ironically like a continuity Boris 4. Sunak - Too high tax 5. Badenoch - Anti-woke
I appreciate that's probably a pretty unusual preference list.
I'm surprised that you have Truss as sound on the economy when her policy is to massively expand public borrowing in order to add masses more money to an inflation crisis.
I can't imagine you regarding the policy as sound if it were suggested by a Labour politician. I can understand that you would be well-disposed towards Truss because of her Brexit policy, but I think you're showing that to distort your judgement.
From what I understand she's suggesting that Covid-related borrowing should be spread over a longer time period, like war bonds.
That's exactly what I suggested at the time of Sunak's stupid NI tax rise.
Day to day spending should not be getting borrowed, but Covid-spending should be
A large sum of the money Sunak's tax rise is going to clear the Covid backlog, despite hundreds of billions of borrowing. What I suggested is that previously was that the Treasury should calculate the cost of clearing the Covid backlog and add that to the Covid borrowing. That borrowing should then be amortised over a timespan rather than just a couple of years as Sunak wanted. We should then return to standard borrowing targets, taking into account the amortisation of Covid borrowing.
That's completely different to Brownian borrowing for day-to-day expenditure.
I don't think you can just magic half our existing debt into war bonds. But that's by-the-by, because, when challenged on the policy during the debate, Truss defended it by explicitly arguing we could borrow more because our current debt levels were lower than other countries.
That is an explicit argument for borrowing to pay for tax cuts, to borrow to cover day-to-day expenditure rather than take the hard choice of taxing or cutting spending. And it's a massive inflationary kick to the economy when inflation is already high.
Of course you can treat half our existing debt as war bonds, war bonds are just bonds with an attitude attached to them not a different type of bond.
Borrowing to reverse the tax rise may be a tax cut but limited to Covid borrowing is also absolutely the right thing to do and what should have been done all along.
Reversing the NI hike may be "inflationary" but it is the right thing to do. If non-working people have to face a bit more inflation rather than putting all the burden on working people, then that's not an issue for me.
You can't unilaterally change the terms of a bond issued without defaulting. That's the point of the bonds issue. So talk about turning them into war bonds is just a distraction from more borrowing.
And on inflation, my pay is up 5%, my Dad's pensions are up by the rate of inflation. It's the working people who are losing out from inflation and will lose out from more inflation.
The Treasury already sells gilts with 50 year maturity I believe, so what's the difference to a "War Bond"?
iirc War Bonds were sold to the general public in UK, not the usual sovereign debt investors (e.g. pension companies, insurance companies, foreign banks etc).
Buying such a bond was patriotic duty I recall.
It was. Huge rallies and moral pressure, and tanks and planes visiting. About 50% negative rate of return by 1924 or something like that, thanks to wartime inflation.
You couldn't redeem them, either, so they were still knocling around in my family finances into the 1970s at least. The one occasion to redeem was very temporary, at one point when HMG wanted to reduce the interest rate unilaterally, and had to offer redemption as an alternative.
You sure had to be bloody patriotic to buy the things!
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
The technology is being developed so that normal hills would be suitable - using enclosed reservoirs and a water solution that is denser so that more energy is stored per unit volume.
There's a massive amount happening in energy storage technology, but it's possible that batteries will steal a march on them all because they're so much simpler to scale and implement.
An engineer friend told me that Cruachan could be used to kick-start the entire UK grid in the event of nuclear war or a big cyber attack. Used to have MoD types guarding it.
Required because "the grid" consumes a lot of energy.
The systems at Torness take 60MW to run for example
To get more growth we need to improve productivity. That is the key. It reduces inflation, increases wages, makes domestic production more competitive, reduces the pressure on the supply of labour. What do the candidates have to say about that?
I can honestly say I don't recall ever hearing any British politician say something substantive about the issue. Identifying a problem is easy peasy. Fixing it, that's what we want to hear ideas about.
In fairness politicians talk about training, education and, in very general terms, investment. But I am not seeing a policy mix that actually brings this into focus with a view to raising productivity. As for improving mobility in the housing market, overcoming transportation blockages, maximising our existing resources, nada.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.
To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.
The gamble for the Tories is this: as people get cold and hungry this winter, will the supposed threat of cock-wielding trans deviants persuade them to ignore their hunger and cold and the anger that generates towards the Tories, and instead be kept warm in a Mail-induced fury about bathrooms?
But it's not really an either/or, it it? We'll be cold and hungry anyway. Gas has got much more expensive and no amount of accounting tricks will change that. Whereas we can choose whether we invite Stonewall in to our institutions to advance their gender agenda. But for the record, if government could either prevent food prices from doubling or stop schools from advancing their ultra-woke agenda, I would rather they stopped schools from advancing their ultra-woke agenda. I don't watch kids growing up with a sense of shame about being straight and white.
If that was happening en masse then perhaps.
But as it isn't...
But it is, Rochdale. Or at least, in a sample size of 5 secondary schools I have visited recently, the incidence of it was 100%. If you infer the schools' orders of priorities from the visibility of display materials, they are: 1) now you're in secondary school, you need to pick a sexuality and identity from this list. This is very important and if you're not sure it's probably because you're bi, rather than, you know, 11 or 12 and not actually sexual at all yet. Why not join the Rainbow Club? =2) woohoo for BLM! Mary Seacombe and Rosa Parks. Why not join the equality club? =2) the environment: we're all doomed. 4) while you're here, if you want to indulge in a little education, or perhaps sport, that would also be fine.
Seacole. Bloody autocorrect.
I agree about autocorrect. I fail to see the problem with teaching kids about Mary Seacole.
I must admit that I do find the focus on such an obscure figure rather odd.
Surely Seacole is only 'an obscure figure' because she was overlooked for a century due to her skin colour. C.f. Florence Nightingale.
History is a wonderful subject and there are thousands of figures from history it is interesting to learn about, but primary school children aren’t going to learn everything at once, so we pick out a few national “heroes” for them. Who we pick tells us much about our society.
I work with health data, so Florence Nightingale is my hero, a hugely important figure in the development of my field. I learnt about Nightingale when I was young, but I wasn’t told anything about what makes her so significant then. I wasn’t told she was the first female member of the Royal Statistical Society, I wasn’t told about her work with sex workers, I wasn’t told she had a pet owl. I was told the Lady with the Lamp myth, a regurgitated bit of Victoria propaganda. I wish I had been told about Nightingale the statistician.
Seacole is an interesting figure. She had much less impact on the world than Nightingale, but much more impact than a black woman from Jamaica could usually have. The myths we tell children today about Seacole are much like the myths I was taught about Nightingale. They are a simplification of any historical truth for the purpose of telling a story.
The Right complain about this when it applies to Seacole, but seem unwilling to accept that what they learnt as kids were just as much stories.
Kids needs stories, and as they get older, we can unpack those stories and move to history. I think Seacole and Nightingale are both figures that can be inspirational, but the truth behind both is complicated and they are both figures of their time. (For example, Nightingale was racist and rejected germ theory.)
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.
To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.
The gamble for the Tories is this: as people get cold and hungry this winter, will the supposed threat of cock-wielding trans deviants persuade them to ignore their hunger and cold and the anger that generates towards the Tories, and instead be kept warm in a Mail-induced fury about bathrooms?
But it's not really an either/or, it it? We'll be cold and hungry anyway. Gas has got much more expensive and no amount of accounting tricks will change that. Whereas we can choose whether we invite Stonewall in to our institutions to advance their gender agenda. But for the record, if government could either prevent food prices from doubling or stop schools from advancing their ultra-woke agenda, I would rather they stopped schools from advancing their ultra-woke agenda. I don't watch kids growing up with a sense of shame about being straight and white.
If that was happening en masse then perhaps.
But as it isn't...
But it is, Rochdale. Or at least, in a sample size of 5 secondary schools I have visited recently, the incidence of it was 100%. If you infer the schools' orders of priorities from the visibility of display materials, they are: 1) now you're in secondary school, you need to pick a sexuality and identity from this list. This is very important and if you're not sure it's probably because you're bi, rather than, you know, 11 or 12 and not actually sexual at all yet. Why not join the Rainbow Club? =2) woohoo for BLM! Mary Seacombe and Rosa Parks. Why not join the equality club? =2) the environment: we're all doomed. 4) while you're here, if you want to indulge in a little education, or perhaps sport, that would also be fine.
Unhappiness with schools priorities is a big driver for the home schooling movement in the US tbf.
Will the members really put someone this inexperienced in as PM because she is sound on women's toilets?
No, but they might make Kemi PM because she isn't the others.
In the same way Major and IDS won.
It is the same mentality with voters who gave Boris 80 seat majority is it not? When it comes to the general election, voters will much prefer Kemi as PM than Starmer, probably by about 2:1
Kemi has to be either the one Labour fear most, or the one Labour are most underestimating.
The more I think about it, Cummings closeness to Gove, I am sure he is helping Badenoch.
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
The technology is being developed so that normal hills would be suitable - using enclosed reservoirs and a water solution that is denser so that more energy is stored per unit volume.
There's a massive amount happening in energy storage technology, but it's possible that batteries will steal a march on them all because they're so much simpler to scale and implement.
Batteries are harder to stop. A couple of shipping containers at each supercharger site. If land usage is an issue, easy to dig a hole and site them underground. Multiply by thousands of site…
It will happen unless someone works out a way to stop it.
As to power storage, I’m curious about ideas using molten tin. Very, very dense and we have lots of experience in handling it in massive quantities - the glass industry.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Thoughts and prayers to the Royal Family tomorrow. If Andrew can't sweat he's surely going to die in this heat.
The Royal family is just not that lucky.
The wife once found some sunscreen that promised not to need reapplication during the day. Found out why during a 10 mile race in the sun - it stopped me from sweating... Very unpleasant experience.
Useful cut out and keep guide on the candidates for Tory MPs in todays Observer:
Tom Tugendhat: Labour fear factor 3/5 He has polled well among voters at large but his premiership would come under instant attack from the right.
Kemi Badenoch; Labour fear factor 2/5 Inexperienced, but a figure with a strong personality that could make Starmer look cautious and dull.
Penny Mordaunt: Labour fear factor 3/5 An unpredictable threat, but beatable.
Rishi Sunak: Labour fear factor 4/5 Competent and convincing – Labour’s biggest concern among the contenders.
Liz Truss: Labour fear factor 1/5 Truss is the opponent Labour wants.
Pretty much agree. If they pick Sunak the next election is 50/50. Badenoch or Mordaunt, Labour are favourites. If they pick Truss it's nailed on for Labour.
Agreed with the thread header. Unfortunately Badenoch especially seems to be too interested in the "woke" issues, so I'd have her as my last choice preference.
From what I've seen of the candidates so far, ignoring my betting position (which puts Sunak as #1 preference for entirely book-related reasons) my preference would be:
1. Truss - Seems very sound on the economy etc, also came up with the excellent NI solution 2. Tugendhat - Less dry, but pro more housing which is always a big tick 3. Mordaunt - Neutral, seems to change her positions based on what's popular today, ironically like a continuity Boris 4. Sunak - Too high tax 5. Badenoch - Anti-woke
I appreciate that's probably a pretty unusual preference list.
I'm surprised that you have Truss as sound on the economy when her policy is to massively expand public borrowing in order to add masses more money to an inflation crisis.
I can't imagine you regarding the policy as sound if it were suggested by a Labour politician. I can understand that you would be well-disposed towards Truss because of her Brexit policy, but I think you're showing that to distort your judgement.
From what I understand she's suggesting that Covid-related borrowing should be spread over a longer time period, like war bonds.
That's exactly what I suggested at the time of Sunak's stupid NI tax rise.
Day to day spending should not be getting borrowed, but Covid-spending should be
A large sum of the money Sunak's tax rise is going to clear the Covid backlog, despite hundreds of billions of borrowing. What I suggested is that previously was that the Treasury should calculate the cost of clearing the Covid backlog and add that to the Covid borrowing. That borrowing should then be amortised over a timespan rather than just a couple of years as Sunak wanted. We should then return to standard borrowing targets, taking into account the amortisation of Covid borrowing.
That's completely different to Brownian borrowing for day-to-day expenditure.
I don't think you can just magic half our existing debt into war bonds. But that's by-the-by, because, when challenged on the policy during the debate, Truss defended it by explicitly arguing we could borrow more because our current debt levels were lower than other countries.
That is an explicit argument for borrowing to pay for tax cuts, to borrow to cover day-to-day expenditure rather than take the hard choice of taxing or cutting spending. And it's a massive inflationary kick to the economy when inflation is already high.
Of course you can treat half our existing debt as war bonds, war bonds are just bonds with an attitude attached to them not a different type of bond.
Borrowing to reverse the tax rise may be a tax cut but limited to Covid borrowing is also absolutely the right thing to do and what should have been done all along.
Reversing the NI hike may be "inflationary" but it is the right thing to do. If non-working people have to face a bit more inflation rather than putting all the burden on working people, then that's not an issue for me.
You can't unilaterally change the terms of a bond issued without defaulting. That's the point of the bonds issue. So talk about turning them into war bonds is just a distraction from more borrowing.
And on inflation, my pay is up 5%, my Dad's pensions are up by the rate of inflation. It's the working people who are losing out from inflation and will lose out from more inflation.
The Treasury already sells gilts with 50 year maturity I believe, so what's the difference to a "War Bond"?
iirc War Bonds were sold to the general public in UK, not the usual sovereign debt investors (e.g. pension companies, insurance companies, foreign banks etc).
Buying such a bond was patriotic duty I recall.
Sure and Britain already has a relatively large proportion of long-dated bonds. So what is Truss going to change that would enable us to borrow £30+bn more a year without it bankrupting the country?
Agreed with the thread header. Unfortunately Badenoch especially seems to be too interested in the "woke" issues, so I'd have her as my last choice preference.
From what I've seen of the candidates so far, ignoring my betting position (which puts Sunak as #1 preference for entirely book-related reasons) my preference would be:
1. Truss - Seems very sound on the economy etc, also came up with the excellent NI solution 2. Tugendhat - Less dry, but pro more housing which is always a big tick 3. Mordaunt - Neutral, seems to change her positions based on what's popular today, ironically like a continuity Boris 4. Sunak - Too high tax 5. Badenoch - Anti-woke
I appreciate that's probably a pretty unusual preference list.
I'm surprised that you have Truss as sound on the economy when her policy is to massively expand public borrowing in order to add masses more money to an inflation crisis.
I can't imagine you regarding the policy as sound if it were suggested by a Labour politician. I can understand that you would be well-disposed towards Truss because of her Brexit policy, but I think you're showing that to distort your judgement.
From what I understand she's suggesting that Covid-related borrowing should be spread over a longer time period, like war bonds.
That's exactly what I suggested at the time of Sunak's stupid NI tax rise.
Day to day spending should not be getting borrowed, but Covid-spending should be
A large sum of the money Sunak's tax rise is going to clear the Covid backlog, despite hundreds of billions of borrowing. What I suggested is that previously was that the Treasury should calculate the cost of clearing the Covid backlog and add that to the Covid borrowing. That borrowing should then be amortised over a timespan rather than just a couple of years as Sunak wanted. We should then return to standard borrowing targets, taking into account the amortisation of Covid borrowing.
That's completely different to Brownian borrowing for day-to-day expenditure.
I don't think you can just magic half our existing debt into war bonds. But that's by-the-by, because, when challenged on the policy during the debate, Truss defended it by explicitly arguing we could borrow more because our current debt levels were lower than other countries.
That is an explicit argument for borrowing to pay for tax cuts, to borrow to cover day-to-day expenditure rather than take the hard choice of taxing or cutting spending. And it's a massive inflationary kick to the economy when inflation is already high.
Of course you can treat half our existing debt as war bonds, war bonds are just bonds with an attitude attached to them not a different type of bond.
Borrowing to reverse the tax rise may be a tax cut but limited to Covid borrowing is also absolutely the right thing to do and what should have been done all along.
Reversing the NI hike may be "inflationary" but it is the right thing to do. If non-working people have to face a bit more inflation rather than putting all the burden on working people, then that's not an issue for me.
You can't unilaterally change the terms of a bond issued without defaulting. That's the point of the bonds issue. So talk about turning them into war bonds is just a distraction from more borrowing.
And on inflation, my pay is up 5%, my Dad's pensions are up by the rate of inflation. It's the working people who are losing out from inflation and will lose out from more inflation.
The Treasury already sells gilts with 50 year maturity I believe, so what's the difference to a "War Bond"?
iirc War Bonds were sold to the general public in UK, not the usual sovereign debt investors (e.g. pension companies, insurance companies, foreign banks etc).
Buying such a bond was patriotic duty I recall.
It was. Huge rallies and moral pressure, and tanks and planes visiting. About 50% negative rate of return by 1924 or something like that, thanks to wartime inflation.
You couldn't redeem them, either, so they were still knocling around in my family finances into the 1970s at least. The one occasion to redeem was very temporary, at one point when HMG wanted to reduce the interest rate unilaterally, and had to offer redemption as an alternative.
You sure had to be bloody patriotic to buy the things!
Rather off-topic, but I seem to remember someone asking about the weather in Dundee over the next couple of days. Looks like the amber warning has been extended to cover it https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-62196598
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
US Ambassador is the only govt role Boris might be interested in.
Agreed with the thread header. Unfortunately Badenoch especially seems to be too interested in the "woke" issues, so I'd have her as my last choice preference.
From what I've seen of the candidates so far, ignoring my betting position (which puts Sunak as #1 preference for entirely book-related reasons) my preference would be:
1. Truss - Seems very sound on the economy etc, also came up with the excellent NI solution 2. Tugendhat - Less dry, but pro more housing which is always a big tick 3. Mordaunt - Neutral, seems to change her positions based on what's popular today, ironically like a continuity Boris 4. Sunak - Too high tax 5. Badenoch - Anti-woke
I appreciate that's probably a pretty unusual preference list.
I'm surprised that you have Truss as sound on the economy when her policy is to massively expand public borrowing in order to add masses more money to an inflation crisis.
I can't imagine you regarding the policy as sound if it were suggested by a Labour politician. I can understand that you would be well-disposed towards Truss because of her Brexit policy, but I think you're showing that to distort your judgement.
From what I understand she's suggesting that Covid-related borrowing should be spread over a longer time period, like war bonds.
That's exactly what I suggested at the time of Sunak's stupid NI tax rise.
Day to day spending should not be getting borrowed, but Covid-spending should be
A large sum of the money Sunak's tax rise is going to clear the Covid backlog, despite hundreds of billions of borrowing. What I suggested is that previously was that the Treasury should calculate the cost of clearing the Covid backlog and add that to the Covid borrowing. That borrowing should then be amortised over a timespan rather than just a couple of years as Sunak wanted. We should then return to standard borrowing targets, taking into account the amortisation of Covid borrowing.
That's completely different to Brownian borrowing for day-to-day expenditure.
I don't think you can just magic half our existing debt into war bonds. But that's by-the-by, because, when challenged on the policy during the debate, Truss defended it by explicitly arguing we could borrow more because our current debt levels were lower than other countries.
That is an explicit argument for borrowing to pay for tax cuts, to borrow to cover day-to-day expenditure rather than take the hard choice of taxing or cutting spending. And it's a massive inflationary kick to the economy when inflation is already high.
Of course you can treat half our existing debt as war bonds, war bonds are just bonds with an attitude attached to them not a different type of bond.
Borrowing to reverse the tax rise may be a tax cut but limited to Covid borrowing is also absolutely the right thing to do and what should have been done all along.
Reversing the NI hike may be "inflationary" but it is the right thing to do. If non-working people have to face a bit more inflation rather than putting all the burden on working people, then that's not an issue for me.
You can't unilaterally change the terms of a bond issued without defaulting. That's the point of the bonds issue. So talk about turning them into war bonds is just a distraction from more borrowing.
And on inflation, my pay is up 5%, my Dad's pensions are up by the rate of inflation. It's the working people who are losing out from inflation and will lose out from more inflation.
The Treasury already sells gilts with 50 year maturity I believe, so what's the difference to a "War Bond"?
iirc War Bonds were sold to the general public in UK, not the usual sovereign debt investors (e.g. pension companies, insurance companies, foreign banks etc).
Buying such a bond was patriotic duty I recall.
It was. Huge rallies and moral pressure, and tanks and planes visiting. About 50% negative rate of return by 1924 or something like that, thanks to wartime inflation.
You couldn't redeem them, either, so they were still knocling around in my family finances into the 1970s at least. The one occasion to redeem was very temporary, at one point when HMG wanted to reduce the interest rate unilaterally, and had to offer redemption as an alternative.
You sure had to be bloody patriotic to buy the things!
Second World War had postwar credits which were equally difficult to redeem
Thoughts and prayers to the Royal Family tomorrow. If Andrew can't sweat he's surely going to die in this heat.
The Royal family is just not that lucky.
The wife once found some sunscreen that promised not to need reapplication during the day. Found out why during a 10 mile race in the sun - it stopped me from sweating... Very unpleasant experience.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
US Ambassador is the only govt role Boris might be interested in.
Boris needs to earn some hard cash . A cabinet job or Ambassadorship wouldn't be any use.
Agreed with the thread header. Unfortunately Badenoch especially seems to be too interested in the "woke" issues, so I'd have her as my last choice preference.
From what I've seen of the candidates so far, ignoring my betting position (which puts Sunak as #1 preference for entirely book-related reasons) my preference would be:
1. Truss - Seems very sound on the economy etc, also came up with the excellent NI solution 2. Tugendhat - Less dry, but pro more housing which is always a big tick 3. Mordaunt - Neutral, seems to change her positions based on what's popular today, ironically like a continuity Boris 4. Sunak - Too high tax 5. Badenoch - Anti-woke
I appreciate that's probably a pretty unusual preference list.
I'm surprised that you have Truss as sound on the economy when her policy is to massively expand public borrowing in order to add masses more money to an inflation crisis.
I can't imagine you regarding the policy as sound if it were suggested by a Labour politician. I can understand that you would be well-disposed towards Truss because of her Brexit policy, but I think you're showing that to distort your judgement.
From what I understand she's suggesting that Covid-related borrowing should be spread over a longer time period, like war bonds.
That's exactly what I suggested at the time of Sunak's stupid NI tax rise.
Day to day spending should not be getting borrowed, but Covid-spending should be
A large sum of the money Sunak's tax rise is going to clear the Covid backlog, despite hundreds of billions of borrowing. What I suggested is that previously was that the Treasury should calculate the cost of clearing the Covid backlog and add that to the Covid borrowing. That borrowing should then be amortised over a timespan rather than just a couple of years as Sunak wanted. We should then return to standard borrowing targets, taking into account the amortisation of Covid borrowing.
That's completely different to Brownian borrowing for day-to-day expenditure.
I don't think you can just magic half our existing debt into war bonds. But that's by-the-by, because, when challenged on the policy during the debate, Truss defended it by explicitly arguing we could borrow more because our current debt levels were lower than other countries.
That is an explicit argument for borrowing to pay for tax cuts, to borrow to cover day-to-day expenditure rather than take the hard choice of taxing or cutting spending. And it's a massive inflationary kick to the economy when inflation is already high.
Of course you can treat half our existing debt as war bonds, war bonds are just bonds with an attitude attached to them not a different type of bond.
Borrowing to reverse the tax rise may be a tax cut but limited to Covid borrowing is also absolutely the right thing to do and what should have been done all along.
Reversing the NI hike may be "inflationary" but it is the right thing to do. If non-working people have to face a bit more inflation rather than putting all the burden on working people, then that's not an issue for me.
You can't unilaterally change the terms of a bond issued without defaulting. That's the point of the bonds issue. So talk about turning them into war bonds is just a distraction from more borrowing.
And on inflation, my pay is up 5%, my Dad's pensions are up by the rate of inflation. It's the working people who are losing out from inflation and will lose out from more inflation.
The Treasury already sells gilts with 50 year maturity I believe, so what's the difference to a "War Bond"?
iirc War Bonds were sold to the general public in UK, not the usual sovereign debt investors (e.g. pension companies, insurance companies, foreign banks etc).
Buying such a bond was patriotic duty I recall.
It was. Huge rallies and moral pressure, and tanks and planes visiting. About 50% negative rate of return by 1924 or something like that, thanks to wartime inflation.
You couldn't redeem them, either, so they were still knocling around in my family finances into the 1970s at least. The one occasion to redeem was very temporary, at one point when HMG wanted to reduce the interest rate unilaterally, and had to offer redemption as an alternative.
You sure had to be bloody patriotic to buy the things!
I think George O finally redeemed them in 2015?
Yep, when the bankl base rate fell so low as to make it worth HMG's while. Found this:
Thoughts and prayers to the Royal Family tomorrow. If Andrew can't sweat he's surely going to die in this heat.
The Royal family is just not that lucky.
The wife once found some sunscreen that promised not to need reapplication during the day. Found out why during a 10 mile race in the sun - it stopped me from sweating... Very unpleasant experience.
I've tried that. It was like a gloss paint. Horrible stuff.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
People are assessing Labour's chances at the next election through the perceived centristness of their policy platform and rhetoric, which is why Sunak does best.
I think that's too simplistic. Policies for growth, competence in office, their style, and developing a language and rapport with ordinary voters will be key.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
US Ambassador is the only govt role Boris might be interested in.
Boris needs to earn some hard cash . A cabinet job or Ambassadorship wouldn't be any use.
The US is where he will make his hundreds of millions. Raising his profile there for a couple of years could be of interest to him.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
Agreed with the thread header. Unfortunately Badenoch especially seems to be too interested in the "woke" issues, so I'd have her as my last choice preference.
From what I've seen of the candidates so far, ignoring my betting position (which puts Sunak as #1 preference for entirely book-related reasons) my preference would be:
1. Truss - Seems very sound on the economy etc, also came up with the excellent NI solution 2. Tugendhat - Less dry, but pro more housing which is always a big tick 3. Mordaunt - Neutral, seems to change her positions based on what's popular today, ironically like a continuity Boris 4. Sunak - Too high tax 5. Badenoch - Anti-woke
I appreciate that's probably a pretty unusual preference list.
I'm surprised that you have Truss as sound on the economy when her policy is to massively expand public borrowing in order to add masses more money to an inflation crisis.
I can't imagine you regarding the policy as sound if it were suggested by a Labour politician. I can understand that you would be well-disposed towards Truss because of her Brexit policy, but I think you're showing that to distort your judgement.
From what I understand she's suggesting that Covid-related borrowing should be spread over a longer time period, like war bonds.
That's exactly what I suggested at the time of Sunak's stupid NI tax rise.
Day to day spending should not be getting borrowed, but Covid-spending should be
A large sum of the money Sunak's tax rise is going to clear the Covid backlog, despite hundreds of billions of borrowing. What I suggested is that previously was that the Treasury should calculate the cost of clearing the Covid backlog and add that to the Covid borrowing. That borrowing should then be amortised over a timespan rather than just a couple of years as Sunak wanted. We should then return to standard borrowing targets, taking into account the amortisation of Covid borrowing.
That's completely different to Brownian borrowing for day-to-day expenditure.
I don't think you can just magic half our existing debt into war bonds. But that's by-the-by, because, when challenged on the policy during the debate, Truss defended it by explicitly arguing we could borrow more because our current debt levels were lower than other countries.
That is an explicit argument for borrowing to pay for tax cuts, to borrow to cover day-to-day expenditure rather than take the hard choice of taxing or cutting spending. And it's a massive inflationary kick to the economy when inflation is already high.
Of course you can treat half our existing debt as war bonds, war bonds are just bonds with an attitude attached to them not a different type of bond.
Borrowing to reverse the tax rise may be a tax cut but limited to Covid borrowing is also absolutely the right thing to do and what should have been done all along.
Reversing the NI hike may be "inflationary" but it is the right thing to do. If non-working people have to face a bit more inflation rather than putting all the burden on working people, then that's not an issue for me.
You can't unilaterally change the terms of a bond issued without defaulting. That's the point of the bonds issue. So talk about turning them into war bonds is just a distraction from more borrowing.
And on inflation, my pay is up 5%, my Dad's pensions are up by the rate of inflation. It's the working people who are losing out from inflation and will lose out from more inflation.
The Treasury already sells gilts with 50 year maturity I believe, so what's the difference to a "War Bond"?
iirc War Bonds were sold to the general public in UK, not the usual sovereign debt investors (e.g. pension companies, insurance companies, foreign banks etc).
Buying such a bond was patriotic duty I recall.
Sure and Britain already has a relatively large proportion of long-dated bonds. So what is Truss going to change that would enable us to borrow £30+bn more a year without it bankrupting the country?
Let's hope the next debate drills down into it all.
Seems to me to just be one of the 'say anything that can get me elected by the membership' policies.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
US Ambassador is the only govt role Boris might be interested in.
Boris needs to earn some hard cash . A cabinet job or Ambassadorship wouldn't be any use.
Dashing off a flowery comment piece in half an hour about how good he was and how terrible the new person is, and how he'd have done it better. Then back to the shagging.
Agreed with the thread header. Unfortunately Badenoch especially seems to be too interested in the "woke" issues, so I'd have her as my last choice preference.
From what I've seen of the candidates so far, ignoring my betting position (which puts Sunak as #1 preference for entirely book-related reasons) my preference would be:
1. Truss - Seems very sound on the economy etc, also came up with the excellent NI solution 2. Tugendhat - Less dry, but pro more housing which is always a big tick 3. Mordaunt - Neutral, seems to change her positions based on what's popular today, ironically like a continuity Boris 4. Sunak - Too high tax 5. Badenoch - Anti-woke
I appreciate that's probably a pretty unusual preference list.
I'm surprised that you have Truss as sound on the economy when her policy is to massively expand public borrowing in order to add masses more money to an inflation crisis.
I can't imagine you regarding the policy as sound if it were suggested by a Labour politician. I can understand that you would be well-disposed towards Truss because of her Brexit policy, but I think you're showing that to distort your judgement.
From what I understand she's suggesting that Covid-related borrowing should be spread over a longer time period, like war bonds.
That's exactly what I suggested at the time of Sunak's stupid NI tax rise.
Day to day spending should not be getting borrowed, but Covid-spending should be
A large sum of the money Sunak's tax rise is going to clear the Covid backlog, despite hundreds of billions of borrowing. What I suggested is that previously was that the Treasury should calculate the cost of clearing the Covid backlog and add that to the Covid borrowing. That borrowing should then be amortised over a timespan rather than just a couple of years as Sunak wanted. We should then return to standard borrowing targets, taking into account the amortisation of Covid borrowing.
That's completely different to Brownian borrowing for day-to-day expenditure.
I don't think you can just magic half our existing debt into war bonds. But that's by-the-by, because, when challenged on the policy during the debate, Truss defended it by explicitly arguing we could borrow more because our current debt levels were lower than other countries.
That is an explicit argument for borrowing to pay for tax cuts, to borrow to cover day-to-day expenditure rather than take the hard choice of taxing or cutting spending. And it's a massive inflationary kick to the economy when inflation is already high.
Of course you can treat half our existing debt as war bonds, war bonds are just bonds with an attitude attached to them not a different type of bond.
Borrowing to reverse the tax rise may be a tax cut but limited to Covid borrowing is also absolutely the right thing to do and what should have been done all along.
Reversing the NI hike may be "inflationary" but it is the right thing to do. If non-working people have to face a bit more inflation rather than putting all the burden on working people, then that's not an issue for me.
You can't unilaterally change the terms of a bond issued without defaulting. That's the point of the bonds issue. So talk about turning them into war bonds is just a distraction from more borrowing.
And on inflation, my pay is up 5%, my Dad's pensions are up by the rate of inflation. It's the working people who are losing out from inflation and will lose out from more inflation.
The Treasury already sells gilts with 50 year maturity I believe, so what's the difference to a "War Bond"?
iirc War Bonds were sold to the general public in UK, not the usual sovereign debt investors (e.g. pension companies, insurance companies, foreign banks etc).
Buying such a bond was patriotic duty I recall.
Sure and Britain already has a relatively large proportion of long-dated bonds. So what is Truss going to change that would enable us to borrow £30+bn more a year without it bankrupting the country?
It only bankrupts the country if the tax return from the spending does not meet the interest bill. There is room for discussions about this but Sunak's point is the one to answer: how do you stop this causing yet more inflation?
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
US Ambassador is the only govt role Boris might be interested in.
Boris needs to earn some hard cash . A cabinet job or Ambassadorship wouldn't be any use.
No. If he is hungry for political comeback, cabinet is his route next two years.
Let’s be honest here, amongst all the Boris bashing - if he could go back three years in a time machine he would do it all differently, and be on course now for 2024 election win.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
The Tory leadership race is like a trippy optical illusion. Each time you look long and hard at one of the candidates you think "well obviously they can't win" and the other candidates in the periphery of your vision look perfectly electable. Only, when you switch your gaze onto them, it's the same thing. The one that looked hopeless suddenly appears much better because NOW you're staring at this other one and oh God no, THIS one is worse.
Yep. All is relative. Like for me they all look varying shades of utterly adorable because I'm comparing them to Boris Johnson. That's how bad he was. I do hope we won't forget this. Hope people don't start conjuring up 'redeeming qualities' as the reality of him recedes. Let's keep that collective memory true and sharp and bitter.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
Badenoch reminds me of Corbyn. She is so utterly convinced of her point of view and worthiness that she has no ability to see how others (some of whom you might need to vote for her one day) might perceive what she says.
Thoughts and prayers to the Royal Family tomorrow. If Andrew can't sweat he's surely going to die in this heat.
The Royal family is just not that lucky.
The wife once found some sunscreen that promised not to need reapplication during the day. Found out why during a 10 mile race in the sun - it stopped me from sweating... Very unpleasant experience.
Sunscreen is for wimps.
To be serious, the main difference I remember between 1976 and now is that sunburn has almost completely disappeared whereas then human lobsters were ubiquitous, and some even welcomed it as a prelude to tanning.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
The right wing could explore this further. Government ministers could start to organise how companies are run, perhaps develop 5 year plans to help guide them. They could ensure that only those loyal to the Tory party are considered for the top jobs, and maybe move any dissident workers to the bleakest parts of the country.
I wonder what could we call this new right wing, free market party?
You seriously think people like that matter to Labour? As far as the modern Labour party are concerned, they are at the bottom of the pile - white (I'm guessing) very low economic status who probably hold some very 'outdated' views when it comes to race, gay rights and trans issues.
I agree modern capitalism has been awful at this (and I blame a lot of it on economics dressing itself up as an empirical science and pushing theories that don't work in practice) but the idea Labour cares about these people is laughable.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
This is a Priti Patel battle. KB strikes me more and more as a PP mini me. Not in a good way.
Do we really believe B&J are focussing on social justice at expense of profits, or it’s a glib marketing campaign.
Cummings will be revealed as the Brains behind Badenoch success. As Boris exits number 10, Gove and Cummings will be entering it. Dom will probably carry the same box through the front door much like Hitler used the same rail carriage for French surrender.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
US Ambassador is the only govt role Boris might be interested in.
Boris needs to earn some hard cash . A cabinet job or Ambassadorship wouldn't be any use.
The US is where he will make his hundreds of millions. Raising his profile there for a couple of years could be of interest to him.
He should get a job working for Ukraine. Some rich person can spare a million or so to keep him in the style in which he's accustomed while travelling around the world coordinating arms deals and making sure people don't forget about them. It makes him less unpopular in Britain whatever happens, and if Ukraine win the war he can return to British politics if that's what he wants to do.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
Badenoch reminds me of Corbyn. She is so utterly convinced of her point of view and worthiness that she has no ability to see how others (some of whom you might need to vote for her one day) might perceive what she says.
People are assessing Labour's chances at the next election through the perceived centristness of their policy platform and rhetoric, which is why Sunak does best.
I think that's too simplistic. Policies for growth, competence in office, their style, and developing a language and rapport with ordinary voters will be key.
Agree, which is why I think Sunak would actually lead the Conservatives to a pretty poor defeat, although he might save some Home Counties Blue Wall seats.
Anyway it's good to see no obvious traction for the Make PB Great Again (by expelling the foreign posters) campaign. I was a bit worried about that when I popped in last night. These things can take over whole countries so niche internet forums are particularly vulnerable.
Kensington is going Red whatever happens, it went Red under Corbyn in 2017 it will go red again under Starmer. I don't think HYUFD has a clue about the makeup of this seat.
Only certain if the boundary changes go through and even then Kensington voters will not want to cancel ballet as it becomes the latest Woke target
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It is why I am a one nation Conservative. We must use and benefit from the efficiencies of the market but we must also be a compassionate society that helps those that need it. And boy, does that man need it.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
You seriously think people like that matter to Labour? As far as the modern Labour party are concerned, they are at the bottom of the pile - white (I'm guessing) very low economic status who probably hold some very 'outdated' views when it comes to race, gay rights and trans issues.
I agree modern capitalism has been awful at this (and I blame a lot of it on economics dressing itself up as an empirical science and pushing theories that don't work in practice) but the idea Labour cares about these people is laughable.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
I assure you that a great many people within Labour, at all levels in the party care deeply about people at the bottom of society. There are a large number of throughly decent people doing what they can both personally and in groups.
The fairer question is whether Labour yet has been able to built that genuine care into practical action and a policy platform that is both electable and connected into the needs of other groups that also need help.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
You seriously think people like that matter to Labour? As far as the modern Labour party are concerned, they are at the bottom of the pile - white (I'm guessing) very low economic status who probably hold some very 'outdated' views when it comes to race, gay rights and trans issues.
I agree modern capitalism has been awful at this (and I blame a lot of it on economics dressing itself up as an empirical science and pushing theories that don't work in practice) but the idea Labour cares about these people is laughable.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
I would imagine 80%+ of the population cares about them regardless of political affiliation. And I very much doubt any party has really good solutions, especially in the short term, that could work like a magic wand.
You seriously think people like that matter to Labour? As far as the modern Labour party are concerned, they are at the bottom of the pile - white (I'm guessing) very low economic status who probably hold some very 'outdated' views when it comes to race, gay rights and trans issues.
I agree modern capitalism has been awful at this (and I blame a lot of it on economics dressing itself up as an empirical science and pushing theories that don't work in practice) but the idea Labour cares about these people is laughable.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
I find the idea that someone northern and poor is automatically a knee-jerk bigot doesn't fit with my experience in the slightest.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
No. He's repeating long-standing FO Policy.
So the FO won’t allow us to help Taiwan? And not one of these candidates interested in changing this position?
Even Bomber Blair gets this one, and the Tory’s don’t?
You seriously think people like that matter to Labour? As far as the modern Labour party are concerned, they are at the bottom of the pile - white (I'm guessing) very low economic status who probably hold some very 'outdated' views when it comes to race, gay rights and trans issues.
I agree modern capitalism has been awful at this (and I blame a lot of it on economics dressing itself up as an empirical science and pushing theories that don't work in practice) but the idea Labour cares about these people is laughable.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
I find the idea that someone northern and poor is automatically a knee-jerk bigot doesn't fit with my experience in the slightest.
Thoughts and prayers to the Royal Family tomorrow. If Andrew can't sweat he's surely going to die in this heat.
The Royal family is just not that lucky.
The wife once found some sunscreen that promised not to need reapplication during the day. Found out why during a 10 mile race in the sun - it stopped me from sweating... Very unpleasant experience.
Sunscreen is for wimps.
To be serious, the main difference I remember between 1976 and now is that sunburn has almost completely disappeared whereas then human lobsters were ubiquitous, and some even welcomed it as a prelude to tanning.
Whatever happened to Ambre Solaire which was applied in order to increase tanning.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
People are assessing Labour's chances at the next election through the perceived centristness of their policy platform and rhetoric, which is why Sunak does best.
I think that's too simplistic. Policies for growth, competence in office, their style, and developing a language and rapport with ordinary voters will be key.
I'm doing it as per your para 2. Competence, style, comms, rapport, popular touch. I score Sunak best and Truss worst on that basis.
You seriously think people like that matter to Labour? As far as the modern Labour party are concerned, they are at the bottom of the pile - white (I'm guessing) very low economic status who probably hold some very 'outdated' views when it comes to race, gay rights and trans issues.
I agree modern capitalism has been awful at this (and I blame a lot of it on economics dressing itself up as an empirical science and pushing theories that don't work in practice) but the idea Labour cares about these people is laughable.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Surely just looking at the huge fall in the number of homeless people under Blair, and the rise in the years since, tells you that modern Labour did care about people who were struggling at the edges of society.
You seriously think people like that matter to Labour? As far as the modern Labour party are concerned, they are at the bottom of the pile - white (I'm guessing) very low economic status who probably hold some very 'outdated' views when it comes to race, gay rights and trans issues.
I agree modern capitalism has been awful at this (and I blame a lot of it on economics dressing itself up as an empirical science and pushing theories that don't work in practice) but the idea Labour cares about these people is laughable.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
I find the idea that someone northern and poor is automatically a knee-jerk bigot doesn't fit with my experience in the slightest.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
No. He's repeating long-standing FO Policy.
So the FO won’t allow us to help Taiwan? And not one of these candidates interested in changing this position?
Even Bomber Blair gets this one, and the Tory’s don’t?
Comments
Tom Tugendhat: Labour fear factor 3/5 He has polled well among voters at large but his premiership would come under instant attack from the right.
Kemi Badenoch; Labour fear factor 2/5 Inexperienced, but a figure with a strong personality that could make Starmer look cautious and dull.
Penny Mordaunt: Labour fear factor 3/5 An unpredictable threat, but beatable.
Rishi Sunak: Labour fear factor 4/5 Competent and convincing – Labour’s biggest concern among the contenders.
Liz Truss: Labour fear factor 1/5 Truss is the opponent Labour wants.
I found a 2021 news article about some proposed new sites, which makes it sound like part of the problem is they're kind of borderline in pure economic terms, possibly for weird electricity generation market regulation reasons rather than inherently so. Sounds like the usual "free market very bad at long-term investment for strategic reasons, government unwilling to do it" problem (see also lack of new nuclear).
Every little helps...
It is men who are responsible for the vast majority of violence in society and so it is men that society has taken most steps to protect more vulnerable groups from, and a person doesn't stop being a man, and a potential threat on that basis, just by saying so.
Someone who wasn't a man, but says that they are, doesn't then acquire the threat to other people that men have by saying so. Therefore no-one cares because there's no risk.
Only, when you switch your gaze onto them, it's the same thing. The one that looked hopeless suddenly appears much better because NOW you're staring at this other one and oh God no, THIS one is worse.
Will the members really put someone this inexperienced in as PM because she is sound on women's toilets?
Edited extra bit: and the others should use it to attack Mordaunt in the debate tonight.
And keep your pecker up, old boy!
An engineer friend told me that Cruachan could be used to kick-start the entire UK grid in the event of nuclear war or a big cyber attack. Used to have MoD types guarding it.
Met Office has us now peaking at 30. It was 23 high just a few days ago.
Like Starmer coming under attack from the left. It's working well for him.
iirc War Bonds were sold to the general public in UK, not the usual sovereign debt investors (e.g. pension companies, insurance companies, foreign banks etc).
Buying such a bond was patriotic duty I recall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunterston_A_nuclear_power_station
That link someone posted re suspended projects includes an expansion at Cruachan.
If you think it's hard sleeping at night in these temps, spare a thought for everyone trying to sleep during the day in the east of England this week.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0008329761/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The slag heaps of West Lothian now supports a range of rare fauna for example
You couldn't redeem them, either, so they were still knocling around in my family finances into the 1970s at least. The one occasion to redeem was very temporary, at one point when HMG wanted to reduce the interest rate unilaterally, and had to offer redemption as an alternative.
You sure had to be bloody patriotic to buy the things!
In the same way Major and IDS won.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions.
Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan?
I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies.
Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights?
No.
Will you build the whole of HS2?
Yes.
Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050?
Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet.
Would you privatise Channel 4?
No
Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence?
It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed.
Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law?
Well I haven't worked for this one.
Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet?
We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions.
Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence?
It's a settled question. No.
Are you committed to net zero by 2050?
Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up .
Will you privatise Channel 4?
Not a priority for me.
Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position?
I don't think he'd be around to serve.
Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR?
No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
There's a massive amount happening in energy storage technology, but it's possible that batteries will steal a march on them all because they're so much simpler to scale and implement.
The systems at Torness take 60MW to run for example
In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had.
Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way.
I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
I work with health data, so Florence Nightingale is my hero, a hugely important figure in the development of my field. I learnt about Nightingale when I was young, but I wasn’t told anything about what makes her so significant then. I wasn’t told she was the first female member of the Royal Statistical Society, I wasn’t told about her work with sex workers, I wasn’t told she had a pet owl. I was told the Lady with the Lamp myth, a regurgitated bit of Victoria propaganda. I wish I had been told about Nightingale the statistician.
Seacole is an interesting figure. She had much less impact on the world than Nightingale, but much more impact than a black woman from Jamaica could usually have. The myths we tell children today about Seacole are much like the myths I was taught about Nightingale. They are a simplification of any historical truth for the purpose of telling a story.
The Right complain about this when it applies to Seacole, but seem unwilling to accept that what they learnt as kids were just as much stories.
Kids needs stories, and as they get older, we can unpack those stories and move to history. I think Seacole and Nightingale are both figures that can be inspirational, but the truth behind both is complicated and they are both figures of their time. (For example, Nightingale was racist and rejected germ theory.)
Kemi has to be either the one Labour fear most, or the one Labour are most underestimating.
The more I think about it, Cummings closeness to Gove, I am sure he is helping Badenoch.
It will happen unless someone works out a way to stop it.
As to power storage, I’m curious about ideas using molten tin. Very, very dense and we have lots of experience in handling it in massive quantities - the glass industry.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
He's repeating long-standing FO Policy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170923194237/http://www.dmo.gov.uk/documentview.aspx?docName=/gilts/press/pr031214.pdf
I think that's too simplistic. Policies for growth, competence in office, their style, and developing a language and rapport with ordinary voters will be key.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
Seems to me to just be one of the 'say anything that can get me elected by the membership' policies.
Then back to the shagging.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Let’s be honest here, amongst all the Boris bashing - if he could go back three years in a time machine he would do it all differently, and be on course now for 2024 election win.
PS it would also solve his homeless problem.
This is a Priti Patel battle. KB strikes me more and more as a PP mini me. Not in a good way.
To be serious, the main difference I remember between 1976 and now is that sunburn has almost completely disappeared whereas then human lobsters were ubiquitous, and some even welcomed it as a prelude to tanning.
I wonder what could we call this new right wing, free market party?
I agree modern capitalism has been awful at this (and I blame a lot of it on economics dressing itself up as an empirical science and pushing theories that don't work in practice) but the idea Labour cares about these people is laughable.
Cummings will be revealed as the Brains behind Badenoch success. As Boris exits number 10, Gove and Cummings will be entering it. Dom will probably carry the same box through the front door much like Hitler used the same rail carriage for French surrender.
Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. )
One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons.
So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
The fairer question is whether Labour yet has been able to built that genuine care into practical action and a policy platform that is both electable and connected into the needs of other groups that also need help.
Even Bomber Blair gets this one, and the Tory’s don’t?
It doesn't in mine either, especially as I come from that background.
I was stating what many on the left - including some posters on here - seem to think about these people.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
2.7 Rishi Sunak 37%
2.78 Penny Mordaunt 36%
7 Liz Truss 14%
9.4 Kemi Badenoch 11%
85 Tom Tugendhat
140 Dominic Raab
To make the final two
1.08 Rishi Sunak 93%
1.54 Penny Mordaunt 65%
2.62 Liz Truss 38%
5.8 Kemi Badenoch 17%
55 Tom Tugendhat