It is beyond bonkers after all that has happened since the vote in 2016 that the Tories are on the brink of choosing a Remain campaigner over a Leave campaigner.
But she is more Brexity than the Brexiters, now. That's why she has the backing of the most stern faction.
Zarah Sultana MP @zarahsultana · 5h With record-breaking 40ºC+ temperatures now recorded, don't forget:
Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions.
This is a capitalist crisis and only system change can avert climate catastrophe.
I'm sure I won't forget that, try as I might.
Non-capitalists don't produce carbon emissions, of course, everyone knows that. It's a little known scientific fact that the ideology of a government affects the laws of nature.
It would be 100 state-owned companies if the change she wanted were brought about.
On presentation problems: After, let me repeat, after, he became president, Bill Clinton hired a coach to help him, regularly. I had remembered the coach as a "drama coach", but in a quick search I found only a "life coach", Tony Robbins. https://www.businessinsider.com/life-coach-tony-robbins-bill-clinton-2014-12
According to the news accounts I read at the time, the coach helped Clinton present himself in public. So, if Liz Truss (whom I know little about) has presentation problems as Prime Minister, they might be fixable.
(Fun piece of trivia. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry all ran for a House seat in their first elections -- and all three lost. That was the only general election Bush lost during his political career.)
Bill Clinton was naturally charismatic even from a young age, Truss just isn't
Do you think that this time that will be tested in a month long membership contest?
The problem with the May Bot coronation was that Leadsome pulled before things got going. Maybe this time Truss and Sunak will battle it out for four weeks or so?
I am no fan of Andrea Leadsome but she is a better communicator than May ever was.
Andrea Leadsom to wrongly believe that her surname was spelled with two es.
Zarah Sultana MP @zarahsultana · 5h With record-breaking 40ºC+ temperatures now recorded, don't forget:
Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions.
This is a capitalist crisis and only system change can avert climate catastrophe.
I'm sure I won't forget that, try as I might.
Non-capitalists don't produce carbon emissions, of course, everyone knows that. It's a little known scientific fact that the ideology of a government affects the laws of nature.
Wait till she finds out that 25 of these evil companies are actually delivering services and products to her own house...
On presentation problems: After, let me repeat, after, he became president, Bill Clinton hired a coach to help him, regularly. I had remembered the coach as a "drama coach", but in a quick search I found only a "life coach", Tony Robbins. https://www.businessinsider.com/life-coach-tony-robbins-bill-clinton-2014-12
According to the news accounts I read at the time, the coach helped Clinton present himself in public. So, if Liz Truss (whom I know little about) has presentation problems as Prime Minister, they might be fixable.
(Fun piece of trivia. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry all ran for a House seat in their first elections -- and all three lost. That was the only general election Bush lost during his political career.)
Bill Clinton was naturally charismatic even from a young age, Truss just isn't
Do you think that this time that will be tested in a month long membership contest?
The problem with the May Bot coronation was that Leadsome pulled before things got going. Maybe this time Truss and Sunak will battle it out for four weeks or so?
I am no fan of Andrea Leadsome but she is a better communicator than May ever was.
May had more gravitas than Truss and more appeal to centrist voters
On presentation problems: After, let me repeat, after, he became president, Bill Clinton hired a coach to help him, regularly. I had remembered the coach as a "drama coach", but in a quick search I found only a "life coach", Tony Robbins. https://www.businessinsider.com/life-coach-tony-robbins-bill-clinton-2014-12
According to the news accounts I read at the time, the coach helped Clinton present himself in public. So, if Liz Truss (whom I know little about) has presentation problems as Prime Minister, they might be fixable.
(Fun piece of trivia. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry all ran for a House seat in their first elections -- and all three lost. That was the only general election Bush lost during his political career.)
Bill Clinton was naturally charismatic even from a young age, Truss just isn't
Do you think that this time that will be tested in a month long membership contest?
The problem with the May Bot coronation was that Leadsome pulled before things got going. Maybe this time Truss and Sunak will battle it out for four weeks or so?
I am no fan of Andrea Leadsome but she is a better communicator than May ever was.
May had more gravitas than Truss and more appeal to centrist voters
I defer to your greater knowledge.
I have a quiet regard for May as someone who whatever her faults and wrong ideas did at least seem as a person who personified the best of the deep bones of the conservative party: solid, secure, diligent, selfless, conserving, ancient, Church of England, fete on the green, charity work, stable. Her God seemed to be to do her duty and the best she could.
Micheal Oakeshott.
God what damage Johnson has done to all that.
HIs God is shagging and making money and being seen as important.
It’s now a priority to not just displace our emissions to China, but to actually meaningfully reduce them overall. 2050 just seems too far away.
As I like to scream at people occasionally with my off/on Green voter hat on:
What's the fucking downside?
You decarbonise and you save money. Huge growth and job potential. The countries leading on this tech will dominate the 21st century (forget AI - nowhere near as important).
Raab comes out of it all best I think. Patel looks good I think, blurry photo. Liz Liz Liz.
Nice one for history though as this will easily be the worst Cabinet of utter no marks and make weights in political history and led of course by the worst PM.
Raab comes out of it all best I think. Patel looks good I think, blurry photo. Liz Liz Liz.
Nice one for history though as this will easily be the worst Cabinet of utter no marks and make weights in political history and led of course by the worst PM.
This might explain why Truss is leading the membership vote.
Only 3% of Tory members put electability top of what they want in a new leader. That was behind personality, delivering Brexit, cutting tax and spending, controlling immigration and combating the Woke agenda
It’s now a priority to not just displace our emissions to China, but to actually meaningfully reduce them overall. 2050 just seems too far away.
China is one of the main generators of climate change. No point in trying to pretend otherwise. And it isn't anything to do with us, it's because they want to do it themselves as part of their economic expansion.
Mazzucato's ideas are hardly "different", they've been the gospel of the IMF for years now, ever since European leaders decided they wanted political cover to borrow and spend on gimmicks. Essentially the idea is to take people's wealth away because the government is better at picking winner sectors, especially since it has the power to rig the game and decide the winner at home with national policy.
The problem is that Mazzucato's ideas don't seem to work: otherwise Germany would be touting its solar and hydrogen engine export sectors, instead of still struggling to move away from gas.
TBF:
(a) Germany imports a lot less energy than it did - it's just most of the reduction is in coal (which, btw, was entirely imported from Russia)
(b) Germany has pretty significant exports in both solar and wind, albeit mostly at the subsupplier level. (Of course, they also produce about half the world's gas turbines for power stations)
On topic you have to optimize for the actual electorate. Most people aren't impressed by Margaret Thatcher cosplay but Tory members presumably are, so that's what she did. Penny or Rishi could have dressed up as Margaret Thatcher too, but they didn't because they don't have what it takes to go the extra mile.
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did. Yet a sense that the Conservative Party has been involved in — no, that is too passive and neutral — has been responsible for a historic disaster seems completely absent from the debate about its future leadership.
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
On topic you have to optimize for the actual electorate. Most people aren't impressed by Margaret Thatcher cosplay but Tory members presumably are, so that's what she did. Penny or Rishi could have dressed up as Margaret Thatcher too, but they didn't because they don't have what it takes to go the extra mile.
What are her plans to appeal to the larger electorate after that ?
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did. Yet a sense that the Conservative Party has been involved in — no, that is too passive and neutral — has been responsible for a historic disaster seems completely absent from the debate about its future leadership.
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
On topic you have to optimize for the actual electorate. Most people aren't impressed by Margaret Thatcher cosplay but Tory members presumably are, so that's what she did. Penny or Rishi could have dressed up as Margaret Thatcher too, but they didn't because they don't have what it takes to go the extra mile.
What are her plans to appeal to the larger electorate after that ?
Why would she want to appeal to a larger electorate?
"In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did."
Eh?
Boris Johnson was forced out by his colleagues.
That happens all the time.
Over the past century the role of prime minister has evolved, so they have become the guarantor of ethical government. It is up to them to judge the behaviour of ministers. Political trust has sometimes been absent. But that the prime minister can be relied upon to adhere personally to high standards? That the prime minister wouldn’t wallpaper his flat with the £5 notes of a party donor? That has in this past century been broadly accepted, and underpins the entire system.
What has happened has therefore been unprecedented and has undermined one of the central assumptions of Britain’s modern democracy. It is not a small thing, to be lightly dismissed.
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did. Yet a sense that the Conservative Party has been involved in — no, that is too passive and neutral — has been responsible for a historic disaster seems completely absent from the debate about its future leadership.
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
On topic you have to optimize for the actual electorate. Most people aren't impressed by Margaret Thatcher cosplay but Tory members presumably are, so that's what she did. Penny or Rishi could have dressed up as Margaret Thatcher too, but they didn't because they don't have what it takes to go the extra mile.
What are her plans to appeal to the larger electorate after that ?
Why would she want to appeal to a larger electorate?
I had imagined, perhaps wrongly, that she might have some ambition to win the next election.
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did. Yet a sense that the Conservative Party has been involved in — no, that is too passive and neutral — has been responsible for a historic disaster seems completely absent from the debate about its future leadership.
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did. Yet a sense that the Conservative Party has been involved in — no, that is too passive and neutral — has been responsible for a historic disaster seems completely absent from the debate about its future leadership.
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did. Yet a sense that the Conservative Party has been involved in — no, that is too passive and neutral — has been responsible for a historic disaster seems completely absent from the debate about its future leadership.
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
"In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did."
Eh?
Boris Johnson was forced out by his colleagues.
That happens all the time.
Which PM was forced out of office having been acclaimed by his party for winning them their existing large parliamentary majority ?
Eden!
Yes, silly of me. Though he lost a disastrous war that he had started, rather than getting a fixed penalty notice.
Well, in many ways that's rather worse.
And I would argue in any case that actually there is a parallel. Neither were, ultimately, sacked for Suez or Partygate/Pinchergate. They were sacked for repeatedly, wilfully and ridiculously misleading their colleagues and continuing to lie even when it was very obvious to everyone else they were doing so.
"In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did."
Eh?
Boris Johnson was forced out by his colleagues.
That happens all the time.
Over the past century the role of prime minister has evolved, so they have become the guarantor of ethical government. It is up to them to judge the behaviour of ministers. Political trust has sometimes been absent. But that the prime minister can be relied upon to adhere personally to high standards? That the prime minister wouldn’t wallpaper his flat with the £5 notes of a party donor? That has in this past century been broadly accepted, and underpins the entire system.
What has happened has therefore been unprecedented and has undermined one of the central assumptions of Britain’s modern democracy. It is not a small thing, to be lightly dismissed.
Johnson didn't use £5 notes to wallpaper his flat.
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did. Yet a sense that the Conservative Party has been involved in — no, that is too passive and neutral — has been responsible for a historic disaster seems completely absent from the debate about its future leadership.
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did. Yet a sense that the Conservative Party has been involved in — no, that is too passive and neutral — has been responsible for a historic disaster seems completely absent from the debate about its future leadership.
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did. Yet a sense that the Conservative Party has been involved in — no, that is too passive and neutral — has been responsible for a historic disaster seems completely absent from the debate about its future leadership.
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
If it ends up being the chancellor versus the foreign secretary (ignoring recent upsets) we might look back at the precedents for succeeding a PM in office and wonder why all the other personalities along the way distracted us so successfully from this fundamental point?
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did. Yet a sense that the Conservative Party has been involved in — no, that is too passive and neutral — has been responsible for a historic disaster seems completely absent from the debate about its future leadership.
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
"In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did."
Eh?
Boris Johnson was forced out by his colleagues.
That happens all the time.
Which PM was forced out of office having been acclaimed by his party for winning them their existing large parliamentary majority ?
Eden!
Yes, silly of me. Though he lost a disastrous war that he had started, rather than getting a fixed penalty notice.
Well, in many ways that's rather worse.
And I would argue in any case that actually there is a parallel. Neither were, ultimately, sacked for Suez or Partygate/Pinchergate. They were sacked for repeatedly, wilfully and ridiculously misleading their colleagues and continuing to lie even when it was very obvious to everyone else they were doing so.
That's a fair analysis.
.... I'm not even going to go down the 'apart from Eden...' line.
I posted a week and a half ago about my health improvement plans. I had a brief relapse for a few days and had a few beers one evening. However I managed to get back on to the diet. Not been to the gym for over a week though, and I haven't cycled anywhere because it is so hot. Notwithstanding all that I lost half a stone in the first week of the diet but the good news is that I have kept it off.
i've worked out that I need to eat five times per day, at about 6, 10, 1, 4.30 and 9. This way I am never really hungry and can hit around 2700 calories per day, which is the level I need to lose weight. I need to eat 4 slices of bread per day to avoid messing up my digestion system (for some weird reason).
I think my biggest enemy is portion control, at dinner there is always more food and a tendency to want to eat it to avoid throwing it away.
She's served competently at Cabinet level for over 8 years under 3 different PMs. Corbyn couldn't run a bath yet alone his own shadow cabinet.
She's highly abrasive with an awful personal style. Corbyn could at least relate to young people etc.
Fair points. Perhaps what we are actually seeing is Truss pivoting to the selectorate; and their Corbynesque tendencies. She wouldn't be the first PM with a strange personal style, Gordon Brown and Theresa May come immediately to mind.
I find myself somewhere between Rishi and Truss on fiscal management to be honest.
Rishi has awful political instincts and I doubt he'd change a bean. He'd risk choking off all growth for too long and protract a recession.
Liz, on the other hand, has proposed massive tax cuts and spending increases that are collectively so large that it'd risk more inflation and a run on the pound.
What I want is targeted relief on energy and employment - and definitely reversal of the new NI levy - and a path to current account surplus by 26/27 that commands market credibility but puts more taxes on capital but not earnings.
On topic you have to optimize for the actual electorate. Most people aren't impressed by Margaret Thatcher cosplay but Tory members presumably are, so that's what she did. Penny or Rishi could have dressed up as Margaret Thatcher too, but they didn't because they don't have what it takes to go the extra mile.
What are her plans to appeal to the larger electorate after that ?
Why would she want to appeal to a larger electorate?
I had imagined, perhaps wrongly, that she might have some ambition to win the next election.
A comprehensive programme of selective voter suppression should overcome any shortfalls she may have in that department.
"In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did."
Eh?
Boris Johnson was forced out by his colleagues.
That happens all the time.
Over the past century the role of prime minister has evolved, so they have become the guarantor of ethical government. It is up to them to judge the behaviour of ministers. Political trust has sometimes been absent. But that the prime minister can be relied upon to adhere personally to high standards? That the prime minister wouldn’t wallpaper his flat with the £5 notes of a party donor? That has in this past century been broadly accepted, and underpins the entire system.
What has happened has therefore been unprecedented and has undermined one of the central assumptions of Britain’s modern democracy. It is not a small thing, to be lightly dismissed.
I don’t know why Barty Bobbins doesn’t move to the USA.
All the things he likes - hot weather, housing sprawl, over-reliance on cars, and a marked libertarianism - are here in spades.
Warrington - not so much.
In general I find the US is much less libertarian than the U.K. in many ways. The Land of The Fee - and if you don’t do all sorts of deals with politicians at every level, something between expensive and impossible to do business.
Not sure about this.
I do agree that it’s surprisingly regulated - and this seems to be a combination of “pork” and a response to litiginousness.
But underneath that, there’s a streak of libertarianism which is different from British liberalism. There’s also a celebration of entrepreneuralism which the UK sadly lacks.
Britain is pretty well-regulated - perhaps a bit too nanny-statey - but not too bad. Which is why I puzzle when Tories say the UK just needs to de-regulate itself to growth.
Part of the political right in Britain has a pathological obsession with deregulation - a weird legacy of Thatcherism. People like Liz Truss are the most enthusiastic advocates of it. They are like a cult and nothing will deter them from their belief that regulation is a barrier to 'growth'. They had gone quiet for a bit after the Grenfell fire and the May/Bozo governments but now they are back again peddling the same nonsense.
If people like Truss actually tried to look at the successful free enterprise economies in the world, that they are trying to copy, like Singapore and the USA, then they would see that they are all actually very heavily regulated and the state is very powerful within them. Instead they ignore this evidence and press on driven by what can only be described as a pseudo religious tendency that if the state is rolled back and regulation removed then we will thrive. It is pretty much this philosophy that caused David Cameron to sell of national assets to hostile foreign governments.
The reality is that these ideas don't have much traction with the public as a whole, but the tories seem to be hell bent on going a bit of a corbyn style nostalgia trip at the moment, in the face of intractible problems that they would rather not address (inflation, war)
The trouble is there are no quick fixes.
Sorting out our productivity issues so we have better long-term growth probably requires a 10-20 year project of investment in R&D, industry, science and education.
But, we spend everything on the NHS and pensions instead.
"In the 300 years since the office was created there have been 55 prime ministers. And not one of them has fallen in the way Boris Johnson did."
Eh?
Boris Johnson was forced out by his colleagues.
That happens all the time.
Over the past century the role of prime minister has evolved, so they have become the guarantor of ethical government. It is up to them to judge the behaviour of ministers. Political trust has sometimes been absent. But that the prime minister can be relied upon to adhere personally to high standards? That the prime minister wouldn’t wallpaper his flat with the £5 notes of a party donor? That has in this past century been broadly accepted, and underpins the entire system.
What has happened has therefore been unprecedented and has undermined one of the central assumptions of Britain’s modern democracy. It is not a small thing, to be lightly dismissed.
Lloyd George says "hello".
He was over a century ago.
Well, I suppose technically 99 years and 9 months if we include the ending of his premiership.
She's served competently at Cabinet level for over 8 years under 3 different PMs. Corbyn couldn't run a bath yet alone his own shadow cabinet.
She's highly abrasive with an awful personal style. Corbyn could at least relate to young people etc.
Fair points. Perhaps what we are actually seeing is Truss pivoting to the selectorate; and their Corbynesque tendencies. She wouldn't be the first PM with a strange personal style, Gordon Brown and Theresa May come immediately to mind.
I don’t know why Barty Bobbins doesn’t move to the USA.
All the things he likes - hot weather, housing sprawl, over-reliance on cars, and a marked libertarianism - are here in spades.
Warrington - not so much.
In general I find the US is much less libertarian than the U.K. in many ways. The Land of The Fee - and if you don’t do all sorts of deals with politicians at every level, something between expensive and impossible to do business.
Not sure about this.
I do agree that it’s surprisingly regulated - and this seems to be a combination of “pork” and a response to litiginousness.
But underneath that, there’s a streak of libertarianism which is different from British liberalism. There’s also a celebration of entrepreneuralism which the UK sadly lacks.
Britain is pretty well-regulated - perhaps a bit too nanny-statey - but not too bad. Which is why I puzzle when Tories say the UK just needs to de-regulate itself to growth.
Part of the political right in Britain has a pathological obsession with deregulation - a weird legacy of Thatcherism. People like Liz Truss are the most enthusiastic advocates of it. They are like a cult and nothing will deter them from their belief that regulation is a barrier to 'growth'. They had gone quiet for a bit after the Grenfell fire and the May/Bozo governments but now they are back again peddling the same nonsense.
If people like Truss actually tried to look at the successful free enterprise economies in the world, that they are trying to copy, like Singapore and the USA, then they would see that they are all actually very heavily regulated and the state is very powerful within them. Instead they ignore this evidence and press on driven by what can only be described as a pseudo religious tendency that if the state is rolled back and regulation removed then we will thrive. It is pretty much this philosophy that caused David Cameron to sell of national assets to hostile foreign governments.
The reality is that these ideas don't have much traction with the public as a whole, but the tories seem to be hell bent on going a bit of a corbyn style nostalgia trip at the moment, in the face of intractible problems that they would rather not address (inflation, war)
The trouble is there are no quick fixes.
Sorting out our productivity issues so we have better long-term growth probably requires a 10-20 year project of investment in R&D, industry, science and education.
But, we spend everything on the NHS and pensions instead.
We spend a great deal on education. Whether we spend it intelligently is a very different question.
And actually debt interest is the second or third largest budgetary item ATM.
Yet Junior Doctors get 2%, seniors and nurses 4.5%. No surprise that the RCN announced yesterday it is balloting for a strike in response, and the BMA, HCSA and others will do so in the next week:
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h The Conservatives will be lead by a woman. Labour won't know what a woman is.
Stupid thing to say considering Truss’s response on Trans rights in the debate was very moderate and dare I say, woke.
Obviously Penny is a raging wokey.
Not really. Liz Truss pushed back against self-ID in the gender recognition bill and took a common sense approach to it.
The Woke position would have been to go for the Stonewall take with bells on.
This is your usual reminder that being "anti Woke" does not mean being opposed to anyone who's a white heterosexual male, and anyone who tells you so is either a liar or an idiot.
The BoE's 'transitory' rhetoric looks like a joke. That's four and a half years' target inflation in 12 months. It's a permanent increase in the cost of living, even in the very unlikely event of inflation returning back to target next year.
The BoE's 'transitory' rhetoric looks like a joke. That's four and a half years' target inflation in 12 months. It's a permanent increase in the cost of living, even in the very unlikely event of inflation returning back to target next year.
I don’t know why Barty Bobbins doesn’t move to the USA.
All the things he likes - hot weather, housing sprawl, over-reliance on cars, and a marked libertarianism - are here in spades.
Warrington - not so much.
In general I find the US is much less libertarian than the U.K. in many ways. The Land of The Fee - and if you don’t do all sorts of deals with politicians at every level, something between expensive and impossible to do business.
Not sure about this.
I do agree that it’s surprisingly regulated - and this seems to be a combination of “pork” and a response to litiginousness.
But underneath that, there’s a streak of libertarianism which is different from British liberalism. There’s also a celebration of entrepreneuralism which the UK sadly lacks.
Britain is pretty well-regulated - perhaps a bit too nanny-statey - but not too bad. Which is why I puzzle when Tories say the UK just needs to de-regulate itself to growth.
Part of the political right in Britain has a pathological obsession with deregulation - a weird legacy of Thatcherism. People like Liz Truss are the most enthusiastic advocates of it. They are like a cult and nothing will deter them from their belief that regulation is a barrier to 'growth'. They had gone quiet for a bit after the Grenfell fire and the May/Bozo governments but now they are back again peddling the same nonsense.
If people like Truss actually tried to look at the successful free enterprise economies in the world, that they are trying to copy, like Singapore and the USA, then they would see that they are all actually very heavily regulated and the state is very powerful within them. Instead they ignore this evidence and press on driven by what can only be described as a pseudo religious tendency that if the state is rolled back and regulation removed then we will thrive. It is pretty much this philosophy that caused David Cameron to sell of national assets to hostile foreign governments.
The reality is that these ideas don't have much traction with the public as a whole, but the tories seem to be hell bent on going a bit of a corbyn style nostalgia trip at the moment, in the face of intractible problems that they would rather not address (inflation, war)
The trouble is there are no quick fixes.
Sorting out our productivity issues so we have better long-term growth probably requires a 10-20 year project of investment in R&D, industry, science and education.
But, we spend everything on the NHS and pensions instead.
Yes there is this other peculiarly British phenomenon of niche areas of socialism as well, NHS and Pensions are an example of that.
Dr. Foxy, not now. But if huge pay rises are thrown at everyone that will slow the pace of inflation returning to normal.
There's a full labour market. If you don't offer meaningful pay rises then expect people to change jobs or strike.
The policy tool to deal with inflation is increased interest rates. Short-end real rates are currently at -8%, so I'd say there's some way to go on that front
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h The Conservatives will be lead by a woman. Labour won't know what a woman is.
Stupid thing to say considering Truss’s response on Trans rights in the debate was very moderate and dare I say, woke.
Obviously Penny is a raging wokey.
Not really. Liz Truss pushed back against self-ID in the gender recognition bill and took a common sense approach to it.
The Woke position would have been to go for the Stonewall take with bells on.
This is your usual reminder that being "anti Woke" does not mean being opposed to anyone who's a white heterosexual male, and anyone who tells you so is either a liar or an idiot.
Is there an "isn't" missing in that last sentence, or is it a Freudian slip?
I don’t know why Barty Bobbins doesn’t move to the USA.
All the things he likes - hot weather, housing sprawl, over-reliance on cars, and a marked libertarianism - are here in spades.
Warrington - not so much.
In general I find the US is much less libertarian than the U.K. in many ways. The Land of The Fee - and if you don’t do all sorts of deals with politicians at every level, something between expensive and impossible to do business.
Not sure about this.
I do agree that it’s surprisingly regulated - and this seems to be a combination of “pork” and a response to litiginousness.
But underneath that, there’s a streak of libertarianism which is different from British liberalism. There’s also a celebration of entrepreneuralism which the UK sadly lacks.
Britain is pretty well-regulated - perhaps a bit too nanny-statey - but not too bad. Which is why I puzzle when Tories say the UK just needs to de-regulate itself to growth.
Part of the political right in Britain has a pathological obsession with deregulation - a weird legacy of Thatcherism. People like Liz Truss are the most enthusiastic advocates of it. They are like a cult and nothing will deter them from their belief that regulation is a barrier to 'growth'. They had gone quiet for a bit after the Grenfell fire and the May/Bozo governments but now they are back again peddling the same nonsense.
If people like Truss actually tried to look at the successful free enterprise economies in the world, that they are trying to copy, like Singapore and the USA, then they would see that they are all actually very heavily regulated and the state is very powerful within them. Instead they ignore this evidence and press on driven by what can only be described as a pseudo religious tendency that if the state is rolled back and regulation removed then we will thrive. It is pretty much this philosophy that caused David Cameron to sell of national assets to hostile foreign governments.
The reality is that these ideas don't have much traction with the public as a whole, but the tories seem to be hell bent on going a bit of a corbyn style nostalgia trip at the moment, in the face of intractible problems that they would rather not address (inflation, war)
The trouble is there are no quick fixes.
Sorting out our productivity issues so we have better long-term growth probably requires a 10-20 year project of investment in R&D, industry, science and education.
But, we spend everything on the NHS and pensions instead.
We spend a great deal on education. Whether we spend it intelligently is a very different question.
And actually debt interest is the second or third largest budgetary item ATM.
It is, but we're not investing anything like enough in education & skills.
I think the budget is still static in real-terms v. where it was in 2010. I'd like to see much more going into primary and secondaries and adult education/reskilling.
If Rishi pushes Liz into the final ahead of Truss we could be heading for a Corbyn situation.
This makes no sense at all.
Sunak must know he has more chance of beating Penny than he has of beating Truss.
It only makes sense if it was the other way round - ie Sunak gave Truss votes to eliminate Badenoch. In which case he should now transfer all those votes to Penny to eliminate Truss.
He's surely guaranteed to gain two from Badenoch. If he knows he has more in the bag from Badenoch then he can up the number he gives Penny compared to the number he gave Truss last time.
Following on from the Fink article proposing members be excluded from party leadership votes because they pick nutters...
⚽️ EXC: Football fans will have the final say in how to run their clubs under plans backed by Rishi Sunak. In a bid today to pitch himself as a footie-mad man of the people, Sunak is promising a radical shake-up in time for the World Cup in November https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19255539/rishi-sunak-penny-mordaunt-tory-leadership/
Polling by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now gives Labour a 9% lead against a Mordaunt led Tory party and a 12% lead against a Sunak or Truss led Tory party
Whoever they are, the new Prime Minister will get one hell of a media boost and the polling will follow. The discredited Johnson will be gone and with their own vision the new PM can set their own agenda.
The Party polling under "prospective" PMs is spurious. In September, and with a new Prime Minister in place you will see the new PM to be significantly more popular than Johnson. Expect decent Tory leads, in the short term at least.
Polling by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now gives Labour a 9% lead against a Mordaunt led Tory party and a 12% lead against a Sunak or Truss led Tory party
Whoever they are, the new Prime Minister will get one hell of a media boost and the polling will follow. The discredited Johnson will be gone and with their own vision the new PM can set their own agenda.
The Party polling under "prospective" PMs is spurious. In September, and with a new Prime Minister in place you will see the new PM to be significantly more popular than Johnson. Expect decent Tory leads, in the short term at least.
It would be remarkable if the new leader didn’t get a honeymoon. The question is how much and how long. They start with a full in tray and a divided party.
On topic you have to optimize for the actual electorate. Most people aren't impressed by Margaret Thatcher cosplay but Tory members presumably are, so that's what she did. Penny or Rishi could have dressed up as Margaret Thatcher too, but they didn't because they don't have what it takes to go the extra mile.
What are her plans to appeal to the larger electorate after that ?
Steady on now, one thing at a time. If she has plans to appeal to the larger electorate then she can't talk about them yet or she'd lose the elderly white southern conservative gentlemen.
However if you were given the job of designing what Trussism looked like a view to winning an election, I think you'd do a bit of the old Cameronesque liberal conservative thing with some free trade and patriotic optimism, then add some Thatcher-vibe foreign policy hawkery on Ukraine.
On thing I have been thinking, is that If inflation is being driven by food and fuel prices, then in this era of relative abundance most people can make lifestyle changes to adapt to it without encountering any real hardship. It is only the poor who are going to really suffer.
Following on from the Fink article proposing members be excluded from party leadership votes because they pick nutters...
⚽️ EXC: Football fans will have the final say in how to run their clubs under plans backed by Rishi Sunak. In a bid today to pitch himself as a footie-mad man of the people, Sunak is promising a radical shake-up in time for the World Cup in November https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19255539/rishi-sunak-penny-mordaunt-tory-leadership/
No Rishi, we don't need the Govt regulating football.
And no Penny, we don't need the Govt handing out cheap money to help people who can't afford it to buy homes.
Just because Liz would be a disaster we don't need Rishi and Penny proposing damaging populist nonsense to get quick headlines.
Penny Mordaunt starts pivotal day by telling MPs she is the only candidate who didn’t serve in Boris Johnson’s cabinet and saying she offers ‘a genuine fresh start’
The other thing about going on this diet - is that by eating less food it helps deal not only with obesity but also with inflation. Maybe there is something serious in this; people are overweight and need to eat less.
Following on from the Fink article proposing members be excluded from party leadership votes because they pick nutters...
⚽️ EXC: Football fans will have the final say in how to run their clubs under plans backed by Rishi Sunak. In a bid today to pitch himself as a footie-mad man of the people, Sunak is promising a radical shake-up in time for the World Cup in November https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19255539/rishi-sunak-penny-mordaunt-tory-leadership/
No Rishi, we don't need the Govt regulating football.
And no Penny, we don't need the Govt handing out cheap money to help people who can't afford it to buy homes.
Just because Liz would be a disaster we don't need Rishi and Penny proposing damaging populist nonsense to get quick headlines.
Rishi would be cringe and Liz double-face palm.
Penny would be vapid, probably incompetent, and also.. WTF?
Keir Starmer? Dull, lifeless, banal and a boringly tactical triangulator devoid of any strategic imagination with a corrupted voicebox in his nose.
@JulianRoepcke Former German domestic intelligence chief (six years under Merkel) blames German industry minister Robert Habeck for Russia’s war in Ukraine🇺🇦, saying, “The Ukraine War is HIS war. I won’t freeze for his war.”
These are the people that advised “I won’t apologize” Angela Merkel.
If Rishi pushes Liz into the final ahead of Truss we could be heading for a Corbyn situation.
I’d somehow missed the couple of hundred thousand new members who just signed up to vote for her.
That is because they signed up a couple of years ago, not last week. The Conservative Party increased by 50 per cent around 2018, give or take. Presumably these new members (not entryists, please, this isn't Labour) are from the bluekip wing but we cannot be sure.
@JulianRoepcke Former German domestic intelligence chief (six years under Merkel) blames German industry minister Robert Habeck for Russia’s war in Ukraine🇺🇦, saying, “The Ukraine War is HIS war. I won’t freeze for his war.”
These are the people that advised “I won’t apologize” Angela Merkel.
I don't understand this, because Habeck only took office a few weeks before the Ukraine war started.
What was he doing before that? - he didn’t pop out if the ground when someone planted a dragons tooth..
He’s been in German politics since 2009, apparently..
It'll be interesting to see how future historians judge Merkel's time in power. From my perspective, it's certainly looking less glorious than it did a year ago.
It’s now a priority to not just displace our emissions to China, but to actually meaningfully reduce them overall. 2050 just seems too far away.
As I like to scream at people occasionally with my off/on Green voter hat on:
What's the fucking downside?
You decarbonise and you save money. Huge growth and job potential. The countries leading on this tech will dominate the 21st century (forget AI - nowhere near as important).
Whilst we continue fail to correctly price the negative externalities of fossil fuel extraction and use we as a planet will continue to churn out carbon and enrich the people doing so.
Following on from the Fink article proposing members be excluded from party leadership votes because they pick nutters...
⚽️ EXC: Football fans will have the final say in how to run their clubs under plans backed by Rishi Sunak. In a bid today to pitch himself as a footie-mad man of the people, Sunak is promising a radical shake-up in time for the World Cup in November https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19255539/rishi-sunak-penny-mordaunt-tory-leadership/
No Rishi, we don't need the Govt regulating football.
And no Penny, we don't need the Govt handing out cheap money to help people who can't afford it to buy homes.
Just because Liz would be a disaster we don't need Rishi and Penny proposing damaging populist nonsense to get quick headlines.
Rishi would be cringe and Liz double-face palm.
Penny would be vapid, probably incompetent, and also.. WTF?
Keir Starmer? Dull, lifeless, banal and a boringly tactical triangulator devoid of any strategic imagination with a corrupted voicebox in his nose.
Good morning everyone! Rather cloudy this morning, and the temperature has just managed to crawl above 20° C!
But is Kier Starmer, like another "modest (lawyer) with much to be modest about " a good Committee Chairman? We don't need another prime minister constantly seeking the headlines! Although of course that assumes that in his cabinet there will be some powerful presences. As there were with Attlee.
Both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak went to Oxford. Keir Starmer did his postgrad studies at Oxford.
Which means that if either Truss or Sunak wins, we're probably looking at another six years where the PM attended that institution.
That's not good for politics or the country.
False equivalence.
Keir Starmer gained postgraduate entry to Oxford by virtue of achieving a first class undergraduate degree in law at a redbrick university (Leeds). At every stage of his education, starting from the 11+, he got where he did purely by merit.
It's hardly the gilded path that the likes of Johnson and Sunak were propelled down.
Following on from the Fink article proposing members be excluded from party leadership votes because they pick nutters...
⚽️ EXC: Football fans will have the final say in how to run their clubs under plans backed by Rishi Sunak. In a bid today to pitch himself as a footie-mad man of the people, Sunak is promising a radical shake-up in time for the World Cup in November https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19255539/rishi-sunak-penny-mordaunt-tory-leadership/
No Rishi, we don't need the Govt regulating football.
And no Penny, we don't need the Govt handing out cheap money to help people who can't afford it to buy homes.
Just because Liz would be a disaster we don't need Rishi and Penny proposing damaging populist nonsense to get quick headlines.
Rishi would be cringe and Liz double-face palm.
Penny would be vapid, probably incompetent, and also.. WTF?
Keir Starmer? Dull, lifeless, banal and a boringly tactical triangulator devoid of any strategic imagination with a corrupted voicebox in his nose.
Yes, none of the available options are good.
I would back Mordaunt because she offers the prospect at least of a clean(er) start and a change of style and mood. She's probably the least optimal choice from the perspective of the opposition parties, but neither my enthusiasm for nor expectation of a Starmer win are sufficiently strong to hope that the Tories choose Truss and then go down to an epic defeat (although the anticipation of an election night that sees a cull of some notable incompetents would be some consolation), particularly given the damage she'll do in the meantime, re-appointing the numpties and carrying on with many of Johnson's idiocies.
Comments
I think he posted as Camden hit 40c:
"We did this, I did this, we all did this.
Sob"
I have a quiet regard for May as someone who whatever her faults and wrong ideas did at least seem as a person who personified the best of the deep bones of the conservative party: solid, secure, diligent, selfless, conserving, ancient, Church of England, fete on the green, charity work, stable. Her God seemed to be to do her duty and the best she could.
Micheal Oakeshott.
God what damage Johnson has done to all that.
HIs God is shagging and making money and being seen as important.
What's the fucking downside?
You decarbonise and you save money. Huge growth and job potential. The countries leading on this tech will dominate the 21st century (forget AI - nowhere near as important).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who?_Who?_ministry
Why would you want an electable leader if you don’t like their personality or policies? Hence 3% makes sense (it’s at the joke answer level)
2.06 Liz Truss 49%
2.52 Rishi Sunak 40%
7.8 Penny Mordaunt 13%
320 Keir Starmer
580 Dominic Raab
Next Conservative leader
2.04 Liz Truss 49%
2.54 Rishi Sunak 39%
8 Penny Mordaunt 13%
To be in final two
1.02 Rishi Sunak 98%
1.25 Liz Truss 80%
4.5 Penny Mordaunt 22%
(a) Germany imports a lot less energy than it did - it's just most of the reduction is in coal (which, btw, was entirely imported from Russia)
(b) Germany has pretty significant exports in both solar and wind, albeit mostly at the subsupplier level. (Of course, they also produce about half the world's gas turbines for power stations)
If it’s a bad choice for the Tories and the country - as it may well prove to be - the fault lies with the clown for making those two his number two and three in the first place?
Accepting the catastrophe that has happened, and determining it will not happen again, also requires acknowledging that it was enabled by a weak cabinet. There were many good ministers in the government, but overall Johnson chose his ministers for their personal loyalty or because it annoyed the people he wished to annoy. As a result, many capable people were excluded or kept in junior posts while someone such as the manifestly unfit Nadine Dorries became a secretary of state.
Part of addressing the failure is for an aspiring prime minister to pledge to choose a strong ministerial team from across the breadth of the party.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/time-to-cut-members-out-of-tory-leadership-contest-jk6kkpc02
Eh?
Boris Johnson was forced out by his colleagues.
That happens all the time.
https://twitter.com/paulisci/status/1549527748950892544
A Brief History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore
What has happened has therefore been unprecedented and has undermined one of the central assumptions of Britain’s modern democracy. It is not a small thing, to be lightly dismissed.
Though he lost a disastrous war that he had started, rather than getting a fixed penalty notice.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1549398439439605764
After winning Commons confidence vote, Boris Johnson sets out agenda for the next seven weeks:
- Drive a fire engine
- Indoor skydiving
- Harry Potter studio tour
- Finish that IT course
https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/1549403379432046600
And I would argue in any case that actually there is a parallel. Neither were, ultimately, sacked for Suez or Partygate/Pinchergate. They were sacked for repeatedly, wilfully and ridiculously misleading their colleagues and continuing to lie even when it was very obvious to everyone else they were doing so.
Mr. xP, be fair. Do you want Boris Johnson dicking about taking pics or actually trying to influence the state's actions?
It would look a lot better if he had.
If the Tory party don't want him as leader he shouldn't be the PM.
He should fuck off. Today.
.... I'm not even going to go down the 'apart from Eden...' line.
She's served competently at Cabinet level for over 8 years under 3 different PMs. Corbyn couldn't run a bath yet alone his own shadow cabinet.
She's highly abrasive with an awful personal style. Corbyn could at least relate to young people etc.
I had a brief relapse for a few days and had a few beers one evening.
However I managed to get back on to the diet.
Not been to the gym for over a week though, and I haven't cycled anywhere because it is so hot.
Notwithstanding all that I lost half a stone in the first week of the diet but the good news is that I have kept it off.
i've worked out that I need to eat five times per day, at about 6, 10, 1, 4.30 and 9.
This way I am never really hungry and can hit around 2700 calories per day, which is the level I need to lose weight.
I need to eat 4 slices of bread per day to avoid messing up my digestion system (for some weird reason).
I think my biggest enemy is portion control, at dinner there is always more food and a tendency to want to eat it to avoid throwing it away.
Means a half-point BOE rate hike in August is likely still on.
More on @BloombergRadio now…
Rishi has awful political instincts and I doubt he'd change a bean. He'd risk choking off all growth for too long and protract a recession.
Liz, on the other hand, has proposed massive tax cuts and spending increases that are collectively so large that it'd risk more inflation and a run on the pound.
What I want is targeted relief on energy and employment - and definitely reversal of the new NI levy - and a path to current account surplus by 26/27 that commands market credibility but puts more taxes on capital but not earnings.
Let's hope Liz is eliminated today 👍
And if so, which Liz are we talking about?
Sorting out our productivity issues so we have better long-term growth probably requires a 10-20 year project of investment in R&D, industry, science and education.
But, we spend everything on the NHS and pensions instead.
Well, I suppose technically 99 years and 9 months if we include the ending of his premiership.
And actually debt interest is the second or third largest budgetary item ATM.
https://twitter.com/RCN_Press/status/1549430460589215745?t=2dlOvh_mrXFwEcVh5YWxog&s=19
"People at the top of the economy are having a disco and everyone else is being told to carry the can and tighten their belts..."
Spot on from @RMTunion Assistant General Secretary Eddie Dempsey.
https://t.co/THVHbVKP1i
The Woke position would have been to go for the Stonewall take with bells on.
This is your usual reminder that being "anti Woke" does not mean being opposed to anyone who's a white heterosexual male, and anyone who tells you so is either a liar or an idiot.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19253890/boris-jpushing-for-two-honours-lists/
Truss is closer to Brown.
Inflation rises further reaching new 40 year high of 9.4% on the CPI measure... rise attributed to rising fuel and food costs https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1549637479791206400/photo/1
The BoE's 'transitory' rhetoric looks like a joke. That's four and a half years' target inflation in 12 months. It's a permanent increase in the cost of living, even in the very unlikely event of inflation returning back to target next year.
Truss = Brown
Mourdaunt = Jacqui Smith
Let’s party like it’s 2010.
The policy tool to deal with inflation is increased interest rates. Short-end real rates are currently at -8%, so I'd say there's some way to go on that front
Why should the workers carry the can for the government's incompetence?
I think the budget is still static in real-terms v. where it was in 2010. I'd like to see much more going into primary and secondaries and adult education/reskilling.
Sunak must know he has more chance of beating Penny than he has of beating Truss.
It only makes sense if it was the other way round - ie Sunak gave Truss votes to eliminate Badenoch. In which case he should now transfer all those votes to Penny to eliminate Truss.
He's surely guaranteed to gain two from Badenoch. If he knows he has more in the bag from Badenoch then he can up the number he gives Penny compared to the number he gave Truss last time.
⚽️ EXC: Football fans will have the final say in how to run their clubs under plans backed by Rishi Sunak.
In a bid today to pitch himself as a footie-mad man of the people, Sunak is promising a radical shake-up in time for the World Cup in November
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19255539/rishi-sunak-penny-mordaunt-tory-leadership/
Whoever they are, the new Prime Minister will get one hell of a media boost and the polling will follow. The discredited Johnson will be gone and with their own vision the new PM can set their own agenda.
The Party polling under "prospective" PMs is spurious. In September, and with a new Prime Minister in place you will see the new PM to be significantly more popular than Johnson. Expect decent Tory leads, in the short term at least.
Dr. Foxy, inflation's high all over the West. Blaming the UK Government for that seems unreasonable.
However if you were given the job of designing what Trussism looked like a view to winning an election, I think you'd do a bit of the old Cameronesque liberal conservative thing with some free trade and patriotic optimism, then add some Thatcher-vibe foreign policy hawkery on Ukraine.
And no Penny, we don't need the Govt handing out cheap money to help people who can't afford it to buy homes.
Just because Liz would be a disaster we don't need Rishi and Penny proposing damaging populist nonsense to get quick headlines.
Her team suggests Sunak and Truss would lose a general election and she is the candidate Labour fear most
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1549644136378163202
Penny would be vapid, probably incompetent, and also.. WTF?
Keir Starmer? Dull, lifeless, banal and a boringly tactical triangulator devoid of any strategic imagination with a corrupted voicebox in his nose.
He’s been in German politics since 2009, apparently..
Clive Lewis: The Tories think this is a fresh start.. but this is like soiling your pants & deciding you're going to change your shirt 🤣 https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1549358751194533889/video/1
Which means that if either Truss or Sunak wins, we're probably looking at another six years where the PM attended that institution.
That's not good for politics or the country.
Cripes.
But is Kier Starmer, like another "modest (lawyer) with much to be modest about " a good Committee Chairman? We don't need another prime minister constantly seeking the headlines!
Although of course that assumes that in his cabinet there will be some powerful presences. As there were with Attlee.
Keir Starmer gained postgraduate entry to Oxford by virtue of achieving a first class undergraduate degree in law at a redbrick university (Leeds). At every stage of his education, starting from the 11+, he got where he did purely by merit.
It's hardly the gilded path that the likes of Johnson and Sunak were propelled down.
I would back Mordaunt because she offers the prospect at least of a clean(er) start and a change of style and mood. She's probably the least optimal choice from the perspective of the opposition parties, but neither my enthusiasm for nor expectation of a Starmer win are sufficiently strong to hope that the Tories choose Truss and then go down to an epic defeat (although the anticipation of an election night that sees a cull of some notable incompetents would be some consolation), particularly given the damage she'll do in the meantime, re-appointing the numpties and carrying on with many of Johnson's idiocies.