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
Are we to keep putting up interest rates until Russia and Ukraine agree a ceasefire so wheat can be exported again? Or jack them up further until China agrees no more of the Covid lockdowns that have disrupted manufacturing supply chains?
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.
What is it about Oxford?
That's the question. And it's made worse by the fact that many journalists also attended there. I doubt it's talent, or the education they get there; it's much more likely to be contacts made. A little Oxonian bubble.
I think when this leadership contest started, there were only two candidates who had attended Oxford. It looks likely that both those will get through.
Many see 'Eton' as being pernicious to our politics; that too many top people went to the school. If that's bad, then the situation with Oxford is at best questionable.
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.
Sunak for longer than Mordaunt. Mordaunt for substantially longer than Truss.
The thing to look out for with whoever becomes the next PM is who they appoint as Attorney General. If Suella Braverman remains in the job, the Conservative party will have forever forfeited any claim it might have to believe in the rule of law and Parliamentary democracy.
@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..
Habeck is in the Green Party, and for the last few years was the co-leader of the party. Even if he was in a position to advise Merkel on Russian policy (I don't know but it seems very unlikely to me) he certainly was someone who Merkel and her government could over rule. To blame Merkel's decisions on someone not even in the government (the Greens were only in Govenment from November 2021 and then as a junior party) is weak. It's the type of comment that starts with the presumption "CDU and Merkel good, Green and Habeck bad"
(Just heard on the French Connections programme on France24).
Basically citywide 30 kph limit just imposed. Expected 10-40% fall in accidents - which will mean they will be down to about 8x London rather than 10x .
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.
Sunak for longer than Mordaunt. Mordaunt for substantially longer than Truss.
Sunak will not get any kind of honeymoon from either the ERG or Boris Johnson's substantial support base in the media.
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.
I don't think it is a false equivalence. The accusation thrown at private schools is that they create contacts that are useful throughout life; the 'old school tie' effect (*). What we're seeing with Oxford might be exactly the same: it creates very useful contacts for people wanting to be in, or around, politics.
But when it gets to this scale. it's not necessarily positive.
(*) It certainly did not in my case; but it was pleasant seeing Freddie Flintoff at the gaff last night. Besides, my tie was pink and black. Ugh.
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.
The truth is that you've staked out a pretty orthodox Conservative position, but there doesn't appear to be a candidate for you left in the race. That's a somewhat strange situation.
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.
Truss of course went to a comprehensive… excellent or failing depending on who is reporting… and so won her place at Oxford on merit, not according to "previous contacts "!
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.
Badenoch was the Corbyn. That bullet has been dodged, for now.
Truss is closer to Brown.
Yes, I think Truss is closer to Brown.
I really can't see Truss as Brown or Badenoch as Corbyn. Possibly Theresa May as Brown and Badenoch as Nigel Farage but there is only so far you can take this; surely better to treat them on their own merits, at least until there is a lesson to be drawn from a parallel.
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.
Time for another Sturgeon lecture on the greater moral superiority and civic mindedness of those north of the border:
“People in England have proved significantly more likely to volunteer than those in Scotland. As of July 12, 53,997 Ukrainians had arrived to live with families in England but only 2,777 in Scotland”.
The thing to look out for with whoever becomes the next PM is who they appoint as Attorney General. If Suella Braverman remains in the job, the Conservative party will have forever forfeited any claim it might have to believe in the rule of law and Parliamentary democracy.
Braverman will surely be rewarded for rubber stamping Truss's Bill to break our recent treaty with the EU.
"Quillette podcast host Jonathan Kay speaks with Swedish Marxist Malcom Kyeyune, who argues that nominally progressive theories of race and gender are actually aimed at securing influence, employment, and prestige for underemployed university graduates."
Time for another Sturgeon lecture on the greater moral superiority and civic mindedness of those north of the border:
“People in England have proved significantly more likely to volunteer than those in Scotland. As of July 12, 53,997 Ukrainians had arrived to live with families in England but only 2,777 in Scotland”.
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.
Badenoch was the Corbyn. That bullet has been dodged, for now.
Truss is closer to Brown.
Yes, I think Truss is closer to Brown.
I really can't see Truss as Brown or Badenoch as Corbyn. Possibly Theresa May as Brown and Badenoch as Nigel Farage but there is only so far you can take this; surely better to treat them on their own merits, at least until there is a lesson to be drawn from a parallel.
The things that reminded me of Corbyn, were Badenochs extreme confidence in the righteousness of her own position and an inability, or lack of care, to see the world from the opposite point of view. That also coupled with a critical lack of experience.
Truss, like Brown, seems to struggle with the touchy feelly aspect of modern politics. Pretty fatal.
@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.
“ The war has developed not necessarily to Germany’s advantage” perhaps?
If the reports of a complete gas cutoff are realised, then it will be a very shitty time for the average German.
(Just heard on the French Connections programme on France24).
That is interesting. Did they say how they did it, and what traffic patterns in the whole of France are like - i.e. has traffic fallen in France as a whole?
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.
Exactly. As long as Oil and Coal is being brought to the surface, it will be burnt. We need to somehow make it uneconomic to mine/pump fossil fuel. And do this internationally as it is global warming.
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.
What is it about Oxford?
That's the question. And it's made worse by the fact that many journalists also attended there. I doubt it's talent, or the education they get there; it's much more likely to be contacts made. A little Oxonian bubble.
I think when this leadership contest started, there were only two candidates who had attended Oxford. It looks likely that both those will get through.
Many see 'Eton' as being pernicious to our politics; that too many top people went to the school. If that's bad, then the situation with Oxford is at best questionable.
My tutor reckoned it’s the one to two tutorial system that means Oxford turns out the best. There’s nowhere to hide and your thoughts get thoroughly interrogated.
I guess the question is why Oxford and not Cambridge? It’s probably become a self-fulfilling prophecy with budding politicians going to Oxford leaving arts/science types to go to the fens.
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.
(Just heard on the French Connections programme on France24).
That is interesting. Did they say how they did it, and what traffic patterns in the whole of France are like - i.e. has traffic fallen in France as a whole?
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.
I think you're closer to Liz personally.
I don't believe that her proposals are that large, they're mainly a reversal of Sunak's mistakes, and they could be compatible with a path to surplus by 26/27.
Plus lets not forget that Sunak himself is equally planning tax cuts just as Liz is, the only difference is that while Liz wants to reverse the NI tax hike which only unfairly penalised those who work, Sunak wants to be cutting Income Tax before the next election specifically as that benefits pensioners too.
The thing to look out for with whoever becomes the next PM is who they appoint as Attorney General. If Suella Braverman remains in the job, the Conservative party will have forever forfeited any claim it might have to believe in the rule of law and Parliamentary democracy.
Braverman will surely be rewarded for rubber stamping Truss's Bill to break our recent treaty with the EU.
Yep, I imagine Braverman stays if Truss wins and goes if Sunak does. That alone should make any democrat want Sunak to win.
A lovely cool breeze this morning. Long may it continue.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
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.
It's two weeks now since Johnson went, and still the Labour lead is averaging double digits and stronger than a fortnight before Johnson's departure. The here-derided Keir Starmer had come from Labour's worst defeat since either 1983 or 1935 (it's debateable) to achieve Labour poll leads that were supposedly down only to the disdain of the country for Johnson, and we were told that once he was gone the Conservatives were back in the lead. The latest polling shows that none of the remaining leadership contenders would move the dial much, if at all.
Much of the "honeymoon" effect will have already been dissipated with Johnson's certain departure. I have no doubt that there will still be some limited honeymoon effect and that occasional polls (at least Opinium) will register poll leads in that honeymoon. But I think they'll be nothing like what Brown temporarily enjoyed and that they will soon disappear.
The parallel now is with the situation that Cameron was in around the time of Brown's accession, not when Brown first became PM, but around the Autumn when Brown's short term star started to fade. And the economic news down the line and the further squeeze on UK household budgets is going to be at least as significant as the world financial crisis that hit in 2018.
The thing to look out for with whoever becomes the next PM is who they appoint as Attorney General. If Suella Braverman remains in the job, the Conservative party will have forever forfeited any claim it might have to believe in the rule of law and Parliamentary democracy.
I expect Braverman is expecting a much bigger role than that in Truss's administration.
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.
Truss of course went to a comprehensive… excellent or failing depending on who is reporting… and so won her place at Oxford on merit, not according to "previous contacts "!
You certainly can't use the present tense when talking about the school Truss went to.
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.
Badenoch was the Corbyn. That bullet has been dodged, for now.
Truss is closer to Brown.
Yes, I think Truss is closer to Brown.
I really can't see Truss as Brown or Badenoch as Corbyn. Possibly Theresa May as Brown and Badenoch as Nigel Farage but there is only so far you can take this; surely better to treat them on their own merits, at least until there is a lesson to be drawn from a parallel.
The thing to look out for with whoever becomes the next PM is who they appoint as Attorney General. If Suella Braverman remains in the job, the Conservative party will have forever forfeited any claim it might have to believe in the rule of law and Parliamentary democracy.
My hope is that Braverman will be moved on to something more appropriate for her skill set; ie nothing whatsoever to do with the implementation of the rule of law, which is a subject she has revealed herself to be embarrassingly clueless on. To be fair to her though, it hasn't held her political career back.
David Runciman on Talking politics made some good points on this when he was doing a commentary on Geoffrey Cox around the time of the prorogation of Parliament - the role of attorney general is basically a political one. Cox is by far a superior lawyer and objectively performed the role far better than Braverman, but couldn't ultimately get the politics right; and it was on this that he was ultimately judged.
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.
Truss of course went to a comprehensive… excellent or failing depending on who is reporting… and so won her place at Oxford on merit, not according to "previous contacts "!
Yes, I wasn't disputing that in respect of Truss. I was taking issue with the false equivalence in respect of Starmer.
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.
What is it about Oxford?
That's the question. And it's made worse by the fact that many journalists also attended there. I doubt it's talent, or the education they get there; it's much more likely to be contacts made. A little Oxonian bubble.
I think when this leadership contest started, there were only two candidates who had attended Oxford. It looks likely that both those will get through.
Many see 'Eton' as being pernicious to our politics; that too many top people went to the school. If that's bad, then the situation with Oxford is at best questionable.
My tutor reckoned it’s the one to two tutorial system that means Oxford turns out the best. There’s nowhere to hide and your thoughts get thoroughly interrogated.
I guess the question is why Oxford and not Cambridge? It’s probably become a self-fulfilling prophecy with budding politicians going to Oxford leaving arts/science types to go to the fens.
It's interesting (to me...) that Cambridge has a massive high-tech sector in and around it - the 'silicon Fen' phenomena. Yet whilst Oxford has some high-tech, lots of it appear to have decamped to Reading, further down the Thames Valley. I have heard various reasons for this, in particular Cambridge Uni's careful fostering of tech in the 1970s and te creation of the science park, but it isn't totally persuasive.
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.
Truss of course went to a comprehensive… excellent or failing depending on who is reporting… and so won her place at Oxford on merit, not according to "previous contacts "!
Dad was a maths professor, which might have had a bit to do with it. Children of academics tend to get pretty good training irrespective of the school they attend. I hadn't realised she was at primary school in Scotland.
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.
I don't think it is a false equivalence. The accusation thrown at private schools is that they create contacts that are useful throughout life; the 'old school tie' effect (*). What we're seeing with Oxford might be exactly the same: it creates very useful contacts for people wanting to be in, or around, politics.
But when it gets to this scale. it's not necessarily positive.
(*) It certainly did not in my case; but it was pleasant seeing Freddie Flintoff at the gaff last night. Besides, my tie was pink and black. Ugh.
Starmer didn't begin his political career until almost 30 years after he spent just one year as a postgrad at Oxford.
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.
I don't think it is a false equivalence. The accusation thrown at private schools is that they create contacts that are useful throughout life; the 'old school tie' effect (*). What we're seeing with Oxford might be exactly the same: it creates very useful contacts for people wanting to be in, or around, politics.
But when it gets to this scale. it's not necessarily positive.
(*) It certainly did not in my case; but it was pleasant seeing Freddie Flintoff at the gaff last night. Besides, my tie was pink and black. Ugh.
I think it might be the case at Oxford because so many join the Oxford Union or OUCA who are interested in politics, future politicians, think tankers and journalists alike, and it becomes a bit of a self-licking lollipop.
However, I'm not in touch with anyone from my private school anymore (except two people) and no-one in that network has ever helped me before. I think the old school tie thing is probably a bit of a myth. Kids at that age aren't mature enough for that and the relationships don't tend to last.
I have had pro bono legal help and advice, for example, from fellow university graduates from my Alma mater at Bristol. But no-one's got me a job.
I have got a network now that helps me do all that but that's been developed through 15-20 years of my career.
Unless Badenoch marched alongside banners of Hitler and Himmler comparison with Corbyn (who marched with banners of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao) is ridiculous.
You can criticise people or point out flaws in their policies or character without jumping straight to the most extreme example. Lots of people are convinced of their own righteousness and struggle to see alternative perspectives.
No Conservative leadership contender is in the same field as Corbyn. Nor is the forgetful Johnson (who is an atrocious PM and it's good he's going, though the quality of his successor remains to be seen).
A lovely cool breeze this morning. Long may it continue.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
I have heard that theory reported, but in 'the heat of the moment' hasn't been a good time for getting thorough analysis. Does global warming make plumes a more common occurence? I can see why it would make such events more severe - if it's hotter in Africa, when you transpose that it's going to make the plume hotter. I just haven't seen how warming increases the frequency of such events.
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.
What is it about Oxford?
That's the question. And it's made worse by the fact that many journalists also attended there. I doubt it's talent, or the education they get there; it's much more likely to be contacts made. A little Oxonian bubble.
I think when this leadership contest started, there were only two candidates who had attended Oxford. It looks likely that both those will get through.
Many see 'Eton' as being pernicious to our politics; that too many top people went to the school. If that's bad, then the situation with Oxford is at best questionable.
My tutor reckoned it’s the one to two tutorial system that means Oxford turns out the best. There’s nowhere to hide and your thoughts get thoroughly interrogated.
I guess the question is why Oxford and not Cambridge? It’s probably become a self-fulfilling prophecy with budding politicians going to Oxford leaving arts/science types to go to the fens.
It's interesting (to me...) that Cambridge has a massive high-tech sector in and around it - the 'silicon Fen' phenomena. Yet whilst Oxford has some high-tech, lots of it appear to have decamped to Reading, further down the Thames Valley. I have heard various reasons for this, in particular Cambridge Uni's careful fostering of tech in the 1970s and te creation of the science park, but it isn't totally persuasive.
Having said that, Mrs J works in Harlow atm.
On the main line to Cambridge; easy access to London, Harlow always has had a reasonably at least high-tech sector.
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.
Truss of course went to a comprehensive… excellent or failing depending on who is reporting… and so won her place at Oxford on merit, not according to "previous contacts "!
Dad was a maths professor, which might have had a bit to do with it. Children of academics tend to get pretty good training irrespective of the school they attend. I hadn't realised she was at primary school in Scotland.
Hilariously, the Truss camp has been claiming she had a lower middle class upbringing.
A source close to the family said: ‘Liz had a vibrant, character-forming childhood. With three older brothers, she had to fight for everything. It was a very solid, lower middle-class upbringing, with loads of friends on free school meals. It was a warm and supportive environment to grow up in.’
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.
I don't think we have any way of judging this without inside information.
I certainly haven't been able to find anything precise enough.
We know that there are new members in the Red Wall before and after 2019. We know that a number are still hankering after Boris. And we have some published numbers via the Commons' Library and a couple of academic projects.
We have some interesting data about regional distributions of members, which are rather different from the "London and SE" tropes that pass for conventional wisdom in parts of PB.
One number that does interest me is the alleged 160k with votes, compared to the 180-200k claimed membership.
This is the Express (yes, I know) from last week, quoting claimed 2021 numbers:
As of 2021, there were approximately 200,000 members, meaning 0.29 percent of the British population will choose the next Prime Minister.
The thing to look out for with whoever becomes the next PM is who they appoint as Attorney General. If Suella Braverman remains in the job, the Conservative party will have forever forfeited any claim it might have to believe in the rule of law and Parliamentary democracy.
My hope is that Braverman will be moved on to something more appropriate for her skill set; ie nothing whatsoever to do with the implementation of the rule of law, which is a subject she has revealed herself to be embarrassingly clueless on. To be fair to her though, it hasn't held her political career back.
David Runciman on Talking politics made some good points on this when he was doing a commentary on Geoffrey Cox around the time of the prorogation of Parliament - the role of attorney general is basically a political one. Cox is by far a superior lawyer and objectively performed the role far better than Braverman, but couldn't ultimately get the politics right; and it was on this that he was ultimately judged.
Cox was a patriot who put his duty to the law and the constitution first. Braverman has never had such concerns.
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.
Truss of course went to a comprehensive… excellent or failing depending on who is reporting… and so won her place at Oxford on merit, not according to "previous contacts "!
Dad was a maths professor, which might have had a bit to do with it. Children of academics tend to get pretty good training irrespective of the school they attend. I hadn't realised she was at primary school in Scotland.
Hilariously, the Truss camp has been claiming she had a lower middle class upbringing.
A source close to the family said: ‘Liz had a vibrant, character-forming childhood. With three older brothers, she had to fight for everything. It was a very solid, lower middle-class upbringing, with loads of friends on free school meals. It was a warm and supportive environment to grow up in.’
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.
I don't think it is a false equivalence. The accusation thrown at private schools is that they create contacts that are useful throughout life; the 'old school tie' effect (*). What we're seeing with Oxford might be exactly the same: it creates very useful contacts for people wanting to be in, or around, politics.
But when it gets to this scale. it's not necessarily positive.
(*) It certainly did not in my case; but it was pleasant seeing Freddie Flintoff at the gaff last night. Besides, my tie was pink and black. Ugh.
Starmer didn't begin his political career until almost 30 years after he spent just one year as a postgrad at Oxford.
Come off it! He ended at Oxford in 1986. According to Wiki: "From 1986 to 1987, Starmer edited the radical magazine Socialist Alternatives."
He was thoroughly immersed in politics back then. If you not my earlier comment, it's not just about politicians: it's about people such as journalists who report on politics, or who work in politics without being' politicians'.
@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..
Habeck is in the Green Party, and for the last few years was the co-leader of the party. Even if he was in a position to advise Merkel on Russian policy (I don't know but it seems very unlikely to me) he certainly was someone who Merkel and her government could over rule. To blame Merkel's decisions on someone not even in the government (the Greens were only in Govenment from November 2021 and then as a junior party) is weak. It's the type of comment that starts with the presumption "CDU and Merkel good, Green and Habeck bad"
Isn’t there a fairly substantial rear guard action being waged in German politics - on exactly that line?
“Some other nasty person made us depend on Russian oil and gas. We were only the poor, wretched party in government and had no power.”
A lovely cool breeze this morning. Long may it continue.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
Regarding extraction, I think one way will be to have a whole new focus on building in timber, in preference to concrete, steel, brick, stone etc. That captures the carbon and stores it indefinitely.
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.
What is it about Oxford?
That's the question. And it's made worse by the fact that many journalists also attended there. I doubt it's talent, or the education they get there; it's much more likely to be contacts made. A little Oxonian bubble.
I think when this leadership contest started, there were only two candidates who had attended Oxford. It looks likely that both those will get through.
Many see 'Eton' as being pernicious to our politics; that too many top people went to the school. If that's bad, then the situation with Oxford is at best questionable.
My tutor reckoned it’s the one to two tutorial system that means Oxford turns out the best. There’s nowhere to hide and your thoughts get thoroughly interrogated.
I guess the question is why Oxford and not Cambridge? It’s probably become a self-fulfilling prophecy with budding politicians going to Oxford leaving arts/science types to go to the fens.
It's interesting (to me...) that Cambridge has a massive high-tech sector in and around it - the 'silicon Fen' phenomena. Yet whilst Oxford has some high-tech, lots of it appear to have decamped to Reading, further down the Thames Valley. I have heard various reasons for this, in particular Cambridge Uni's careful fostering of tech in the 1970s and te creation of the science park, but it isn't totally persuasive.
Having said that, Mrs J works in Harlow atm.
On the main line to Cambridge; easy access to London, Harlow always has had a reasonably at least high-tech sector.
The Oxford/Reading stuff kept on dying because of people leaving. Why? Well companies paid half* London wages. Given the area is in the London commute zone, this isn’t enough.
*It has got a bit better. But a lot of managers sold the Reading corridor to the board as “half the wage cost”. So their trousers were nailed to the masthead on that one…
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.
Truss of course went to a comprehensive… excellent or failing depending on who is reporting… and so won her place at Oxford on merit, not according to "previous contacts "!
Dad was a maths professor, which might have had a bit to do with it. Children of academics tend to get pretty good training irrespective of the school they attend. I hadn't realised she was at primary school in Scotland.
Hilariously, the Truss camp has been claiming she had a lower middle class upbringing.
A source close to the family said: ‘Liz had a vibrant, character-forming childhood. With three older brothers, she had to fight for everything. It was a very solid, lower middle-class upbringing, with loads of friends on free school meals. It was a warm and supportive environment to grow up in.’
A lovely cool breeze this morning. Long may it continue.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
I have heard that theory reported, but in 'the heat of the moment' hasn't been a good time for getting thorough analysis. Does global warming make plumes a more common occurence? I can see why it would make such events more severe - if it's hotter in Africa, when you transpose that it's going to make the plume hotter. I just haven't seen how warming increases the frequency of such events.
At the present state of the climate it takes an exceptional plume to give us 40C, but as the oceans warm, less extreme weather scenarios will result in the same temperatures, and so those temperatures will become more common.
It is also possible that plumes could become more common. We are seeing temperatures increase more rapidly at the poles than in the tropics. This reduces the temperature gradient between the two, and so reduces the strength of the jet stream. With generally weaker west to east winds it should be easier to get more movement between equator and pole, and so you might expect to see more temperature variability - hot plumes in summer and cold polar winds in winter.
This second mechanism is less certain, but there's some evidence for it.
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.
I don't think it is a false equivalence. The accusation thrown at private schools is that they create contacts that are useful throughout life; the 'old school tie' effect (*). What we're seeing with Oxford might be exactly the same: it creates very useful contacts for people wanting to be in, or around, politics.
But when it gets to this scale. it's not necessarily positive.
(*) It certainly did not in my case; but it was pleasant seeing Freddie Flintoff at the gaff last night. Besides, my tie was pink and black. Ugh.
Starmer didn't begin his political career until almost 30 years after he spent just one year as a postgrad at Oxford.
Come off it! He ended at Oxford in 1986. According to Wiki: "From 1986 to 1987, Starmer edited the radical magazine Socialist Alternatives."
He was thoroughly immersed in politics back then. If you not my earlier comment, it's not just about politicians: it's about people such as journalists who report on politics, or who work in politics without being' politicians'.
He was at Oxford with, I think, Mr & Mrs Cooper Balls, and Dave Miliband
Who were all in the government when he was made DPP
A lovely cool breeze this morning. Long may it continue.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
Regarding extraction, I think one way will be to have a whole new focus on building in timber, in preference to concrete, steel, brick, stone etc. That captures the carbon and stores it indefinitely.
A lovely cool breeze this morning. Long may it continue.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
Regarding extraction, I think one way will be to have a whole new focus on building in timber, in preference to concrete, steel, brick, stone etc. That captures the carbon and stores it indefinitely.
There should be a national effort for every farmer to do this with their land.
Not indefinitely - for the life of the building. Which will help to partially behead the "pulse" and move it backwards by 50-100 years. Potentially an important contribution.
There are also other ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, and store it densely - peat bogs in good health are one example.
And reduced energy usage (though a moving target as the supply decarbonises) is a continual raher than one off benefit. Zero net carbon houses which fix as much CO2 as trees on the same plot have been around for some time now.
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 ?
Good point. Other than Blair, Thatcher, Macmillan and Eden this situation is completely unique in postwar politics.
And yet the utter personal disgrace Johnson brought to the office of Prime Minister which resulted in his fall seems unique.
Thatcher, McMillan and Eden fell from flawed policy decisions. Blair, to an extent did too, but his reputation collapsed after he left office. I suspect Johnson will follow Blair with a post- office downward trajectory. As we write he is still busy cementing his reputation.
A lovely cool breeze this morning. Long may it continue.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
Regarding extraction, I think one way will be to have a whole new focus on building in timber, in preference to concrete, steel, brick, stone etc. That captures the carbon and stores it indefinitely.
(Snip)
Timber buildings do not generally last as long. EiT would be able to give chapter and verse, but in Japan, where they build lots of home traditionally in timber, they are only designed to last two or three decades. Well-made brick or stone houses can last a century or more.
Also, what qualifies as a 'timbe' house is interesting. Some timber-framed buildings are going up on the new estate next to us. They're timber, but a brick shell is being laid around the exterior. Seems the worst of both worlds to me...
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.
Truss of course went to a comprehensive… excellent or failing depending on who is reporting… and so won her place at Oxford on merit, not according to "previous contacts "!
Dad was a maths professor, which might have had a bit to do with it. Children of academics tend to get pretty good training irrespective of the school they attend. I hadn't realised she was at primary school in Scotland.
Hilariously, the Truss camp has been claiming she had a lower middle class upbringing.
A source close to the family said: ‘Liz had a vibrant, character-forming childhood. With three older brothers, she had to fight for everything. It was a very solid, lower middle-class upbringing, with loads of friends on free school meals. It was a warm and supportive environment to grow up in.’
A lovely cool breeze this morning. Long may it continue.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
Regarding extraction, I think one way will be to have a whole new focus on building in timber, in preference to concrete, steel, brick, stone etc. That captures the carbon and stores it indefinitely.
(Snip)
Timber buildings do not generally last as long. EiT would be able to give chapter and verse, but in Japan, where they build lots of home traditionally in timber, they are only designed to last two or three decades. Well-made brick or stone houses can last a century or more.
Also, what qualifies as a 'timbe' house is interesting. Some timber-framed buildings are going up on the new estate next to us. They're timber, but a brick shell is being laid around the exterior. Seems the worst of both worlds to me...
The combination of brick shell, timber frame, modern insulation/ventilation (lack of) and (not suggesting this applies at your place) decidedly uneven building standards doesn't seem to sit well with the humid and damp UK climate. In the Continental and drier climate of the US, yes, but here?
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.
Truss of course went to a comprehensive… excellent or failing depending on who is reporting… and so won her place at Oxford on merit, not according to "previous contacts "!
Dad was a maths professor, which might have had a bit to do with it. Children of academics tend to get pretty good training irrespective of the school they attend. I hadn't realised she was at primary school in Scotland.
Hilariously, the Truss camp has been claiming she had a lower middle class upbringing.
A source close to the family said: ‘Liz had a vibrant, character-forming childhood. With three older brothers, she had to fight for everything. It was a very solid, lower middle-class upbringing, with loads of friends on free school meals. It was a warm and supportive environment to grow up in.’
Significant toughening up of language from a Mordaunt campaign source this morning: "Liz Truss will not be able to win a general election and would put MPs' seats at risk."
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.
Don’t forget the Modern Slavery Act. Fine intentions and reasonably well drafted.
The thing to look out for with whoever becomes the next PM is who they appoint as Attorney General. If Suella Braverman remains in the job, the Conservative party will have forever forfeited any claim it might have to believe in the rule of law and Parliamentary democracy.
The Tory party has pretty much already given up on being the party of the rule of law and law and order.
Unnoticed in all the focus on the voting was Johnson's disgraceful statement in the Commons on Monday night about "seeing off Brenda Hale" as if this was some sort of achievement or something to boast about.
It isn't. Seeing off the courts is not something that any PM, any party of government which genuinely believes in the rule of law should be boasting about.
It is not even true. The government complied in full with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Lady Hale was not "seen off". She retired, having served out her term and with considerably greater distinction than the PM. The PM broke the rules of the House which state that MPs must not make personal attacks on judges. Neither the Attorney-General nor the Lord Chancellor (sat next to the PM when he made his attack), who are under a statutory duty to protect the judiciary, have said anything.
In the leadership campaign, the issue of the rule of law and the justice system have scarcely figured. Penny Mordaunt has made her usual vacuous statements about keeping us safe - though she has at least tried to address the issue, which is to her credit. None have sought to address the issues caused by their own failings over the years which have resulted in -
- a record backlog in the Crown Courts - years of delays for victims and defendants waiting for a trial - the shortage of specialist barristers to prosecute and defend.
There is little point creating more offences or talking about Victims' Charters or anything else if the courts are closed, if there is no-one available to prosecute or defend, if trial delays are measured in years not months. Quite what sort of society we are creating when one of its essential components, one of the key duties of the state, breaks down like this, God knows. But it is not likely to be a nice one and it will certainly be one where the weak and vulnerable suffer and those who have been harmed get no effective redress. Talk of tax cuts and Thatcherite deregulation is pathetic, downright insulting and "Marie Antoinette-ish", in the circumstances.
I dare say @ydoethur and @Foxy could say the same about teaching and health.
Yep - public votes have a nasty habit of forcing people to discuss items they really would prefer not to. Sunday night provided a lot of free dirty that Labour can use in the months going forward that would never have occurred if the only people with a say was MPs.
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.
Truss of course went to a comprehensive… excellent or failing depending on who is reporting… and so won her place at Oxford on merit, not according to "previous contacts "!
Dad was a maths professor, which might have had a bit to do with it. Children of academics tend to get pretty good training irrespective of the school they attend. I hadn't realised she was at primary school in Scotland.
Hilariously, the Truss camp has been claiming she had a lower middle class upbringing.
A source close to the family said: ‘Liz had a vibrant, character-forming childhood. With three older brothers, she had to fight for everything. It was a very solid, lower middle-class upbringing, with loads of friends on free school meals. It was a warm and supportive environment to grow up in.’
What on earth is "lower-middle class" anyway. Can we not move past this faux deference nonsense?
It's a bit Yorkshire reminiscence, isn't it? "It was a good breakfast when I could push my way between my brothers' legs to get two spoonfuls of porridge before they emptied the shared bowl."
Time for another Sturgeon lecture on the greater moral superiority and civic mindedness of those north of the border:
“People in England have proved significantly more likely to volunteer than those in Scotland. As of July 12, 53,997 Ukrainians had arrived to live with families in England but only 2,777 in Scotland”.
Yep - public votes have a nasty habit of forcing people to discuss items they really would prefer not to. Sunday night provided a lot of free dirty that Labour can use in the months going forward that would never have occurred if the only people with a say was MPs.
The mistake was the candidates for a ballot of 358 MPs, agreeing to media-led “debates” instead of their own hustings.
The media will always try to get the candidates arguing with each other, because that’s what drives ratings, clicks and likes.
Time for another Sturgeon lecture on the greater moral superiority and civic mindedness of those north of the border:
“People in England have proved significantly more likely to volunteer than those in Scotland. As of July 12, 53,997 Ukrainians had arrived to live with families in England but only 2,777 in Scotland”.
A lovely cool breeze this morning. Long may it continue.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
Regarding extraction, I think one way will be to have a whole new focus on building in timber, in preference to concrete, steel, brick, stone etc. That captures the carbon and stores it indefinitely.
Yep - public votes have a nasty habit of forcing people to discuss items they really would prefer not to. Sunday night provided a lot of free dirty that Labour can use in the months going forward that would never have occurred if the only people with a say was MPs.
The mistake was the candidates for a ballot of 358 MPs, agreeing to media-led “debates” instead of their own hustings.
The media will always try to get the candidates arguing with each other, because that’s what drives ratings, clicks and likes.
How else are the elite going to know whom they should vote for, without the DM to tell them?
@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..
Habeck is in the Green Party, and for the last few years was the co-leader of the party. Even if he was in a position to advise Merkel on Russian policy (I don't know but it seems very unlikely to me) he certainly was someone who Merkel and her government could over rule. To blame Merkel's decisions on someone not even in the government (the Greens were only in Govenment from November 2021 and then as a junior party) is weak. It's the type of comment that starts with the presumption "CDU and Merkel good, Green and Habeck bad"
Tbh the first part of that presumption is unlikely to be heard on PB.
Time for another Sturgeon lecture on the greater moral superiority and civic mindedness of those north of the border:
“People in England have proved significantly more likely to volunteer than those in Scotland. As of July 12, 53,997 Ukrainians had arrived to live with families in England but only 2,777 in Scotland”.
The problem is who would want to be a politician now in this social media/24 hour news world. Thats why the quality of politicians will continue to get worse.
A lovely cool breeze this morning. Long may it continue.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
Regarding extraction, I think one way will be to have a whole new focus on building in timber, in preference to concrete, steel, brick, stone etc. That captures the carbon and stores it indefinitely.
(Snip)
Timber buildings do not generally last as long. EiT would be able to give chapter and verse, but in Japan, where they build lots of home traditionally in timber, they are only designed to last two or three decades. Well-made brick or stone houses can last a century or more.
Also, what qualifies as a 'timbe' house is interesting. Some timber-framed buildings are going up on the new estate next to us. They're timber, but a brick shell is being laid around the exterior. Seems the worst of both worlds to me...
The post-war houses in Japan don't last long but I don't think that's because they're timber, it's because they were made quick and cheap. My place was built in the 60s but by an eccentric potter using nice quality stuff and it's fine - we replaced a few rotten places when we renovated but nearly everything structural is in decent shape. Even the wood that we took out for various reasons was mostly in good enough condition to reuse - for instance some of the floor turned into a wall.
I think you can make wood last a really long time if you try, although obviously you need to avoid it catching on fire.
While we’ve been pointing and laughing at the New Revolutionary Brexit Party leadership election, there’s been a little movement in the Next Labour leader market. Streeting is nearly FAV. When’s crossover?
Burnham 6.5 Streeting 7 Nandy 8 Reeves 9 Rayner 11 Cooper 13 26 bar
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.
What is it about Oxford?
Cambridge people would rather go off and do something more useful?
Spy for Russia?
The Oxford spies of that era were quickly detected. Or were they? How many undetected Russian spies have there been? Some said the KGB seemed awfully relaxed about blowing Kim Philby. Even an Oxford-educated prime minister came under suspicion, and we know the KGB tried to recruit a more recent Oxford prime minister. And doesn't the name Boris sound a bit, well, Russian?
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.
I don't think it is a false equivalence. The accusation thrown at private schools is that they create contacts that are useful throughout life; the 'old school tie' effect (*). What we're seeing with Oxford might be exactly the same: it creates very useful contacts for people wanting to be in, or around, politics.
But when it gets to this scale. it's not necessarily positive.
(*) It certainly did not in my case; but it was pleasant seeing Freddie Flintoff at the gaff last night. Besides, my tie was pink and black. Ugh.
private schools is that they create contacts that are useful throughout life; the 'old school tie' effect
I don't think that's generally true of most private schools. Eton & Winchester perhaps, but generally not.
Due to the heat, spent a lot more time reading in recent days. Finished Retribution Falls by Chris Wooding (planning to do a second review, then look back at my first and see how they compare). It's a great story, rollicking adventure in a steampunkish world (I'd guess, not my usual genre. Lots of shotguns, airships, and the like). Engaging characters and a plot with interesting twists.
Significant toughening up of language from a Mordaunt campaign source this morning: "Liz Truss will not be able to win a general election and would put MPs' seats at risk."
Comments
I think when this leadership contest started, there were only two candidates who had attended Oxford. It looks likely that both those will get through.
Many see 'Eton' as being pernicious to our politics; that too many top people went to the school. If that's bad, then the situation with Oxford is at best questionable.
Go away sun.
Traffic in Paris cut by 50% in the last 20 years.
(Just heard on the French Connections programme on France24).
Basically citywide 30 kph limit just imposed. Expected 10-40% fall in accidents - which will mean they will be down to about 8x London rather than 10x
But when it gets to this scale. it's not necessarily positive.
(*) It certainly did not in my case; but it was pleasant seeing Freddie Flintoff at the gaff last night. Besides, my tie was pink and black. Ugh.
“People in England have proved significantly more likely to volunteer than those in Scotland. As of July 12, 53,997 Ukrainians had arrived to live with families in England but only 2,777 in Scotland”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeons-boasting-over-ukrainian-refugees-has-come-back-to-bite-her-cn9wrp2sl
Another day of roast @Alistair , I'm afraid.
You need an indoor swimming pool.
Next?
Truss, like Brown, seems to struggle with the touchy feelly aspect of modern politics. Pretty fatal.
If the reports of a complete gas cutoff are realised, then it will be a very shitty time for the average German.
Easy to say, not so easy to do.
I guess the question is why Oxford and not Cambridge? It’s probably become a self-fulfilling prophecy with budding politicians going to Oxford leaving arts/science types to go to the fens.
I don't believe that her proposals are that large, they're mainly a reversal of Sunak's mistakes, and they could be compatible with a path to surplus by 26/27.
Plus lets not forget that Sunak himself is equally planning tax cuts just as Liz is, the only difference is that while Liz wants to reverse the NI tax hike which only unfairly penalised those who work, Sunak wants to be cutting Income Tax before the next election specifically as that benefits pensioners too.
One of the key learnings from yesterday is that net zero by 2050 won't be enough. We need to create mechanisms for net negative or these 40 degree days go from being a once in a lifetime event to a regular occurrence and we exacerbate the situation by becoming more like the US where every home has air conditioning.
A smart government would set a big industrial challenge of achieving a profitable mechanism to extract and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is going to become urgent within 10 years.
Much of the "honeymoon" effect will have already been dissipated with Johnson's certain departure. I have no doubt that there will still be some limited honeymoon effect and that occasional polls (at least Opinium) will register poll leads in that honeymoon. But I think they'll be nothing like what Brown temporarily enjoyed and that they will soon disappear.
The parallel now is with the situation that Cameron was in around the time of Brown's accession, not when Brown first became PM, but around the Autumn when Brown's short term star started to fade. And the economic news down the line and the further squeeze on UK household budgets is going to be at least as significant as the world financial crisis that hit in 2018.
David Runciman on Talking politics made some good points on this when he was doing a commentary on Geoffrey Cox around the time of the prorogation of Parliament - the role of attorney general is basically a political one. Cox is by far a superior lawyer and objectively performed the role far better than Braverman, but couldn't ultimately get the politics right; and it was on this that he was ultimately judged.
Having said that, Mrs J works in Harlow atm.
I hadn't realised she was at primary school in Scotland.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/19/new-pm-needs-experience-not-episode-apprentice/
However, I'm not in touch with anyone from my private school anymore (except two people) and no-one in that network has ever helped me before. I think the old school tie thing is probably a bit of a myth. Kids at that age aren't mature enough for that and the relationships don't tend to last.
I have had pro bono legal help and advice, for example, from fellow university graduates from my Alma mater at Bristol. But no-one's got me a job.
I have got a network now that helps me do all that but that's been developed through 15-20 years of my career.
You can criticise people or point out flaws in their policies or character without jumping straight to the most extreme example. Lots of people are convinced of their own righteousness and struggle to see alternative perspectives.
No Conservative leadership contender is in the same field as Corbyn. Nor is the forgetful Johnson (who is an atrocious PM and it's good he's going, though the quality of his successor remains to be seen).
A source close to the family said: ‘Liz had a vibrant, character-forming childhood. With three older brothers, she had to fight for everything. It was a very solid, lower middle-class upbringing, with loads of friends on free school meals. It was a warm and supportive environment to grow up in.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11020931/How-Liz-Truss-set-path-challenge-Prime-Minister.html
The Head Count are always revolting.
I certainly haven't been able to find anything precise enough.
We know that there are new members in the Red Wall before and after 2019. We know that a number are still hankering after Boris. And we have some published numbers via the Commons' Library and a couple of academic projects.
We have some interesting data about regional distributions of members, which are rather different from the "London and SE" tropes that pass for conventional wisdom in parts of PB.
One number that does interest me is the alleged 160k with votes, compared to the 180-200k claimed membership.
This is the Express (yes, I know) from last week, quoting claimed 2021 numbers:
As of 2021, there were approximately 200,000 members, meaning 0.29 percent of the British population will choose the next Prime Minister.
The number is under half of Labour's, which has around 430,000 paid-up party members.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1637527/How-many-Conservative-party-members-leadership-contest-evg
Assessments for pre-2019 election seem to be around 180k.
Plus 20k post-Boris, with now a few previously-left returning (waves to @TSE ) and presumably a few Boris-lovers leaving to me seems about right.
Since members get a vote quite quickly iirc - is it 3 months? - I am not sure where the 160k number comes from.
Similarly Badenoch, with a GP and Professor as parents.
The Tory party is really trying to be "prolier than thou" (Sunak excepted, which shows a degree of insight)
He was thoroughly immersed in politics back then. If you not my earlier comment, it's not just about politicians: it's about people such as journalists who report on politics, or who work in politics without being' politicians'.
“Some other nasty person made us depend on Russian oil and gas. We were only the poor, wretched party in government and had no power.”
Also, fields/soil can capture a lot. Read this on rock dust: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/managing-uk-agriculture-rock-dust-could-absorb-45-cent-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-needed-net-zero
There should be a national effort for every farmer to do this with their land.
The dump does very badly on that metric.
*It has got a bit better. But a lot of managers sold the Reading corridor to the board as “half the wage cost”. So their trousers were nailed to the masthead on that one…
I like it.
It is also possible that plumes could become more common. We are seeing temperatures increase more rapidly at the poles than in the tropics. This reduces the temperature gradient between the two, and so reduces the strength of the jet stream. With generally weaker west to east winds it should be easier to get more movement between equator and pole, and so you might expect to see more temperature variability - hot plumes in summer and cold polar winds in winter.
This second mechanism is less certain, but there's some evidence for it.
Who were all in the government when he was made DPP
I'm sure it's entirely coincidental
There are also other ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, and store it densely - peat bogs in good health are one example.
And reduced energy usage (though a moving target as the supply decarbonises) is a continual raher than one off benefit. Zero net carbon houses which fix as much CO2 as trees on the same plot have been around for some time now.
Thatcher, McMillan and Eden fell from flawed policy decisions. Blair, to an extent did too, but his reputation collapsed after he left office. I suspect Johnson will follow Blair with a post- office downward trajectory. As we write he is still busy cementing his reputation.
Also, what qualifies as a 'timbe' house is interesting. Some timber-framed buildings are going up on the new estate next to us. They're timber, but a brick shell is being laid around the exterior. Seems the worst of both worlds to me...
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1549658829280903168
Ooft.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/liz-truss-penny-mordaunt-dash-for-votes-tory-leadership_uk_62d79bc4e4b03dbb99122b14
Fine intentions and reasonably well drafted.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/contents/enacted
Unnoticed in all the focus on the voting was Johnson's disgraceful statement in the Commons on Monday night about "seeing off Brenda Hale" as if this was some sort of achievement or something to boast about.
It isn't. Seeing off the courts is not something that any PM, any party of government which genuinely believes in the rule of law should be boasting about.
It is not even true. The government complied in full with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Lady Hale was not "seen off". She retired, having served out her term and with considerably greater distinction than the PM. The PM broke the rules of the House which state that MPs must not make personal attacks on judges. Neither the Attorney-General nor the Lord Chancellor (sat next to the PM when he made his attack), who are under a statutory duty to protect the judiciary, have said anything.
In the leadership campaign, the issue of the rule of law and the justice system have scarcely figured. Penny Mordaunt has made her usual vacuous statements about keeping us safe - though she has at least tried to address the issue, which is to her credit. None have sought to address the issues caused by their own failings over the years which have resulted in -
- a record backlog in the Crown Courts
- years of delays for victims and defendants waiting for a trial
- the shortage of specialist barristers to prosecute and defend.
There is little point creating more offences or talking about Victims' Charters or anything else if the courts are closed, if there is no-one available to prosecute or defend, if trial delays are measured in years not months. Quite what sort of society we are creating when one of its essential components, one of the key duties of the state, breaks down like this, God knows. But it is not likely to be a nice one and it will certainly be one where the weak and vulnerable suffer and those who have been harmed get no effective redress. Talk of tax cuts and Thatcherite deregulation is pathetic, downright insulting and "Marie Antoinette-ish", in the circumstances.
I dare say @ydoethur and @Foxy could say the same about teaching and health.
PB Unionists: Scotland and England are different.
Make your minds up.
The media will always try to get the candidates arguing with each other, because that’s what drives ratings, clicks and likes.
Use of timber in building fixes about one tonne of C02 equivalent for each cubic metre of timber used.
At present construction uses of the order of 10 million cubic metres of timber per annum in the UK.
UK emissions are a little over 300 million tonnes of C02 per annum.
So that is around 3% plus whatever growth is achieved as Timber Frame continues to increase.
It won't fix it all, but a reduction of 10 millions of tons of C02 emissions per annum is already an important contribution.
That's not that much less than the amount of C02 absorbed by our forests each year.
https://woodforgood.com/assets/Downloads/Growing Our Low-Carbon Economy.pdf
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/carbondioxideemissionsandwoodlandcoveragewhereyoulive/2021-10-21
The risk seems to be receding fast.
ET - faux gnome
PM4PM!
I think you can make wood last a really long time if you try, although obviously you need to avoid it catching on fire.
She's meant to be very right wing so thatd suggest Truss, who has the backing of the JRM mob.
She was the fresh face mostly untainted by Boris, so thatd suggest Mordaunt.
She spent time attacking woke Penny so thatd suggest Liz.
She was more cautious on tax cuts, closer to Rishi, so thatd suggest Penny if looking to decide who goes up against him.
Most serm confident theyll go for Truss
Burnham 6.5
Streeting 7
Nandy 8
Reeves 9
Rayner 11
Cooper 13
26 bar
I'll be quite gutted now if Penny doesn't go out. Sorry Penny, more due to overwhelming positives for the others than negatives to her.
I don't think that's generally true of most private schools. Eton & Winchester perhaps, but generally not.