Howdy, Stranger!

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

Starmer v Truss – the first PMQs – politicalbetting.com

1234689

Comments

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    edited September 7
    Cookie said:

    To counter any feeling of 'Truss might not be so bad', there has been an absolute torrent of invective about her on the chat at my public sector workplace - complaining about 'British workers need more graft' (the irony of British workers spending their worktime gossiping on Teams was not commented on); complaining about her unsoundness on trans rights, complaining about her unsoundness on climate change, complaining meanwhile about Keir Starmer's uselessness and pining instead for Angela Rayner. All par for the course in a public sector workplace and probably has been for a decade or more, but she clearly hasn't changed the landscape yet.
    Meanwhile another colleague is enthusiastically looking forward to Scotland leaving the UK so he can move to Scotland and rejoin the EU. I raised doubts about how Scotland would do economically, which he countered with 'well there are a lot of small, poor countries in the EU - Bulgaria and Portugal seem to do ok.' I thought this was maybe a bit of a steep price to pay for rejoining the promised land, but there you go.

    That's a bit like all those Americans who said they'd move to Canada when Trump got in.

    I'd encourage people to see the bright side - we have a proper ideological battle on our hands and the Tories will likely lose given their opening position - inflation etc.

    In the ensuing rout we'll get a proper Labour government and hopefully a 1997 - 2001 style reset.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,451
    Leon said:

    The TRULY great thing about this coast is that it’s all protected. It’s a national park AND a series of regional parks. Fiercely maintained. You can’t build a small garden shed without permission

    So this - the last great totally-unspoiled coast in southwest Europe, will remain unspoiled

    Well done Portugal

    are you anywhere near where they get those 80ft high waves? I'd love to see one of those, but not too close up!
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,849

    Cookie said:

    To counter any feeling of 'Truss might not be so bad', there has been an absolute torrent of invective about her on the chat at my public sector workplace - complaining about 'British workers need more graft' (the irony of British workers spending their worktime gossiping on Teams was not commented on); complaining about her unsoundness on trans rights, complaining about her unsoundness on climate change, complaining meanwhile about Keir Starmer's uselessness and pining instead for Angela Rayner. All par for the course in a public sector workplace and probably has been for a decade or more, but she clearly hasn't changed the landscape yet.
    Meanwhile another colleague is enthusiastically looking forward to Scotland leaving the UK so he can move to Scotland and rejoin the EU. I raised doubts about how Scotland would do economically, which he countered with 'well there are a lot of small, poor countries in the EU - Bulgaria and Portugal seem to do ok.' I thought this was maybe a bit of a steep price to pay for rejoining the promised land, but there you go.

    Any 'shes planning to sell the NHS' bullshit making an early appearance?
    I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
    Oh, and everybody very excited about what a cracking job Joe Lycett did on Sunday, putting both Liz Truss and Laura K, who is of course a proud Tory, in her place.
    The public sector is a very odd place.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922
    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    carnforth said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK, so here is a question:

    I'm trying to find an account for my new business. It's proving tricky for all sorts of reasons. I've been working with Virgin Money to open an account so far but I'm seriously unimpressed - they keep losing correspondence and their emails are masterpieces in missing the point, which is why a month in they still haven't opened an account.

    Is there any reasonably good, preferably free or very cheap, business account out there suitable for a start up? I'm not looking for anything very elaborate although the ability to pay cheques in would be an advantage.

    Barclays charge me £7.50 a quarter for an account for a limited company, which I think allows me to pay in some number of cheques for free, although I never have.

    Will you be handling cash too? Especially coins?
    For relatively light use, a NatWest business account is very cheap. No standing charge, just charges for payments: 35p / electronic debit or deposit, 70p per cheque. If your business only makes a few transactions a month it has to be one of the cheapest business account around?
    Tide, Starling or if you want branches where you can talk to people who can do things, then Metro. Avoid the big banks imo.
    Some friends went with Metro for their small company. They were OK I think, but again it did take a while to get sorted out.
    Yeah, their distinctiveness is being able to talk to people in a branch who can help. For speed an online only outfit without legacy systems is best.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,755
    OT we shouldn't get carried away about the supposed new, sober, substantive debate on policy that characterised today's PMQs.

    I've seen these first outings with new party leaders before and most have tended to be fairly respectful and friendly. Remember Corbyn's inaugural PMQs with Cameron? Then after a few weeks it's back to yah-boo (and "get a tie on"). I anticipate the same this time.
  • That is an excellent rating for Keir, he's seen a big jump.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    On PB, not answerable to the voters, not catastrophic if you u turn, you can say what you are thinking today, if asked “will you use a bit of windfall tax extension to help pay” you can say no.

    But that was so dumb for Truss to do at PMQs. She should have listed the reasons why not, and not given the opposition the straight answer they wanted. What you are calling here good was actually so dumb, she allowed her opponents to completely box her in and take that option off the table. That’s why she was bluntly asked it, and then she gave them what they wanted.

    Can you not see that, how she blundered her way through this session making these dreadful mistakes, of letting her opponents paint her and her policies how they want them to be known?

    She got a great hair cut, but there is nothing but air inside it.
    Whereas you are right on her having fully ruled out screwing the energy companies, which the public quite like, you are being unfair on her general performance which was pretty good.
    Fair enough if you like the “Maggie inside a Dalek” style, but the substance we are getting is pretty bizarre and second rate.

    I don’t just mean there will be Devil in the detail behind the “£190B of support for families and businesses” newspaper front pages actually means regressive package of bungs to people or don’t need it, still too much hardship for the poor, and in the case of furlough £30B handed over to organised crime due to slack management all ultimately failing the VFM judgement - there will be plenty of test for opponents to get stuck into. No, I’m talking about the art to politics, where whatever you do it is never known for how good it is, it’s only known for how you allowed your opponents to define it. On that measurement it was a blundering PMQs, and awful start for Liz Truss.
    @MoonRabbit , don't get me wrong I can't bear the woman. She nonetheless impressed with her tone today, as did Starmer. Let us pray that continues. Her taxation policy and thus economic policy, as far as I am concerned, is bunkum. Her climate policy and social policy will be reactionary folly because of the people she has installed in those departments.

    Perhaps my dislike for Truss is temperered by my utter contempt for Johnson. My relief that Johnson won't be doing a Peppa Pig eulogy when London Bridge falls is further bolstered by the understanding today, that Truss can pull it off without making the nation a laughing stock across the World.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,205
    Sandpit said:

    Dynamo said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlistairM said:

    Looks like training the Ukrainian army is paying off...

    Russian sources report that Ukrainian forces are using effective NATO style combined arms attacks on their positions and they are totally overwhelmed in some areas.
    https://twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1567474654310277120

    There’s definitely a book or two to be written, on how the Ukranian army managed to go from Soviet military doctrine, to NATO doctrine, in only a few short years since 2014. This sort of thing usually takes several generations, requiring everyone from the top down to get with the program.
    Their heavy defeat in 2014 seems to have had the effect it sometimes has on armies - all the vested interests were on the table, and all the bullshit reasons for not changing we’re swept away.

    It must have been a combination of willingness to change and the external support offered.

    That and the Ukrainians have taken things further than the West in some areas. If the reports are correct, their target designation and allocation database system is something that has been talked about but not implemented in Western militaries. Because “doctrine”….
    That sounds much more believable than the Ukrainian side using standard NATO doctrine and the Russian side not being prepared to meet it.
    The Russian side still seem to be in the mindset of keep feeding men into the mincing machine. 50,000 comrades so far, that’s 50,000 wives and mothers who have pointlessly lost a loved one, to keep Putin’s imperialist ambitions alive.
    My Russian relative, who has read a fair bit of history, says that it reminds her of the French military at the start of WWII. The enemy are refusing to fight properly, it’s not fair, and we will keep on fighting properly…
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,532
    edited September 7

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    On PB, not answerable to the voters, not catastrophic if you u turn, you can say what you are thinking today, if asked “will you use a bit of windfall tax extension to help pay” you can say no.

    But that was so dumb for Truss to do at PMQs. She should have listed the reasons why not, and not given the opposition the straight answer they wanted. What you are calling here good was actually so dumb, she allowed her opponents to completely box her in and take that option off the table. That’s why she was bluntly asked it, and then she gave them what they wanted.

    Can you not see that, how she blundered her way through this session making these dreadful mistakes, of letting her opponents paint her and her policies how they want them to be known?

    She got a great hair cut, but there is nothing but air inside it.
    A windfall tax has already been taken, extending its scope to fund 4% of the proposed action is a sideline at best, especially as that extension is at the expense of incentives to invest in green energy.
    Long term levies. Thats your puppy.
    Downing Street has confirmed the windfall tax already agreed remains so any windfall tax from labour can only marginally increase revenue if they close the so called loopholes

    But if Liz is so opposed to the windfall tax, as she said at PMQs , and if it's so ineffective anyway, why is she keeping what's been agreed? She's cancelling the NI and CT rises - she could do the same to the windfall tax.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,304
    edited September 7

    Why has the Pound dropped? Borrowing fears?

    Borrowing costs are still passable, but Truss better hope that the IFS is wrong in their assertion that the combination of the "essential one-off " cost of the baiout, and the "permanent " costs of multiple and varied tax cuts, could become, in their words "unsustainable".
  • Best scores for a LOTO from what I can tell, since Brown at the beginning
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,099
    edited September 7

    pm215 said:

    Phil said:

    Ah, to be clear: the military understanding of the term “foraging” at the time meant the taking of food stores built up by the peasantry. This is why military campaigns tended to be timed so that you ran out of your initial food stocks shortly after the first harvest of the year - you rode in, took as much of the harvest as you deemed appropriate & moved on to the next village. No military operated by actually harvesting the crops themselves: that’s far too slow & leaves you vulnerable to counter-attack.

    I suspect they would just as happily have taken potato stocks as they would wheat, barley or oat stocks. Anything portable and resistant to rot would do. The potato’s effect on society was more down to its enormously improved calorie yield per acre compared with other crops, plus the fact that you could grow them almost anywhere.

    You don’t have to dig and store potatoes - they could be kept underground until the army had passed… (or the peasants were hungry)
    I imagine armies would have adapted to the idea of having to dig up a potato crop. The Roman army apparently issued its soldiers with sickles, so its foraging parties were capable of taking standing grain from the fields, threshing it in camp and then hand-milling it to bake into bread. In comparison, digging up potatoes is fairly straightforward, so even armies without the discipline of the Romans could I guess have managed it if necessary.
    (Source: https://acoup.blog/2022/07/29/collections-logistics-how-did-they-do-it-part-ii-foraging/ )
    It’s not efficient - not in big fields but grown in gardens and clearings. If you don’t know what the leaves look like…

    Interestingly when France and Austria marched through Prussia and saw the benefits (Frederik had handed out free potato plants to the population) they copied the strategy… so it must have worked
    Free potato plants? More like free seed potatoes.

    Potatoes, however, aren't as efficient or easy to store and transport as grain: high water content. But some vitC content. They also need to be harvested in late summer anyway, and if need be stored in a clamp (aka heap on straw covered with straw and earth). Whether that was easy to find I don't know!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Thought an interesting question today was Peter Bottomley's on local planning control over bigger projects.

    Truss was all spades in the ground yesterday, yet seemed quite warm towards the local control thing.

    They are not direct opposite statements but they do point in somewhat different directions, be interesting how that plays out.

    I cannot at present figure out how she will marry those two together. The 'more local control' is generally a cover for NIMBYs in the shires so went down well with the members (though issues of specific targets can indeed be unfair on localities), but government policy has long been trying to make things easier, not harder, hence the proposals that got Jenrick fired.

    Honestly, giving locals more control over smaller projects but less on bigger projects seems more the way to go - when the country really needs the big stuff, holding it up locally forever just stores up problems, so you need to shortcut that, but the tradeoff is the much more common local stuff they have greater say over than now.
    One possible squaring of the circle - local control of aspects of development. So central government says “build x homes in the area” and locally “… in this way/style to fit in”
    They should do that with electricity generation as well. "I require that you bring me a gigawatt. I don't care how you do it, just get it done".
    Local councils can't build nuclear power stations or offshore wind farms unfortunately. Only choice would be onshore wind or solar farms. They could put solar panels on all council buildings, schools etc.
    Not currently but when Rolls Royce's mini nuclear stations start appearing....

    And we probably do need local power generation if only to stop the need for ever larger cables elsewhere...
    I thought the sites for the first lot of those had been identified, and they were basically all on current nuclear power station sites.

    I don't see much flexibility.

    (Afternoon all)
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,755

    Interesting observation: they are both running at similar levels of “don’t knows”.

    About a third of people don’t have a view on the woman who has been in the government for a decade or the man who has been leader of the opposition for two and a half years.

    https://twitter.com/mattchorley/status/1567521212200271874

    Good result for Starmer

    Starmer should benefit from no longer being comparatively dull vs the PM. Truss may hold up OK for a while particularly after the energy freeze announcement.

    I anticipate the typical small party squeeze will start now. Look for the Lib Dems to subside a little to 9-10%, and Greens to settle at closer to 3-4%.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    I thought she did OK at PMQs. I wouldn't vote for her.
    No, but im not expecting her to get 60% miraculously or anything like that. If the initial impact is broadly positive or more positive than negative tgen the uncertains starrt to climb back on board and she bounces (without neefing a single switcher). Does she get tory WNV reengaged is the key
    I am sure she engages some who were repelled by Johnson, but then Johnson's shouty appeal was such that Truss's calmness may well encourage some Johnsonians to stay at home or vote Labour. I don't know?

    I doubt whether her package of measures to alleviate the energy crisis is the magic electoral bullet some on here expect. Some people are already up Sh1t Street. Bernard Jenkin said yesterday that she was simultaneously facing the Five Horseman of the Apocalypse. Let's assume she has faced down one of them (which I doubt) she still has four more to go. On today's performance she deserves a bounce, but I am sceptical it will last.
    Oh i agree, it lasting is another thing entirely. She needs to get us through in better shape than the EU/US etc to have hope of maintaining support but that will still be shite for millions.
    Its bleak everywhere rn
    I don't think we care if we are doing better or worse than the EU or the USA. Pain is pain and we don't like it.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 766

    Why has the Pound dropped? Borrowing fears?

    In the spring the penny was dropping about Boris. However, now it has been adjusted for 2022 inflation it is time for the pound to drop.
    Now $1.146 to £1 - Truss can say what she likes about "cutting taxes", the market hears "increased borrowing".
    A falling pound increases inflation. The Bank of England and the Treasury will be working out how best to say "we told you so".
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,205
    MattW said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Thought an interesting question today was Peter Bottomley's on local planning control over bigger projects.

    Truss was all spades in the ground yesterday, yet seemed quite warm towards the local control thing.

    They are not direct opposite statements but they do point in somewhat different directions, be interesting how that plays out.

    I cannot at present figure out how she will marry those two together. The 'more local control' is generally a cover for NIMBYs in the shires so went down well with the members (though issues of specific targets can indeed be unfair on localities), but government policy has long been trying to make things easier, not harder, hence the proposals that got Jenrick fired.

    Honestly, giving locals more control over smaller projects but less on bigger projects seems more the way to go - when the country really needs the big stuff, holding it up locally forever just stores up problems, so you need to shortcut that, but the tradeoff is the much more common local stuff they have greater say over than now.
    One possible squaring of the circle - local control of aspects of development. So central government says “build x homes in the area” and locally “… in this way/style to fit in”
    They should do that with electricity generation as well. "I require that you bring me a gigawatt. I don't care how you do it, just get it done".
    Local councils can't build nuclear power stations or offshore wind farms unfortunately. Only choice would be onshore wind or solar farms. They could put solar panels on all council buildings, schools etc.
    Not currently but when Rolls Royce's mini nuclear stations start appearing....

    And we probably do need local power generation if only to stop the need for ever larger cables elsewhere...
    I thought the sites for the first lot of those had been identified, and they were basically all on current nuclear power station sites.

    I don't see much flexibility.

    (Afternoon all)
    They are planned for existing sites, simply because of the potential planning battles.

    Some Greens of my acquaintance are horrified that, apparently, because they are supposed to be identical, that they can’t challenge the design on each and every site.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,160
    edited September 7

    Screeds of bluster, with the briefest of mentions that the issue is “impact on womens’ rights in the rest of the U.K.:

    New UK Prime Minister Liz Truss is trying to block Scotland’s plans to allow trans people to self-identify as male or female, VICE World News can reveal.

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/3adva3/liz-truss-scotland-gender-identity

    The legislation is poorly thought through and the politicians didn’t like some of the expert witness testimony they received when this was pointed out to them in committee.

    The attached explains some of the mess the Scottish government has got itself into - https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee/correspondence/2022/for-women-scotland-letter-to-the-equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee-30-august-2022.pdf

    The short version -

    1. The Scottish govt gives different inconsistent explanations of what it's legislation means depending on who it is talking to. Either it does not understand it or it is lying.
    2. It is ignoring a court decision.
    3. Its legislation - if it really has the effect the Scottish government is saying it will have - will impact on reserved matters under the Equality Act and therefore be outside its competence.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    Why has the Pound dropped? Borrowing fears?

    A number of currencies are weak against the US dollar. The pound, the euro and the Yen among them.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    I thought she did OK at PMQs. I wouldn't vote for her.
    No, but im not expecting her to get 60% miraculously or anything like that. If the initial impact is broadly positive or more positive than negative tgen the uncertains starrt to climb back on board and she bounces (without neefing a single switcher). Does she get tory WNV reengaged is the key
    I am sure she engages some who were repelled by Johnson, but then Johnson's shouty appeal was such that Truss's calmness may well encourage some Johnsonians to stay at home or vote Labour. I don't know?

    I doubt whether her package of measures to alleviate the energy crisis is the magic electoral bullet some on here expect. Some people are already up Sh1t Street. Bernard Jenkin said yesterday that she was simultaneously facing the Five Horseman of the Apocalypse. Let's assume she has faced down one of them (which I doubt) she still has four more to go. On today's performance she deserves a bounce, but I am sceptical it will last.
    Oh i agree, it lasting is another thing entirely. She needs to get us through in better shape than the EU/US etc to have hope of maintaining support but that will still be shite for millions.
    Its bleak everywhere rn
    I don't think we care if we are doing better or worse than the EU or the USA. Pain is pain and we don't like it.
    True, but look at 2008, the 'it started in America' and 'its bad everywhere', 'cling to nurse' narrative stopped an ELE for Labour
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,604
    Eabhal said:

    Cookie said:

    To counter any feeling of 'Truss might not be so bad', there has been an absolute torrent of invective about her on the chat at my public sector workplace - complaining about 'British workers need more graft' (the irony of British workers spending their worktime gossiping on Teams was not commented on); complaining about her unsoundness on trans rights, complaining about her unsoundness on climate change, complaining meanwhile about Keir Starmer's uselessness and pining instead for Angela Rayner. All par for the course in a public sector workplace and probably has been for a decade or more, but she clearly hasn't changed the landscape yet.
    Meanwhile another colleague is enthusiastically looking forward to Scotland leaving the UK so he can move to Scotland and rejoin the EU. I raised doubts about how Scotland would do economically, which he countered with 'well there are a lot of small, poor countries in the EU - Bulgaria and Portugal seem to do ok.' I thought this was maybe a bit of a steep price to pay for rejoining the promised land, but there you go.

    That's a bit like all those Americans who said they'd move to Canada when Trump got in.

    I'd encourage people to see the bright side - we have a proper ideological battle on our hands and the Tories will likely lose given their opening position - inflation etc.

    In the ensuing rout we'll get a proper Labour government and hopefully a 1997 - 2001 style reset.
    Your 'reset' was a simple spending splurge enabled by the Tories' golden economical legacy. Even the biggest fan of recent Tory administrations wouldn't describe what they'll leave if they lose the next GE as a golden legacy.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493

    Best scores for a LOTO from what I can tell, since Brown at the beginning

    Paging @isam .

    It is a shame you are no more as I would like to ask how your "charisma quotient" works with two equally charisma- free leaders?
  • Dynamo said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlistairM said:

    Looks like training the Ukrainian army is paying off...

    Russian sources report that Ukrainian forces are using effective NATO style combined arms attacks on their positions and they are totally overwhelmed in some areas.
    https://twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1567474654310277120

    There’s definitely a book or two to be written, on how the Ukranian army managed to go from Soviet military doctrine, to NATO doctrine, in only a few short years since 2014. This sort of thing usually takes several generations, requiring everyone from the top down to get with the program.
    Their heavy defeat in 2014 seems to have had the effect it sometimes has on armies - all the vested interests were on the table, and all the bullshit reasons for not changing we’re swept away.

    It must have been a combination of willingness to change and the external support offered.

    That and the Ukrainians have taken things further than the West in some areas. If the reports are correct, their target designation and allocation database system is something that has been talked about but not implemented in Western militaries. Because “doctrine”….
    That sounds much more believable than the Ukrainian side using standard NATO doctrine and the Russian side not being prepared to meet it.
    Saw locomotive 66708 pass through Stratford with a freight earlier, it has been named "Слава Україні!".

    image
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Icarus said:

    Why has the Pound dropped? Borrowing fears?

    In the spring the penny was dropping about Boris. However, now it has been adjusted for 2022 inflation it is time for the pound to drop.
    Now $1.146 to £1 - Truss can say what she likes about "cutting taxes", the market hears "increased borrowing".
    A falling pound increases inflation. The Bank of England and the Treasury will be working out how best to say "we told you so".
    It is interesting that the Fed's officials and the ECB's have been very hawkish in their comments recently, whilst we seem not to hear so much from the BoE. Maybe they did not want to get involved in the Liz v Rishi debate.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    On PB, not answerable to the voters, not catastrophic if you u turn, you can say what you are thinking today, if asked “will you use a bit of windfall tax extension to help pay” you can say no.

    But that was so dumb for Truss to do at PMQs. She should have listed the reasons why not, and not given the opposition the straight answer they wanted. What you are calling here good was actually so dumb, she allowed her opponents to completely box her in and take that option off the table. That’s why she was bluntly asked it, and then she gave them what they wanted.

    Can you not see that, how she blundered her way through this session making these dreadful mistakes, of letting her opponents paint her and her policies how they want them to be known?

    She got a great hair cut, but there is nothing but air inside it.
    A windfall tax has already been taken, extending its scope to fund 4% of the proposed action is a sideline at best, especially as that extension is at the expense of incentives to invest in green energy.
    Long term levies. Thats your puppy.
    Downing Street has confirmed the windfall tax already agreed remains so any windfall tax from labour can only marginally increase revenue if they close the so called loopholes

    I’m not sure you, and a few other posters, have got the gist of how this works (Leon has I notice). First, any crisis help is not Liz Government one nation like generosity to us, it’s our flipping money - paid in tax, trimmed from public sector or local authority budgets and wages, more national debt on working families and their kids - it’s our money they are playing about with, so it HAS to be scrutinised for value for money in the long run, especially when other options were available for paying some of it they could have chosen.

    Secondly, a crisis like this requires action from our government of the day just as matter of course, like a routine stop any goalkeeper must save, nothing to be applauded - if anything it’s late coming after the Tory party disgracefully went missing, turning a tame cross shot into unnecessary drama!

    Third, they are two very different plans, the opposition will tell the public - freeze with Lib Dems and labour - loan to the wealthy energy companies with Truss - we the voters, the working (well I’m not working but ignore that) prefer the first one, the Lib Dem proposal Labour stole, not what the energy fat cats devised themselves and sold Truss in the lobby - the Libdem plan offered better fairness to the nation and its voters with a windfall contribution.

    In other words is Truss openly talking about necessary sacrifices to come like Scottish Government has just done, or will Dalek Liz try and fail to hide the coming cuts? is she saying with this policy, we are all in it together? In your post You are saying it’s pointless, unnecessary to take this approach, in my reply I’m saying it’s dumb politics not to, it plays into opposition hands.

    The Tories can’t win the next election in the next two weeks, but they can sure as flipping lose it carrying on like this.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    I thought she did OK at PMQs. I wouldn't vote for her.
    No, but im not expecting her to get 60% miraculously or anything like that. If the initial impact is broadly positive or more positive than negative tgen the uncertains starrt to climb back on board and she bounces (without neefing a single switcher). Does she get tory WNV reengaged is the key
    I am sure she engages some who were repelled by Johnson, but then Johnson's shouty appeal was such that Truss's calmness may well encourage some Johnsonians to stay at home or vote Labour. I don't know?

    I doubt whether her package of measures to alleviate the energy crisis is the magic electoral bullet some on here expect. Some people are already up Sh1t Street. Bernard Jenkin said yesterday that she was simultaneously facing the Five Horseman of the Apocalypse. Let's assume she has faced down one of them (which I doubt) she still has four more to go. On today's performance she deserves a bounce, but I am sceptical it will last.
    Oh i agree, it lasting is another thing entirely. She needs to get us through in better shape than the EU/US etc to have hope of maintaining support but that will still be shite for millions.
    Its bleak everywhere rn
    I don't think we care if we are doing better or worse than the EU or the USA. Pain is pain and we don't like it.
    True, but look at 2008, the 'it started in America' and 'its bad everywhere', 'cling to nurse' narrative stopped an ELE for Labour
    That's the incumbency effect. Gordon saved the World, but we still hurt so we voted Cameron/Clegg.

    That is my take this time too.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Jonathan said:

    eek said:

    MISTY said:

    ......Brent crude breaks 90 on the downside...

    Today I saw petrol at sub £1.60 for the first time since i'm not sure when. Not in a supermarket but a main road Jet station near Ferryhill.
    The Jet garage at J59 of the A1M is the same £1.599
    In March, when the price of oil was similar the price was £1.48/litre. And that was before a fuel duty cut. Even accounting for a lag, someone is making a few quid out of this. Prices remain high.
    One reason the UK domestic fuel price isn't as sensitive to oil prices as it might be is we do not refine domestically much any more, according to Craig McKinlay MP.

    The reason we do not refine domestically any more is we are banning petrol cars from 2030 and the refiners deemed, quite naturally, that there was no business future in it.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144
    The remain voting Liz Truss knows what many of us have known all along. There are no "Brexit Opportunities" lol

    "No dedicated Brexit opportunities minister being appointed to replace Rees-Mogg, No 10 says"
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493
    TimS said:

    OT we shouldn't get carried away about the supposed new, sober, substantive debate on policy that characterised today's PMQs.

    I've seen these first outings with new party leaders before and most have tended to be fairly respectful and friendly. Remember Corbyn's inaugural PMQs with Cameron? Then after a few weeks it's back to yah-boo (and "get a tie on"). I anticipate the same this time.

    Starmer can't do that. He can't afford to be shown the misogyny card. He needs to remain polite.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,978
    Icarus said:

    Why has the Pound dropped? Borrowing fears?

    In the spring the penny was dropping about Boris. However, now it has been adjusted for 2022 inflation it is time for the pound to drop.
    Now $1.146 to £1 - Truss can say what she likes about "cutting taxes", the market hears "increased borrowing".
    A falling pound increases inflation. The Bank of England and the Treasury will be working out how best to say "we told you so".
    Putting up interest rates to a more normal level wouldn't be such a bad thing.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,604
    MISTY said:

    Jonathan said:

    eek said:

    MISTY said:

    ......Brent crude breaks 90 on the downside...

    Today I saw petrol at sub £1.60 for the first time since i'm not sure when. Not in a supermarket but a main road Jet station near Ferryhill.
    The Jet garage at J59 of the A1M is the same £1.599
    In March, when the price of oil was similar the price was £1.48/litre. And that was before a fuel duty cut. Even accounting for a lag, someone is making a few quid out of this. Prices remain high.
    One reason the UK domestic fuel price isn't as sensitive to oil prices as it might be is we do not refine domestically much any more, according to Craig McKinlay MP.

    The reason we do not refine domestically any more is we are banning petrol cars from 2030 and the refiners deemed, quite naturally, that there was no business future in it.
    Thanks once again green tosspots.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,152
    edited September 7
    Cyclefree said:

    Screeds of bluster, with the briefest of mentions that the issue is “impact on womens’ rights in the rest of the U.K.:

    New UK Prime Minister Liz Truss is trying to block Scotland’s plans to allow trans people to self-identify as male or female, VICE World News can reveal.

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/3adva3/liz-truss-scotland-gender-identity

    The legislation is poorly thought through and the politicians didn’t like some of the expert witness testimony they received when this was pointed out to them in committee.

    The attached explains some of the mess the Scottish government has got itself into - https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee/correspondence/2022/for-women-scotland-letter-to-the-equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee-30-august-2022.pdf

    The short version -

    1. The Scottish govt gives different inconsistent explanations of what it's legislation means depending on who it is talking to. Either it does not understand it or it is lying.
    2. It is ignoring a court decision.
    3. Its legislation - if it really has the effect the Scottish government is saying it will have - will impact on reserved matters under the Equality Act and therefore be outside its competence.
    All over the shop:

    In summary, we believe the revised statutory guidance for the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act is unlawful. The Scottish Government believe otherwise and maintain a GRC changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Not only does this decouple women’s biological sex from sex-specific provisions in the Equality Act, but it means reforming the GRA also carries a serious risk of intruding on reserved matters. The Scottish Government has a history of inconsistency and lack of understanding on both the definition of woman and the operation of the Equality Act. All of this leaves the Committee exposed, trying to make good law in the midst of a live court action, the outcome of which materially affects the reform.

    Is this driven by politicians ignoring Civil Service / Legal advice, or defective advice?


  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 766

    Icarus said:

    Why has the Pound dropped? Borrowing fears?

    In the spring the penny was dropping about Boris. However, now it has been adjusted for 2022 inflation it is time for the pound to drop.
    Now $1.146 to £1 - Truss can say what she likes about "cutting taxes", the market hears "increased borrowing".
    A falling pound increases inflation. The Bank of England and the Treasury will be working out how best to say "we told you so".
    Putting up interest rates to a more normal level wouldn't be such a bad thing.
    I look forward to the Daily Mail front page as the housing market crashes!
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,527
    Kerch Bridge?

    The weather forecast says it is going to be very hot in Crimea.
    It's time for the rus invaders to prepare for a swim. It takes a lot of strength to swim to Sochi or Yeysk.
    BTW the Guinness Book of World Records may include a new record for the longest open water swim.
    https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1567526011041988609
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Here's a nugget from November 2008

    * Brown is planning to kickstart the economy with unfunded tax cuts. But only 40% of respondents said that "increased public borrowing now to boost the economy, even if it means higher taxes and slower spending in the long term" would be effective; 49% said it would be ineffective.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/11/polls-labour?CMP=gu_com

    How easily we forget things. Truss = continuity Brown,
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,862
    Just heard PMQs.

    Rather more productive than the total rubbish under Johnson, but I didn't feel it advanced anything much on either side.

    Starmer was ready with some facts and figures, although I rather suspect there was more nuance in this £170 billion he talked about than he let on, which Truss countered with her ideological broad brush strokes.

    At least it was more measured and better tempered. And Truss aside from a few stumbles is coherent in a way Johnson never was. I do find her voice quite grating though, don't know if I'm alone in that. Not that Starmer's voice is noted for aural beauty.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    edited September 7

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    On PB, not answerable to the voters, not catastrophic if you u turn, you can say what you are thinking today, if asked “will you use a bit of windfall tax extension to help pay” you can say no.

    But that was so dumb for Truss to do at PMQs. She should have listed the reasons why not, and not given the opposition the straight answer they wanted. What you are calling here good was actually so dumb, she allowed her opponents to completely box her in and take that option off the table. That’s why she was bluntly asked it, and then she gave them what they wanted.

    Can you not see that, how she blundered her way through this session making these dreadful mistakes, of letting her opponents paint her and her policies how they want them to be known?

    She got a great hair cut, but there is nothing but air inside it.
    A windfall tax has already been taken, extending its scope to fund 4% of the proposed action is a sideline at best, especially as that extension is at the expense of incentives to invest in green energy.
    Long term levies. Thats your puppy.
    Downing Street has confirmed the windfall tax already agreed remains so any windfall tax from labour can only marginally increase revenue if they close the so called loopholes

    I’m not sure you, and a few other posters, have got the gist of how this works (Leon has I notice). First, any crisis help is not Liz Government one nation like generosity to us, it’s our flipping money - paid in tax, trimmed from public sector or local authority budgets and wages, more national debt on working families and their kids - it’s our money they are playing about with, so it HAS to be scrutinised for value for money in the long run, especially when other options were available for paying some of it they could have chosen.

    Secondly, a crisis like this requires action from our government of the day just as matter of course, like a routine stop any goalkeeper must save, nothing to be applauded - if anything it’s late coming after the Tory party disgracefully went missing, turning a tame cross shot into unnecessary drama!

    Third, they are two very different plans, the opposition will tell the public - freeze with Lib Dems and labour - loan to the wealthy energy companies with Truss - we the voters, the working (well I’m not working but ignore that) prefer the first one, the Lib Dem proposal Labour stole, not what the energy fat cats devised themselves and sold Truss in the lobby - the Libdem plan offered better fairness to the nation and its voters with a windfall contribution.

    In other words is Truss openly talking about necessary sacrifices to come like Scottish Government has just done, or will Dalek Liz try and fail to hide the coming cuts? is she saying with this policy, we are all in it together? In your post You are saying it’s pointless, unnecessary to take this approach, in my reply I’m saying it’s dumb politics not to, it plays into opposition hands.

    The Tories can’t win the next election in the next two weeks, but they can sure as flipping lose it carrying on like this.
    It isn't all "our flipping money" though - is it? Mr Starmer (& the SNP?) was trying to pretend that it is all 'workers money', and that does not really stand up.

    It's general tax money from income tax, VAT, corporation tax and all the rest, which may be redistributed in ways we find out tomorrow.

    I'm watching whether PM Truss has the political awareness to leave open the possibility of a gas price cap paralleling the suggestions today from UVDL. And a decoupling of electricity from gas over time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,474

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    PB is most definitely NOT a microcosm. It's full of political wonks for a start.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,205

    Cyclefree said:

    Screeds of bluster, with the briefest of mentions that the issue is “impact on womens’ rights in the rest of the U.K.:

    New UK Prime Minister Liz Truss is trying to block Scotland’s plans to allow trans people to self-identify as male or female, VICE World News can reveal.

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/3adva3/liz-truss-scotland-gender-identity

    The legislation is poorly thought through and the politicians didn’t like some of the expert witness testimony they received when this was pointed out to them in committee.

    The attached explains some of the mess the Scottish government has got itself into - https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee/correspondence/2022/for-women-scotland-letter-to-the-equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee-30-august-2022.pdf

    The short version -

    1. The Scottish govt gives different inconsistent explanations of what it's legislation means depending on who it is talking to. Either it does not understand it or it is lying.
    2. It is ignoring a court decision.
    3. Its legislation - if it really has the effect the Scottish government is saying it will have - will impact on reserved matters under the Equality Act and therefore be outside its competence.
    All over the shop:

    In summary, we believe the revised statutory guidance for the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act is unlawful. The Scottish Government believe otherwise and maintain a GRC changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Not only does this decouple women’s biological sex from sex-specific provisions in the Equality Act, but it means reforming the GRA also carries a serious risk of intruding on reserved matters. The Scottish Government has a history of inconsistency and lack of understanding on both the definition of woman and the operation of the Equality Act. All of this leaves the Committee exposed, trying to make good law in the midst of a live court action, the outcome of which materially affects the reform.

    Is this driven by politicians ignoring Civil Service / Legal advice, or defective advice?


    Ignoring legal advice based on defective advice from outside advocacy groups.

    Apart from a lack of involvement from JRM, it is uncanny how much this resembles…
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    edited September 7
    It appears that the Ukrainians are making some good progress in Kharkiv Oblast.

    Usual caveats apply.

    Edit: and taking the following with a really large pinch of salt but if true, ouch.
    https://twitter.com/SvenSalumets/status/1567446119596040192
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144

    So apparently the "British workers need more graft", goes down very badly in focus groups.

    Yea, but that is because it is true.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493
    IshmaelZ said:

    Here's a nugget from November 2008

    * Brown is planning to kickstart the economy with unfunded tax cuts. But only 40% of respondents said that "increased public borrowing now to boost the economy, even if it means higher taxes and slower spending in the long term" would be effective; 49% said it would be ineffective.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/11/polls-labour?CMP=gu_com

    How easily we forget things. Truss = continuity Brown,

    How did it all work out for Gordon?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,978
    @JimmySecUK
    Some pretty incredible footage of Macron talking to Zelensky on the morning of the invasion, when the scale of the full-scale Russian assault on Ukraine was becoming clear.


    https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1567518365761011712
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    Miss Trusst was better at PMQs than I feared, but she seems to be after a hiding with the energy stuff – she seemed incapable of admitting who was going to pay for it (taxpayers). Just a gift to Labour's windfall tax.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493

    So apparently the "British workers need more graft", goes down very badly in focus groups.

    Yea, but that is because it is true.
    Well I've done f- all today, and I have a big deadline on Monday, and I'm going away this weekend.

    Fortunately PBers don't count.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    On PB, not answerable to the voters, not catastrophic if you u turn, you can say what you are thinking today, if asked “will you use a bit of windfall tax extension to help pay” you can say no.

    But that was so dumb for Truss to do at PMQs. She should have listed the reasons why not, and not given the opposition the straight answer they wanted. What you are calling here good was actually so dumb, she allowed her opponents to completely box her in and take that option off the table. That’s why she was bluntly asked it, and then she gave them what they wanted.

    Can you not see that, how she blundered her way through this session making these dreadful mistakes, of letting her opponents paint her and her policies how they want them to be known?

    She got a great hair cut, but there is nothing but air inside it.
    Whereas you are right on her having fully ruled out screwing the energy companies, which the public quite like, you are being unfair on her general performance which was pretty good.
    Fair enough if you like the “Maggie inside a Dalek” style, but the substance we are getting is pretty bizarre and second rate.

    I don’t just mean there will be Devil in the detail behind the “£190B of support for families and businesses” newspaper front pages actually means regressive package of bungs to people or don’t need it, still too much hardship for the poor, and in the case of furlough £30B handed over to organised crime due to slack management all ultimately failing the VFM judgement - there will be plenty of test for opponents to get stuck into. No, I’m talking about the art to politics, where whatever you do it is never known for how good it is, it’s only known for how you allowed your opponents to define it. On that measurement it was a blundering PMQs, and awful start for Liz Truss.
    @MoonRabbit , don't get me wrong I can't bear the woman. She nonetheless impressed with her tone today, as did Starmer. Let us pray that continues. Her taxation policy and thus economic policy, as far as I am concerned, is bunkum. Her climate policy and social policy will be reactionary folly because of the people she has installed in those departments.

    Perhaps my dislike for Truss is temperered by my utter contempt for Johnson. My relief that Johnson won't be doing a Peppa Pig eulogy when London Bridge falls is further bolstered by the understanding today, that Truss can pull it off without making the nation a laughing stock across the World.
    I am coming around to her. She is not Johnson and she has got rid of Dorries and Patel, the only fly in the ointment is Rees-Mogg, the man that could not make any Brexit Opportunities for Bozo.

    Time will tell. Her PMQs really wasn't too bad. Oh, and she did vote remain.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,862

    It appears that the Ukrainians are making some good progress in Kharkiv Oblast.

    Usual caveats apply.

    Edit: and taking the following with a really large pinch of salt but if true, ouch.
    https://twitter.com/SvenSalumets/status/1567446119596040192

    That would be four times as many as died in the entire Soviet-Afghan war. It would also be about half of their total initial force.

    It seems highly improbable that many have died.

    If genuine, perhaps it includes payments for wounded as well?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    I note that Sir Keir Royale was being criticised for always been smartly turned out earlier.

    Only on PB.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,862
    edited September 7

    I note that Sir Keir Royale was being criticised for always been smartly turned out earlier.

    Only on PB.

    They've got him tied up, but Truss still isn't suited.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Here's a nugget from November 2008

    * Brown is planning to kickstart the economy with unfunded tax cuts. But only 40% of respondents said that "increased public borrowing now to boost the economy, even if it means higher taxes and slower spending in the long term" would be effective; 49% said it would be ineffective.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/11/polls-labour?CMP=gu_com

    How easily we forget things. Truss = continuity Brown,

    How did it all work out for Gordon?
    It's complicated...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304

    So apparently the "British workers need more graft", goes down very badly in focus groups.

    Yea, but that is because it is true.
    Get back to work!
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144

    So apparently the "British workers need more graft", goes down very badly in focus groups.

    Yea, but that is because it is true.
    Well I've done f- all today, and I have a big deadline on Monday, and I'm going away this weekend.

    Fortunately PBers don't count.
    There are a few posters on here (present company clearly excepted) whom I do wonder how they find time to make a living. Did I mention Barty? Oh whoops!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048

    I note that Sir Keir Royale was being criticised for always been smartly turned out earlier.

    Only on PB.

    Who said that?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    edited September 7
    Interesting reverse ferrets starting on mega-inflation predictions:

    Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a cap on bills for households could see inflation, which tracks how the cost of living changes over time, peak at 10.8% in October, rather than the 14.8% forecast before.

    While the Bank of England said that the plan could slow rising prices, Goldman Sachs said it would lead to prices falling more quickly as well, with inflation slowing to 2.4% by December 2023.

    Both cautioned that there was uncertainty around what exactly the plan will look like and what would happen once any cap is lifted.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62817391

    I also see that there is still a lorra lorra Russian Gas flowing to Europe through the Ukraine Yamal pipeline. I make that about 25% of the full capacity of Nordstream One, but there are others here more knowledgeable in this area:

    Nominations for Russian gas flows into Slovakia from Ukraine via the Velke Kapusany border point were about 36.7 million cubic metres (mcm) per day for Tuesday, little changed from the previous day, data from the Ukrainian transmission system operator showed.

    Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM) said on Tuesday that it will ship 42.4 mcm of gas to Europe via Ukraine via the Sudzha entry point, in line with the previous day.

    Eastbound gas flows via the Yamal-Europe pipeline to Poland from Germany at the Mallnow metering point on the German border were at 551,464 kilowatt-hours per hour (kWh/h) between 0800 and 0900 CET on Tuesday, data from operator Gascade showed.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-gas-flows-eu-via-ukraine-remain-stable-nord-stream-stays-shut-2022-09-06/

  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144

    So apparently the "British workers need more graft", goes down very badly in focus groups.

    Yea, but that is because it is true.
    Get back to work!
    I am multitasking...oh shit...no I didn't send that did I? FFS!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,474

    @JimmySecUK
    Some pretty incredible footage of Macron talking to Zelensky on the morning of the invasion, when the scale of the full-scale Russian assault on Ukraine was becoming clear.


    https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1567518365761011712

    Why would they record and then share that?!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,862

    I note that Sir Keir Royale was being criticised for always been smartly turned out earlier.

    Only on PB.

    Who said that?
    A stuffed shirt.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    On PB, not answerable to the voters, not catastrophic if you u turn, you can say what you are thinking today, if asked “will you use a bit of windfall tax extension to help pay” you can say no.

    But that was so dumb for Truss to do at PMQs. She should have listed the reasons why not, and not given the opposition the straight answer they wanted. What you are calling here good was actually so dumb, she allowed her opponents to completely box her in and take that option off the table. That’s why she was bluntly asked it, and then she gave them what they wanted.

    Can you not see that, how she blundered her way through this session making these dreadful mistakes, of letting her opponents paint her and her policies how they want them to be known?

    She got a great hair cut, but there is nothing but air inside it.
    Whereas you are right on her having fully ruled out screwing the energy companies, which the public quite like, you are being unfair on her general performance which was pretty good.
    Fair enough if you like the “Maggie inside a Dalek” style, but the substance we are getting is pretty bizarre and second rate.

    I don’t just mean there will be Devil in the detail behind the “£190B of support for families and businesses” newspaper front pages actually means regressive package of bungs to people or don’t need it, still too much hardship for the poor, and in the case of furlough £30B handed over to organised crime due to slack management all ultimately failing the VFM judgement - there will be plenty of test for opponents to get stuck into. No, I’m talking about the art to politics, where whatever you do it is never known for how good it is, it’s only known for how you allowed your opponents to define it. On that measurement it was a blundering PMQs, and awful start for Liz Truss.
    @MoonRabbit , don't get me wrong I can't bear the woman. She nonetheless impressed with her tone today, as did Starmer. Let us pray that continues. Her taxation policy and thus economic policy, as far as I am concerned, is bunkum. Her climate policy and social policy will be reactionary folly because of the people she has installed in those departments.

    Perhaps my dislike for Truss is temperered by my utter contempt for Johnson. My relief that Johnson won't be doing a Peppa Pig eulogy when London Bridge falls is further bolstered by the understanding today, that Truss can pull it off without making the nation a laughing stock across the World.
    I am coming around to her. She is not Johnson and she has got rid of Dorries and Patel, the only fly in the ointment is Rees-Mogg, the man that could not make any Brexit Opportunities for Bozo.

    Time will tell. Her PMQs really wasn't too bad. Oh, and she did vote remain.
    I am not, she has morphed from LD to Remainer to reactionary. You have missed out the worse than Patel Braverman in your debit column. And MadNad blew her out, not the other way around.

    But if the benchmark is Johnson, yes, head and shoulders better.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,862

    So apparently the "British workers need more graft", goes down very badly in focus groups.

    Yea, but that is because it is true.
    Get back to work!
    I am multitasking...oh shit...no I didn't send that did I? FFS!
    I'm just enjoying the thought I didn't have a long commute and an even longer day at school in the middle of it! My teaching began and ended at the computer.

    However, the upgrade to FTTP in a couple of weeks can't come soon enough for me.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    MattW said:

    Interesting reverse ferrets starting on mega-inflation predictions:

    Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a cap on bills for households could see inflation, which tracks how the cost of living changes over time, peak at 10.8% in October, rather than the 14.8% forecast before.

    While the Bank of England said that the plan could slow rising prices, Goldman Sachs said it would lead to prices falling more quickly as well, with inflation slowing to 2.4% by December 2023.

    Both cautioned that there was uncertainty around what exactly the plan will look like and what would happen once any cap is lifted.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62817391

    I also see that there is still a lorra lorra Russian Gas flowing to Europe through the Ukraine Yamal pipeline. I make that about 25% of the full capacity of Nordstream One, but there are others here more knowledgeable in this area:

    Nominations for Russian gas flows into Slovakia from Ukraine via the Velke Kapusany border point were about 36.7 million cubic metres (mcm) per day for Tuesday, little changed from the previous day, data from the Ukrainian transmission system operator showed.

    Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM) said on Tuesday that it will ship 42.4 mcm of gas to Europe via Ukraine via the Sudzha entry point, in line with the previous day.

    Eastbound gas flows via the Yamal-Europe pipeline to Poland from Germany at the Mallnow metering point on the German border were at 551,464 kilowatt-hours per hour (kWh/h) between 0800 and 0900 CET on Tuesday, data from operator Gascade showed.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-gas-flows-eu-via-ukraine-remain-stable-nord-stream-stays-shut-2022-09-06/

    The other news on inflation is that Lurpak is down from £5.50 to £3.50 in Asda.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    It appears that the Ukrainians are making some good progress in Kharkiv Oblast.

    Usual caveats apply.

    Edit: and taking the following with a really large pinch of salt but if true, ouch.
    https://twitter.com/SvenSalumets/status/1567446119596040192

    That would be four times as many as died in the entire Soviet-Afghan war. It would also be about half of their total initial force.

    It seems highly improbable that many have died.

    If genuine, perhaps it includes payments for wounded as well?
    Says it excludes WIA which I assume is wounded in action

    and excludes MIA too
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493

    So apparently the "British workers need more graft", goes down very badly in focus groups.

    Yea, but that is because it is true.
    Well I've done f- all today, and I have a big deadline on Monday, and I'm going away this weekend.

    Fortunately PBers don't count.
    There are a few posters on here (present company clearly excepted) whom I do wonder how they find time to make a living. Did I mention Barty? Oh whoops!
    No, I am as guilty as hell today.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,527
    Something incredible is happening in Kharkiv Oblast.
    Yeah, we somewhat underestimated the Ukrainian military’s offensive capability and reserves in that sector.
    https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1567522785370537986
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,240

    kinabalu said:

    I've just watched one of Owen Jones's latest missives on Twitter (the one posted two days ago). And, my goodness, can someone send for the RNLI? He's drowning in salty, salty tears.

    Here's an idea for him: if he's so irate, then stand for election for Labour. Then he might actually do something for people.

    He wouldn't get on a shortlist under Starmer.
    Well he won't now, will he!

    Screeching "You're a liar!!!!" at the party leader (whilst backtracking from your comments ("Hey, I shop at Waitrose" and "He knows me, but we've only met a few times aside from one of my best mates who works for him" etc etc) will not enamour him to the saner parts of the party.
    Well he's disappointed that socialism* looks off the table.

    Fwiw I reckon Keir is doing double bluff. He projected Left to get the Leader gig, now projects Centre to get the bigger gig of PM, then - if my sense is right - he will shift back Left in office.

    * by which I mean some 'left' radicalism not a return to Clause 4.
  • Jonathan said:

    Interesting PMQs. Truss did well. New PMs always do. Curious new Tory concept to borrow billions to lower taxes. Will be interesting to see how that goes, but Thatcherite economics this is not.

    If the economy tanks, she’s out. If she manages to engineer a boom, she might hang on.

    I just can't see how she engineers a boom. Neither can Norman Lamont.
    You don’t tax your way to growth, you borrow your way to growth was my main take out from her messaging - and it seems like that will be the defining message of her tenure.
    Very Brownian economics. Very 2008.
    Brown was constantly putting up taxes, not cutting them. Remind me when Gordon Brown cut National Insurance?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048

    @JimmySecUK
    Some pretty incredible footage of Macron talking to Zelensky on the morning of the invasion, when the scale of the full-scale Russian assault on Ukraine was becoming clear.


    https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1567518365761011712

    That's quite an incredible piece of video; understated yet powerful.

    As someone said in the comments, Zelensky was asking for Macron and other leaders to talk to Putin to stop the war. He was not warmongering.

    It's also interesting that they were both talking in English...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've just watched one of Owen Jones's latest missives on Twitter (the one posted two days ago). And, my goodness, can someone send for the RNLI? He's drowning in salty, salty tears.

    Here's an idea for him: if he's so irate, then stand for election for Labour. Then he might actually do something for people.

    He wouldn't get on a shortlist under Starmer.
    Well he won't now, will he!

    Screeching "You're a liar!!!!" at the party leader (whilst backtracking from your comments ("Hey, I shop at Waitrose" and "He knows me, but we've only met a few times aside from one of my best mates who works for him" etc etc) will not enamour him to the saner parts of the party.
    Well he's disappointed that socialism* looks off the table.

    Fwiw I reckon Keir is doing double bluff. He projected Left to get the Leader gig, now projects Centre to get the bigger gig of PM, then - if my sense is right - he will shift back Left in office.

    * by which I mean some 'left' radicalism not a return to Clause 4.
    Nah, wishful thinking on your part. He is continuity Blair, minus the war- criminality.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,240
    Is there a job for Steve Baker?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,297

    @JimmySecUK
    Some pretty incredible footage of Macron talking to Zelensky on the morning of the invasion, when the scale of the full-scale Russian assault on Ukraine was becoming clear.


    https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1567518365761011712

    That's quite an incredible piece of video; understated yet powerful.

    As someone said in the comments, Zelensky was asking for Macron and other leaders to talk to Putin to stop the war. He was not warmongering....
    ...at the same time Putin was sending hit teams into Kyiv to try to kill him.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493
    AlistairM said:

    Something incredible is happening in Kharkiv Oblast.
    Yeah, we somewhat underestimated the Ukrainian military’s offensive capability and reserves in that sector.
    https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1567522785370537986

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-rides-tank-during-visit-to-uk-troops-in-estonia-a3630596.html

    Maybe this explains everything.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    It appears that the Ukrainians are making some good progress in Kharkiv Oblast.

    Usual caveats apply.

    Edit: and taking the following with a really large pinch of salt but if true, ouch.
    https://twitter.com/SvenSalumets/status/1567446119596040192

    That would be four times as many as died in the entire Soviet-Afghan war. It would also be about half of their total initial force.

    It seems highly improbable that many have died.

    If genuine, perhaps it includes payments for wounded as well?
    Says it excludes WIA which I assume is wounded in action

    and excludes MIA too
    https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-death-toll-50k-kherson-counteroffensive-1740202

    Ukraine saying 50,000 russian dead yesterday which is close to and apparently independent of the 49,000 in the leaked doc.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've just watched one of Owen Jones's latest missives on Twitter (the one posted two days ago). And, my goodness, can someone send for the RNLI? He's drowning in salty, salty tears.

    Here's an idea for him: if he's so irate, then stand for election for Labour. Then he might actually do something for people.

    He wouldn't get on a shortlist under Starmer.
    Well he won't now, will he!

    Screeching "You're a liar!!!!" at the party leader (whilst backtracking from your comments ("Hey, I shop at Waitrose" and "He knows me, but we've only met a few times aside from one of my best mates who works for him" etc etc) will not enamour him to the saner parts of the party.
    Well he's disappointed that socialism* looks off the table.

    Fwiw I reckon Keir is doing double bluff. He projected Left to get the Leader gig, now projects Centre to get the bigger gig of PM, then - if my sense is right - he will shift back Left in office.

    * by which I mean some 'left' radicalism not a return to Clause 4.
    That concern might well be the reason he won't get the centre ground voter. I quite like him, but the rest of the Labour party is full of more fruitcakes than the Tories are.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    AlistairM said:

    Something incredible is happening in Kharkiv Oblast.
    Yeah, we somewhat underestimated the Ukrainian military’s offensive capability and reserves in that sector.
    https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1567522785370537986

    We need to be wary of this: I watched something earlier (*) stating that the Russian doctrine states to typically build four sets of defensive lines, and would quickly retreat to the second, taking the attackers into a kill zone. To aid this, they build another et of defensive lines well ahead of the 'real' first one, tricking the attackers into range of the Russian artillery.

    If I've got that right.

    However, it's a trick that may not work very well in modern warfare, where drones and satellites allow you to see - and potentially map - all the defensive lines.

    (*) Yes, I know...
  • PB Tories oddly silent about IPSOS poll, even those who used to sit on positives being more useful. Keir wins on both
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    Apparently the unit that is taking the lead in the Ukraine counter offensive near issuim/kharkiv is the 10th Tank battalion, which is a newly formed unit maned by UK trained personnel equipped with amongst other things Polish T 72s.

    Big amounts of respect and admiration to all members of that battalion, but also big thank you to all involved in here training.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWWri3hz2M
  • PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    On PB, not answerable to the voters, not catastrophic if you u turn, you can say what you are thinking today, if asked “will you use a bit of windfall tax extension to help pay” you can say no.

    But that was so dumb for Truss to do at PMQs. She should have listed the reasons why not, and not given the opposition the straight answer they wanted. What you are calling here good was actually so dumb, she allowed her opponents to completely box her in and take that option off the table. That’s why she was bluntly asked it, and then she gave them what they wanted.

    Can you not see that, how she blundered her way through this session making these dreadful mistakes, of letting her opponents paint her and her policies how they want them to be known?

    She got a great hair cut, but there is nothing but air inside it.
    A windfall tax has already been taken, extending its scope to fund 4% of the proposed action is a sideline at best, especially as that extension is at the expense of incentives to invest in green energy.
    Long term levies. Thats your puppy.
    Downing Street has confirmed the windfall tax already agreed remains so any windfall tax from labour can only marginally increase revenue if they close the so called loopholes

    But if Liz is so opposed to the windfall tax, as she said at PMQs , and if it's so ineffective anyway, why is she keeping what's been agreed? She's cancelling the NI and CT rises - she could do the same to the windfall tax.
    Sunaks windfall tax is already in the 37 billion currently being paid out

    Starmer will have to explain how much more than the present windfall tax he wants to raise and is it a one off or does he intend repeating it next year
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493
    kinabalu said:

    Is there a job for Steve Baker?

    Answers on a post card.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493
    ...

    PB as a microcosm of the electorate experiment.
    Based on the cautiously and fairly positive reaction so far from a number of our right leaning and centrist (unionist) posters it suggests, extrapolated to the wider world, a bounce. To be impacted by tomorrows announcements of course.
    Thunder greets this post in Norwich.........

    On PB, not answerable to the voters, not catastrophic if you u turn, you can say what you are thinking today, if asked “will you use a bit of windfall tax extension to help pay” you can say no.

    But that was so dumb for Truss to do at PMQs. She should have listed the reasons why not, and not given the opposition the straight answer they wanted. What you are calling here good was actually so dumb, she allowed her opponents to completely box her in and take that option off the table. That’s why she was bluntly asked it, and then she gave them what they wanted.

    Can you not see that, how she blundered her way through this session making these dreadful mistakes, of letting her opponents paint her and her policies how they want them to be known?

    She got a great hair cut, but there is nothing but air inside it.
    A windfall tax has already been taken, extending its scope to fund 4% of the proposed action is a sideline at best, especially as that extension is at the expense of incentives to invest in green energy.
    Long term levies. Thats your puppy.
    Downing Street has confirmed the windfall tax already agreed remains so any windfall tax from labour can only marginally increase revenue if they close the so called loopholes

    But if Liz is so opposed to the windfall tax, as she said at PMQs , and if it's so ineffective anyway, why is she keeping what's been agreed? She's cancelling the NI and CT rises - she could do the same to the windfall tax.
    Sunaks windfall tax is already in the 37 billion currently being paid out

    Starmer will have to explain how much more than the present windfall tax he wants to raise and is it a one off or does he intend repeating it next year
    No he won't.

    It's the political narrative that counts not the cash figure.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,552
    Forums like this pick apart government policies and tend to look at the detail which isn’t what the vast majority of the public will do .

    Labour want to ensure they have a good slogan to bash Truss with and which will resonate with the public . So being on the side of the energy companies when they’re raking in huge profits isn’t a good look . It’s irrelevant if the windfall tax brings in only a small amount compared to the overall cost .

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/sep/07/trump-nuclear-document-special-master-biden-obama-bannon-latest

    All kicking off about dem Mar a Lago docs, if we can ignore our parochial concerns for a second

    Might actually be quite relevant to us, as the juiciest are about a foreign country's nuclear capabilities
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,240
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    To counter any feeling of 'Truss might not be so bad', there has been an absolute torrent of invective about her on the chat at my public sector workplace - complaining about 'British workers need more graft' (the irony of British workers spending their worktime gossiping on Teams was not commented on); complaining about her unsoundness on trans rights, complaining about her unsoundness on climate change, complaining meanwhile about Keir Starmer's uselessness and pining instead for Angela Rayner. All par for the course in a public sector workplace and probably has been for a decade or more, but she clearly hasn't changed the landscape yet.
    Meanwhile another colleague is enthusiastically looking forward to Scotland leaving the UK so he can move to Scotland and rejoin the EU. I raised doubts about how Scotland would do economically, which he countered with 'well there are a lot of small, poor countries in the EU - Bulgaria and Portugal seem to do ok.' I thought this was maybe a bit of a steep price to pay for rejoining the promised land, but there you go.

    Any 'shes planning to sell the NHS' bullshit making an early appearance?
    I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
    Oh, and everybody very excited about what a cracking job Joe Lycett did on Sunday, putting both Liz Truss and Laura K, who is of course a proud Tory, in her place.
    The public sector is a very odd place.
    You must feel like exploding sometimes. Sitting there amongst that with your politics sounds like me on the Lehman trading floor with mine. You should have seen that place rip when Major pulled off his shock win in 92. I've never felt so down and alone - utterly alone.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    To counter any feeling of 'Truss might not be so bad', there has been an absolute torrent of invective about her on the chat at my public sector workplace - complaining about 'British workers need more graft' (the irony of British workers spending their worktime gossiping on Teams was not commented on); complaining about her unsoundness on trans rights, complaining about her unsoundness on climate change, complaining meanwhile about Keir Starmer's uselessness and pining instead for Angela Rayner. All par for the course in a public sector workplace and probably has been for a decade or more, but she clearly hasn't changed the landscape yet.
    Meanwhile another colleague is enthusiastically looking forward to Scotland leaving the UK so he can move to Scotland and rejoin the EU. I raised doubts about how Scotland would do economically, which he countered with 'well there are a lot of small, poor countries in the EU - Bulgaria and Portugal seem to do ok.' I thought this was maybe a bit of a steep price to pay for rejoining the promised land, but there you go.

    Any 'shes planning to sell the NHS' bullshit making an early appearance?
    I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
    Oh, and everybody very excited about what a cracking job Joe Lycett did on Sunday, putting both Liz Truss and Laura K, who is of course a proud Tory, in her place.
    The public sector is a very odd place.
    You must feel like exploding sometimes. Sitting there amongst that with your politics sounds like me on the Lehman trading floor with mine. You should have seen that place rip when Major pulled off his shock win in 92. I've never felt so down and alone - utterly alone.
    You were on the trading floor at 1 am?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,297
    Another very interesting article by Anne Applebaum.

    ‘LUKASHENKO IS EASIER TO UNSEAT THAN PUTIN’

    A band of Belarusians is resisting the threat of a neo-Soviet empire by taking up arms in Ukraine.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/belarus-volunteers-fighting-ukraine-invasion/671242/
    ...All of them belong to a different generation from the men in the field. They have watched the rise and fall of various opposition movements and leaders since 1994, when Lukashenko first came to power. They watched his regime turn from the soft authoritarian rule of a collective-farm boss into a vicious, violent autocracy that tortures political prisoners and allows the Russian army to launch missiles into Ukraine from its territory. They remember the Soviet Union, and they do not want their country to become part of a neo-Soviet empire. What they want instead, one of them told me, is “a radical change in the political system, legal system, economic system, and deep reforms of the entire society to bring Belarus to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.” But they do not believe the current regime will disintegrate peacefully.

    Like everybody else in the post-Soviet world, Rokosh and the other men have read Gene Sharp, the philosopher of nonviolent revolution and civic activism who died in 2018. They admire his ideas, but they don’t think they apply to their situation anymore. Nonviolence was tried in Belarus. It failed. “Flowers and demonstrations could not change this situation,” one of them says, so it is time to try something else. They tell me about partisan underground movements inside their country—one of them is called “Flying Storks”—which have, they say, racked up a few minor victories, including a drone attack on the headquarters of OMON, the Belarusian riot police, in Minsk. They also say they have distributed clandestine training videos designed to help people counter the tactics of the riot police: “The people’s right to revolt is justified because all civilized methods of changing the situation were exhausted,” one said. Even so, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a turning point, a different level of threat, a shock to the system, a “spit in the face.” If Ukraine does not win, one of them told me, “we will have to say goodbye to any idea of a free Belarus.”...
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,418
    Carnyx said:

    Hmm..

    A small step forward, and it would have been a terrible look to deny the SNP the right to intervene even in these 'make the Nats illegal' times.

    What does 'intervene' mean in this case?
    'The party had applied to be allowed to submit its own arguments to the court in early August, despite the Scottish Government’s top law officer – Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain – already having submitted a case.

    The UK Government has also submitted and published its own arguments in the indyref2 case.

    On Wednesday, the Supreme Court said that the SNP would be allowed to intervene and submit a third written case – but it had to be limited to 20 pages and must avoid “repetition of the Lord Advocate’s arguments”.'

    Obvs there will be an element of response to the UKG arguments, I should think.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/21137558.supreme-court-says-snp-can-intervene-scottish-indyref2-case/
    Isn’t that a little unbalanced - the SNP gets a “free shot” whereas the other parties had to file at the same time?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've just watched one of Owen Jones's latest missives on Twitter (the one posted two days ago). And, my goodness, can someone send for the RNLI? He's drowning in salty, salty tears.

    Here's an idea for him: if he's so irate, then stand for election for Labour. Then he might actually do something for people.

    He wouldn't get on a shortlist under Starmer.
    Well he won't now, will he!

    Screeching "You're a liar!!!!" at the party leader (whilst backtracking from your comments ("Hey, I shop at Waitrose" and "He knows me, but we've only met a few times aside from one of my best mates who works for him" etc etc) will not enamour him to the saner parts of the party.
    Well he's disappointed that socialism* looks off the table.

    Fwiw I reckon Keir is doing double bluff. He projected Left to get the Leader gig, now projects Centre to get the bigger gig of PM, then - if my sense is right - he will shift back Left in office.

    * by which I mean some 'left' radicalism not a return to Clause 4.
    That concern might well be the reason he won't get the centre ground voter. I quite like him, but the rest of the Labour party is full of more fruitcakes than the Tories are.
    Au contraire!

    For every Richard Burgon, Sam Tarry and Rebecca Long Bailey the Tories have JRM, Steve Baker Philip Davies, Esther McVey, Priti Patel, Suella Braverman, Mark Francois, Peter Bone, Christopher Chope, Andrew (soon to be history) Bridgen...
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 638

    AlistairM said:

    Something incredible is happening in Kharkiv Oblast.
    Yeah, we somewhat underestimated the Ukrainian military’s offensive capability and reserves in that sector.
    https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1567522785370537986

    We need to be wary of this: I watched something earlier (*) stating that the Russian doctrine states to typically build four sets of defensive lines, and would quickly retreat to the second, taking the attackers into a kill zone. To aid this, they build another et of defensive lines well ahead of the 'real' first one, tricking the attackers into range of the Russian artillery.

    If I've got that right.

    However, it's a trick that may not work very well in modern warfare, where drones and satellites allow you to see - and potentially map - all the defensive lines.

    (*) Yes, I know...
    It's possible that if you're aware of that tactic, the Ukrainian military are too?
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    PB Tories oddly silent about IPSOS poll, even those who used to sit on positives being more useful. Keir wins on both

    In terms of things for conservatives to be worried about, its a crowded field. There's a lot of choice. Have a heart.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,418
    OnboardG1 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Looks good for my plans to become the country's first (directly elected) dictator.



    https://twitter.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1567443028364742658

    Once again, pensioners to the rescue!

    Strip the under 35s of the vote….
    Pensioners get what they want already.

    That most people would prefer a leader of their own choice regardless of what the mass of less enlightened voters think is hardly a surprise. The relative disaffection with democracy of the upcoming generation is a concern, however. Some awareness of the unhappy lot of people unfortunate to live in places with strong leaders who are untroubled by elections might help?
    Generally, the reason the British state avoided mass uprisings and revolution in the 19th and 20th centuries was by giving up some of the power of the elite to the various disgruntled groups. At the moment young people don't see the benefit of democratic choice because important elements of the system (welfare, housing, planning mainly) have been captured by vested interest (mostly old people). There was an interesting statistic that if you were born in 1989 and voted with your cohort at every referendum and general election you could, you would have been on the losing side every time. That's not even true in the US. A good start would be to make the voting system proportional so that 42% of the vote does not equate to a majority of MPs.
    Starting out by ignoring the results of votes cast at a referendum doesn’t augur well
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    ohnotnow said:

    AlistairM said:

    Something incredible is happening in Kharkiv Oblast.
    Yeah, we somewhat underestimated the Ukrainian military’s offensive capability and reserves in that sector.
    https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1567522785370537986

    We need to be wary of this: I watched something earlier (*) stating that the Russian doctrine states to typically build four sets of defensive lines, and would quickly retreat to the second, taking the attackers into a kill zone. To aid this, they build another et of defensive lines well ahead of the 'real' first one, tricking the attackers into range of the Russian artillery.

    If I've got that right.

    However, it's a trick that may not work very well in modern warfare, where drones and satellites allow you to see - and potentially map - all the defensive lines.

    (*) Yes, I know...
    It's possible that if you're aware of that tactic, the Ukrainian military are too?
    Yep. It was on a Youtube vid, so so does everyone else. But as I said, I'm unsure how good a tactic it is in the modern world. It's much harder to 'hide' your real positions.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,160

    Cyclefree said:

    Screeds of bluster, with the briefest of mentions that the issue is “impact on womens’ rights in the rest of the U.K.:

    New UK Prime Minister Liz Truss is trying to block Scotland’s plans to allow trans people to self-identify as male or female, VICE World News can reveal.

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/3adva3/liz-truss-scotland-gender-identity

    The legislation is poorly thought through and the politicians didn’t like some of the expert witness testimony they received when this was pointed out to them in committee.

    The attached explains some of the mess the Scottish government has got itself into - https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee/correspondence/2022/for-women-scotland-letter-to-the-equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee-30-august-2022.pdf

    The short version -

    1. The Scottish govt gives different inconsistent explanations of what it's legislation means depending on who it is talking to. Either it does not understand it or it is lying.
    2. It is ignoring a court decision.
    3. Its legislation - if it really has the effect the Scottish government is saying it will have - will impact on reserved matters under the Equality Act and therefore be outside its competence.
    All over the shop:

    In summary, we believe the revised statutory guidance for the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act is unlawful. The Scottish Government believe otherwise and maintain a GRC changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Not only does this decouple women’s biological sex from sex-specific provisions in the Equality Act, but it means reforming the GRA also carries a serious risk of intruding on reserved matters. The Scottish Government has a history of inconsistency and lack of understanding on both the definition of woman and the operation of the Equality Act. All of this leaves the Committee exposed, trying to make good law in the midst of a live court action, the outcome of which materially affects the reform.

    Is this driven by politicians ignoring Civil Service / Legal advice, or defective advice?


    Defective politicians is my guess.

    See here - https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/06/14/what-finance-can-tell-us-about-the-trans-self-id-debate/
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,604
    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/sep/07/trump-nuclear-document-special-master-biden-obama-bannon-latest

    All kicking off about dem Mar a Lago docs, if we can ignore our parochial concerns for a second

    Might actually be quite relevant to us, as the juiciest are about a foreign country's nuclear capabilities

    If it says we actually haven't got any, it will be hilarious!
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,418
    ydoethur said:

    OK, so here is a question:

    I'm trying to find an account for my new business. It's proving tricky for all sorts of reasons. I've been working with Virgin Money to open an account so far but I'm seriously unimpressed - they keep losing correspondence and their emails are masterpieces in missing the point, which is why a month in they still haven't opened an account.

    Is there any reasonably good, preferably free or very cheap, business account out there suitable for a start up? I'm not looking for anything very elaborate although the ability to pay cheques in would be an advantage.

    Metro, Shawbrook, Raphael?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,205
    ohnotnow said:

    AlistairM said:

    Something incredible is happening in Kharkiv Oblast.
    Yeah, we somewhat underestimated the Ukrainian military’s offensive capability and reserves in that sector.
    https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1567522785370537986

    We need to be wary of this: I watched something earlier (*) stating that the Russian doctrine states to typically build four sets of defensive lines, and would quickly retreat to the second, taking the attackers into a kill zone. To aid this, they build another et of defensive lines well ahead of the 'real' first one, tricking the attackers into range of the Russian artillery.

    If I've got that right.

    However, it's a trick that may not work very well in modern warfare, where drones and satellites allow you to see - and potentially map - all the defensive lines.

    (*) Yes, I know...
    It's possible that if you're aware of that tactic, the Ukrainian military are too?
    Such defence in depth strategies have been in use since at least WW1 - they were a response to the massive shelling on the western front. The defenders would often retreat, carefully, to prepared secondary and tertiary lines, then counter attack.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/sep/07/trump-nuclear-document-special-master-biden-obama-bannon-latest

    All kicking off about dem Mar a Lago docs, if we can ignore our parochial concerns for a second

    Might actually be quite relevant to us, as the juiciest are about a foreign country's nuclear capabilities

    Hell of a leaky investigation. Seems like there are new leaks every day. Cui bono?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    ydoethur said:

    It appears that the Ukrainians are making some good progress in Kharkiv Oblast.

    Usual caveats apply.

    Edit: and taking the following with a really large pinch of salt but if true, ouch.
    https://twitter.com/SvenSalumets/status/1567446119596040192

    That would be four times as many as died in the entire Soviet-Afghan war. It would also be about half of their total initial force.

    It seems highly improbable that many have died.

    If genuine, perhaps it includes payments for wounded as well?
    Clearly I don't know if it true, and as you say perhaps it includes other payments, but frankly I can believe it. It chimes with the Ukrainian estimates. and would explain why Russia has been rushing to recrate any person they can from Russia. while the total number of Russian sloggers on the front has not been going up. One of you YouTube channels I have been following on this translates phone calls of intercepted phone calls of Russians to there family back home, and one thing that keeps on coming up is people saying that, a third, half or 2 thirds of the people in there unit at the start of the war are now dead.

    one question is does this include those killed from LPR, DPR, and the PMCs, I think it might.

    For those that have not seen:

    The document leaked from RUS MinFin says that by AUG 28, 361.4B RUB has been paid to families of KIA soldiers, 7.4M per one. Dividing would give 48838 confirmed dead. This does not include those MIA, killed separatists and WIA. Thus, UKR estimate may well be an UNDERSTATEMENT.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,297
    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/sep/07/trump-nuclear-document-special-master-biden-obama-bannon-latest

    All kicking off about dem Mar a Lago docs, if we can ignore our parochial concerns for a second

    Might actually be quite relevant to us, as the juiciest are about a foreign country's nuclear capabilities

    Or Israel...

    Nice touch that even Nixon's White House counsel is calling Trump a serious threat to national security.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493
    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/sep/07/trump-nuclear-document-special-master-biden-obama-bannon-latest

    All kicking off about dem Mar a Lago docs, if we can ignore our parochial concerns for a second

    Might actually be quite relevant to us, as the juiciest are about a foreign country's nuclear capabilities

    Yeah, when buyers bought their $10 copies off eBay I bet they could not believe we keep our nukes there, of all places.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,240
    edited September 7

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've just watched one of Owen Jones's latest missives on Twitter (the one posted two days ago). And, my goodness, can someone send for the RNLI? He's drowning in salty, salty tears.

    Here's an idea for him: if he's so irate, then stand for election for Labour. Then he might actually do something for people.

    He wouldn't get on a shortlist under Starmer.
    Well he won't now, will he!

    Screeching "You're a liar!!!!" at the party leader (whilst backtracking from your comments ("Hey, I shop at Waitrose" and "He knows me, but we've only met a few times aside from one of my best mates who works for him" etc etc) will not enamour him to the saner parts of the party.
    Well he's disappointed that socialism* looks off the table.

    Fwiw I reckon Keir is doing double bluff. He projected Left to get the Leader gig, now projects Centre to get the bigger gig of PM, then - if my sense is right - he will shift back Left in office.

    * by which I mean some 'left' radicalism not a return to Clause 4.
    That concern might well be the reason he won't get the centre ground voter. I quite like him, but the rest of the Labour party is full of more fruitcakes than the Tories are.
    Ok. But to be clear - by 'shift back Left' I don't mean to anything resembling the previous JC platform. I just mean he'll get in, keep it solid for a while, kind of bed himself and Labour into the public mind as "yep, these guys are ok", and then over time some fairly interesting - radical even - policies will start to arrive, maybe with a good 2nd term majority having spent a truncated 1st term with a small one or in a pact with others. Think that's the SKS plan. If you could get into his head I think that is what you'd see.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've just watched one of Owen Jones's latest missives on Twitter (the one posted two days ago). And, my goodness, can someone send for the RNLI? He's drowning in salty, salty tears.

    Here's an idea for him: if he's so irate, then stand for election for Labour. Then he might actually do something for people.

    He wouldn't get on a shortlist under Starmer.
    Well he won't now, will he!

    Screeching "You're a liar!!!!" at the party leader (whilst backtracking from your comments ("Hey, I shop at Waitrose" and "He knows me, but we've only met a few times aside from one of my best mates who works for him" etc etc) will not enamour him to the saner parts of the party.
    Well he's disappointed that socialism* looks off the table.

    Fwiw I reckon Keir is doing double bluff. He projected Left to get the Leader gig, now projects Centre to get the bigger gig of PM, then - if my sense is right - he will shift back Left in office.

    * by which I mean some 'left' radicalism not a return to Clause 4.
    That concern might well be the reason he won't get the centre ground voter. I quite like him, but the rest of the Labour party is full of more fruitcakes than the Tories are.
    Ok. But to be clear - by 'shift back Left' I don't mean to anything resembling the previous JC platform. I just mean he'll get in, keep it solid for a while, kind of bed himself and Labour into the public mind as "yep, these guys are ok", and then over time some fairly interesting - radical even - policies will start to arrive, maybe with a good 2nd term majority having spent the 1st with a small one or in a pact with others.
    Just like Blair did? ;)
This discussion has been closed.