Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

How the papers are treating LIz’s first day – politicalbetting.com

2456

Comments

  • I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.

    Given her precarious position not having mass support of part members or even majority support of Tory MPs, I am genuinely surprised not surprised that she has decided the best learning from the Johnson era was throw out the talent and appoint sycophants.
    And it worked so well for Boris, right up until it didn't.

    However, I think Boris was not simply appointing yes-men but human shields against his vulnerabilities to charges of misogyny, racism and not being a true Brexiteer. Several had no obvious regard for Boris himself.
  • I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.

    How can they implement a radical programme completely different from the one they were elected on? What happened to respecting the will of the people?
    We face different problems to the ones that the Government was elected on, so I think you'd expect radical changes.
  • I am being constantly bombarded by emails from the Telegraph offering me access at various discounted terms. I'm not sure what I have done to be singled out like this - surely I don't match their readership profile. Could it be because I live on Telegraph Hill? Their algorithm couldn't be that dumb...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042

    I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.

    How can they implement a radical programme completely different from the one they were elected on? What happened to respecting the will of the people?
    They are still "getting Brexit done"... ?
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    Looking at the list of new cabinet ministers - at least the A1 north of Newcastle will be getting dualled all the way to Berwick...
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    It was three quarters of a century ago that the US first built a nuclear weapon. The Taiwanese are a wealthy and high tech nation, with a decent domestic weapons industry, and an excellent electronics one. They also have three nuclear reactors, capable of generating fissionable material.

    I don't believe China could prevent Taiwan from getting a nuclear weapon. The US could, I'm sure put enormous pressure on them not to get one. But whether they would heed that pressure or not, is another matter.

    Taiwan building a nuclear weapons programme would be a huge provocation to the Chinese, who would have a massive incentive to stop it from coming into being. They would bomb the crap out of any attempt to do it, just as the Israelis have attacked Iran. The Americans know that. The Taiwanese do, too. They are much safer under the US umbrella rather than striking out on their own.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.

    How can they implement a radical programme completely different from the one they were elected on? What happened to respecting the will of the people?
    They will need to stuff the House of Lords with peers to get things through. Otherwise the Parliament act won't allow them to force things through....
  • DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    Taiwan doesn't need permission. They have more than the technological base to produce their own. All they need is the will.

    And the ability to prevent the Chinese from repeatedly attacking them as they put the programme together.

  • The trouble with JK Rowling is not that she is transphobic, but that she isn’t. Her honesty has shamed a literary community that thought it could squint a bit and fudge things when it came to the question of “what is a woman and do they matter, anyway?” Because of this, the extreme, violent misrepresentation of Rowling has become a way to defer any reckoning with the harmful messages those in publishing and the creative arts have been waving through…

    The monstering is wearing thin. Last week’s collective attempt to trash The Ink Black Heart by people who hadn’t read it felt far less enthusiastic than 2020’s shot at Troubled Blood. I do not think it can last. People like their fiction, but they do eventually tire of lies.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/publishing-needs-jk-rowling-to-be-a-monster/
  • Mr. Observer, are the Taiwanese under the US nuclear umbrella?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    It was three quarters of a century ago that the US first built a nuclear weapon. The Taiwanese are a wealthy and high tech nation, with a decent domestic weapons industry, and an excellent electronics one. They also have three nuclear reactors, capable of generating fissionable material.

    I don't believe China could prevent Taiwan from getting a nuclear weapon. The US could, I'm sure put enormous pressure on them not to get one. But whether they would heed that pressure or not, is another matter.

    Taiwan building a nuclear weapons programme would be a huge provocation to the Chinese, who would have a massive incentive to stop it from coming into being. They would bomb the crap out of any attempt to do it, just as the Israelis have attacked Iran. The Americans know that. The Taiwanese do, too. They are much safer under the US umbrella rather than striking out on their own.
    I'd guess it would be quite hard to do without Chinese intelligence finding out, too.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605

    I am being constantly bombarded by emails from the Telegraph offering me access at various discounted terms. I'm not sure what I have done to be singled out like this - surely I don't match their readership profile. Could it be because I live on Telegraph Hill? Their algorithm couldn't be that dumb...

    You probably clicked through on Facebook. The Telegraph will use something like Amarsys to capture your email address and send you stuff.
  • I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.

    How can they implement a radical programme completely different from the one they were elected on? What happened to respecting the will of the people?
    We face different problems to the ones that the Government was elected on, so I think you'd expect radical changes.
    New energy policies and more defence spending, sure. That's not an excuse to do scorched earth Thatcherism when they were elected to level up and fund public services, as you well know. If they want a radical change of direction they need to put it to the voters. The voters are sovereign.
  • Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    It was three quarters of a century ago that the US first built a nuclear weapon. The Taiwanese are a wealthy and high tech nation, with a decent domestic weapons industry, and an excellent electronics one. They also have three nuclear reactors, capable of generating fissionable material.

    I don't believe China could prevent Taiwan from getting a nuclear weapon. The US could, I'm sure put enormous pressure on them not to get one. But whether they would heed that pressure or not, is another matter.

    Taiwan building a nuclear weapons programme would be a huge provocation to the Chinese, who would have a massive incentive to stop it from coming into being. They would bomb the crap out of any attempt to do it, just as the Israelis have attacked Iran. The Americans know that. The Taiwanese do, too. They are much safer under the US umbrella rather than striking out on their own.
    I'd guess it would be quite hard to do without Chinese intelligence finding out, too.

    Yep, it's not something that could be done in secret.

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,317
    edited September 2022
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    No Sunak, no Gove, no Javid, no Hunt, no Barclay, no Shapps, no Patel, no attempt whatsoever to bind the party together and unite the differing factions to deal with the problems ahead. Truss has created her own internal opposition with her first moves and whilst they will all want to be seen to be rallying around now there will be opportunities for mischief soon enough.

    For me, it is a disappointing start.

    It is the same playbook as when Johnson first purged all the Mayites, then deselected any Tory Remainers. The first move has always to assemble a clique of loyalists, and to exile opponents to the backbenches or out of Parliament all together.

    Truss is the most ideologically driven PM in memory, perhaps since Attlee. Thatcher was tempered by pragmatism and kept significant opponents in the cabinet almost to the end.

    It is going to be a rough ride. It is very hard to see the hard right economics being compatible with £100 billion in energy subsidies.
    At the moment, the 'hard right economics' look like a fake policy.
    There is no indication whatsoever that anything is going to change even in the vaguest way.
    Spaffing £40 billion funding gas consumption is hardly 'hard right', it is more like a 1970s 'hard left' policy of mass subsidy.
    If you go and drill down in to what creates rises in public spending, it is increases in the role of the state, bought forward largely by the conservatives in the last 12 years.
    The area I am really familiar with is local government, and the phenomenon is government creating huge new statutory duties on local authorities to 'solve' social problems like homelessness, taking the political credit for it, and then not really funding it so it doesn't work, but still requires more money anyway.
    I have no doubt whatsoever that it is the same across other areas of public policy. If you go and look at the police for instance, it looks like the same.

    This is best seen as a mass expansion of the state to quench fleeting populist desires that doesn't work because it isn't funded, but still costs enough money to increase the deficit, and distract from actual things that money needs spending on - energy independence; infrastructure, housing etc.
    It is basically actually an amalgamation of the worst policies from the 'hard left' and the 'hard right'.
    Maybe we need a movement that is based on Thatcherism circa late 70's, talking about cutting back the state etc, but it is unlikely that this will come from within the conservative party, given how the situation came to be.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    I am being constantly bombarded by emails from the Telegraph offering me access at various discounted terms. I'm not sure what I have done to be singled out like this - surely I don't match their readership profile. Could it be because I live on Telegraph Hill? Their algorithm couldn't be that dumb...

    Oh so am I.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    B, C and E ?

    Are you a member of the Royal Family ?
    My son got the equivalent of 4A*s in the Scottish equivalent to A levels and I suspect he was not that unusual in his cohort. IIRC his offer was A*AA. This is what the great inflation has done.
    At this point, your reminder that Liz Truss was one of the people in charge of reforming exams.

    Of the others, one was Dominic Cummings, who believes the correct way to test his eyesight is by driving a two-ton killing machine on a sixty mile round trip to a beauty spot, another was Michael Gove, who talks about blobs, and a third was Amanda Spielmann, who told the Education Select Committee that teenage girls being blackmailed for nude selfies should not be seen as a safeguarding issue.

    If we get the government we deserve, boy we must have done some bad shit.
    Barnie is many things but it's not that much of a beauty spot - one shop is doing a nice trade in Cummings joke presents though (tea towels and the like).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    The US really is trying to decouple its supply chain from China.

    US solar industry eyes 50 GW of manufacturing capacity by 2030

    The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) has released a roadmap to achieve a domestic supply chain in the United States.
    https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/08/19/us-solar-industry-eyes-50-gw-of-manufacturing-capacity-by-2030/

    Similar moves in chips and batteries recently.

    S Korea will probably have to re-orient its businesses rather more to the US than China, too.
    US tech restrictions on China means companies like Samsung won't have much choice.
  • Pretty steady performance by Coffey on R4.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,624
    If Truss wants to do things not in the 2019 manifesto then call an election and put that to voters . You can’t bring in controversial new policies without having them in a manifesto .
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    B, C and E ?

    Are you a member of the Royal Family ?
    My son got the equivalent of 4A*s in the Scottish equivalent to A levels and I suspect he was not that unusual in his cohort. IIRC his offer was A*AA. This is what the great inflation has done.
    At this point, your reminder that Liz Truss was one of the people in charge of reforming exams.

    Of the others, one was Dominic Cummings, who believes the correct way to test his eyesight is by driving a two-ton killing machine on a sixty mile round trip to a beauty spot, another was Michael Gove, who talks about blobs, and a third was Amanda Spielmann, who told the Education Select Committee that teenage girls being blackmailed for nude selfies should not be seen as a safeguarding issue.

    If we get the government we deserve, boy we must have done some bad shit.
    Barnie is many things but it's not that much of a beauty spot - one shop is doing a nice trade in Cummings joke presents though (tea towels and the like).
    Really? I would have said it was charming, with the castle on the bluff overlooking the River Tees.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    rcs1000 said:

    Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    International arms deals aren't generally conditioned by the quality or efficacy of the "kit". Why would anybody buy an NH-90 over a Seahawk Romeo if that were the case?

    The driving factors are in no particular order:

    Domestic economic effects through local production, workshare or offsets.
    Strengthening or diversification of strategic alliances.
    Straightforward corruption.

    Whether it works or provides value is a minor consideration compared to the above.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    It was three quarters of a century ago that the US first built a nuclear weapon. The Taiwanese are a wealthy and high tech nation, with a decent domestic weapons industry, and an excellent electronics one. They also have three nuclear reactors, capable of generating fissionable material.

    I don't believe China could prevent Taiwan from getting a nuclear weapon. The US could, I'm sure put enormous pressure on them not to get one. But whether they would heed that pressure or not, is another matter.

    Taiwan building a nuclear weapons programme would be a huge provocation to the Chinese, who would have a massive incentive to stop it from coming into being. They would bomb the crap out of any attempt to do it, just as the Israelis have attacked Iran. The Americans know that. The Taiwanese do, too. They are much safer under the US umbrella rather than striking out on their own.
    I'd guess it would be quite hard to do without Chinese intelligence finding out, too.

    Yep, it's not something that could be done in secret.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    The bit that's really difficult to hide - because it takes up so much space - is uranium enrichment: hundreds of centifuges being used to gradually enrich your material until it is usable.

    But if you already have that material, then I don't think hiding it would be that hard.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Scott_xP said:
    Please make it stop...
  • nico679 said:

    If Truss wants to do things not in the 2019 manifesto then call an election and put that to voters . You can’t bring in controversial new policies without having them in a manifesto .

    That argument immediately breaks down when faced with events. Should there have been an election before introducing the lockdowns?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    edited September 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    Unsurprising perhaps, but both Parris and the Fink have columns in The Times today predicting disaster.

    At a time like this a political columnist like me finds himself in a quandary. For months I’ve been arguing with energy and vehemence against the decision the Tory membership made on Monday. I’ve derided the person they chose and predicted her failure. I can hardly pretend not to believe now that this is likely to end horribly.

    and

    My problem with Liz Truss is not that she is dim, as some people incorrectly suggest. Or that she is wooden, when her capturing of the leadership suggests she has strong persuasive skills. Or that she is unlikeable, when I have always found her anything but. It is that I don’t think she is right to suggest we can simply cut taxes, increase spending and as a result produce growth. I don’t think she is correct to ally herself to the right of the Conservative Party. And a policy of no U-turns is only a good one if you are going in the right direction.

    Gotta agree with him that I just dont get how increasing spending and cutting taxes is going to work.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    Good morning everyone!
    Sunny this morning after yesterday's rain.
    We wait to see this morning what more changes will come! And The Liz's performance at PMQ will be something to watch!
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,317

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    It was three quarters of a century ago that the US first built a nuclear weapon. The Taiwanese are a wealthy and high tech nation, with a decent domestic weapons industry, and an excellent electronics one. They also have three nuclear reactors, capable of generating fissionable material.

    I don't believe China could prevent Taiwan from getting a nuclear weapon. The US could, I'm sure put enormous pressure on them not to get one. But whether they would heed that pressure or not, is another matter.

    Taiwan building a nuclear weapons programme would be a huge provocation to the Chinese, who would have a massive incentive to stop it from coming into being. They would bomb the crap out of any attempt to do it, just as the Israelis have attacked Iran. The Americans know that. The Taiwanese do, too. They are much safer under the US umbrella rather than striking out on their own.
    I'd guess it would be quite hard to do without Chinese intelligence finding out, too.

    Yep, it's not something that could be done in secret.

    Taiwan has benefitted from renewed interest in its situation due largely to Trump, who was wise to China in a way that Obama unfortunately was not - it is quite notable that the direction of travel set by Trump has continued under Biden. I would guess that, in reality, there will be no invasion any time soon.

    One observation I would make is that support for Ukraine from a future Trump (or Trumpist) administration is a lot less certain than support for Taiwan.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,041

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    As if grades in the early Nineties meant the same thing as grades today!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    It's not just small and medium businesses...

    Energy Trading Stressed by Margin Calls of $1.5 Trillion
    Exchange requirements to secure trades is sucking up capital
    Governments under pressure to provide market with liquidity
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-06/energy-trade-risks-collapsing-over-margin-calls-of-1-5-trillion
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Unsurprising perhaps, but both Parris and the Fink have columns in The Times today predicting disaster.

    At a time like this a political columnist like me finds himself in a quandary. For months I’ve been arguing with energy and vehemence against the decision the Tory membership made on Monday. I’ve derided the person they chose and predicted her failure. I can hardly pretend not to believe now that this is likely to end horribly.

    and

    My problem with Liz Truss is not that she is dim, as some people incorrectly suggest. Or that she is wooden, when her capturing of the leadership suggests she has strong persuasive skills. Or that she is unlikeable, when I have always found her anything but. It is that I don’t think she is right to suggest we can simply cut taxes, increase spending and as a result produce growth. I don’t think she is correct to ally herself to the right of the Conservative Party. And a policy of no U-turns is only a good one if you are going in the right direction.

    Got a agree with him that I just dont get how increasing spending and cutting taxes is going to work.
    Modern Monetary Theory - it works because of (not a clue) until it suddenly doesn't...

    I do regard it very much as a variation on the emperor's new clothes.
  • Therese Coffey has done her homework (suspect she's known for a while she would get health) judging by her R4 interview & she can run a dept competently; she has clear priorities. What i don't get is any sense of how to achieve them without £.


    https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1567415050247315456
  • rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    It was three quarters of a century ago that the US first built a nuclear weapon. The Taiwanese are a wealthy and high tech nation, with a decent domestic weapons industry, and an excellent electronics one. They also have three nuclear reactors, capable of generating fissionable material.

    I don't believe China could prevent Taiwan from getting a nuclear weapon. The US could, I'm sure put enormous pressure on them not to get one. But whether they would heed that pressure or not, is another matter.

    Taiwan building a nuclear weapons programme would be a huge provocation to the Chinese, who would have a massive incentive to stop it from coming into being. They would bomb the crap out of any attempt to do it, just as the Israelis have attacked Iran. The Americans know that. The Taiwanese do, too. They are much safer under the US umbrella rather than striking out on their own.
    I'd guess it would be quite hard to do without Chinese intelligence finding out, too.

    Yep, it's not something that could be done in secret.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    The bit that's really difficult to hide - because it takes up so much space - is uranium enrichment: hundreds of centifuges being used to gradually enrich your material until it is usable.

    But if you already have that material, then I don't think hiding it would be that hard.

    I think the Taiwanese would be unwise to assume that Chinese intelligence is not deeply embedded in parts of its government structures that would know what is going on.

  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    nico679 said:

    If Truss wants to do things not in the 2019 manifesto then call an election and put that to voters . You can’t bring in controversial new policies without having them in a manifesto .

    That argument immediately breaks down when faced with events. Should there have been an election before introducing the lockdowns?
    That was reacting to events. The only event here is Gas prices and that means more spending. It doesn't mean cutting taxes....
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,530
    edited September 2022
    One notable difference in the UK and US read-outs of the Truss Biden call yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1567413017171615744
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    Folk (including @BBCr4today) are (rightly!) celebrating diversity in the 'great offices of state'. But it's maybe worth noting that Kwarteng, Cleverly, and Braverman were all privately-educated. Fact is that, nowadays, the real lack of diversity in Parliament is class-based. https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1567390338968440832/photo/1

    All this no white men in the big jobs stuff is giving me massive de ja vu for the time I was asked to do a feature on the cause of the rise in black players in the England rugby team which was then spiked because the cause was absolutely all of them having gone to private school.
    https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1567410497384742918
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    The trouble with JK Rowling is not that she is transphobic, but that she isn’t. Her honesty has shamed a literary community that thought it could squint a bit and fudge things when it came to the question of “what is a woman and do they matter, anyway?” Because of this, the extreme, violent misrepresentation of Rowling has become a way to defer any reckoning with the harmful messages those in publishing and the creative arts have been waving through…

    The monstering is wearing thin. Last week’s collective attempt to trash The Ink Black Heart by people who hadn’t read it felt far less enthusiastic than 2020’s shot at Troubled Blood. I do not think it can last. People like their fiction, but they do eventually tire of lies.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/publishing-needs-jk-rowling-to-be-a-monster/

    Most people attacked back down even if they shouldn't or they escalate themselves and can become what they are accused of being.

    I dont see that with Rowling. She's spoken about like a pariah or unperson, but she just seems forthright without being extreme.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    Therese Coffey has done her homework (suspect she's known for a while she would get health) judging by her R4 interview & she can run a dept competently; she has clear priorities. What i don't get is any sense of how to achieve them without £.


    https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1567415050247315456

    I don't see how she solves the problems of the NHS at all. The resources required - which to begin with are more A&E staff to allow ambulances to offload quicker, simply don't exist.

    And at the same time there is pressure from many Tory MPs to reopen their local A&E departments because it looks good to those who don't understand how things really work....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    darkage said:

    If you go and drill down in to what creates rises in public spending, it is increases in the role of the state, bought forward largely by the conservatives in the last 12 years.

    Is that true?

    My understanding is that spending - as a percentage of GDP - on most Departments is down, while pensions and healthcare (thanks to an ageing population) are way up.
  • darkage said:


    Taiwan has benefitted from renewed interest in its situation due largely to Trump, who was wise to China in a way that Obama unfortunately was not - it is quite notable that the direction of travel set by Trump has continued under Biden. I would guess that, in reality, there will be no invasion any time soon.

    I don't think that's right. What blew the whole issue this time was the Pelosi trip, which happened because she's been a huge Chinese Communist Party hawk since forever. Trump's policy on Taiwan wasn't noticeably different from Obama's.
  • nico679 said:

    If Truss wants to do things not in the 2019 manifesto then call an election and put that to voters . You can’t bring in controversial new policies without having them in a manifesto .

    That argument immediately breaks down when faced with events. Should there have been an election before introducing the lockdowns?
    It's one thing to respond to massive external events- though the Decent Chap approach is for a non-partisan War Cabinet type approach.

    It's another for a major shift because of internal power struggles in the governing party.

    The doctrine of "if you don't like it, vote against us in 2024/5" only gets us so far.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175

    The trouble with JK Rowling is not that she is transphobic, but that she isn’t. Her honesty has shamed a literary community that thought it could squint a bit and fudge things when it came to the question of “what is a woman and do they matter, anyway?” Because of this, the extreme, violent misrepresentation of Rowling has become a way to defer any reckoning with the harmful messages those in publishing and the creative arts have been waving through…

    The monstering is wearing thin. Last week’s collective attempt to trash The Ink Black Heart by people who hadn’t read it felt far less enthusiastic than 2020’s shot at Troubled Blood. I do not think it can last. People like their fiction, but they do eventually tire of lies.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/publishing-needs-jk-rowling-to-be-a-monster/

    How it started. How it’s going. https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1567401826433081345/photo/1
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    nico679 said:

    If Truss wants to do things not in the 2019 manifesto then call an election and put that to voters . You can’t bring in controversial new policies without having them in a manifesto .

    That argument immediately breaks down when faced with events. Should there have been an election before introducing the lockdowns?
    Agreed. I get its reasonable for it to be harder to pursue radical new directions, and there may be consequences to doing so, but manifestos have never been binding and for damn good reason. We also want people to u turn on bad policies. Who decides what level of change requires a new election when everything is treated as controversial?

    Like calls for election when PMs are switched I find the argument stock, it seems to be made out of habit.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    It was three quarters of a century ago that the US first built a nuclear weapon. The Taiwanese are a wealthy and high tech nation, with a decent domestic weapons industry, and an excellent electronics one. They also have three nuclear reactors, capable of generating fissionable material.

    I don't believe China could prevent Taiwan from getting a nuclear weapon. The US could, I'm sure put enormous pressure on them not to get one. But whether they would heed that pressure or not, is another matter.

    Taiwan building a nuclear weapons programme would be a huge provocation to the Chinese, who would have a massive incentive to stop it from coming into being. They would bomb the crap out of any attempt to do it, just as the Israelis have attacked Iran. The Americans know that. The Taiwanese do, too. They are much safer under the US umbrella rather than striking out on their own.
    I'd guess it would be quite hard to do without Chinese intelligence finding out, too.

    Yep, it's not something that could be done in secret.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    The bit that's really difficult to hide - because it takes up so much space - is uranium enrichment: hundreds of centifuges being used to gradually enrich your material until it is usable.

    But if you already have that material, then I don't think hiding it would be that hard.
    There's another (and very visible) aspect to nukes: warheads are pretty much pointless without a delivery mechanism (unless you want to nuke your own territory, or can somehow smuggle them to the target).

    That means either planes that can get through enemy air defences, or ballastic missiles with a range to get to China's largest cities. What IRBM capability does Taiwan have? These delivery mechanism capabilities are also quite hard to hide: missiles need testing, and it's relatively easy to work out the capability of planes in terms of load and range.
  • nico679 said:

    If Truss wants to do things not in the 2019 manifesto then call an election and put that to voters . You can’t bring in controversial new policies without having them in a manifesto .

    That argument immediately breaks down when faced with events. Should there have been an election before introducing the lockdowns?
    It's one thing to respond to massive external events- though the Decent Chap approach is for a non-partisan War Cabinet type approach.

    It's another for a major shift because of internal power struggles in the governing party.

    The doctrine of "if you don't like it, vote against us in 2024/5" only gets us so far.
    The fact that this argument is rolled out by the same people who thought the EU was a democratic outrage and urged us to Take Back Control is the real killer. It turns out that whoever it was who was meant to take back control, it sure as hell wasn't the electorate.
    Hopefully Tory red wall MPs won't let the crazy stuff happen anyway, they're not totally stupid. Assuming they don't defect to Labour en masse of course.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Dura_Ace said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    International arms deals aren't generally conditioned by the quality or efficacy of the "kit". Why would anybody buy an NH-90 over a Seahawk Romeo if that were the case?

    The driving factors are in no particular order:

    Domestic economic effects through local production, workshare or offsets.
    Strengthening or diversification of strategic alliances.
    Straightforward corruption.

    Whether it works or provides value is a minor consideration compared to the above.
    You missed out speed of delivery and willingness to supply particular tech.

    Which is why Poland, for example, is buying shedloads of kit from Korea, rather than Germany or the US.
    Of course you need the expectation or reality of actual hostilities for that to count.
  • nico679 said:

    If Truss wants to do things not in the 2019 manifesto then call an election and put that to voters . You can’t bring in controversial new policies without having them in a manifesto .

    That argument immediately breaks down when faced with events. Should there have been an election before introducing the lockdowns?
    It's one thing to respond to massive external events- though the Decent Chap approach is for a non-partisan War Cabinet type approach.

    It's another for a major shift because of internal power struggles in the governing party.

    The doctrine of "if you don't like it, vote against us in 2024/5" only gets us so far.
    The governing party is just a proxy for the elected parliament. If you take away its ability to decide anything then don't be surprised if you end up with third-rate MPs.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    Dura_Ace said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    International arms deals aren't generally conditioned by the quality or efficacy of the "kit". Why would anybody buy an NH-90 over a Seahawk Romeo if that were the case?

    The driving factors are in no particular order:

    Domestic economic effects through local production, workshare or offsets.
    Strengthening or diversification of strategic alliances.
    Straightforward corruption.

    Whether it works or provides value is a minor consideration compared to the above.
    I think too that most arms importers plan to use the weapons to keep their own populations suppressed, so ability to fight other countries militaries is a secondary consideration. A T72 is fine for destroying a bunch of peasants armed with AK47.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,901
    edited September 2022

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,256
    What has certainly become crystal clear is that Russia is not and never has been a reliable partner. After signing as a guarantor of Ukraine's independence when it voluntarily handed over it's nukes to Russia to destroy when Yeltsin was in charge, Putin ignored that completely.

    Why should any country join the non-proliferation pact if Russia is involved? That's why NATO is the only game in town.

    Could Corbyn as a newly elected PM have joined? Would wee Jimmy if she has her way?
  • Foxy said:

    I think too that most arms importers plan to use the weapons to keep their own populations suppressed, so ability to fight other countries militaries is a secondary consideration. A T72 is fine for destroying a bunch of peasants armed with AK47.

    Joe Biden gave a speech making this point recently, but he was talking about the US.
  • Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    International arms deals aren't generally conditioned by the quality or efficacy of the "kit". Why would anybody buy an NH-90 over a Seahawk Romeo if that were the case?

    The driving factors are in no particular order:

    Domestic economic effects through local production, workshare or offsets.
    Strengthening or diversification of strategic alliances.
    Straightforward corruption.

    Whether it works or provides value is a minor consideration compared to the above.
    You missed out speed of delivery and willingness to supply particular tech.

    Which is why Poland, for example, is buying shedloads of kit from Korea, rather than Germany or the US.
    Of course you need the expectation or reality of actual hostilities for that to count.
    Perun did an (as ever) brilliant video on the implications of this war on Russian arms exports.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73hBbONvCN0

    from memory, in the short term the war will be brilliant for the Russian arms industry as massive orders are placed to rearm. But the longer the war goes on, the worse exports will be, and the pressures on that industry due to sanctions.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,317

    darkage said:


    Taiwan has benefitted from renewed interest in its situation due largely to Trump, who was wise to China in a way that Obama unfortunately was not - it is quite notable that the direction of travel set by Trump has continued under Biden. I would guess that, in reality, there will be no invasion any time soon.

    I don't think that's right. What blew the whole issue this time was the Pelosi trip, which happened because she's been a huge Chinese Communist Party hawk since forever. Trump's policy on Taiwan wasn't noticeably different from Obama's.
    Fair enough, I am not an expert on detailed policy in this area; but I would say that, in rhetorical terms, there was a big difference and that is what I mean by the comment that "Trump was wise to China".
  • rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    If you go and drill down in to what creates rises in public spending, it is increases in the role of the state, bought forward largely by the conservatives in the last 12 years.

    Is that true?

    My understanding is that spending - as a percentage of GDP - on most Departments is down, while pensions and healthcare (thanks to an ageing population) are way up.
    Hence the problem with the "governments need to do less, better" soundbite.

    Only every big really helps if you want to make radical changes to government spending, and there's not much you can do with the amount spent on pensions or healthcare.

    Forget the debate on US tax+public services vs. Scandi tax+public services. From here, we're going to do well to avoid Scandi tax, US services.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,883
    Scott_xP said:

    Folk (including @BBCr4today) are (rightly!) celebrating diversity in the 'great offices of state'. But it's maybe worth noting that Kwarteng, Cleverly, and Braverman were all privately-educated. Fact is that, nowadays, the real lack of diversity in Parliament is class-based. https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1567390338968440832/photo/1

    All this no white men in the big jobs stuff is giving me massive de ja vu for the time I was asked to do a feature on the cause of the rise in black players in the England rugby team which was then spiked because the cause was absolutely all of them having gone to private school.
    https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1567410497384742918

    At least it will deal with one of the great culture war battles. If this cabinet does well then those who have shouted that the country is buggered because the lack of diversity will be proven correct. The amount of females and ethnic minorities in the cabinet will show it was the solution.

    If the cabinet fails then those who said that the answer is more women and ethnic minorities will be shown that actually what you have between your legs, how you identify, and the colour of your skin mean absolutely F all and the thing that matters is your brain, work ethic and integrity.

    Also the issue of private/state education - we will have had enough PMs over last 30 years from state and private or Grammar that have failed, succeeded, middled that hopefully people will again realise that these issues are completely irrelevant if the individual os brilliant or shit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    edited September 2022

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    It was three quarters of a century ago that the US first built a nuclear weapon. The Taiwanese are a wealthy and high tech nation, with a decent domestic weapons industry, and an excellent electronics one. They also have three nuclear reactors, capable of generating fissionable material.

    I don't believe China could prevent Taiwan from getting a nuclear weapon. The US could, I'm sure put enormous pressure on them not to get one. But whether they would heed that pressure or not, is another matter.

    Taiwan building a nuclear weapons programme would be a huge provocation to the Chinese, who would have a massive incentive to stop it from coming into being. They would bomb the crap out of any attempt to do it, just as the Israelis have attacked Iran. The Americans know that. The Taiwanese do, too. They are much safer under the US umbrella rather than striking out on their own.
    I'd guess it would be quite hard to do without Chinese intelligence finding out, too.

    Yep, it's not something that could be done in secret.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    The bit that's really difficult to hide - because it takes up so much space - is uranium enrichment: hundreds of centifuges being used to gradually enrich your material until it is usable.

    But if you already have that material, then I don't think hiding it would be that hard.
    There's another (and very visible) aspect to nukes: warheads are pretty much pointless without a delivery mechanism (unless you want to nuke your own territory, or can somehow smuggle them to the target).

    That means either planes that can get through enemy air defences, or ballastic missiles with a range to get to China's largest cities. What IRBM capability does Taiwan have?...
    https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/taiwan/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    eek said:

    Therese Coffey has done her homework (suspect she's known for a while she would get health) judging by her R4 interview & she can run a dept competently; she has clear priorities. What i don't get is any sense of how to achieve them without £.


    https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1567415050247315456

    I don't see how she solves the problems of the NHS at all. The resources required - which to begin with are more A&E staff to allow ambulances to offload quicker, simply don't exist.

    And at the same time there is pressure from many Tory MPs to reopen their local A&E departments because it looks good to those who don't understand how things really work....
    The problem is not the number of A and E staff, but rather the hospital bed state. No bed for admission means that A and E gets gridlocked, then ambulances cannot off load. Trivial stuff coming to ED minors is a nuisance but doesn't block Ambulances.

    We simply need more medical wards and better Social Care. No sign of either happening. Indeed much Social Care will fold this winter with their energy bills.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,317
    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    If you go and drill down in to what creates rises in public spending, it is increases in the role of the state, bought forward largely by the conservatives in the last 12 years.

    Is that true?

    My understanding is that spending - as a percentage of GDP - on most Departments is down, while pensions and healthcare (thanks to an ageing population) are way up.
    Spending on pensions and healthcare are still rises in the role of the state.
  • FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    Eddie Izzard could present an opportunity for a 'first'
  • In 2019, Jacob Rees Mogg was considered so voter repellent by the Tories that he was not allowed near TV cameras during the election campaign. As BEIS secretary he is going to be popping up regularly. He'll almost certainly prove to be a major Labour asset. Right now, there is no shadow BEIS secretary, it's split between Jonathan Reynolds and Ed Miliband. That should change. Now that Truss has massively downgraded levelling up, I think Lisa Nandy would be the strongest option

    It would be even more fun if Starmer appointed Angela Rayner as JRM's shadow.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Cyclefree said:

    The issue people are most concerned about now is energy bills.

    Truss's choice for her government's public face on this is Rees-Mogg, a man who combines the persona of Leonard Rossiter's undertaker in Billy Liar with the empathy of a 19th C mill owner and someone even his own colleagues don't want to work with. A curious ludicrous choice.

    FTFY :smile:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    Starmer of course a white man who attended a private school (even if a grammar school when he joined).

  • Great to hear Alan Garner on the radio this am, there can be second, third and more acts in people’s lives!

    I first read Elidor when I was a Tolkien & Lewis obsessed kid and even then I dimly realised Garner’s other worlds were more closely connected to my own than the somewhat Home Service visions of the former.

    On a minorly connected note, The Rings of Power is complete and utter poop.
  • FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    To answer your last question, blame the voters not Labour! We put up a comprehensive-educated Oxford PPE PM candidate in 2015 and he lost to an Etonian who threatened "chaos" if we won... Judge for yourself whether the voters made the right call on that one.
  • I think will retire again as it looks like it's going to continue as a smearathon for some time.noone has had a day in their cabinet job and the knives are out.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039
    kamski said:



    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    There's some interesting global polling just out on Ukraine, cos tof living etc.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/sep/07/having-children-may-make-you-more-conservative-study-finds

    Short summary is that nearly all countries would like Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, but distance makes the issue less interesting - it's hard to expect Mexicans, 83% of whom are worried about going hungry, giving much thought to the Ukrainian situation. Quite a lot of nuances though.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/06/cost-of-living-and-climate-crisis-more-of-a-global-priority-than-ukraine-invasion-poll

    On another subject, a study suggesting that social conservatism (gay marriage and the like) is higher in families with children. I suspect there are intervening factors there rather than direct causation (.e.g childless families tend to be younger), but still an intriguing finding:

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/sep/07/having-children-may-make-you-more-conservative-study-finds
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,041

    Jonathan said:

    So how does SKS handle PMQs. Clearly the Tories will be noisy and excited. I would imagine some choice quotes from the campaign, intertwined with some points of detail that the PM might struggle with might be the best route to dent the party. What’s her Achilles heal?

    According to the polls, the public's three priorities are the energy crisis, the economy and climate change.

    Liz Truss' three priorities according to her speech yesterday are the economy, the energy crisis and the NHS. And she's put Rees-Mogg in charge of climate change policy.

    Attack her on climate change, and it's link to the energy crisis. Also on the general decay in the public realm, such as delays to criminal trials, created by twelve years of Tory cuts. The key thing is to tie Truss to the accumulated defects and mistakes of twelve years of Tory government, rather than allow her to present herself as [another] fresh start, not responsible for the problems inherited from the Cameron, May and Johnson governments.
    The problem with the bit in bold is that delays to criminal trials are easily explained by lockdown, which Sir Keir not only supported, but wanted to be deeper and for longer.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,901
    edited September 2022

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    Eddie Izzard could present an opportunity for a 'first'
    Yes, the Tories have left a few gaps in the market -- it looks likely that Labour should still be able to claim first female C of E.

    Still, when the EDI medals table is made up, Labour will have fewer golds than the Tories.

    It is not that Labour have done nothing -- there are more female Labour MPs than Tory MPs.

    It is just curious that they never manage to get the top jobs in Labour.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    To answer your last question, blame the voters not Labour! We put up a comprehensive-educated Oxford PPE PM candidate in 2015 and he lost to an Etonian who threatened "chaos" if we won... Judge for yourself whether the voters made the right call on that one.
    Yes but the Tories put up Hague, a comprehensive educated Oxford PPE candidate in 2001, 14 years before Ed Miliband got a go from Labour. Even if Hague lost to the privately educated Blair
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Folk (including @BBCr4today) are (rightly!) celebrating diversity in the 'great offices of state'. But it's maybe worth noting that Kwarteng, Cleverly, and Braverman were all privately-educated. Fact is that, nowadays, the real lack of diversity in Parliament is class-based. https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1567390338968440832/photo/1

    All this no white men in the big jobs stuff is giving me massive de ja vu for the time I was asked to do a feature on the cause of the rise in black players in the England rugby team which was then spiked because the cause was absolutely all of them having gone to private school.
    https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1567410497384742918

    At least it will deal with one of the great culture war battles. If this cabinet does well then those who have shouted that the country is buggered because the lack of diversity will be proven correct. The amount of females and ethnic minorities in the cabinet will show it was the solution.

    If the cabinet fails then those who said that the answer is more women and ethnic minorities will be shown that actually what you have between your legs, how you identify, and the colour of your skin mean absolutely F all and the thing that matters is your brain, work ethic and integrity.

    Also the issue of private/state education - we will have had enough PMs over last 30 years from state and private or Grammar that have failed, succeeded, middled that hopefully people will again realise that these issues are completely irrelevant if the individual os brilliant or shit.
    Diversity, properly understood, is not about diversity of appearance. But about diversity of perspective and thought and outlook. A person's background and sex/sexuality may well give you that different perspective. But class and education also matter hugely. And looked at from that perspective, the Cabinet is not really very diverse at all.

    It is also not geographically diverse either. Most of its members come from the south and eastern England, with very very few from the places where the Tory party won its majority.

    Rather than be concerned about the Blue Wall or the Red Wall, Truss seems mainly concerned with erecting a wall of her supporters around herself.
  • Not taking his own advice:

    Never underestimate your opponents I keep on telling myself as I look at the Cabinet lineup and wonder whether it’s their vacuity, their laziness or their right-wing fanaticism that worries me most for Britain. It’s a pretty toxic combination.

    https://twitter.com/rhonddabryant/status/1567409618850037764
  • FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?

    Because Labour does not have many PMs!

    Ed Miliband went to a comprehensive school.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    Cyclefree said:

    The issue people are most concerned about now is energy bills.

    Truss's choice for her government's public face on this is Rees-Mogg, a man who combines the persona of Leonard Rossiter's undertaker in Billy Liar with the empathy of a 19th C mill owner and someone even his own colleagues don't want to work with. A curious choice.

    And who was the most lowly of Boris's Cabinet ministers. I will never let that go now I've seen it was officially the case. It really speaks volumes - we assumed he was influential because he gets press, but he wasnt.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    edited September 2022
    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    So how does SKS handle PMQs. Clearly the Tories will be noisy and excited. I would imagine some choice quotes from the campaign, intertwined with some points of detail that the PM might struggle with might be the best route to dent the party. What’s her Achilles heal?

    According to the polls, the public's three priorities are the energy crisis, the economy and climate change.

    Liz Truss' three priorities according to her speech yesterday are the economy, the energy crisis and the NHS. And she's put Rees-Mogg in charge of climate change policy.

    Attack her on climate change, and it's link to the energy crisis. Also on the general decay in the public realm, such as delays to criminal trials, created by twelve years of Tory cuts. The key thing is to tie Truss to the accumulated defects and mistakes of twelve years of Tory government, rather than allow her to present herself as [another] fresh start, not responsible for the problems inherited from the Cameron, May and Johnson governments.
    The problem with the bit in bold is that delays to criminal trials are easily explained by lockdown, which Sir Keir not only supported, but wanted to be deeper and for longer.
    Delays thanks to lack of proper funding and management were a *huge* problem well before covid. Though covid did make them worse, and give apologists an excuse.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    To answer your last question, blame the voters not Labour! We put up a comprehensive-educated Oxford PPE PM candidate in 2015 and he lost to an Etonian who threatened "chaos" if we won... Judge for yourself whether the voters made the right call on that one.
    Yes but the Tories put up Hague, a comprehensive educated Oxford PPE candidate in 2001, 14 years before Ed Miliband got a go from Labour. Even if Hague lost to the privately educated Blair
    Not a great track record for us Comp educated. The Britis genuflecting over class has not gone away.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    1 bit of news that will appear later today. Apple will be revealing the price of their latest phones.

    Because of the changes in £$ exchange rates the iphone 14 pro is going to be £1150 or so compared to the £950 that the iphone 13 pro cost... That's going to be noticed by a number of people
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    So how does SKS handle PMQs. Clearly the Tories will be noisy and excited. I would imagine some choice quotes from the campaign, intertwined with some points of detail that the PM might struggle with might be the best route to dent the party. What’s her Achilles heal?

    According to the polls, the public's three priorities are the energy crisis, the economy and climate change.

    Liz Truss' three priorities according to her speech yesterday are the economy, the energy crisis and the NHS. And she's put Rees-Mogg in charge of climate change policy.

    Attack her on climate change, and it's link to the energy crisis. Also on the general decay in the public realm, such as delays to criminal trials, created by twelve years of Tory cuts. The key thing is to tie Truss to the accumulated defects and mistakes of twelve years of Tory government, rather than allow her to present herself as [another] fresh start, not responsible for the problems inherited from the Cameron, May and Johnson governments.
    The problem with the bit in bold is that delays to criminal trials are easily explained by lockdown, which Sir Keir not only supported, but wanted to be deeper and for longer.
    What does the complete lack of criminal barristers willing to accept cases have to do with Covid?
  • Putin doesn't look very comfortable.

    @francis_scarr
    Speaking at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Vladimir Putin insists his country "has lost nothing and will lose nothing" by invading Ukraine

    He claims that the "polarisation" now taking place in the world will be "solely of benefit"


    https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1567418798461882370
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,918

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?

    Because Labour does not have many PMs!

    Ed Miliband went to a comprehensive school.

    Apparently, Liz Truss is our 56th PM. There have been 6 Labour PMs in total. There have been four Tory PMs in the past 10 years.

    At least there is soon to be Labour PM number seven.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited September 2022
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    To answer your last question, blame the voters not Labour! We put up a comprehensive-educated Oxford PPE PM candidate in 2015 and he lost to an Etonian who threatened "chaos" if we won... Judge for yourself whether the voters made the right call on that one.
    Yes but the Tories put up Hague, a comprehensive educated Oxford PPE candidate in 2001, 14 years before Ed Miliband got a go from Labour. Even if Hague lost to the privately educated Blair
    Not a great track record for us Comp educated. The Britis genuflecting over class has not gone away.
    And if Truss loses to the privately educated Starmer that will mean every comprehensive educated party leader has lost to a privately educated opponent at a general election. May was educated at a combination of private, grammar and comprehensive schools and scraped home against Corbyn but that does not really count

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    edited September 2022
    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    So how does SKS handle PMQs. Clearly the Tories will be noisy and excited. I would imagine some choice quotes from the campaign, intertwined with some points of detail that the PM might struggle with might be the best route to dent the party. What’s her Achilles heal?

    According to the polls, the public's three priorities are the energy crisis, the economy and climate change.

    Liz Truss' three priorities according to her speech yesterday are the economy, the energy crisis and the NHS. And she's put Rees-Mogg in charge of climate change policy.

    Attack her on climate change, and it's link to the energy crisis. Also on the general decay in the public realm, such as delays to criminal trials, created by twelve years of Tory cuts. The key thing is to tie Truss to the accumulated defects and mistakes of twelve years of Tory government, rather than allow her to present herself as [another] fresh start, not responsible for the problems inherited from the Cameron, May and Johnson governments.
    The problem with the bit in bold is that delays to criminal trials are easily explained by lockdown, which Sir Keir not only supported, but wanted to be deeper and for longer.
    The problems began long before then, as a result of counter productive policies.

    Sorting it out would be a quick win at relative low cost, but the government seems to think funding justice aids criminals. When even legal aid helps the gov too since the current position causes problems and delays.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,901

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    To answer your last question, blame the voters not Labour! We put up a comprehensive-educated Oxford PPE PM candidate in 2015 and he lost to an Etonian who threatened "chaos" if we won... Judge for yourself whether the voters made the right call on that one.
    Perhaps -- and a little snarkily -- it is also worth pointing out that both Miliband and Truss were lucky -- they were the offspring of Professors.

    Their families no doubt instilled in them a sustaining appetite for academic achievement.

    But, the first comprehensive educated PM is worth celebrating (even if the wrong colour, blue :) )
  • eek said:

    1 bit of news that will appear later today. Apple will be revealing the price of their latest phones.

    Because of the changes in £$ exchange rates the iphone 14 pro is going to be £1150 or so compared to the £950 that the iphone 13 pro cost... That's going to be noticed by a number of people

    For most people surely the Iphone SE does 90% of whatever the latest one does at 40% of the price......
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Today is the peak of California's worst September heatwave ever recorded.

    The number of locations recording 110°F+ (43C+) is simply extraordinary.

    Many major cities have experienced their hottest day ever recorded, including San Jose and Santa Rosa.

    https://twitter.com/US_Stormwatch/status/1567274515247529984
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited September 2022
    Jonathan said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?

    Because Labour does not have many PMs!

    Ed Miliband went to a comprehensive school.

    Apparently, Liz Truss is our 56th PM. There have been 6 Labour PMs in total. There have been four Tory PMs in the past 10 years.

    At least there is soon to be Labour PM number seven.
    There have been more Liberal PMs than Labour PMs. Indeed arguably even Blair was more Liberal than Labour and he is the only Labour leader to win a general election in the last 40 years
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,901

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?

    Because Labour does not have many PMs!

    Ed Miliband went to a comprehensive school.

    True, but you were given a choice of comprehensive educated women as leader in 2020.
  • HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    To answer your last question, blame the voters not Labour! We put up a comprehensive-educated Oxford PPE PM candidate in 2015 and he lost to an Etonian who threatened "chaos" if we won... Judge for yourself whether the voters made the right call on that one.
    Yes but the Tories put up Hague, a comprehensive educated Oxford PPE candidate in 2001, 14 years before Ed Miliband got a go from Labour. Even if Hague lost to the privately educated Blair
    Not a great track record for us Comp educated. The Britis genuflecting over class has not gone away.
    And if Truss loses to the privately educated Starmer that will mean evert comprehensive educated party leader has lost to a privately educated opponent at a general election. May was educated at a combination of private, grammar and comprehensive schools and scraped home against Corbyn but that does not really count

    He (Starmer) wasn't really privately educated though. He went to a state grammar school that became private while he was there, and didn't have to pay fees. That's substantively different from someone whose parents chose to opt out of the state system and use their wealth to give their children social and educational advantages.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,545
    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    So how does SKS handle PMQs. Clearly the Tories will be noisy and excited. I would imagine some choice quotes from the campaign, intertwined with some points of detail that the PM might struggle with might be the best route to dent the party. What’s her Achilles heal?

    According to the polls, the public's three priorities are the energy crisis, the economy and climate change.

    Liz Truss' three priorities according to her speech yesterday are the economy, the energy crisis and the NHS. And she's put Rees-Mogg in charge of climate change policy.

    Attack her on climate change, and it's link to the energy crisis. Also on the general decay in the public realm, such as delays to criminal trials, created by twelve years of Tory cuts. The key thing is to tie Truss to the accumulated defects and mistakes of twelve years of Tory government, rather than allow her to present herself as [another] fresh start, not responsible for the problems inherited from the Cameron, May and Johnson governments.
    The problem with the bit in bold is that delays to criminal trials are easily explained by
    lockdown, which Sir Keir not only supported, but wanted to be deeper and for longer.
    You clearly don’t work in the law. Or read the news. The pandemic backlog is peanuts. Delays to criminal trials are caused by the Tory closure of courts, an IT system that does not work, a legal aid system that makes it more profitable for a graduate to become a Costa Coffee barista than a criminal barrister (or, indeed, solicitor)…I could go on but, hey, what would I know…I’m only a solicitor.

  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    eek said:

    1 bit of news that will appear later today. Apple will be revealing the price of their latest phones.

    Because of the changes in £$ exchange rates the iphone 14 pro is going to be £1150 or so compared to the £950 that the iphone 13 pro cost... That's going to be noticed by a number of people

    For most people surely the Iphone SE does 90% of whatever the latest one does at 40% of the price......
    I was thinking of the @TSE 's of this world. But the point is that it's going to make the change in exchanges rates very noticeable when the UK price is above the US price...
  • Guess who the headline quote on the BBC's "world reacts" article about Liz Truss is from?

    @BBCPolitics
    "She will make Johnson seem a political genius"

    World reacts as Liz Truss becomes PM


    https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1567158438542598145
  • Football: un petit blog de random wibbling:
    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/09/ligue-1-thoughts.html
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507
    nico679 said:

    If Truss wants to do things not in the 2019 manifesto then call an election and put that to voters . You can’t bring in controversial new policies without having them in a manifesto .

    You can't? All governments do this.
  • FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    To answer your last question, blame the voters not Labour! We put up a comprehensive-educated Oxford PPE PM candidate in 2015 and he lost to an Etonian who threatened "chaos" if we won... Judge for yourself whether the voters made the right call on that one.
    Perhaps -- and a little snarkily -- it is also worth pointing out that both Miliband and Truss were lucky -- they were the offspring of Professors.

    Their families no doubt instilled in them a sustaining appetite for academic achievement.

    But, the first comprehensive educated PM is worth celebrating (even if the wrong colour, blue :) )

    Miliband and Truss are very alike in many ways. They are both very smart in a geeky kind of way, they are both very policy-driven, they are both publicly awkward, though said to be very good company in private, and neither gives the impression of being comfortable with leadership. In many ways, both are very typical of the kind of comprehensive-educated kinds that made it to the top universities in the 1980s and 1990s.

  • Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    To answer your last question, blame the voters not Labour! We put up a comprehensive-educated Oxford PPE PM candidate in 2015 and he lost to an Etonian who threatened "chaos" if we won... Judge for yourself whether the voters made the right call on that one.
    Yes but the Tories put up Hague, a comprehensive educated Oxford PPE candidate in 2001, 14 years before Ed Miliband got a go from Labour. Even if Hague lost to the privately educated Blair
    Not a great track record for us Comp educated. The Britis genuflecting over class has not gone away.
    Yep, nowadays a broad working class accent is probably more of an obstacle to advancement in the Tory party than skin colour, gender or sexuality. Credit to Priti for persisting in dropping her ‘g’s, but she’s off of course.
  • DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    So how does SKS handle PMQs. Clearly the Tories will be noisy and excited. I would imagine some choice quotes from the campaign, intertwined with some points of detail that the PM might struggle with might be the best route to dent the party. What’s her Achilles heal?

    According to the polls, the public's three priorities are the energy crisis, the economy and climate change.

    Liz Truss' three priorities according to her speech yesterday are the economy, the energy crisis and the NHS. And she's put Rees-Mogg in charge of climate change policy.

    Attack her on climate change, and it's link to the energy crisis. Also on the general decay in the public realm, such as delays to criminal trials, created by twelve years of Tory cuts. The key thing is to tie Truss to the accumulated defects and mistakes of twelve years of Tory government, rather than allow her to present herself as [another] fresh start, not responsible for the problems inherited from the Cameron, May and Johnson governments.
    The problem with the bit in bold is that delays to criminal trials are easily explained by
    lockdown, which Sir Keir not only supported, but wanted to be deeper and for longer.
    You clearly don’t work in the law. Or read the news. The pandemic backlog is peanuts. Delays to criminal trials are caused by the Tory closure of courts, an IT system that does not work, a legal aid system that makes it more profitable for a graduate to become a Costa Coffee barista than a criminal barrister (or, indeed, solicitor)…I could go on but, hey, what would I know…I’m only a solicitor.

    Unfortunately, a lot of politics is about a preference for an easy incorrect solution over a harder but truthful one.
  • Great to hear Alan Garner on the radio this am, there can be second, third and more acts in people’s lives!

    I first read Elidor when I was a Tolkien & Lewis obsessed kid and even then I dimly realised Garner’s other worlds were more closely connected to my own than the somewhat Home Service visions of the former.

    On a minorly connected note, The Rings of Power is complete and utter poop.

    Alan Garner is slowly starting to get the recognition he deserves as one of our great writers. The Blackden Trust, which celebrates his work and (more so) the landscape, history and traditions his work draws upon is well worth investigating if you're not familiar with it.
  • I am honoured to be asked to serve as SoS for Health and Social Care. Patients are my top priority, as we focus on ABCD - ambulances, backlogs, care, doctors and dentists

    https://twitter.com/theresecoffey/status/1567409927735369728
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,883
    Cyclefree said:

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Folk (including @BBCr4today) are (rightly!) celebrating diversity in the 'great offices of state'. But it's maybe worth noting that Kwarteng, Cleverly, and Braverman were all privately-educated. Fact is that, nowadays, the real lack of diversity in Parliament is class-based. https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1567390338968440832/photo/1

    All this no white men in the big jobs stuff is giving me massive de ja vu for the time I was asked to do a feature on the cause of the rise in black players in the England rugby team which was then spiked because the cause was absolutely all of them having gone to private school.
    https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1567410497384742918

    At least it will deal with one of the great culture war battles. If this cabinet does well then those who have shouted that the country is buggered because the lack of diversity will be proven correct. The amount of females and ethnic minorities in the cabinet will show it was the solution.

    If the cabinet fails then those who said that the answer is more women and ethnic minorities will be shown that actually what you have between your legs, how you identify, and the colour of your skin mean absolutely F all and the thing that matters is your brain, work ethic and integrity.

    Also the issue of private/state education - we will have had enough PMs over last 30 years from state and private or Grammar that have failed, succeeded, middled that hopefully people will again realise that these issues are completely irrelevant if the individual os brilliant or shit.
    Diversity, properly understood, is not about diversity of appearance. But about diversity of perspective and thought and outlook. A person's background and sex/sexuality may well give you that different perspective. But class and education also matter hugely. And looked at from that perspective, the Cabinet is not really very diverse at all.

    It is also not geographically diverse either. Most of its members come from the south and eastern England, with very very few from the places where the Tory party won its majority.

    Rather than be concerned about the Blue Wall or the Red Wall, Truss seems mainly concerned with erecting a wall of her
    supporters around herself.
    Indeed - the cabinet is classic “BBC diversity” where everyone looks wonderfully different but they “think like us”.

    My point, whilst slightly tongue in cheek, is that diversity in itself isn’t an answer because everyone wants or sees diversity differently and those who are from a “diverse” background in one column aren’t in another.

    The amount of times I’ve heard criticism of those who go to public schools not knowing the real world and not having exposure to people “like them” is ridiculous - I would say that, short of some inner city state schools, I was educated alongside a greater mix of people from around the world than most kids who go to state schools in the UK.

    I also was educated alongside people from all over the UK with associated different outlooks and with a wide range of backgrounds financially and culturally.

    Someone who went to a good state school in a leafy, majorly white middle class area of the UK is infinitely more sheltered to the wider world. Is Liz Truss an example of diversity because she was State educated or is Kwasi a better standard bearer for diversity because he is black but privately educated? Is Angela Ratner the answer because she is WWC or has she not had as great life experiences growing up as Kwasi?

    So state/private in politics is as nuanced as white/black, male/female and would be delighted if people stopped looking at these things in such “black and white” (apologies for the pun) terms.

This discussion has been closed.