Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.
Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.
The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.
And we made it that way.
(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)
It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?
Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.
Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.
So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?
Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.
I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.
Virgin Money asked me for some information I didn't have and couldn't get.
I suggested a workaround and asked if it would meet their criteria.
They took two weeks to reply and then told me they couldn't give financial advice.
Which was (a) not what I had asked for and (b) not correct, because the whole point of a bank is to advise its clients.
The delay cost me about £100, and because I didn't have the time to complain I had to content myself with correcting the many errors of SPaG in their emails.
Ask them for £100 comp, open a case with the ombudsman when they refuse
But banks aren't there to give financial advice, they are there to look after your money. They can have depts that can give FA but Virgin doesn't.
Why bother? The only time I ever went to the ombudsman was when a mortgage broker failing to submit a form on time by mistake and then repeatedly lying about it so nobody else could cost me £5,000.
Ombudsman's reply, roughly? 'Who cares?'
The referral probably costs them a fee, even if you don't take it any further.
Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.
Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.
The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.
And we made it that way.
(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)
1990s, surely?
Amazing stat from Alistair Darling - every building society that had converted to a bank was either nationalised or taken over by 2009.
Of course that was also true of some that hadn't, like the Portman and the Derbyshire. It very nearly became true of the Nationwide.
True too of RBS and Lloyds once it took over HBOS
HBOS that was Halifax that was a building society that became a bank.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?
(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)
Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/
A loss for the NIMBYs?
Oh, no!... Anyway.
Is it good policy and/or politics, for a politico to make promises they have zero intention of honoring?
As demonstrated by breaking 'em 15 minutes (metaphorically speaking) after making 'em?
Not really, but I can't say I'm particularly upset. NIMBYism is responsible not only for the lack of development of renewables, but also the crippling housing situation.
Even IF you buy that statement in all it's glory - or even partially - does that justify Liz Truss's behavior, in making a promise that she's willing to break at earliest possible opportunity?
You appear to be saying it does. Because you like her 180 in this instance?
Would you be so understanding if she reneged on a promise that you agreed with?
Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.
Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.
The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.
And we made it that way.
(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)
1990s, surely?
Amazing stat from Alistair Darling - every building society that had converted to a bank was either nationalised or taken over by 2009.
Of course that was also true of some that hadn't, like the Portman and the Derbyshire. It very nearly became true of the Nationwide.
True too of RBS and Lloyds once it took over HBOS
HBOS that was Halifax that was a building society that became a bank.
So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?
(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)
Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/
A loss for the NIMBYs?
Oh, no!... Anyway.
Is it good policy and/or politics, for a politico to make promises they have zero intention of honoring?
As demonstrated by breaking 'em 15 minutes (metaphorically speaking) after making 'em?
Not really, but I can't say I'm particularly upset. NIMBYism is responsible not only for the lack of development of renewables, but also the crippling housing situation.
Even IF you buy that statement in all it's glory - or even partially - does that justify Liz Truss's behavior, in making a promise that she's willing to break at earliest possible opportunity?
You appear to be saying it does. Because you like her 180 in this instance?
Would you be so understanding if she reneged on a promise that you agreed with?
No, I did not say it justifies it. In fact I said it's something they shouldn't be doing.
Nick Macpherson @nickmacpherson2 · 1h Historically, the role of UK fiscal policy was to support monetary policy. Now it is to oppose monetary policy. Perhaps, that explains why the long term cost of borrowing has risen 94 basis points in just one month compared to 43 bp in the US. We are already paying the price.
It would certainly be an unusual turn of events if the last months' rises in the cost of borrowing were all down to policies that have not yet even been announced.
Weren't they being signaled, telegraphed, etc. for weeks throughout the Tory "leadership" contest?
Borrowing costs now, are a result of Sunak's economic policies then. What we're seeing at the moment is rattles being flung from perambulators by the organisations who have been integral to the sorry farce of British economical policy over decades and are now being quite rightly ignored. Succeed or fail, Truss's Government is at least trying to return us to growth.
Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.
Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.
The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.
And we made it that way.
(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)
1990s, surely?
Amazing stat from Alistair Darling - every building society that had converted to a bank was either nationalised or taken over by 2009.
Of course that was also true of some that hadn't, like the Portman and the Derbyshire. It very nearly became true of the Nationwide.
True too of RBS and Lloyds once it took over HBOS
HBOS that was Halifax that was a building society that became a bank.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.
Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.
Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.
Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.
Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.
Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.
Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways
True. Are ready meals VATable?
Don't think so
Microwaves are though! ;-)
Seriously though, there must be some VAT built into food prices... transport costs, packaging, marketing, etc.
Or is that not how VAT works?
You pay VAT on services of food, with most of the food itself zero rated. So transporting a load of ingredients to a factory is VATable but the stuff being shipped is not.
Electorally speaking, Truss would rather be in the company of Johnson than May.
There's a similar phenomenon in the US: Presidents who performed really badly in their first midterms (W Bush, Obama, Clinton) won reelection, while those who performed well (Bush Sr for example) did not.
W saw the GOP gain seats in his first midterms and Bush Snr saw the GOP lose seats in 1990
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.
Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.
The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.
And we made it that way.
(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)
It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?
Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.
Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.
So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?
Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.
I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.
Virgin Money asked me for some information I didn't have and couldn't get.
I suggested a workaround and asked if it would meet their criteria.
They took two weeks to reply and then told me they couldn't give financial advice.
Which was (a) not what I had asked for and (b) not correct, because the whole point of a bank is to advise its clients.
The delay cost me about £100, and because I didn't have the time to complain I had to content myself with correcting the many errors of SPaG in their emails.
Are Spanish banks worse than the rest? The guilty one here is Santander - Virgin not being a real bank - and I have similar problems with BBVA.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.
Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.
Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.
Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.
Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.
Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.
Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways
True. Are ready meals VATable?
Don't think so
Microwaves are though! ;-)
Seriously though, there must be some VAT built into food prices... transport costs, packaging, marketing, etc.
Or is that not how VAT works?
You pay VAT on services of food, with most of the food itself zero rated. So transporting a load of ingredients to a factory is VATable but the stuff being shipped is not.
Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.
Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.
The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.
And we made it that way.
(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)
It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?
Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.
Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.
So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?
Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.
I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.
Virgin Money asked me for some information I didn't have and couldn't get.
I suggested a workaround and asked if it would meet their criteria.
They took two weeks to reply and then told me they couldn't give financial advice.
Which was (a) not what I had asked for and (b) not correct, because the whole point of a bank is to advise its clients.
The delay cost me about £100, and because I didn't have the time to complain I had to content myself with correcting the many errors of SPaG in their emails.
Are Spanish banks worse than the rest? The guilty one here is Santander - Virgin not being a real bank - and I have similar problems with BBVA.
Virgin money is now part of Clydesdale / Yorkshire bank...
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Planning permission I assume, can't think how else it would work
Andrew Strauss' review is off to a magnificent start with four county chairmen already saying they will vote against just six hours after publication.
The panel might have got away with their truly insane idea for the championship, because it will only upset supporters and nobody cares about them. But there is no way on earth the counties are going to accept a cut in the number of matches in the Blast. It earns them too much money.
It may be of course the ECB will ditch that as a sweetener for the rest. But that then wrecks their aim of reduced cricket.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
She'll be asking local Tory councillors, no doubt. ;-)
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.
Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.
The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.
And we made it that way.
(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)
1990s, surely?
Amazing stat from Alistair Darling - every building society that had converted to a bank was either nationalised or taken over by 2009.
Of course that was also true of some that hadn't, like the Portman and the Derbyshire. It very nearly became true of the Nationwide.
True too of RBS and Lloyds once it took over HBOS
HBOS that was Halifax that was a building society that became a bank.
With Bank of Scotland
I know, I worked for them at the time!
Interesting.
My late grandfather was also the penultimate chairman of the Alliance and Leicester Building Society, retiring in 1990 before it became a bank in 1997
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Planning permission I assume, can't think how else it would work
I don't know either, but that would be honouring her commitment wouldn't it, if normal planning permission processes are followed?
Though NIMBYs and protest/lobby groups shouldn't be allowed to have a unilateral veto.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Why do people ring you up to express pleasure about NIC cuts?
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
The old Roman said, they make a dessert and call it peace.
Liz Truss & JRM are saying, the frackers call it consent, and that's good enough for us.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Planning permission I assume, can't think how else it would work
I don't know either, but that would be honouring her commitment wouldn't it, if normal planning permission processes are followed?
Though NIMBYs and protest/lobby groups shouldn't be allowed to have a unilateral veto.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
She'll be asking local Tory councillors, no doubt. ;-)
(For those areas that have any)
Considering fracking would normally be viable in more rural and semi-rural constituencies, I'd assume most of those would have local Tory councillors. Can't imagine too many inner city fracking areas being viable, and devolution is being respected so Scotland etc is not an issue either.
Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.
Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.
The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.
And we made it that way.
(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)
1990s, surely?
Amazing stat from Alistair Darling - every building society that had converted to a bank was either nationalised or taken over by 2009.
Of course that was also true of some that hadn't, like the Portman and the Derbyshire. It very nearly became true of the Nationwide.
True too of RBS and Lloyds once it took over HBOS
HBOS that was Halifax that was a building society that became a bank.
With Bank of Scotland
I know, I worked for them at the time!
Interesting.
My late grandfather was also the penultimate chairman of the Alliance and Leicester Building Society, retiring in 1990 before it became a bank in 1997
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
So far we have had confuzzled and angry Tory MPs stand up and point out that local control means locals being listened to, and the minister describing said MP and his constituents as being in the pay of Putin.
So based on evidence today there will (a) not be any local control and (b) the government will copy you and sneer about NIMBYism. That the industry itself also says "fracking won't work" is another problem.
A policy that does not do what it says on the tin - provide for the UKs energy needs - and will be massively unpopular amongst Tory voters. WTF? I know you are there cheering them on - on the assumption that your garden and your park won't be affected. But governments have to win elections. Fucking everyone off pursuing a policy that doesn't work is Poll Tax stupidity.
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
She'll be asking local Tory councillors, no doubt. ;-)
(For those areas that have any)
Considering fracking would normally be viable in more rural and semi-rural constituencies, I'd assume most of those would have local Tory councillors. Can't imagine too many inner city fracking areas being viable, and devolution is being respected so Scotland etc is not an issue either.
Most of the fury about fracking is from Lancashire Tory MPs
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Why do people ring you up to express pleasure about NIC cuts?
No one makes phone call these days. IMs with the gist of “I wasn’t expecting much from this lot but well done Kwasi”.
Interesting that Germany is introducing a Green Card to try and pull in under 35, intelligent foreigners. To the possible tune of 100s of k of immigrants required per year.
One problem is that Germany is perceived as bureaucratic and difficult.
I had a friend who had to deal with German bureaucrats professionally over many years and he said they always brought to mind the Vogons in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
To remind, the HGG described the Vogons as:
"one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy—not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous", and having "as much sex appeal as a road accident" as well as being the authors of "the third worst poetry in the universe""
Jon Worth has some notes about getting German Citizenship. He hasn't made it yet
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
The old Roman said, they make a dessert and call it peace.
Liz Truss & JRM are saying, the frackers call it consent, and that's good enough for us.
Nick Macpherson @nickmacpherson2 · 1h Historically, the role of UK fiscal policy was to support monetary policy. Now it is to oppose monetary policy. Perhaps, that explains why the long term cost of borrowing has risen 94 basis points in just one month compared to 43 bp in the US. We are already paying the price.
It would certainly be an unusual turn of events if the last months' rises in the cost of borrowing were all down to policies that have not yet even been announced.
Weren't they being signaled, telegraphed, etc. for weeks throughout the Tory "leadership" contest?
Borrowing costs now, are a result of Sunak's economic policies then. What we're seeing at the moment is rattles being flung from perambulators by the organisations who have been integral to the sorry farce of British economical policy over decades and are now being quite rightly ignored. Succeed or fail, Truss's Government is at least trying to return us to growth.
So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?
(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)
Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/
A loss for the NIMBYs?
Oh, no!... Anyway.
Is it good policy and/or politics, for a politico to make promises they have zero intention of honoring?
As demonstrated by breaking 'em 15 minutes (metaphorically speaking) after making 'em?
Not really, but I can't say I'm particularly upset. NIMBYism is responsible not only for the lack of development of renewables, but also the crippling housing situation.
Well, not solely responsible but pandering to it is a major contributory factor.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
The old Roman said, they make a dessert and call it peace.
Liz Truss & JRM are saying, the frackers call it consent, and that's good enough for us.
You certainly seem to have a very made up mind for something you phrased as a question.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Why do people ring you up to express pleasure about NIC cuts?
No one makes phone call these days. IMs with the gist of “I wasn’t expecting much from this lot but well done Kwasi”.
This only shows one side of the equation, which can be misleading. Best to look at the approval ratings vs the Labour opposition leader.
Boris had very low approval but so at the time did Corbyn, as he did when May took over. Brown had good ratings but at the time so, relatively, did Cameron.
Vs the opposition I think - though I don't have the numbers immediately to hand - Truss is probably in a similar position or slightly worse than Brown was when he took over from Blair. Similar amount of time for the party in office too - 12 years vs 10 years.
Yep, oppositions win elections rather than governments losing them.
Nice one - subverting a stale chestnut. Let's do a couple more:
He who wields the sword quite often wears the crown.
A week in politics is no longer than a week in anything else.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Planning permission I assume, can't think how else it would work
I don't know either, but that would be honouring her commitment wouldn't it, if normal planning permission processes are followed?
Though NIMBYs and protest/lobby groups shouldn't be allowed to have a unilateral veto.
Seems reasonable for important national infrastructure to be granted NSIP status, that is normal procedures being followed is it not?
Give local people some money for it being done, and I'm sure some there will support it, even if others don't, and the commitment is honoured. The pledge was for local support, not local consent or permission.
Parody Prime Minister @Parody_PM · 2h I realise the richest 10% will gain 240 times as much money from the National Insurance change as the least well off, but they deserve it because they are more likely to have voted Tory.
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Planning permission I assume, can't think how else it would work
I don't know either, but that would be honouring her commitment wouldn't it, if normal planning permission processes are followed?
Though NIMBYs and protest/lobby groups shouldn't be allowed to have a unilateral veto.
Seems reasonable for important national infrastructure to be granted NSIP status, that is normal procedures being followed is it not?
Give local people some money for it being done, and I'm sure some there will support it, even if others don't, and the commitment is honoured. The pledge was for local support, not local consent or permission.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Planning permission I assume, can't think how else it would work
Quite. If not, she needs to explain it quickly.
Politicians often talk vaguely about local communities in these situations, and what they mean in official terms is the local democratic structures consenting, ie the local planning authority, but I've seen on the basis of such comments people try to argue that only local consent eg a referendum of local people is the only acceptable path, as they suggest the mere presence of objections, of any amount, indicates a lack of consent.
It's a case where the loose rhetoric of politicians is either genuinely misleading people as to how things are actually approved and how they can influence it, or giving people something they can pretend to believe as a reason to complain.
It's not perfect, but seriously how can you measure? How widely do you seek consent, and how, above and beyond advertising in the current way for comments? Even making consent of parish councils a requirement, a bad idea in itself, would not do it for those objecting, since sometimes parish councils are in favour.
Nick Macpherson @nickmacpherson2 · 1h Historically, the role of UK fiscal policy was to support monetary policy. Now it is to oppose monetary policy. Perhaps, that explains why the long term cost of borrowing has risen 94 basis points in just one month compared to 43 bp in the US. We are already paying the price.
It would certainly be an unusual turn of events if the last months' rises in the cost of borrowing were all down to policies that have not yet even been announced.
Weren't they being signaled, telegraphed, etc. for weeks throughout the Tory "leadership" contest?
Borrowing costs now, are a result of Sunak's economic policies then. What we're seeing at the moment is rattles being flung from perambulators by the organisations who have been integral to the sorry farce of British economical policy over decades and are now being quite rightly ignored. Succeed or fail, Truss's Government is at least trying to return us to growth.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Why do people ring you up to express pleasure about NIC cuts?
No one makes phone call these days. IMs with the gist of “I wasn’t expecting much from this lot but well done Kwasi”.
Lol! That has the ring of inauthenticity about it.
It is often the case it seems with over the top autocrats that the west assumes they cannot really mean precisely what they say, but it doesn't seem that is the case. In fairness, many of them now appear to get that, hence why the likes of Finland and Sweden have changed direction.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Planning permission I assume, can't think how else it would work
I don't know either, but that would be honouring her commitment wouldn't it, if normal planning permission processes are followed?
Though NIMBYs and protest/lobby groups shouldn't be allowed to have a unilateral veto.
Seems reasonable for important national infrastructure to be granted NSIP status, that is normal procedures being followed is it not?
Give local people some money for it being done, and I'm sure some there will support it, even if others don't, and the commitment is honoured. The pledge was for local support, not local consent or permission.
And then they lose those seats at the election. Which means they lose office, and you lose your policy. You can't just impose your will over the heads of Other People and expect them to vote for you.
Where are you seeing "Putin is preparing for peace'?
He's clearly not.
People were speculating the mobilisation was to shore up the front while other forces steadied the ship at home, with the prisoner swap an indication he is laying groundwork to start seriously considering how to extricate himself from Ukraine.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
Fair answer, and I hope you're right about Russia and Putin.
Even then, I think the odds are stacked against Truss (12 years of Tory government and all that).
Still, I'm rubbish at predictions, especially about the future.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an enormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.
Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.
The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.
And we made it that way.
(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)
1990s, surely?
Amazing stat from Alistair Darling - every building society that had converted to a bank was either nationalised or taken over by 2009.
Of course that was also true of some that hadn't, like the Portman and the Derbyshire. It very nearly became true of the Nationwide.
True too of RBS and Lloyds once it took over HBOS
HBOS that was Halifax that was a building society that became a bank.
With Bank of Scotland
I know, I worked for them at the time!
Interesting.
My late grandfather was also the penultimate chairman of the Alliance and Leicester Building Society, retiring in 1990 before it became a bank in 1997
Parody Prime Minister @Parody_PM · 2h I realise the richest 10% will gain 240 times as much money from the National Insurance change as the least well off, but they deserve it because they are more likely to have voted Tory.
Of course, you are a Tory so presumably delighted?
So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?
(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)
Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/
They have refused to confirm that there will be local referenda. That's not the same as saying there won't be local control.
Fracking is dead in the water in the UK.
Then there's no issue with point in lifting the ban. I'm glad we agree.
My view above.
There is every point. It's deadness can now become a clearly established fact, untainted by the suspicion that it has been nobbled by the environmental extremists within lobby groups, agencies and the civil service. Companies are free to invest, fail, and invest elsewhere. I would be surprised if it's beyond your reasoning capacity to see the utter illogicality of repeatedly telling everyone how uneconomical and impossible and 'not worth it' something is, and at the same time, banning it.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an enormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
The problem is, that the nukes are pretty much all he has.
He’s dragging out tanks from half a century ago, is begging Kim Jong-Un for some ammo shells, what’s left of the navy appears to be out of missiles, and he still can’t get ammo, food, or cold-weather clothes to the surrounded troops in Kherson. Throwing another million barely-trained men at the problem, is simply going to result in needing a hundred thousand more body bags.
Andrew Strauss' review is off to a magnificent start with four county chairmen already saying they will vote against just six hours after publication.
The panel might have got away with their truly insane idea for the championship, because it will only upset supporters and nobody cares about them. But there is no way on earth the counties are going to accept a cut in the number of matches in the Blast. It earns them too much money.
It may be of course the ECB will ditch that as a sweetener for the rest. But that then wrecks their aim of reduced cricket.
panel? Is this just the thoughts of the one overrated man, or is his name proxy for a committee? Whatever good you could imagine a reform of the Domestic Cricket structure could bring, Strauss seemed to plump for the opposite option?
And it’s got to be done this way because England lost 4.0 in Australia? Throughout history of cricket, tours down under have been a challenge, reducing number of domestic red ball cricket is hardly going to change it being a challenge, especially when you add to the challenge by taking the wrong players and making embarrassing decisions at tosses. It’s laughable in their faces they are trying to use recent loss down under to sell this reform.
Let’s start by dealing with the elephant in the room - the hundred is the cuckoo in the domestic summer now - absolutely hated by true cricket fans - county’s bemoan their star players missing whilst they are trying to compete in a proper cricket competition, 50 over cup this season, even more laughable in Andy Strauss face he wants county sides to lose their players to hundred whilst trying to win important 4 day county championship games? He’s bonkers.
I propose two things - kill the hundred, or play it under roofed stadiums in October.
Secondly, use weekdays for county championship and weekends for limited overs so no county loses stars for competitions they want to compete in or important money from reduced fixtures.
Betting Post. Straussy needs 12 counties to back this? He will be luck to get 2 let alone another 10.
So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?
(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)
Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/
They have refused to confirm that there will be local referenda. That's not the same as saying there won't be local control.
Fracking is dead in the water in the UK.
Then there's no issue with point in lifting the ban. I'm glad we agree.
My view above.
There is every point. It's deadness can now become a clearly established fact, untainted by the suspicion that it has been nobbled by the environmental extremists within lobby groups, agencies and the civil service. Companies are free to invest, fail, and invest elsewhere. I would be surprised if it's beyond your reasoning capacity to see the utter illogicality of repeatedly telling everyone how uneconomical and impossible and 'not worth it' something is, and at the same time, banning it.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Planning permission I assume, can't think how else it would work
I don't know either, but that would be honouring her commitment wouldn't it, if normal planning permission processes are followed?
Though NIMBYs and protest/lobby groups shouldn't be allowed to have a unilateral veto.
Seems reasonable for important national infrastructure to be granted NSIP status, that is normal procedures being followed is it not?
Give local people some money for it being done, and I'm sure some there will support it, even if others don't, and the commitment is honoured. The pledge was for local support, not local consent or permission.
Sussex where the Tories face a green challenge, i fancy a green gain Coventry where Labour defend a ward they squeaked from the Tories in May and maybe one against the head? A more straightforward looking Labour defence in Stoke and A rare PC LD head to head in Gwynnedd where the PC guy won unopposed in May but forgot to sign his acceptance papers and now has to do it the hard way
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an enormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
It changes the game, but not in Russia's favour. Russia loses. We're just waiting to see which way they lose.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Planning permission I assume, can't think how else it would work
I don't know either, but that would be honouring her commitment wouldn't it, if normal planning permission processes are followed?
Though NIMBYs and protest/lobby groups shouldn't be allowed to have a unilateral veto.
Seems reasonable for important national infrastructure to be granted NSIP status, that is normal procedures being followed is it not?
Give local people some money for it being done, and I'm sure some there will support it, even if others don't, and the commitment is honoured. The pledge was for local support, not local consent or permission.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an enormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
The problem is, that the nukes are pretty much all he has.
He’s dragging out tanks from half a century ago, is begging Kim Jong-Un for some ammo shells, what’s left of the navy appears to be out of missiles, and he still can’t get ammo, food, or cold-weather clothes to the surrounded troops in Kherson. Throwing another million barely-trained men at the problem, is simply going to result in needing a hundred thousand more body bags.
Hitler reached the gates of Moscow and still lost to Russia. Napoleon actually conquered Moscow, and lost
Now Putin has said ‘OK this is a war’ then it is a war - and a war of existence. Russia has nukes and will use them if they are staring at defeat
NATO will not go to all out war with Russia over Ukraine
Ukraine has lost, Russia is upping the ante to a place ukraine cannot go, no matter how brave they are
Putin will lay down his nuclear aces, and we will reluctantly agree to a brutal peace, where Russia keeps a large chunk of Ukraine. A freezing Cold War will follow. In that ensuing time Russia will train these soldiers and rearm them, in case he wants to have another go in the spring
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an enormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
The problem is, that the nukes are pretty much all he has.
He’s dragging out tanks from half a century ago, is begging Kim Jong-Un for some ammo shells, what’s left of the navy appears to be out of missiles, and he still can’t get ammo, food, or cold-weather clothes to the surrounded troops in Kherson. Throwing another million barely-trained men at the problem, is simply going to result in needing a hundred thousand more body bags.
Hitler reached the gates of Moscow and still lost to Russia. Napoleon actually conquered Moscow, and lost
Now Putin has said ‘OK this is a war’ then it is a war - and a war of existence. Russia has nukes and will use them if they are staring at defeat
NATO will not go to all out war with Russia over Ukraine
Ukraine has lost, Russia is upping the ante to a place ukraine cannot go, no matter how brave they are
Putin will lay down his nuclear aces, and we will reluctantly agree to a brutal peace, where Russia keeps a large chunk of Ukraine. A freezing Cold War will follow. In that ensuing time Russia will train these soldiers and rearm them, in case he wants to have another go in the spring
Any referendum results in yet? Is there a market on them?
Won with only 3 balls to go. Given the wides, they seriously came close to losing it despite losing no wickets. That would have been hilarious.
Yes, despite the stated margin of victory that was actually close. If they’d fallen one run short, that would have been a pub quiz question of the future.
Some years ago, a chap I knew in software in the military line in the US got an interesting requirement.
The Taiwanese wanted a gun air defence system modified. Instead of just hammering busts of 50 rounds at each target, they wanted an option for 1 round per target. For very slow moving targets, en mass.
He dug into the requirement and realised what it was for. Imagine a mass parachute drop. Thousands in the sky, falling fairly slowly. One cannon shell per parachutist, until the magazine is empty….
That’s what modern war will be about for mass infantry charges. The Somme would be a picnic in comparison….
The only poll that matters is the one on election day.
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
Is she honouring her commitment about local consent for fracking, Bart?
I don't know how she's intending to measure local support, do you? Has that been said?
Planning permission I assume, can't think how else it would work
I don't know either, but that would be honouring her commitment wouldn't it, if normal planning permission processes are followed?
Though NIMBYs and protest/lobby groups shouldn't be allowed to have a unilateral veto.
Seems reasonable for important national infrastructure to be granted NSIP status, that is normal procedures being followed is it not?
Give local people some money for it being done, and I'm sure some there will support it, even if others don't, and the commitment is honoured. The pledge was for local support, not local consent or permission.
If its not viable then what's the point in banning it? Just have it legal, but nobody doing it as its not viable.
There's a logic to banning it given the potential damage to buildings due to minor earthquakes.
I appreciate there are two schools of thought on that one but why risk it since it's going to be uneconomical to extract the gas anyway?
I can sympathise a little with the "why ban it" argument, but there are two substantial problems. 1. The proposal isn't to "unban" fracking, its to place it at the heart of our emergency energy policy. As fracking will not do what it has been billed as doing, that screws up our energy policy which opens the door to the room of pain regarding future energy prices 2. The purpose of government is to legislate on areas where national interest decisions need to be made. Here we have something which is wildly unpopular, creates environmental messes AND doesn't produce the gas needed. So a ban seems reasonable on multiple fronts.
Again again, imposing this over the wishes of voters to screw up their environment on a project that fails is how you lose seats...
Andrew Strauss' review is off to a magnificent start with four county chairmen already saying they will vote against just six hours after publication.
The panel might have got away with their truly insane idea for the championship, because it will only upset supporters and nobody cares about them. But there is no way on earth the counties are going to accept a cut in the number of matches in the Blast. It earns them too much money.
It may be of course the ECB will ditch that as a sweetener for the rest. But that then wrecks their aim of reduced cricket.
panel? Is this just the thoughts of the one overrated man, or is his name proxy for a committee? Whatever good you could imagine a reform of the Domestic Cricket structure could bring, Strauss seemed to plump for the opposite option?
And it’s got to be done this way because England lost 4.0 in Australia? Throughout history of cricket, tours down under have been a challenge, reducing number of domestic red ball cricket is hardly going to change it being a challenge, especially when you add to the challenge by taking the wrong players and making embarrassing decisions at tosses. It’s laughable in their faces they are trying to use recent loss down under to sell this reform.
Let’s start by dealing with the elephant in the room - the hundred is the cuckoo in the domestic summer now - absolutely hated by true cricket fans - county’s bemoan their star players missing whilst they are trying to compete in a proper cricket competition, 50 over cup this season, even more laughable in Andy Strauss face he wants county sides to lose their players to hundred whilst trying to win important 4 day county championship games? He’s bonkers.
I propose two things - kill the hundred, or play it under roofed stadiums in October.
Secondly, use weekdays for county championship and weekends for limited overs so no county loses stars for competitions they want to compete in or important money from reduced fixtures.
Betting Post. Straussy needs 12 counties to back this? He will be luck to get 2 let alone another 10.
Hundred under roofed stadiums in October is a brilliant idea. Can such things exist?
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an enormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
The problem is, that the nukes are pretty much all he has.
He’s dragging out tanks from half a century ago, is begging Kim Jong-Un for some ammo shells, what’s left of the navy appears to be out of missiles, and he still can’t get ammo, food, or cold-weather clothes to the surrounded troops in Kherson. Throwing another million barely-trained men at the problem, is simply going to result in needing a hundred thousand more body bags.
Hitler reached the gates of Moscow and still lost to Russia. Napoleon actually conquered Moscow, and lost
Now Putin has said ‘OK this is a war’ then it is a war - and a war of existence. Russia has nukes and will use them if they are staring at defeat
NATO will not go to all out war with Russia over Ukraine
Ukraine has lost, Russia is upping the ante to a place ukraine cannot go, no matter how brave they are
Putin will lay down his nuclear aces, and we will reluctantly agree to a brutal peace, where Russia keeps a large chunk of Ukraine. A freezing Cold War will follow. In that ensuing time Russia will train these soldiers and rearm them, in case he wants to have another go in the spring
Total bollocks. There’s 40m Ukranians, and they have almost unlimited supply lines so long as the west keeps the support coming. A weak Putin trying something stupid, will be met with a very hard, but likely conventional, response.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an enormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
The problem is, that the nukes are pretty much all he has.
He’s dragging out tanks from half a century ago, is begging Kim Jong-Un for some ammo shells, what’s left of the navy appears to be out of missiles, and he still can’t get ammo, food, or cold-weather clothes to the surrounded troops in Kherson. Throwing another million barely-trained men at the problem, is simply going to result in needing a hundred thousand more body bags.
Hitler reached the gates of Moscow and still lost to Russia. Napoleon actually conquered Moscow, and lost
Now Putin has said ‘OK this is a war’ then it is a war - and a war of existence. Russia has nukes and will use them if they are staring at defeat
NATO will not go to all out war with Russia over Ukraine
Ukraine has lost, Russia is upping the ante to a place ukraine cannot go, no matter how brave they are
Putin will lay down his nuclear aces, and we will reluctantly agree to a brutal peace, where Russia keeps a large chunk of Ukraine. A freezing Cold War will follow. In that ensuing time Russia will train these soldiers and rearm them, in case he wants to have another go in the spring
Pour yourself a drink and chill pal. You're allowing the darkest possible outcomes to dominate your thinking.
I doubt it's anywhere near as bleak as you suggest, nor is it as positive as some have suggested.
Andrew Strauss' review is off to a magnificent start with four county chairmen already saying they will vote against just six hours after publication.
The panel might have got away with their truly insane idea for the championship, because it will only upset supporters and nobody cares about them. But there is no way on earth the counties are going to accept a cut in the number of matches in the Blast. It earns them too much money.
It may be of course the ECB will ditch that as a sweetener for the rest. But that then wrecks their aim of reduced cricket.
panel? Is this just the thoughts of the one overrated man, or is his name proxy for a committee? Whatever good you could imagine a reform of the Domestic Cricket structure could bring, Strauss seemed to plump for the opposite option?
And it’s got to be done this way because England lost 4.0 in Australia? Throughout history of cricket, tours down under have been a challenge, reducing number of domestic red ball cricket is hardly going to change it being a challenge, especially when you add to the challenge by taking the wrong players and making embarrassing decisions at tosses. It’s laughable in their faces they are trying to use recent loss down under to sell this reform.
Let’s start by dealing with the elephant in the room - the hundred is the cuckoo in the domestic summer now - absolutely hated by true cricket fans - county’s bemoan their star players missing whilst they are trying to compete in a proper cricket competition, 50 over cup this season, even more laughable in Andy Strauss face he wants county sides to lose their players to hundred whilst trying to win county games? He’s bonkers.
I propose two things - kill the hundred, or play it under roofed stadiums in October.
Secondly, use weekdays for county championship and weekends for limited overs so no county loses stars for competitions they want to compete in or important money from reduced fixtures.
Betting Post. Straussy needs 12 counties to back this? He will be luck to get 2 let alone another 10.
It was a review commissioned by Strauss, carried out by a panel. Most of it is management gobbledegook saying nothing very useful and talking in general unimaginative clichés. Some was actually sensible. Changing the ball for one that doesn't swing as much might help improve bowling and batting.
In the case of the Hundred, the members' forum I went to said this to David Brown, high, loud and repeatedly. His answer was, however, that the current financial solvency of all bar three counties (Surrey, Lancashire and one unspecified but I would guess Nottinghamshire or Warwickshire) was underpinned by it, due to the loss of other income streams. So whether we liked it or not, the contracts having been signed until 2028 meant we couldn't get rid of it without destroying the whole structure of English cricket.
Realistically, the issue is the idea that all counties are not equal. Yes, we know some are stronger than others because they have more money. Surrey are rich, Leicestershire are not. That doesn't alter the fact that there is no one dominant county in England and in fact there's a huge seasonal variation. Who won most championship games last year, despite playing in, on paper, the toughest group? Gloucestershire. Who were county champions? Warwickshire. Who are going to be relegated this season? That's right - Gloucestershire and Warwickshire, although the latter may be reprieved next month when Yorkshire are declared bankrupt. Two years ago, Nottinghamshire hadn't won a match for two years. This year, had they been in Division One the same squad might well be county champions. That makes the ludicrous proposed model of promotion/relegation especially risible.
Until we accept that cricket isn't like football, where Manchester City would always beat Walsall, we'll continue to have this mess. We're also asking the wrong questions, as usual. 'Australia has six teams, and wins tests! We need six teams to win tests, then.' Rather, we should note the Australians play on good pitches. Admittedly, that's mostly to do with their weather. How can we match it? One obvious way is to have ground staff employed by somebody other than the counties, and possibly working on a rota for several nearby counties. Debacles like Chelmsford wouldn't happen if coaches couldn't order pitches to suit themselves.
But it suits the ECB, which is ultimately dominated by a few test-playing counties, to pretend otherwise. And unfortunately, as I said to David Brown, I think therefore the beginning of an improvement is to finally abolish the ECB and reconstitute it in a different form answerable directly to county members.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an enormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
The problem is, that the nukes are pretty much all he has.
He’s dragging out tanks from half a century ago, is begging Kim Jong-Un for some ammo shells, what’s left of the navy appears to be out of missiles, and he still can’t get ammo, food, or cold-weather clothes to the surrounded troops in Kherson. Throwing another million barely-trained men at the problem, is simply going to result in needing a hundred thousand more body bags.
Hitler reached the gates of Moscow and still lost to Russia. Napoleon actually conquered Moscow, and lost
Now Putin has said ‘OK this is a war’ then it is a war - and a war of existence. Russia has nukes and will use them if they are staring at defeat
NATO will not go to all out war with Russia over Ukraine
Ukraine has lost, Russia is upping the ante to a place ukraine cannot go, no matter how brave they are
Putin will lay down his nuclear aces, and we will reluctantly agree to a brutal peace, where Russia keeps a large chunk of Ukraine. A freezing Cold War will follow. In that ensuing time Russia will train these soldiers and rearm them, in case he wants to have another go in the spring
Total bollocks. There’s 40m Ukranians, and they have almost unlimited supply lines so long as the west keeps the support coming. A weak Putin trying something stupid, will be met with a very hard, but likely conventional, response.
If Putin drops a nuke, you think we would escalate in response?
Comments
Far better to take unpopular but important decisions now, govern well, and leave popular decisions until closer to election day.
Truss is honouring her commitments, reversing the NI tax and doing what she believes in. Good for her, that's what PMs are supposed to do, not vapidly chase every headline or opinion poll.
You appear to be saying it does. Because you like her 180 in this instance?
Would you be so understanding if she reneged on a promise that you agreed with?
lose seats in 1990
The panel might have got away with their truly insane idea for the championship, because it will only upset supporters and nobody cares about them. But there is no way on earth the counties are going to accept a cut in the number of matches in the Blast. It earns them too much money.
It may be of course the ECB will ditch that as a sweetener for the rest. But that then wrecks their aim of reduced cricket.
(For those areas that have any)
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
My late grandfather was also the penultimate chairman of the Alliance and Leicester Building Society, retiring in 1990 before it became a bank in 1997
Though NIMBYs and protest/lobby groups shouldn't be allowed to have a unilateral veto.
Liz Truss & JRM are saying, the frackers call it consent, and that's good enough for us.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/22/truss-could-break-fracking-election-pledge-to-bypass-local-opposition
So based on evidence today there will (a) not be any local control and (b) the government will copy you and sneer about NIMBYism. That the industry itself also says "fracking won't work" is another problem.
A policy that does not do what it says on the tin - provide for the UKs energy needs - and will be massively unpopular amongst Tory voters. WTF? I know you are there cheering them on - on the assumption that your garden and your park won't be affected. But governments have to win elections. Fucking everyone off pursuing a policy that doesn't work is Poll Tax stupidity.
Only two extras so far…
https://jonworth.eu/notes-about-brits-getting-german-citizenship-in-light-of-brexit/
He who wields the sword quite often wears the crown.
A week in politics is no longer than a week in anything else.
Give local people some money for it being done, and I'm sure some there will support it, even if others don't, and the commitment is honoured. The pledge was for local support, not local consent or permission.
Parody Prime Minister
@Parody_PM
·
2h
I realise the richest 10% will gain 240 times as much money from the National Insurance change as the least well off, but they deserve it because they are more likely to have voted Tory.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/21/fracking-wont-work-uk-founder-chris-cornelius-cuadrilla
Politicians often talk vaguely about local communities in these situations, and what they mean in official terms is the local democratic structures consenting, ie the local planning authority, but I've seen on the basis of such comments people try to argue that only local consent eg a referendum of local people is the only acceptable path, as they suggest the mere presence of objections, of any amount, indicates a lack of consent.
It's a case where the loose rhetoric of politicians is either genuinely misleading people as to how things are actually approved and how they can influence it, or giving people something they can pretend to believe as a reason to complain.
It's not perfect, but seriously how can you measure? How widely do you seek consent, and how, above and beyond advertising in the current way for comments? Even making consent of parish councils a requirement, a bad idea in itself, would not do it for those objecting, since sometimes parish councils are in favour.
He’s preparing for total war. Drafting a million men or more
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/russia-mobilisation-ukraine-war-army-drive?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
He aims to destroy Ukraine with sheer numbers
He's clearly not.
It's not even as though the bowling's been that bad.
I don’t get that vibe at all. He’s horribly serious
A bit optimistic.
Even then, I think the odds are stacked against Truss (12 years of Tory government and all that).
Still, I'm rubbish at predictions, especially about the future.
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an enormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
Edit - like that. Could have been out, but didn't matter.
Utterly atrocious bowling.
He’s dragging out tanks from half a century ago, is begging Kim Jong-Un for some ammo shells, what’s left of the navy appears to be out of missiles, and he still can’t get ammo, food, or cold-weather clothes to the surrounded troops in Kherson. Throwing another million barely-trained men at the problem, is simply going to result in needing a hundred thousand more body bags.
And it’s got to be done this way because England lost 4.0 in Australia? Throughout history of cricket, tours down under have been a challenge, reducing number of domestic red ball cricket is hardly going to change it being a challenge, especially when you add to the challenge by taking the wrong players and making embarrassing decisions at tosses. It’s laughable in their faces they are trying to use recent loss down under to sell this reform.
Let’s start by dealing with the elephant in the room - the hundred is the cuckoo in the domestic summer now - absolutely hated by true cricket fans - county’s bemoan their star players missing whilst they are trying to compete in a proper cricket competition, 50 over cup this season, even more laughable in Andy Strauss face he wants county sides to lose their players to hundred whilst trying to win important 4 day county championship games? He’s bonkers.
I propose two things - kill the hundred, or play it under roofed stadiums in October.
Secondly, use weekdays for county championship and weekends for limited overs so no county loses stars for competitions they want to compete in or important money from reduced fixtures.
Betting Post. Straussy needs 12 counties to back this? He will be luck to get 2 let alone another 10.
Sussex where the Tories face a green challenge, i fancy a green gain
Coventry where Labour defend a ward they squeaked from the Tories in May and maybe one against the head?
A more straightforward looking Labour defence in Stoke and
A rare PC LD head to head in Gwynnedd where the PC guy won unopposed in May but forgot to sign his acceptance papers and now has to do it the hard way
I am starting to think Johnson wasn't so bad after all
Russia loses. We're just waiting to see which way they lose.
I appreciate there are two schools of thought on that one but why risk it since it's going to be uneconomical to extract the gas anyway?
Now Putin has said ‘OK this is a war’ then it is a war - and a war of existence. Russia has nukes and will use them if they are staring at defeat
NATO will not go to all out war with Russia over Ukraine
Ukraine has lost, Russia is upping the ante to a place ukraine cannot go, no matter how brave they are
Putin will lay down his nuclear aces, and we will reluctantly agree to a brutal peace, where Russia keeps a large chunk of Ukraine. A freezing Cold War will follow. In that ensuing time Russia will train these soldiers and rearm them, in case he wants to have another go in the spring
The Taiwanese wanted a gun air defence system modified. Instead of just hammering busts of 50 rounds at each target, they wanted an option for 1 round per target. For very slow moving targets, en mass.
He dug into the requirement and realised what it was for. Imagine a mass parachute drop. Thousands in the sky, falling fairly slowly. One cannon shell per parachutist, until the magazine is empty….
That’s what modern war will be about for mass infantry charges. The Somme would be a picnic in comparison….
1. The proposal isn't to "unban" fracking, its to place it at the heart of our emergency energy policy. As fracking will not do what it has been billed as doing, that screws up our energy policy which opens the door to the room of pain regarding future energy prices
2. The purpose of government is to legislate on areas where national interest decisions need to be made. Here we have something which is wildly unpopular, creates environmental messes AND doesn't produce the gas needed. So a ban seems reasonable on multiple fronts.
Again again, imposing this over the wishes of voters to screw up their environment on a project that fails is how you lose seats...
I doubt it's anywhere near as bleak as you suggest, nor is it as positive as some have suggested.
Lab 40% nc
Con 28% nc
Lib Dem 10% nc
Green 8% +2
(Change since 13 Sep)
New guys say no changio
In the case of the Hundred, the members' forum I went to said this to David Brown, high, loud and repeatedly. His answer was, however, that the current financial solvency of all bar three counties (Surrey, Lancashire and one unspecified but I would guess Nottinghamshire or Warwickshire) was underpinned by it, due to the loss of other income streams. So whether we liked it or not, the contracts having been signed until 2028 meant we couldn't get rid of it without destroying the whole structure of English cricket.
Realistically, the issue is the idea that all counties are not equal. Yes, we know some are stronger than others because they have more money. Surrey are rich, Leicestershire are not. That doesn't alter the fact that there is no one dominant county in England and in fact there's a huge seasonal variation. Who won most championship games last year, despite playing in, on paper, the toughest group? Gloucestershire. Who were county champions? Warwickshire. Who are going to be relegated this season? That's right - Gloucestershire and Warwickshire, although the latter may be reprieved next month when Yorkshire are declared bankrupt. Two years ago, Nottinghamshire hadn't won a match for two years. This year, had they been in Division One the same squad might well be county champions. That makes the ludicrous proposed model of promotion/relegation especially risible.
Until we accept that cricket isn't like football, where Manchester City would always beat Walsall, we'll continue to have this mess. We're also asking the wrong questions, as usual. 'Australia has six teams, and wins tests! We need six teams to win tests, then.' Rather, we should note the Australians play on good pitches. Admittedly, that's mostly to do with their weather. How can we match it? One obvious way is to have ground staff employed by somebody other than the counties, and possibly working on a rota for several nearby counties. Debacles like Chelmsford wouldn't happen if coaches couldn't order pitches to suit themselves.
But it suits the ECB, which is ultimately dominated by a few test-playing counties, to pretend otherwise. And unfortunately, as I said to David Brown, I think therefore the beginning of an improvement is to finally abolish the ECB and reconstitute it in a different form answerable directly to county members.
It’s an idea, I suppose