The government is to shell out a lot of money to support peoples' energy bills. This has activated the scammers. Here's a text message that came to my iPhone out of the blue:
GOV.UK: You are eligible for a discounted energy bill under the Energy Bills Support Scheme. You can apply here: https://energy.support-rebate.com
Clicking on that address in my Macbook appeared to cause my browser (Safari) to "quit unexpectedly".
Was that the actual link (ie. what showed when your mouse hovers over it), or just how the link was shown on your screen?
It was what showed on the iPhone screen, but I typed it into my Macbook browser feeling that I have more control there in a "private window".
Obviously it sounds like a scam, because there is (i believe) no need to apply for the support under this scheme (it is supposed to happen automatically through your energy supplier).
But (and i may be wrong here) i thought that cyber security training normally indicates https addresses as a sign of safety/security (don't know why).
HTTPS doesn't mean a site isn't going to steal your details. It just means they are securely stealing your details in this case
All Https does is secure the connection between your web browser and the final website - which simply means no-one in the middle can steal your details - it doesn't stop the website owner stealing and abusing them...
Yes nobody else - if it's setup correctly - can steal your details whilst the fraudster you are giving them to, is taking them.
Secure as a badge next to the bar was one of the dumbest inventions of recent browsers.
The government is to shell out a lot of money to support peoples' energy bills. This has activated the scammers. Here's a text message that came to my iPhone out of the blue:
GOV.UK: You are eligible for a discounted energy bill under the Energy Bills Support Scheme. You can apply here:
Clicking on that address in my Macbook appeared to cause my browser (Safari) to "quit unexpectedly".
Was that the actual link (ie. what showed when your mouse hovers over it), or just how the link was shown on your screen?
It was what showed on the iPhone screen, but I typed it into my Macbook browser feeling that I have more control there in a "private window".
Obviously it sounds like a scam, because there is (i believe) no need to apply for the support under this scheme (it is supposed to happen automatically through your energy supplier).
But (and i may be wrong here) i thought that cyber security training normally indicates https addresses as a sign of safety/security (don't know why).
HTTPS doesn't mean a site isn't going to steal your details. It just means they are securely stealing your details in this case
All Https does is secure the connection between your web browser and the final website - which simply means no-one in the middle can steal your details - it doesn't stop the website owner stealing and abusing them...
OK, so it reduces the risk of simply clicking the link? As long as you don't then hand over any details when you get there. But without https it creates the risk of intermediate parties getting access to your computer (malware etc)?
The little one (Don't worry she's fine) had a very small fall a couple of days back. Called 111, everything was completely fine but at the end they said to phone GP. Called GP, after 70 minutes waiting; GP said to go to A&E ! Paediatric section of A&E reminded me of the old GP system where you just went in and queues. 2 hours in total, junior fine everything fine.
Some of the issues are caution related. No one wants to make a mistake that could have serious consequences. 111 are not medics, they follow. A script based system. If anything flags it will direct to further care, GP or A&E. GP will be cautious too. Was this 2 hours wasted? No. 2 hours to make sure nothing was wrong, which was the right thing to do.
Back in May I had a fall! Elderly gentleman falls in street; send for ambulance! The crew had iPads which could link to my GPs surgery (closed, Saturday morning) and find my medical record. The hospital could too. Consequently I was kept in for two hours for observation and eventually sent home.
Obviously it sounds like a scam, because there is (i believe) no need to apply for the support under this scheme (it is supposed to happen automatically through your energy supplier).
But (and i may be wrong here) i thought that cyber security training normally indicates https addresses as a sign of safety/security (don't know why).
A site using HTTPS means essentially nothing from a security or safety point-of-view, which is why most browsers now tend not to emphasise it being ON, and have switched to using emphasis (colour, iconography, and notifications) for warnings that it is OFF. All kinds of dodgy websites use HTTPS, have proper certificates, and operate from supposedly safe top-level domains.
A site using HTTPS simply means the site administrator has done the bare minimum to protect your data in transit, but the bad guys do it too.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
45% is not 70%. If you’re referring to the marginal rate at £100k, then Truss didn’t do anything about it.
And @darkage is talking bollocks anyway. I personally was lucky enough to go up through that marginal tax period during my final few years in employment (I'm nowhere near now just to be clear!).
My pay was never about the number of hours I worked, of course, nor, directly, the amount of effort I put in - it was determined by the success or otherwise of the things I did and managed (and to be fair the vagaries of the stock market due to share options).
Does @darkage think at some point that I had the debate with myself over whether I should bother making such a success of the projects I delivered in case it took me into that 70% marginal band?
It just does not work that way.
Fair enough. People are different.
But if you are in Coates position, the company is paying 25% (potentially) in corporation tax, plus 39.35% in dividends. So that all adds up to 64.35% tax on income. That is in addition to all the VAT that you have potentially collected for the government.
So my question is, quite seriously, what is the point of doing anything if you take on all the risk yourself, and then give away 65% of the rewards to the government?
If I own a small, successful business, with low overheads, and can earn about 100K in a very tax efficient way (between dividends, SJPP contributions etc), whats the point of trying to grow beyond that?
I am as critical as everyone of Truss, but on this I think her instincts are correct.
Not how it works. If you were to use your company solely as a vehicle for your income, then if CT rose to 25%, then an additional £100 would pay CT of £25, leaving £75 to be extracted as dividends. Assuming you’re over the 150k, you’ll pay 39.35% on that £75. You are not charged dividend tax on the CT your company has already paid. That’s about £29.50.
It comes in at about 55% of the marginal increase. Not 65%. So already better off in marginal terms for each increase than those on PAYE in the 100k-120k discontinuity.
Or, to put it another way, they would have kept almost a third more than you claim (45% vs 35%).
Just reversing the CT increase would have meant keeping about 50% of the marginal increase, without touching the 45% rate.
OK, so it reduces the risk of simply clicking the link? As long as you don't then hand over any details when you get there. But without https it creates the risk of intermediate parties getting access to your computer (malware etc)?
No, because a dodgy HTTPS site might be trying to do things like force a download, redirect you to another site perhaps opening in a tab behind the focus, install a bad extension, or exploit a bug in your browser. So you don't want to visit such sites at all.
If nothing else by clicking the bad link you have potentially told the bad guys they have found a "live one", and they might then send you a more sophisticated phishing link.
Well I still hate Gove after what he did to education.
Gove is one of the few politicians of the last few years I actually respect.
He was absolutely brilliant on leasehold and trying to sort out the cladding crisis, going after the people who actually built the sub-standard apartment blocks rather than the poor saps who unwittingly bought them, and protecting them from unfair remediation costs. He did way, way more than any of his predecessors, including the loathsome Jenrick, who Labour described as embroiled in "an apparent cash for favours" scandal over planning permission while in the same role. Gove also supposedly fought tooth and nail with Sunak in terms of getting the budget to enact his reforms.
So my view of Gove is that he's competent, driven and honest in a way that many within his party are not. If he does something, it's because he believes it's the right thing to do even if, with the example of education, his solutions turn out to be sub-optimal.
The little one (Don't worry she's fine) had a very small fall a couple of days back. Called 111, everything was completely fine but at the end they said to phone GP. Called GP, after 70 minutes waiting; GP said to go to A&E ! Paediatric section of A&E reminded me of the old GP system where you just went in and queues. 2 hours in total, junior fine everything fine.
I've always said that Gove is the smartest of them. He's proved it again this morning. I think he is the one that Labour should fear. He's clever, gets things done and is politically savvy. He knows how to play the game.
Threatening to withdraw the whip is no threat if 40+ MPs declare like Gove that they will rebel in a budget vote.
Truss is about to discover what all those questions about democratic legitimacy mean.
That's what people were saying about Boris when they mocked him for "losing" the majority, which only existed by including the DUP, in the Commons. A few months later he won an 80 seat majority.
Not likely to happen again by any means, but voting against the whip on matters of Confidence and Supply has always meant losing the whip.
The difference then was the rebels were blocking the government's own manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit by constantly voting against it. This time there was no manifesto commitment to cut the additional rate or for significant spending cuts. The Tories will be finished for longer than a generation if Truss manages to throw over 40 MPs out of the party on the basis of them opposing tax cuts for very high earners funded by benefit cuts for working age people.
Realistically the party will remove her before that happens. She's been a disaster for both party and country.
The £2bn change to the 45p tax rate I don't especially care about either way, I expect cutting it to be revenue positive but the tax rate doesn't affect me. But let's be honest, if we are only talking about a £2bn change then this is a ridiculous overreaction.
Putting NI back to the rate at the last election OTOH absolutely does match the manifesto which pledged not to increase the rate. It was the tax rise that broke the manifesto, not reversing that breach.
But they didn't reverse the spending associated. How many times do we have to go around in this circle. The tax increases were, stupidly or not, committed to increased spending. Liz Truss has come in and reversed those tax increases but not the spending.
All Https does is secure the connection between your web browser and the final website - which simply means no-one in the middle can steal your details - it doesn't stop the website owner stealing and abusing them...
OK, so it reduces the risk of simply clicking the link? As long as you don't then hand over any details when you get there. But without https it creates the risk of intermediate parties getting access to your computer (malware etc)?
HTTPS protects against one kind of attack -- where you visit your bank's real official website but somebody snoops on your data along the way. It helps not at all against any other thing. (The usual analogy is like the difference between sending a letter and a postcard -- anybody can read the postcard as it passes through the system. But using an envelope doesn't help you if you send your stuff to the wrong address.)
Other attacks include bad websites which simply trick you into giving them your details (bank info; credit card numbers; gmail password; etc), and also bad websites which try to exploit bugs in your browser to take over your computer.
The correct thing to do with a link that you suspect of being something shady or scam-related is not to follow it at all, even out of curiosity. Delete the text or email it came in.
Each time I think that people are overreacting to the current troubles in the Tory party, Liz Truss pops up and does an interview that confirms that they have a very significant problem.
Nobody sane thinks they should be in Government any more. They need to go and go now.
Maybe in 10 years I might vote for them again as I have in the past - but right now they're making 2005 Howard look sensible.
I think they should be.
Calling people who have different views to you not "sane" isn't kind or sensible. I can respect others have different opinions to me, why can't you?
We all have our own reasons for thinking the way we do. If we all thought the same, life would be very boring!
Respect diversity.
This isn't diversity. There are two significant issues for you: 1. The consensus of the global financial markets is that the Truss plan is economically crazy 2. The consensus of the UK voter is that the Truss plan is immoral
So whilst its fine for you to hold your views, you have to accept that you are saying the markets are wrong about economics, and the voters are wrong about morality.
How are your predictions of empty supermarket shelves going?
Well I still hate Gove after what he did to education.
Gove is one of the few politicians of the last few years I actually respect.
He was absolutely brilliant on leasehold and trying to sort out the cladding crisis, going after the people who actually built the sub-standard apartment blocks rather than the poor saps who unwittingly bought them, and protecting them from unfair remediation costs. He did way, way more than any of his predecessors, including the loathsome Jenrick, who Labour described as embroiled in "an apparent cash for favours" scandal over planning permission while in the same role. Gove also supposedly fought tooth and nail with Sunak in terms of getting the budget to enact his reforms.
So my view of Gove is that he's competent, driven and honest in a way that many within his party are not. If he does something, it's because he believes it's the right thing to do even if, with the example of education, his solutions turn out to be sub-optimal.
Plus his other problem that he likes to get coked off his tits.
The government is to shell out a lot of money to support peoples' energy bills. This has activated the scammers. Here's a text message that came to my iPhone out of the blue:
GOV.UK: You are eligible for a discounted energy bill under the Energy Bills Support Scheme. You can apply here: https://energy.support-rebate.com
Clicking on that address in my Macbook appeared to cause my browser (Safari) to "quit unexpectedly".
Was that the actual link (ie. what showed when your mouse hovers over it), or just how the link was shown on your screen?
It was what showed on the iPhone screen, but I typed it into my Macbook browser feeling that I have more control there in a "private window".
Obviously it sounds like a scam, because there is (i believe) no need to apply for the support under this scheme (it is supposed to happen automatically through your energy supplier).
But (and i may be wrong here) i thought that cyber security training normally indicates https addresses as a sign of safety/security (don't know why).
HTTPS doesn't mean a site isn't going to steal your details. It just means they are securely stealing your details in this case
All Https does is secure the connection between your web browser and the final website - which simply means no-one in the middle can steal your details - it doesn't stop the website owner stealing and abusing them...
A website in Russia, in this particular case. But yes, simplistic cybertraining does lead punters down the wrong path; https is not a magic talisman. The domain was another sign of trouble, or should have been, but I've lost count of the number of legitimate cross-domain links that train end-users to click on malware links.
I've always said that Gove is the smartest of them. He's proved it again this morning. I think he is the one that Labour should fear. He's clever, gets things done and is politically savvy. He knows how to play the game.
Threatening to withdraw the whip is no threat if 40+ MPs declare like Gove that they will rebel in a budget vote.
Truss is about to discover what all those questions about democratic legitimacy mean.
That's what people were saying about Boris when they mocked him for "losing" the majority, which only existed by including the DUP, in the Commons. A few months later he won an 80 seat majority.
Not likely to happen again by any means, but voting against the whip on matters of Confidence and Supply has always meant losing the whip.
The difference then was the rebels were blocking the government's own manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit by constantly voting against it. This time there was no manifesto commitment to cut the additional rate or for significant spending cuts. The Tories will be finished for longer than a generation if Truss manages to throw over 40 MPs out of the party on the basis of them opposing tax cuts for very high earners funded by benefit cuts for working age people.
Realistically the party will remove her before that happens. She's been a disaster for both party and country.
The £2bn change to the 45p tax rate I don't especially care about either way, I expect cutting it to be revenue positive but the tax rate doesn't affect me. But let's be honest, if we are only talking about a £2bn change then this is a ridiculous overreaction.
Putting NI back to the rate at the last election OTOH absolutely does match the manifesto which pledged not to increase the rate. It was the tax rise that broke the manifesto, not reversing that breach.
But they didn't reverse the spending associated. How many times do we have to go around in this circle. The tax increases were, stupidly or not, committed to increased spending. Liz Truss has come in and reversed those tax increases but not the spending.
Presumably relying on some long out of date figures/propaganda from several months ago about forecasts being better than expected for public finances and therefore increase no longer required (i think that was stuff circulating about the time of the last budget when Tory rebels were trying to convince Sunak to cancel the trailed increase).
Each time I think that people are overreacting to the current troubles in the Tory party, Liz Truss pops up and does an interview that confirms that they have a very significant problem.
Nobody sane thinks they should be in Government any more. They need to go and go now.
Maybe in 10 years I might vote for them again as I have in the past - but right now they're making 2005 Howard look sensible.
I think they should be.
Calling people who have different views to you not "sane" isn't kind or sensible. I can respect others have different opinions to me, why can't you?
We all have our own reasons for thinking the way we do. If we all thought the same, life would be very boring!
Respect diversity.
This isn't diversity. There are two significant issues for you: 1. The consensus of the global financial markets is that the Truss plan is economically crazy 2. The consensus of the UK voter is that the Truss plan is immoral
So whilst its fine for you to hold your views, you have to accept that you are saying the markets are wrong about economics, and the voters are wrong about morality.
Markets are frequently wrong about snap judgements, and voters are frequently wrong on other issues including morality.
If American voters elect Trump in 2024 I am quite content to say that morally I think they'll have made the wrong call.
The little one (Don't worry she's fine) had a very small fall a couple of days back. Called 111, everything was completely fine but at the end they said to phone GP. Called GP, after 70 minutes waiting; GP said to go to A&E ! Paediatric section of A&E reminded me of the old GP system where you just went in and queues. 2 hours in total, junior fine everything fine.
Some of the issues are caution related. No one wants to make a mistake that could have serious consequences. 111 are not medics, they follow. A script based system. If anything flags it will direct to further care, GP or A&E. GP will be cautious too. Was this 2 hours wasted? No. 2 hours to make sure nothing was wrong, which was the right thing to do.
Ye the wait time was fine, maybe its quicker for paediatrics ?
I've always said that Gove is the smartest of them. He's proved it again this morning. I think he is the one that Labour should fear. He's clever, gets things done and is politically savvy. He knows how to play the game.
Threatening to withdraw the whip is no threat if 40+ MPs declare like Gove that they will rebel in a budget vote.
Truss is about to discover what all those questions about democratic legitimacy mean.
That's what people were saying about Boris when they mocked him for "losing" the majority, which only existed by including the DUP, in the Commons. A few months later he won an 80 seat majority.
Not likely to happen again by any means, but voting against the whip on matters of Confidence and Supply has always meant losing the whip.
The difference then was the rebels were blocking the government's own manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit by constantly voting against it. This time there was no manifesto commitment to cut the additional rate or for significant spending cuts. The Tories will be finished for longer than a generation if Truss manages to throw over 40 MPs out of the party on the basis of them opposing tax cuts for very high earners funded by benefit cuts for working age people.
Realistically the party will remove her before that happens. She's been a disaster for both party and country.
The £2bn change to the 45p tax rate I don't especially care about either way, I expect cutting it to be revenue positive but the tax rate doesn't affect me. But let's be honest, if we are only talking about a £2bn change then this is a ridiculous overreaction.
Putting NI back to the rate at the last election OTOH absolutely does match the manifesto which pledged not to increase the rate. It was the tax rise that broke the manifesto, not reversing that breach.
But they didn't reverse the spending associated. How many times do we have to go around in this circle. The tax increases were, stupidly or not, committed to increased spending. Liz Truss has come in and reversed those tax increases but not the spending.
Presumably relying on some long out of date figures/propaganda from several months ago about forecasts being better than expected for public finances and therefore increase no longer required.
Maybe, but they didn't show the working for this which is why the markets went bang.
I've always said that Gove is the smartest of them. He's proved it again this morning. I think he is the one that Labour should fear. He's clever, gets things done and is politically savvy. He knows how to play the game.
Threatening to withdraw the whip is no threat if 40+ MPs declare like Gove that they will rebel in a budget vote.
Truss is about to discover what all those questions about democratic legitimacy mean.
That's what people were saying about Boris when they mocked him for "losing" the majority, which only existed by including the DUP, in the Commons. A few months later he won an 80 seat majority.
Not likely to happen again by any means, but voting against the whip on matters of Confidence and Supply has always meant losing the whip.
The difference then was the rebels were blocking the government's own manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit by constantly voting against it. This time there was no manifesto commitment to cut the additional rate or for significant spending cuts. The Tories will be finished for longer than a generation if Truss manages to throw over 40 MPs out of the party on the basis of them opposing tax cuts for very high earners funded by benefit cuts for working age people.
Realistically the party will remove her before that happens. She's been a disaster for both party and country.
The £2bn change to the 45p tax rate I don't especially care about either way, I expect cutting it to be revenue positive but the tax rate doesn't affect me. But let's be honest, if we are only talking about a £2bn change then this is a ridiculous overreaction.
Putting NI back to the rate at the last election OTOH absolutely does match the manifesto which pledged not to increase the rate. It was the tax rise that broke the manifesto, not reversing that breach.
But they didn't reverse the spending associated. How many times do we have to go around in this circle. The tax increases were, stupidly or not, committed to increased spending. Liz Truss has come in and reversed those tax increases but not the spending.
But Truss has committed to reducing spending - it's just that she hasn't said the size of the cuts nor where she is going to make them.
What is clear is that she is looking at cutting the benefits of working age people and that is going to create problems given how many are already not in a position to pay for the bare minimum essentials of rent, food and energy / heating...
The government is to shell out a lot of money to support peoples' energy bills. This has activated the scammers. Here's a text message that came to my iPhone out of the blue:
GOV.UK: You are eligible for a discounted energy bill under the Energy Bills Support Scheme. You can apply here: https://energy.support-rebate.com
Clicking on that address in my Macbook appeared to cause my browser (Safari) to "quit unexpectedly".
Was that the actual link (ie. what showed when your mouse hovers over it), or just how the link was shown on your screen?
It was what showed on the iPhone screen, but I typed it into my Macbook browser feeling that I have more control there in a "private window".
Obviously it sounds like a scam, because there is (i believe) no need to apply for the support under this scheme (it is supposed to happen automatically through your energy supplier).
But (and i may be wrong here) i thought that cyber security training normally indicates https addresses as a sign of safety/security (don't know why).
HTTPS doesn't mean a site isn't going to steal your details. It just means they are securely stealing your details in this case
All Https does is secure the connection between your web browser and the final website - which simply means no-one in the middle can steal your details - it doesn't stop the website owner stealing and abusing them...
Yes nobody else - if it's setup correctly - can steal your details whilst the fraudster you are giving them to, is taking them.
Secure as a badge next to the bar was one of the dumbest inventions of recent browsers.
Browsers ending "extended validation" of https sites was probably another mistake, even if it was primarily a racket by certificate sellers.
Well I still hate Gove after what he did to education.
Gove is one of the few politicians of the last few years I actually respect.
He was absolutely brilliant on leasehold and trying to sort out the cladding crisis, going after the people who actually built the sub-standard apartment blocks rather than the poor saps who unwittingly bought them, and protecting them from unfair remediation costs. He did way, way more than any of his predecessors, including the loathsome Jenrick, who Labour described as embroiled in "an apparent cash for favours" scandal over planning permission while in the same role. Gove also supposedly fought tooth and nail with Sunak in terms of getting the budget to enact his reforms.
So my view of Gove is that he's competent, driven and honest in a way that many within his party are not. If he does something, it's because he believes it's the right thing to do even if, with the example of education, his solutions turn out to be sub-optimal.
Good post as usual kyf. I think Gove is very good at getting stuff done and is competent - I just hate everything he has stood for.
I've always said that Gove is the smartest of them. He's proved it again this morning. I think he is the one that Labour should fear. He's clever, gets things done and is politically savvy. He knows how to play the game.
Keir Starmer has adopted Gove’s “muscular unionism” lock, stock and barrel. We’ll soon find out how “smart” and “clever” that was. Ho ho.
We will. If a decent chunk of Scottish Tory voters switch to Labour, things could get interesting.
My guesstimate (see discussion with Robert Smithson early yesterday morning) is that approximately 8pp have shifted directly from SCon to SLab. (The SNP, SLD and Grn VI appear to be largely unchanged.)
If I am correct, we’d be looking at a Scottish seat distribution (new boundaries) of approximately:
If Starmer only manages 2 gains in Scotland then he must dig deep, deep into solid Con territory in southern England. Doable, but extraordinarily difficult.
Provided Labour wins most seats Starmer will be PM, a majority also means left wing rebels have more power over him. He might even like Cameron prefer to be initially reliant on the LDs.
The SNP to have any influence need both a hung parliament and the Tories to have most seats but them the balance of power
I've always said that Gove is the smartest of them. He's proved it again this morning. I think he is the one that Labour should fear. He's clever, gets things done and is politically savvy. He knows how to play the game.
Threatening to withdraw the whip is no threat if 40+ MPs declare like Gove that they will rebel in a budget vote.
Truss is about to discover what all those questions about democratic legitimacy mean.
That's what people were saying about Boris when they mocked him for "losing" the majority, which only existed by including the DUP, in the Commons. A few months later he won an 80 seat majority.
Not likely to happen again by any means, but voting against the whip on matters of Confidence and Supply has always meant losing the whip.
The difference then was the rebels were blocking the government's own manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit by constantly voting against it. This time there was no manifesto commitment to cut the additional rate or for significant spending cuts. The Tories will be finished for longer than a generation if Truss manages to throw over 40 MPs out of the party on the basis of them opposing tax cuts for very high earners funded by benefit cuts for working age people.
Realistically the party will remove her before that happens. She's been a disaster for both party and country.
The £2bn change to the 45p tax rate I don't especially care about either way, I expect cutting it to be revenue positive but the tax rate doesn't affect me. But let's be honest, if we are only talking about a £2bn change then this is a ridiculous overreaction.
Putting NI back to the rate at the last election OTOH absolutely does match the manifesto which pledged not to increase the rate. It was the tax rise that broke the manifesto, not reversing that breach.
But they didn't reverse the spending associated. How many times do we have to go around in this circle. The tax increases were, stupidly or not, committed to increased spending. Liz Truss has come in and reversed those tax increases but not the spending.
Yes she said growing the economy will result in a larger slice coming from a smaller pie. That pays for the increased spending.
You may disagree but it's not wrong to believe that. Though as we agreed the other day, it is rather a matter of beliefs.
Each time I think that people are overreacting to the current troubles in the Tory party, Liz Truss pops up and does an interview that confirms that they have a very significant problem.
Nobody sane thinks they should be in Government any more. They need to go and go now.
Maybe in 10 years I might vote for them again as I have in the past - but right now they're making 2005 Howard look sensible.
I think they should be.
Calling people who have different views to you not "sane" isn't kind or sensible. I can respect others have different opinions to me, why can't you?
We all have our own reasons for thinking the way we do. If we all thought the same, life would be very boring!
Respect diversity.
This isn't diversity. There are two significant issues for you: 1. The consensus of the global financial markets is that the Truss plan is economically crazy 2. The consensus of the UK voter is that the Truss plan is immoral
So whilst its fine for you to hold your views, you have to accept that you are saying the markets are wrong about economics, and the voters are wrong about morality.
How are your predictions of empty supermarket shelves going?
The government is to shell out a lot of money to support peoples' energy bills. This has activated the scammers. Here's a text message that came to my iPhone out of the blue:
GOV.UK: You are eligible for a discounted energy bill under the Energy Bills Support Scheme. You can apply here: https://energy.support-rebate.com
Clicking on that address in my Macbook appeared to cause my browser (Safari) to "quit unexpectedly".
Was that the actual link (ie. what showed when your mouse hovers over it), or just how the link was shown on your screen?
It was what showed on the iPhone screen, but I typed it into my Macbook browser feeling that I have more control there in a "private window".
Obviously it sounds like a scam, because there is (i believe) no need to apply for the support under this scheme (it is supposed to happen automatically through your energy supplier).
But (and i may be wrong here) i thought that cyber security training normally indicates https addresses as a sign of safety/security (don't know why).
HTTPS doesn't mean a site isn't going to steal your details. It just means they are securely stealing your details in this case
All Https does is secure the connection between your web browser and the final website - which simply means no-one in the middle can steal your details - it doesn't stop the website owner stealing and abusing them...
Yes nobody else - if it's setup correctly - can steal your details whilst the fraudster you are giving them to, is taking them.
Secure as a badge next to the bar was one of the dumbest inventions of recent browsers.
Browsers ending "extended validation" of https sites was probably another mistake, even if it was primarily a racket by certificate sellers.
That's a different issue. It was way more important that man in the middle attacks were stopped relative to website validation.
The latter can and could be done by browsers the former is a protocol issue...
Each time I think that people are overreacting to the current troubles in the Tory party, Liz Truss pops up and does an interview that confirms that they have a very significant problem.
Nobody sane thinks they should be in Government any more. They need to go and go now.
Maybe in 10 years I might vote for them again as I have in the past - but right now they're making 2005 Howard look sensible.
I think they should be.
Calling people who have different views to you not "sane" isn't kind or sensible. I can respect others have different opinions to me, why can't you?
We all have our own reasons for thinking the way we do. If we all thought the same, life would be very boring!
Respect diversity.
This isn't diversity. There are two significant issues for you: 1. The consensus of the global financial markets is that the Truss plan is economically crazy 2. The consensus of the UK voter is that the Truss plan is immoral
So whilst its fine for you to hold your views, you have to accept that you are saying the markets are wrong about economics, and the voters are wrong about morality.
How are your predictions of empty supermarket shelves going?
Do you not shop in supermarkets?
+1 - its remarkable where the gaps are in Morrisons and especially in my local Aldi. Both are sat close to warehouses (the Aldi is 200 years from it) and both have larger gaps than was ever the case before.
NHS watch: district nurse caring for octogenarian mother-in-law called ambulance for her at 7:15pm last night. Ambulance arrived at 3am. As of two minutes ago, ambulance was still sat outside hospital with MIL in back of it, being fed tea and biscuits. She's not suffering an acute, immediately life-threatening condition, thank God, but it shows what an absolutely dire state these services are in.
This is before the annual epidemic of old people falling over in Winter, plus flu, plus Covid, plus the developing wave of untreated conditions left to worsen during lockdowns, and all those who'll be made sick by being forced to go cold and/or hungry. Plus, it would now seem, the additional burden of frozen budgets and working age benefits.
It's a matter of immediate necessity to get rid of this Government but the fact is that, unless enough Conservative turkeys vote for Christmas in the Commons, they'll be sat there, immovable, until January 2025. More likely than not we've got over two years of this acute dysfunction and systemic collapse left to come. There'll be nothing left for Labour to put back together again at this rate.
This was my hospital last week. Each ambulance was unable to unload and had a patient in the back.
I counted 24.
That’s shit. It is patchy though. RUH in Bath no issues when I was there.
If you run a queuing system at 95% of max capacity, small variances in load can lead to wildly different queuing times. Unless you have a lot of slack in the system you end up randomly getting stuck in these states with very long queues that remain in place for an extremely long time.
By way of example, it was a news story in Japan when they announced that they were going to lift the 50% bed occupancy ceiling for declaring an emergancy during the Covid epidemic. They must look at us & think we’re insane.
A couple of weeks ago I called an ambulance. It arrived while I was still on the phone to the emergency phone operator, within 5 minutes of starting the call. 35 minute wait at hospital before a place in a&e, during which a Dr assessed the patient. They prooritised this case, the ambulance was diverted from something considered less serious. It may be slow, but within that a system yhat bumps the less urgent down the time line is not a total disaster. We have a real issue with GPs, minor stuff and the gateway into NHS. There needs to be change and big change atvyhat end. In future we will have fewer GPs, we should work out how we amend our system to cope with that situation.
Well I still hate Gove after what he did to education.
Gove is one of the few politicians of the last few years I actually respect.
He was absolutely brilliant on leasehold and trying to sort out the cladding crisis, going after the people who actually built the sub-standard apartment blocks rather than the poor saps who unwittingly bought them, and protecting them from unfair remediation costs. He did way, way more than any of his predecessors, including the loathsome Jenrick, who Labour described as embroiled in "an apparent cash for favours" scandal over planning permission while in the same role. Gove also supposedly fought tooth and nail with Sunak in terms of getting the budget to enact his reforms.
So my view of Gove is that he's competent, driven and honest in a way that many within his party are not. If he does something, it's because he believes it's the right thing to do even if, with the example of education, his solutions turn out to be sub-optimal.
He was also well respected during his time at Justice - where he tried to bring more compassion and education back into prisons, including reversing the ludicrous ban on prisoners having books - and DEFRA where he was the first minister in a long time to take seriously the issues of soil degradation and declining insect populations. Away from her financial idiocy, one of eth worst acts of Truss since taking power is reversing Gove's post Brexit reforms to improve the environment in farming.
He has his failings of course but overall he has been an excellent mister at successive departments. Mostly because he tried to listen and learn from all sides.
I've always said that Gove is the smartest of them. He's proved it again this morning. I think he is the one that Labour should fear. He's clever, gets things done and is politically savvy. He knows how to play the game.
Threatening to withdraw the whip is no threat if 40+ MPs declare like Gove that they will rebel in a budget vote.
Truss is about to discover what all those questions about democratic legitimacy mean.
That's what people were saying about Boris when they mocked him for "losing" the majority, which only existed by including the DUP, in the Commons. A few months later he won an 80 seat majority.
Not likely to happen again by any means, but voting against the whip on matters of Confidence and Supply has always meant losing the whip.
The difference then was the rebels were blocking the government's own manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit by constantly voting against it. This time there was no manifesto commitment to cut the additional rate or for significant spending cuts. The Tories will be finished for longer than a generation if Truss manages to throw over 40 MPs out of the party on the basis of them opposing tax cuts for very high earners funded by benefit cuts for working age people.
Realistically the party will remove her before that happens. She's been a disaster for both party and country.
The £2bn change to the 45p tax rate I don't especially care about either way, I expect cutting it to be revenue positive but the tax rate doesn't affect me. But let's be honest, if we are only talking about a £2bn change then this is a ridiculous overreaction.
Putting NI back to the rate at the last election OTOH absolutely does match the manifesto which pledged not to increase the rate. It was the tax rise that broke the manifesto, not reversing that breach.
But they didn't reverse the spending associated. How many times do we have to go around in this circle. The tax increases were, stupidly or not, committed to increased spending. Liz Truss has come in and reversed those tax increases but not the spending.
Yes she said growing the economy will result in a larger slice coming from a smaller pie. That pays for the increased spending.
You may disagree but it's not wrong to believe that. Though as we agreed the other day, it is rather a matter of beliefs.
Tell that to the bond market. The bond market says 'we don't believe that 2 + 2 = 5'.
All Https does is secure the connection between your web browser and the final website - which simply means no-one in the middle can steal your details - it doesn't stop the website owner stealing and abusing them...
OK, so it reduces the risk of simply clicking the link? As long as you don't then hand over any details when you get there. But without https it creates the risk of intermediate parties getting access to your computer (malware etc)?
HTTPS protects against one kind of attack -- where you visit your bank's real official website but somebody snoops on your data along the way. It helps not at all against any other thing. (The usual analogy is like the difference between sending a letter and a postcard -- anybody can read the postcard as it passes through the system. But using an envelope doesn't help you if you send your stuff to the wrong address.)
Other attacks include bad websites which simply trick you into giving them your details (bank info; credit card numbers; gmail password; etc), and also bad websites which try to exploit bugs in your browser to take over your computer.
The correct thing to do with a link that you suspect of being something shady or scam-related is not to follow it at all, even out of curiosity. Delete the text or email it came in.
Thanks - increased my understanding of cyber security a little bit this morning! Needless to say i'm not (I hope) stupid. Personally i do apply higher caution to unsolicited links, regardless of what "corporate cybertraining" (which is usually extremely basic and simplistic) might say. Most corporate cybertraining seems to only apply to basic unsophisticated attacks (classic thing being things like looking out for mispelled words etc! As if cyber criminality is a kind of test where cyber criminals are just testing you and leaving you with a trail of clues to navigate)
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
How do you get a figure of 70%?!
If earning an extra £1000 gets me an extra £300, then there is an incentive to earn more. Given how Denise Coates and others do earn more than the top threshold, clearly they think so too.
Not everyone thinks the same. I know people who would rather not pay 60% plus of the hourly wage to the government for working extra hours. Not everyone is driven by earning as much as possible.
I know people who would rather not do an extra hour even if they get 100% of their wage. We’re all different.
Also, who’s paying 60%? darkage says 70%, you say 60%, but the top rate of tax was 45%.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
How do you get a figure of 70%?!
If earning an extra £1000 gets me an extra £300, then there is an incentive to earn more. Given how Denise Coates and others do earn more than the top threshold, clearly they think so too.
Not everyone thinks the same. I know people who would rather not pay 60% plus of the hourly wage to the government for working extra hours. Not everyone is driven by earning as much as possible.
I know people who would rather not do an extra hour even if they get 100% of their wage. We’re all different.
Also, who’s paying 60%? darkage says 70%, you say 60%, but the top rate of tax was 45%.
62% including NI between £105-125k
That would have been a more sensible change than reducing the 45p. I can only think that when the government is thinking about people on high salaries, it is not the £100-200k bracket, it is the £1-2m bracket.
Indeed. Those people have been ignored by Truss/Kwarteng. I presumed darkage was talking about the cuts made.
I've always said that Gove is the smartest of them. He's proved it again this morning. I think he is the one that Labour should fear. He's clever, gets things done and is politically savvy. He knows how to play the game.
Threatening to withdraw the whip is no threat if 40+ MPs declare like Gove that they will rebel in a budget vote.
Truss is about to discover what all those questions about democratic legitimacy mean.
That's what people were saying about Boris when they mocked him for "losing" the majority, which only existed by including the DUP, in the Commons. A few months later he won an 80 seat majority.
Not likely to happen again by any means, but voting against the whip on matters of Confidence and Supply has always meant losing the whip.
The difference then was the rebels were blocking the government's own manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit by constantly voting against it. This time there was no manifesto commitment to cut the additional rate or for significant spending cuts. The Tories will be finished for longer than a generation if Truss manages to throw over 40 MPs out of the party on the basis of them opposing tax cuts for very high earners funded by benefit cuts for working age people.
Realistically the party will remove her before that happens. She's been a disaster for both party and country.
The £2bn change to the 45p tax rate I don't especially care about either way, I expect cutting it to be revenue positive but the tax rate doesn't affect me. But let's be honest, if we are only talking about a £2bn change then this is a ridiculous overreaction.
Putting NI back to the rate at the last election OTOH absolutely does match the manifesto which pledged not to increase the rate. It was the tax rise that broke the manifesto, not reversing that breach.
But they didn't reverse the spending associated. How many times do we have to go around in this circle. The tax increases were, stupidly or not, committed to increased spending. Liz Truss has come in and reversed those tax increases but not the spending.
Yes she said growing the economy will result in a larger slice coming from a smaller pie. That pays for the increased spending.
You may disagree but it's not wrong to believe that. Though as we agreed the other day, it is rather a matter of beliefs.
Tell that to the bond market.
Best business plan in the world will not survive a lack of cash flow in the short term. That is basically what happened this week (without actually commenting on the quality of the business plan...)
I can remember when Gove was often described by left-of-centre PBers as the most unsuitable person to lead the party. That was when there was a chance of him getting the position.
Yeah. But May, Boris then Truss has shifted the parameters of "most unsuitable" quite radically.
Gove made himself unelectable when he sank his political knife in Boris's back. After that, who would ever trust him again? Or believe anything he said?
Shame that he should be castigated for that particular act amongst others when it was one of the best things he has done. Greatly diminished of course by his eventual support for Boris after May went.
"People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get a higher salary, higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That’s the approach the government is taking".
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Until Truss decided that the Environment was something to destroy rather than work on the King wasn't interfering in Politics - he was talking about Government Policy and encouraging other countries to do the same...
Well I still hate Gove after what he did to education.
At least he was trying to do something and recognised there was a problem rather than pretending everything was fine as our education system steadily sank further and further down the international standings and became less and less fit for purpose.
I can remember when Gove was often described by left-of-centre PBers as the most unsuitable person to lead the party. That was when there was a chance of him getting the position.
That's how it works. You can bet @SouthamObserver would change his tune if Gove looked like winning and same with @Jonathan for Wallace.
Nevertheless I'm now looking at 40/1 for Gove as next PM and 25/1 for Wallace with interest.
Wallace looks like the only sane choice. The others are all part of factions that each don't have majority support in the parliamentary Tory party let alone the commons.
I've always said that Gove is the smartest of them. He's proved it again this morning. I think he is the one that Labour should fear. He's clever, gets things done and is politically savvy. He knows how to play the game.
Threatening to withdraw the whip is no threat if 40+ MPs declare like Gove that they will rebel in a budget vote.
Truss is about to discover what all those questions about democratic legitimacy mean.
That's what people were saying about Boris when they mocked him for "losing" the majority, which only existed by including the DUP, in the Commons. A few months later he won an 80 seat majority.
Not likely to happen again by any means, but voting against the whip on matters of Confidence and Supply has always meant losing the whip.
The difference then was the rebels were blocking the government's own manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit by constantly voting against it. This time there was no manifesto commitment to cut the additional rate or for significant spending cuts. The Tories will be finished for longer than a generation if Truss manages to throw over 40 MPs out of the party on the basis of them opposing tax cuts for very high earners funded by benefit cuts for working age people.
Realistically the party will remove her before that happens. She's been a disaster for both party and country.
The £2bn change to the 45p tax rate I don't especially care about either way, I expect cutting it to be revenue positive but the tax rate doesn't affect me. But let's be honest, if we are only talking about a £2bn change then this is a ridiculous overreaction.
Putting NI back to the rate at the last election OTOH absolutely does match the manifesto which pledged not to increase the rate. It was the tax rise that broke the manifesto, not reversing that breach.
But they didn't reverse the spending associated. How many times do we have to go around in this circle. The tax increases were, stupidly or not, committed to increased spending. Liz Truss has come in and reversed those tax increases but not the spending.
Presumably relying on some long out of date figures/propaganda from several months ago about forecasts being better than expected for public finances and therefore increase no longer required.
Maybe, but they didn't show the working for this which is why the markets went bang.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
I thought it basically flags that the Govt are intending to completely reverse the UK traditional position of trying to be on the progressive side of climate change issues and being at the forefront of pushing for international consensus and agreement and looking to bring more reluctant countries into line. Previous Govts, with support of mainstream and cross party political consensus, would have wanted the monarch there, or at least delivering messages of support to bring alternative pressure to bear.
They think having Charles there will be an embarrassment as they reinvent themselves as refuseniks.
Each time I think that people are overreacting to the current troubles in the Tory party, Liz Truss pops up and does an interview that confirms that they have a very significant problem.
Nobody sane thinks they should be in Government any more. They need to go and go now.
Maybe in 10 years I might vote for them again as I have in the past - but right now they're making 2005 Howard look sensible.
I think they should be.
Calling people who have different views to you not "sane" isn't kind or sensible. I can respect others have different opinions to me, why can't you?
We all have our own reasons for thinking the way we do. If we all thought the same, life would be very boring!
Respect diversity.
This isn't diversity. There are two significant issues for you: 1. The consensus of the global financial markets is that the Truss plan is economically crazy 2. The consensus of the UK voter is that the Truss plan is immoral
So whilst its fine for you to hold your views, you have to accept that you are saying the markets are wrong about economics, and the voters are wrong about morality.
How are your predictions of empty supermarket shelves going?
A problem that got a lot better when the government permanently abandoned its policy of inbound customs checks as announced by JRM.
Well I still hate Gove after what he did to education.
At least he was trying to do something and recognised there was a problem rather than pretending everything was fine as our education system steadily sank further and further down the international standings and became less and less fit for purpose.
"People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get a higher salary, higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That’s the approach the government is taking".
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
I thought it basically flags that the Govt are intending to completely reverse the UK traditional position of trying to be on the progressive side of climate change issues and being at the forefront of pushing for international consensus and agreement and looking to bring more reluctant countries into line. Previous Govts, with support of mainstream and cross party political consensus, would have wanted the monarch there, or at least delivering messages of support to bring alternative pressure to bear.
They think having Charles there will be an embarrassment as they reinvent themselves as refuseniks.
Well we are now seeing the polling evidence of the core support for Truss' new libertarian party focused on tax cuts for the rich, more austerity and abandoning action on climate change
I've always said that Gove is the smartest of them. He's proved it again this morning. I think he is the one that Labour should fear. He's clever, gets things done and is politically savvy. He knows how to play the game.
Threatening to withdraw the whip is no threat if 40+ MPs declare like Gove that they will rebel in a budget vote.
Truss is about to discover what all those questions about democratic legitimacy mean.
That's what people were saying about Boris when they mocked him for "losing" the majority, which only existed by including the DUP, in the Commons. A few months later he won an 80 seat majority.
Not likely to happen again by any means, but voting against the whip on matters of Confidence and Supply has always meant losing the whip.
The difference then was the rebels were blocking the government's own manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit by constantly voting against it. This time there was no manifesto commitment to cut the additional rate or for significant spending cuts. The Tories will be finished for longer than a generation if Truss manages to throw over 40 MPs out of the party on the basis of them opposing tax cuts for very high earners funded by benefit cuts for working age people.
Realistically the party will remove her before that happens. She's been a disaster for both party and country.
The £2bn change to the 45p tax rate I don't especially care about either way, I expect cutting it to be revenue positive but the tax rate doesn't affect me. But let's be honest, if we are only talking about a £2bn change then this is a ridiculous overreaction.
Putting NI back to the rate at the last election OTOH absolutely does match the manifesto which pledged not to increase the rate. It was the tax rise that broke the manifesto, not reversing that breach.
But they didn't reverse the spending associated. How many times do we have to go around in this circle. The tax increases were, stupidly or not, committed to increased spending. Liz Truss has come in and reversed those tax increases but not the spending.
Presumably relying on some long out of date figures/propaganda from several months ago about forecasts being better than expected for public finances and therefore increase no longer required.
Maybe, but they didn't show the working for this which is why the markets went bang.
Thanks - increased my understanding of cyber security a little bit this morning! Needless to say i'm not (I hope) stupid. Personally i do apply higher caution to unsolicited links, regardless of what "corporate cybertraining" (which is usually extremely basic and simplistic) might say. Most corporate cybertraining seems to only apply to basic unsophisticated attacks (classic thing being things like looking out for mispelled words etc! As if cyber criminality is a kind of test where cyber criminals are just testing you and leaving you with a trail of clues to navigate)
Most companies do cyber security training so that they can say they have complied with regulations in order to limit their liabilities. Actually effective cyber security training would be expensive, intensive, and ongoing; and quite frankly a lot of employees would fail it and have to have their responsibilities or job changed.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
Wrong on two levels. First what the pm tells the monarch is what the monarch does, even if she is wrong. Secondly in this instance she isn't wrong, the UK's position must be unambiguously set out by hm government. If he doesn't like it he can send Baldy along as his special envoy or abdicate and go as king emeritus
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
I thought it basically flags that the Govt are intending to completely reverse the UK traditional position of trying to be on the progressive side of climate change issues and being at the forefront of pushing for international consensus and agreement and looking to bring more reluctant countries into line. Previous Govts, with support of mainstream and cross party political consensus, would have wanted the monarch there, or at least delivering messages of support to bring alternative pressure to bear.
They think having Charles there will be an embarrassment as they reinvent themselves as refuseniks.
I think that must be right, otherwise Charles could have gone to state the bleedin' obvious (civilisation is screwed if we don't do something urgently) then withdraw gracefully to let the pols sort it out. But that would have exposed Team GB to extra pressure to concede more rather than less.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Until Truss decided that the Environment was something to destroy rather than work on the King wasn't interfering in Politics - he was talking about Government Policy and encouraging other countries to do the same...
but then it is even more right he does not go as it would definitely be politics.
I can remember when Gove was often described by left-of-centre PBers as the most unsuitable person to lead the party. That was when there was a chance of him getting the position.
That's how it works. You can bet @SouthamObserver would change his tune if Gove looked like winning and same with @Jonathan for Wallace.
Nevertheless I'm now looking at 40/1 for Gove as next PM and 25/1 for Wallace with interest.
Wallace looks like the only sane choice. The others are all part of factions that each don't have majority support in the parliamentary Tory party let alone the commons.
Gove is Dominic Cummings' representative on Earth. Yesterday's man's man.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
'Action on climate change' got us to the stage where we as a nation with considerable energy resources are one of the worst affected by the current crisis. We have had a performative virtue-signalling energy policy, based on the fact that energy could and should (like every other product and service) be imported from the continent. Now that the continent doesn't have enough power of its own, the cretinous nature of that policy has been crudely exposed. Your arguing that we need to continue it somehow is typically inept.
I can remember when Gove was often described by left-of-centre PBers as the most unsuitable person to lead the party. That was when there was a chance of him getting the position.
That's how it works. You can bet @SouthamObserver would change his tune if Gove looked like winning and same with @Jonathan for Wallace.
Nevertheless I'm now looking at 40/1 for Gove as next PM and 25/1 for Wallace with interest.
Wallace looks like the only sane choice. The others are all part of factions that each don't have majority support in the parliamentary Tory party let alone the commons.
Gove is Dominic Cummings' representative on Earth. Yesterday's man's man.
I think he is a reasonable consigliere and department head but not suited to the top job.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
I don't think 'cross party support' matters all that much. Clearly the public is divided on what exactly our environmental policy should be. The King has to avoid engaging with that. Maybe he could turn up at COP and be a galvanising presence for people. But given his history of expressing strong views on the environment I can see why it might be awkward.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
well like it or not she is the PM and there is politics in COP - so he should not be there unless you want an absolute monarchy -Its not as if Charles in practice is that green - look at his jet travel and cars and staff. Quickest way to see a republic if monarchs interfere in politics
Source close to CX adds: “The higher the tax, the more ways people seek to avoid them, work elsewhere, or simply work less. As the PM said this morning, the 45p rate raises very little and makes our tax system more complicated. The PM and Chancellor in lockstep on this." https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1576525249159757824
21 Million Lives Saved! The annual PEPFAR report is out and it has increased the estimate of lives saved by 1 million: "The Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Global Health Diplomacy leads, manages, and oversees the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Through PEPFAR, the U.S. government has invested nearly $100 billion in the global HIV/AIDS response, the largest commitment by any nation to address a single disease in history, saving 21 million lives, preventing millions of HIV infections, and accelerating progress toward controlling the global HIV/AIDS pandemic in more than 50 countries." source: https://www.state.gov/pepfar/
(My apologies for this off-topic comment, but I thought you might like some good news for a change. And if you would like a little bit of fun, share this news with some of your friends and family.
And there is a political betting point to this: Quite often, elected officials get little credit for their successes from our journalists, especially if the officials belong to the "wrong" party.)
I can remember when Gove was often described by left-of-centre PBers as the most unsuitable person to lead the party. That was when there was a chance of him getting the position.
That's how it works. You can bet @SouthamObserver would change his tune if Gove looked like winning and same with @Jonathan for Wallace.
Nevertheless I'm now looking at 40/1 for Gove as next PM and 25/1 for Wallace with interest.
Wallace looks like the only sane choice. The others are all part of factions that each don't have majority support in the parliamentary Tory party let alone the commons.
Gove is Dominic Cummings' representative on Earth. Yesterday's man's man.
I think he is a reasonable consigliere and department head but not suited to the top job.
The issue with Gove is his motivation and loyalties. He wasn't just Cummings' creature, he was Murdoch's. He showed no interest in wanting to serve under Truss, and that's not a good sign. Just because the party has elected someone you oppose, has the country stopped needing good politicians? He doesn't care.
Source close to CX adds: “The higher the tax, the more ways people seek to avoid them, work elsewhere, or simply work less. As the PM said this morning, the 45p rate raises very little and makes our tax system more complicated. The PM and Chancellor in lockstep on this." https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1576525249159757824
Sorry but given my experience of tax avoidance a drop from 45% to 40% isn't going to discourage people from avoiding tax.
If people want to avoid tax they will do so regardless of the level of tax unless it's at a low (below say 25% rate)..
and I say that because most of the tax avoidance schemes seem to have moved to plans that return 75% of the money to you (temporarily).
Source close to CX adds: “The higher the tax, the more ways people seek to avoid them, work elsewhere, or simply work less. As the PM said this morning, the 45p rate raises very little and makes our tax system more complicated. The PM and Chancellor in lockstep on this." https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1576525249159757824
It is idiotic to claim it makes the system complicated. It is trivially handled by payroll software.
On the question of whether it raises more or less tax, how about this - start at 44p and if that raises more than 45p then move to 43p. Keep repeating every year until we get to the optimal level which may be higher or lower than 45p.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
It also has public support too. Wide scale public support.
Even those who believe AGW is a myth would surely see the sense in moving away from the current reliance on fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world and pushing for domestic renewables.
Fort Worth Police Department have a history of making unusual recruitment videos to encourage people to join the PD. After 3 star wars themed videos, the latest has adopted the 'used car salesman' style.
21 Million Lives Saved! The annual PEPFAR report is out and it has increased the estimate of lives saved by 1 million: "The Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Global Health Diplomacy leads, manages, and oversees the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Through PEPFAR, the U.S. government has invested nearly $100 billion in the global HIV/AIDS response, the largest commitment by any nation to address a single disease in history, saving 21 million lives, preventing millions of HIV infections, and accelerating progress toward controlling the global HIV/AIDS pandemic in more than 50 countries." source: https://www.state.gov/pepfar/
(My apologies for this off-topic comment, but I thought you might like some good news for a change. And if you would like a little bit of fun, share this news with some of your friends and family.
And there is a political betting point to this: Quite often, elected officials get little credit for their successes from our journalists, especially if the officials belong to the "wrong" party.)
Was it Bono who remarked on the generosity of the Bush team owing to their religious leanings? GWB also worked with our own son of the manse, Gordon Brown, on debt relief for the developing world (or enriching Wall Street vulture funds, as it sometimes became).
I can remember when Gove was often described by left-of-centre PBers as the most unsuitable person to lead the party. That was when there was a chance of him getting the position.
That's how it works. You can bet @SouthamObserver would change his tune if Gove looked like winning and same with @Jonathan for Wallace.
Nevertheless I'm now looking at 40/1 for Gove as next PM and 25/1 for Wallace with interest.
Wallace looks like the only sane choice. The others are all part of factions that each don't have majority support in the parliamentary Tory party let alone the commons.
Gove is Dominic Cummings' representative on Earth. Yesterday's man's man.
I think he is a reasonable consigliere and department head but not suited to the top job.
The issue with Gove is his motivation and loyalties. He wasn't just Cummings' creature, he was Murdoch's. He showed no interest in wanting to serve under Truss, and that's not a good sign. Just because the party has elected someone you oppose, has the country stopped needing good politicians? He doesn't care.
Just as it was perfectly reasonable for senior Labour bods to stay out of Corbyn's cabinet so it is reasonable for senior Tories to stay out of the Truss government. Also think it is fine for the likes of Wallace or Starmer to stay to provide some stability and gravity back to the real world. Either option is a valid, reasonable and personal choice.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
'Action on climate change' got us to the stage where we as a nation with considerable energy resources are one of the worst affected by the current crisis. We have had a performative virtue-signalling energy policy, based on the fact that energy could and should (like every other product and service) be imported from the continent. Now that the continent doesn't have enough power of its own, the cretinous nature of that policy has been crudely exposed. Your arguing that we need to continue it somehow is typically inept.
Trying to argue that our current predicament is the fault of decarbonisation - rather than the party that's been in power for the last dozen years failing to do it quickly enough - is laughable. As is the implied insistence that the damage can be reversed by desperately trying to extract wholly uneconomic reserves of shale gas under Lancashire.
We are going to get where we need to be by prioritising nuclear, renewables, home insulation and other efficiency measures, not by madly scrambling to dig up more fossil crap.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
'Action on climate change' got us to the stage where we as a nation with considerable energy resources are one of the worst affected by the current crisis. We have had a performative virtue-signalling energy policy, based on the fact that energy could and should (like every other product and service) be imported from the continent. Now that the continent doesn't have enough power of its own, the cretinous nature of that policy has been crudely exposed. Your arguing that we need to continue it somehow is typically inept.
Policy errors over the last decade are coming back to hammer Europe. Especially the reliance on Russia.
Medium to long term we need far more renewables and more stable sources of gas.
21 Million Lives Saved! The annual PEPFAR report is out and it has increased the estimate of lives saved by 1 million: "The Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Global Health Diplomacy leads, manages, and oversees the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Through PEPFAR, the U.S. government has invested nearly $100 billion in the global HIV/AIDS response, the largest commitment by any nation to address a single disease in history, saving 21 million lives, preventing millions of HIV infections, and accelerating progress toward controlling the global HIV/AIDS pandemic in more than 50 countries." source: https://www.state.gov/pepfar/
(My apologies for this off-topic comment, but I thought you might like some good news for a change. And if you would like a little bit of fun, share this news with some of your friends and family.
And there is a political betting point to this: Quite often, elected officials get little credit for their successes from our journalists, especially if the officials belong to the "wrong" party.)
Bush had a lot of flaws but he also did a lot of good. It is a shame the succeeding Governments did not maintain his Pandemic plans which might have saved a lot of lives in the US had they been in place when Covid turned up.
The gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey has.
Independence 52% Devolution (the status quo) 38% Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
I will continue to focus on my goals. Feel free to focus on yours.
Yes but it's boring reading it, it's the same post over and over again.
I know nothing about you beyond Independence. What do you enjoy doing?
Oy, Horse. Kettle meets pot. How many times have you posted 20% nailed on FFS?
Yeah but I was right - and I told people how to make money. Stuart is pointless
He really isn’t.
This is a betting site and he posts quite a bit of analysis on the regional splits on polls and his commentary on Scotland electorally, especially with regards to a labour majority betting, is well worth reading.
The interesting point which some seem to forget is that Labour is (a) hardline British nationalist (UFs in SKS office, has changed his mind very publicly to a flat no to even having a democratically mandated indyref) AND (b) Brexiter in ways which are optimal south of the border, but not north of the border. So simply assuming SKS will do well in Scotland cos of the swell south of the border is a fallacy a priori. The actual result doesn't follow. It may be right, wrong, or (as I think) a bit of both. But it can't be ignored.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
well like it or not she is the PM and there is politics in COP - so he should not be there unless you want an absolute monarchy -Its not as if Charles in practice is that green - look at his jet travel and cars and staff. Quickest way to see a republic if monarchs interfere in politics
Rubbish. The King would have great soft power at the summit on an issue most voters agree is an urgent concern. Where there is strong public support for an issue the monarch is entitled to speak out on it and press it, here and abroad.
Charles has also long been a leader on organic farming, climate change etc
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
well like it or not she is the PM and there is politics in COP - so he should not be there unless you want an absolute monarchy -Its not as if Charles in practice is that green - look at his jet travel and cars and staff. Quickest way to see a republic if monarchs interfere in politics
Rubbish. The King would have great soft power at the summit on an issue most voters agree is an urgent concern. Where there is strong public support for an issue the monarch is entitled to speak out on it and press it, here and abroad.
Charles has also long been a leader on organic farming, climate change etc
Charles has also been
And yet if he interferes - then that's curtains for the image of the monarchy as so carefully curated.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
'Action on climate change' got us to the stage where we as a nation with considerable energy resources are one of the worst affected by the current crisis. We have had a performative virtue-signalling energy policy, based on the fact that energy could and should (like every other product and service) be imported from the continent. Now that the continent doesn't have enough power of its own, the cretinous nature of that policy has been crudely exposed. Your arguing that we need to continue it somehow is typically inept.
Importing Russian gas, a fossil fuel, has zero to do with tackling climate change
Source close to CX adds: “The higher the tax, the more ways people seek to avoid them, work elsewhere, or simply work less. As the PM said this morning, the 45p rate raises very little and makes our tax system more complicated. The PM and Chancellor in lockstep on this." https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1576525249159757824
Sorry but given my experience of tax avoidance a drop from 45% to 40% isn't going to discourage people from avoiding tax.
If people want to avoid tax they will do so regardless of the level of tax unless it's at a low (below say 25% rate)..
and I say that because most of the tax avoidance schemes seem to have moved to plans that return 75% of the money to you (temporarily).
Yes and they actually completely ignored the necessary tax simplification measure at £100k which does lead to mass tax avoidance with pension AVCs and some going down the personal service route to stay full time.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
Wrong on two levels. First what the pm tells the monarch is what the monarch does, even if she is wrong. Secondly in this instance she isn't wrong, the UK's position must be unambiguously set out by hm government. If he doesn't like it he can send Baldy along as his special envoy or abdicate and go as king emeritus
The PM is the monarch's chief minister, not the other way round.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
well like it or not she is the PM and there is politics in COP - so he should not be there unless you want an absolute monarchy -Its not as if Charles in practice is that green - look at his jet travel and cars and staff. Quickest way to see a republic if monarchs interfere in politics
Rubbish. The King would have great soft power at the summit on an issue most voters agree is an urgent concern. Where there is strong public support for an issue the monarch is entitled to speak out on it and press it, here and abroad.
Charles has also long been a leader on organic farming, climate change etc
not when the PM has misgivings about the policy which she clearly now does - You may not agree with her but the King cannot then interfere
Well I still hate Gove after what he did to education.
Gove is one of the few politicians of the last few years I actually respect.
He was absolutely brilliant on leasehold and trying to sort out the cladding crisis, going after the people who actually built the sub-standard apartment blocks rather than the poor saps who unwittingly bought them, and protecting them from unfair remediation costs. He did way, way more than any of his predecessors, including the loathsome Jenrick, who Labour described as embroiled in "an apparent cash for favours" scandal over planning permission while in the same role. Gove also supposedly fought tooth and nail with Sunak in terms of getting the budget to enact his reforms.
So my view of Gove is that he's competent, driven and honest in a way that many within his party are not. If he does something, it's because he believes it's the right thing to do even if, with the example of education, his solutions turn out to be sub-optimal.
He was also well respected during his time at Justice - where he tried to bring more compassion and education back into prisons, including reversing the ludicrous ban on prisoners having books - and DEFRA where he was the first minister in a long time to take seriously the issues of soil degradation and declining insect populations. Away from her financial idiocy, one of eth worst acts of Truss since taking power is reversing Gove's post Brexit reforms to improve the environment in farming.
He has his failings of course but overall he has been an excellent mister at successive departments. Mostly because he tried to listen and learn from all sides.
One thing you can definitely say about Gove is that he takes his brief seriously & does the work to understand the implications of policy choices.
Probably one of the things that made him unpopular with certain members of the government at the time - he showed them how it was supposed to be done. (Although all that conniving & plotting didn’t help.)
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
'Action on climate change' got us to the stage where we as a nation with considerable energy resources are one of the worst affected by the current crisis. We have had a performative virtue-signalling energy policy, based on the fact that energy could and should (like every other product and service) be imported from the continent. Now that the continent doesn't have enough power of its own, the cretinous nature of that policy has been crudely exposed. Your arguing that we need to continue it somehow is typically inept.
Trying to argue that our current predicament is the fault of decarbonisation - rather than the party that's been in power for the last dozen years failing to do it quickly enough - is laughable. As is the implied insistence that the damage can be reversed by desperately trying to extract wholly uneconomic reserves of shale gas under Lancashire.
We are going to get where we need to be by prioritising nuclear, renewables, home insulation and other efficiency measures, not by madly scrambling to dig up more fossil crap.
Exactly. It is the consequence of failures of policy. Of approaches that prioritised short term easy quick fix approaches to meet treaty commitments, rather than medium and longer term approaches which sought to fully exploit UK potential for renewable energy (and yes, nuclear, if necessary) generation.
You can't wish away the issues of climate change and need to combat it, simply by pointing to shorter term economic downsides at best, and promoting denialist views at worst. But that is the path that it looks like the Truss Govt (Rees Mogg in charge!!!) are heading down.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
Wrong on two levels. First what the pm tells the monarch is what the monarch does, even if she is wrong. Secondly in this instance she isn't wrong, the UK's position must be unambiguously set out by hm government. If he doesn't like it he can send Baldy along as his special envoy or abdicate and go as king emeritus
The PM is the monarch's chief minister, not the other way round.
No true Tory PM would ever forget that
Er, this isn't Henry VIII and Cromwell (Thos). The world has moved on.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
well like it or not she is the PM and there is politics in COP - so he should not be there unless you want an absolute monarchy -Its not as if Charles in practice is that green - look at his jet travel and cars and staff. Quickest way to see a republic if monarchs interfere in politics
Rubbish. The King would have great soft power at the summit on an issue most voters agree is an urgent concern. Where there is strong public support for an issue the monarch is entitled to speak out on it and press it, here and abroad.
Charles has also long been a leader on organic farming, climate change etc
not when the PM has misgivings about the policy which she clearly now does - You may not agree with her but the King cannot then interfere
So you are now saying Truss has no interest in climate change at all and will ignore the monarch.
In which case she is a libertarian not a Tory and it is her not the monarch who has to go
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
'Action on climate change' got us to the stage where we as a nation with considerable energy resources are one of the worst affected by the current crisis. We have had a performative virtue-signalling energy policy, based on the fact that energy could and should (like every other product and service) be imported from the continent. Now that the continent doesn't have enough power of its own, the cretinous nature of that policy has been crudely exposed. Your arguing that we need to continue it somehow is typically inept.
Policy errors over the last decade are coming back to hammer Europe. Especially the reliance on Russia.
Medium to long term we need far more renewables and more stable sources of gas.
Short term we need to hope for mild winters.
Short term, we need to increase the rate of North sea oil gas extraction, and allow frackers to get what they can get from their existing wells, adjusting the restrictions if necessary to do that, with the deal being domestic sales only, at below market rates.
We also need to allow the Cumbrian coking coal mine to go ahead, so our steel industry (which is a strategic necessity) is relying on British coal not imports from Russia.
Medium term, we need to be burning 100% of our non-recyclable waste (this is a renewable), so we need to ensure waste from energy sites are sped through the planning process, which currently takes eons.
Medium term, we need to end constraint payments to wind providers, forcing them to store their power, or they won't be paid for it.
Long term, we should have widespread use of tidal barrages as a reliable and dependable form of renewable energy. No surprises that in the current set up, the most reliable resource is the one we're not exploiting.
Each time I think that people are overreacting to the current troubles in the Tory party, Liz Truss pops up and does an interview that confirms that they have a very significant problem.
Nobody sane thinks they should be in Government any more. They need to go and go now.
Maybe in 10 years I might vote for them again as I have in the past - but right now they're making 2005 Howard look sensible.
I think they should be.
Calling people who have different views to you not "sane" isn't kind or sensible. I can respect others have different opinions to me, why can't you?
We all have our own reasons for thinking the way we do. If we all thought the same, life would be very boring!
Respect diversity.
This isn't diversity. There are two significant issues for you: 1. The consensus of the global financial markets is that the Truss plan is economically crazy 2. The consensus of the UK voter is that the Truss plan is immoral
So whilst its fine for you to hold your views, you have to accept that you are saying the markets are wrong about economics, and the voters are wrong about morality.
How are your predictions of empty supermarket shelves going?
Do you not shop in supermarkets?
+1 - its remarkable where the gaps are in Morrisons and especially in my local Aldi. Both are sat close to warehouses (the Aldi is 200 years from it) and both have larger gaps than was ever the case before.
Not seeing them at all in any of the supermarkets I am shopping at. The exception is Waitrose who have had gaps in their shelves on a regular basis for many years. It long since put me off shopping there except for a few specific items I can't easily get elsewhere.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
Wrong on two levels. First what the pm tells the monarch is what the monarch does, even if she is wrong. Secondly in this instance she isn't wrong, the UK's position must be unambiguously set out by hm government. If he doesn't like it he can send Baldy along as his special envoy or abdicate and go as king emeritus
The PM is the monarch's chief minister, not the other way round.
No true Tory PM would ever forget that
Er, this isn't Henry VIII and Cromwell (Thos). The world has moved on.
Constitutionally it hasn't, Charles could remove Truss and replace her as PM with Sunak until the next election for instance if Sunak could get most MPs to support him.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
well like it or not she is the PM and there is politics in COP - so he should not be there unless you want an absolute monarchy -Its not as if Charles in practice is that green - look at his jet travel and cars and staff. Quickest way to see a republic if monarchs interfere in politics
Rubbish. The King would have great soft power at the summit on an issue most voters agree is an urgent concern. Where there is strong public support for an issue the monarch is entitled to speak out on it and press it, here and abroad.
Charles has also long been a leader on organic farming, climate change etc
Charles has also been
And yet if he interferes - then that's curtains for the image of the monarchy as so carefully curated.
Well he's not interfering is he? He's not going. Because he sought Government guidance and they said no. So the discussion is moot. Other than what it says about Truss judgement and policy stances.
Whether he's p*ssed off or not (as per my 'jokey' post that started the discussion) is another matter.
I watched Truss’ interview earlier. All the time I was trying to work out who her wooden, slightly robotic and mildly menacing demeanour reminded me of.
She is the female John Redwood. We knew her policy agenda is Redwood-like, but so is her personal style. Really uncanny.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
well like it or not she is the PM and there is politics in COP - so he should not be there unless you want an absolute monarchy -Its not as if Charles in practice is that green - look at his jet travel and cars and staff. Quickest way to see a republic if monarchs interfere in politics
Rubbish. The King would have great soft power at the summit on an issue most voters agree is an urgent concern. Where there is strong public support for an issue the monarch is entitled to speak out on it and press it, here and abroad.
Charles has also long been a leader on organic farming, climate change etc
You said it: voters. We elect leaders to address what we're concerned with, urgently or otherwise.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
well like it or not she is the PM and there is politics in COP - so he should not be there unless you want an absolute monarchy -Its not as if Charles in practice is that green - look at his jet travel and cars and staff. Quickest way to see a republic if monarchs interfere in politics
Rubbish. The King would have great soft power at the summit on an issue most voters agree is an urgent concern. Where there is strong public support for an issue the monarch is entitled to speak out on it and press it, here and abroad.
Charles has also long been a leader on organic farming, climate change etc
Charles has also been
And yet if he interferes - then that's curtains for the image of the monarchy as so carefully curated.
Well he's not interfering is he? He's not going. Because he sought Government guidance and they said no. So the discussion is moot.
Whether he's p*ssed off or not (as per my 'jokey' post that started the discussion) is another matter.
Briefing against the PM in the Sunday papers is clearing interfering. I think Truss is useless and needs to be replaced. I also think Charles is right and Truss is wrong on climate change. But he has no legitimacy to get involved in politics. I don't want some wealthy adulterer who is in office by accident of birth to play any role in government beyond the ceremonial necessities. He needs to stay in his lane.
Having lost most of the room, she is now even losing her key economic advisors and supporters:
Julian Jessop @julianHjessop · 4h The political risks are obvious. It is hard to think of anything more toxic than cutting the real value of benefits at the same time as lowering the top rate of income tax to 40p. The optics of a real-terms cut in benefits but not in pensions could be dreadful too.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
'Action on climate change' got us to the stage where we as a nation with considerable energy resources are one of the worst affected by the current crisis. We have had a performative virtue-signalling energy policy, based on the fact that energy could and should (like every other product and service) be imported from the continent. Now that the continent doesn't have enough power of its own, the cretinous nature of that policy has been crudely exposed. Your arguing that we need to continue it somehow is typically inept.
Importing Russian gas, a fossil fuel, has zero to do with tackling climate change
I agree, but that is not the direction that the 'tackling climate change' lobby and policy makers have taken - they have aggressively fought domestic fossil fuel extraction at every turn (leading to foreign LNG imports which is a more CO2-intense process), and promoted unreliable forms of renewable energy that demand back up generation from (you guessed it) fossil fuels. That's what Truss is tackling, and attacks from you over it are frankly unworthy of someone who calls themselves a conservative, let alone a Conservative.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
'Action on climate change' got us to the stage where we as a nation with considerable energy resources are one of the worst affected by the current crisis. We have had a performative virtue-signalling energy policy, based on the fact that energy could and should (like every other product and service) be imported from the continent. Now that the continent doesn't have enough power of its own, the cretinous nature of that policy has been crudely exposed. Your arguing that we need to continue it somehow is typically inept.
Trying to argue that our current predicament is the fault of decarbonisation - rather than the party that's been in power for the last dozen years failing to do it quickly enough - is laughable. As is the implied insistence that the damage can be reversed by desperately trying to extract wholly uneconomic reserves of shale gas under Lancashire.
We are going to get where we need to be by prioritising nuclear, renewables, home insulation and other efficiency measures, not by madly scrambling to dig up more fossil crap.
Only those who are utterly ignorant of the growth in renewables in the UK and of the power generation overall could say the Government have not been acting fast enough. Indeed we have acted faster and more effectively than practically any other country on Earth. Limitations on progress have been due to maxing out the available resources and manpower to do the job, not any failing or push back from of the Government.
The exception to this is tidal power which has been totally and inexplicably neglected and opposed by the Government for many years.
But our real problem is that we have chosen an arbitrary date to end the use of fossil fuels and then tried to force the market in that direction when it was always going to be unable to fill the power gap - all the more so when instead of having it driven by demand we decided to curtail supply. That is why we are in the mess we are now.
That said I agree with you that fracking for shale gas is a red herring. It won't do anything to ease the position we now find ourselves in.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
well like it or not she is the PM and there is politics in COP - so he should not be there unless you want an absolute monarchy -Its not as if Charles in practice is that green - look at his jet travel and cars and staff. Quickest way to see a republic if monarchs interfere in politics
Rubbish. The King would have great soft power at the summit on an issue most voters agree is an urgent concern. Where there is strong public support for an issue the monarch is entitled to speak out on it and press it, here and abroad.
Charles has also long been a leader on organic farming, climate change etc
Charles has also been
And yet if he interferes - then that's curtains for the image of the monarchy as so carefully curated.
Well he's not interfering is he? He's not going. Because he sought Government guidance and they said no. So the discussion is moot. Other than what it says about Truss judgement and policy stances.
Whether he's p*ssed off or not (as per my 'jokey' post that started the discussion) is another matter.
Quite so. Someone's seemingly yanked the leash to his choke collar. But I'm just surprised at anyone expressing any other view on the constitution (such as it is).
Apparently they are considering bringing in Gordon Gekko to reassure the markets.
Interesting there's been so little discussion on here today about Credit Suisse. Banking social media is going nuts about it. Talk of Lehmann Brothers part deux etc. Either they're going overboard, the media are being warned off, or there is a guaranteed bailout on the table.
Or they're right and a lot of people tomorrow are going to wake up to an almight shock!
I watched Truss’ interview earlier. All the time I was trying to work out who her wooden, slightly robotic and mildly menacing demeanour reminded me of.
She is the female John Redwood. We knew her policy agenda is Redwood-like, but so is her personal style. Really uncanny.
I watched Truss’ interview earlier. All the time I was trying to work out who her wooden, slightly robotic and mildly menacing demeanour reminded me of.
She is the female John Redwood. We knew her policy agenda is Redwood-like, but so is her personal style. Really uncanny.
Doesn't sound like a good time for Truss to p*ss off The King...
Truss' disrespect for the King over going to COP is not the action any true Tory PM would take.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
The King should not interfere in politics and like it or not COP is politics - so in this one respect she is right
Action on climate change had cross party support until Truss
'Action on climate change' got us to the stage where we as a nation with considerable energy resources are one of the worst affected by the current crisis. We have had a performative virtue-signalling energy policy, based on the fact that energy could and should (like every other product and service) be imported from the continent. Now that the continent doesn't have enough power of its own, the cretinous nature of that policy has been crudely exposed. Your arguing that we need to continue it somehow is typically inept.
Importing Russian gas, a fossil fuel, has zero to do with tackling climate change
I agree, but that is not the direction that the 'tackling climate change' lobby and policy makers have taken - they have aggressively fought domestic fossil fuel extraction at every turn (leading to foreign LNG imports which is a more CO2-intense process), and promoted unreliable forms of renewable energy that demand back up generation from (you guessed it) fossil fuels. That's what Truss is tackling, and attacks from you over it are frankly unworthy of someone who calls themselves a conservative, let alone a Conservative.
Except Truss isn't tackling it. Removing the ban on fracking will do sweet bugger all to improve our energy security. Indeed Johnson, for all his other failings, had already done far more by starting to free up the process of increasing conventional hydrocarbon extraction.
I watched Truss’ interview earlier. All the time I was trying to work out who her wooden, slightly robotic and mildly menacing demeanour reminded me of.
She is the female John Redwood. We knew her policy agenda is Redwood-like, but so is her personal style. Really uncanny.
can she sing the welsh anthem? - she may have to at some point so get practising Liz!
Comments
Secure as a badge next to the bar was one of the dumbest inventions of recent browsers.
Consequently I was kept in for two hours for observation and eventually sent home.
A site using HTTPS simply means the site administrator has done the bare minimum to protect your data in transit, but the bad guys do it too.
If you were to use your company solely as a vehicle for your income, then if CT rose to 25%, then an additional £100 would pay CT of £25, leaving £75 to be extracted as dividends.
Assuming you’re over the 150k, you’ll pay 39.35% on that £75. You are not charged dividend tax on the CT your company has already paid. That’s about £29.50.
It comes in at about 55% of the marginal increase. Not 65%. So already better off in marginal terms for each increase than those on PAYE in the 100k-120k discontinuity.
Or, to put it another way, they would have kept almost a third more than you claim (45% vs 35%).
Just reversing the CT increase would have meant keeping about 50% of the marginal increase, without touching the 45% rate.
If nothing else by clicking the bad link you have potentially told the bad guys they have found a "live one", and they might then send you a more sophisticated phishing link.
Basically if in doubt then don't click a link.
He was absolutely brilliant on leasehold and trying to sort out the cladding crisis, going after the people who actually built the sub-standard apartment blocks rather than the poor saps who unwittingly bought them, and protecting them from unfair remediation costs. He did way, way more than any of his predecessors, including the loathsome Jenrick, who Labour described as embroiled in "an apparent cash for favours" scandal over planning permission while in the same role. Gove also supposedly fought tooth and nail with Sunak in terms of getting the budget to enact his reforms.
So my view of Gove is that he's competent, driven and honest in a way that many within his party are not. If he does something, it's because he believes it's the right thing to do even if, with the example of education, his solutions turn out to be sub-optimal.
Other attacks include bad websites which simply trick you into giving them your details (bank info; credit card numbers; gmail password; etc), and also bad websites which try to exploit bugs in your browser to take over your computer.
The correct thing to do with a link that you suspect of being something shady or scam-related is not to follow it at all, even out of curiosity. Delete the text or email it came in.
If American voters elect Trump in 2024 I am quite content to say that morally I think they'll have made the wrong call.
Being a minority doesn't make you wrong.
What is clear is that she is looking at cutting the benefits of working age people and that is going to create problems given how many are already not in a position to pay for the bare minimum essentials of rent, food and energy / heating...
The SNP to have any influence need both a hung parliament and the Tories to have most seats but them the balance of power
You may disagree but it's not wrong to believe that. Though as we agreed the other day, it is rather a matter of beliefs.
The latter can and could be done by browsers the former is a protocol issue...
They prooritised this case, the ambulance was diverted from something considered less serious.
It may be slow, but within that a system yhat bumps the less urgent down the time line is not a total disaster.
We have a real issue with GPs, minor stuff and the gateway into NHS. There needs to be change and big change atvyhat end. In future we will have fewer GPs, we should work out how we amend our system to cope with that situation.
He has his failings of course but overall he has been an excellent mister at successive departments. Mostly because he tried to listen and learn from all sides.
At the moment I continue the support the party despite not because of her
"People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get a higher salary, higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That’s the approach the government is taking".
Full exchange 👇 https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1576521766754996224/photo/1
1. Would ex-Tory MPs who'd had the whip withdrawn vote against Truss in a Commons vote of confidence?
2. Could Tory MPs unite around an alternative PM after such a vote so as to avoid a GE?
My guess is 'no' to both - but neither is a certainty.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1576521772651802625
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1576484883593105409
They think having Charles there will be an embarrassment as they reinvent themselves as refuseniks.
Try again luv
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1576525249159757824
"The Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Global Health Diplomacy leads, manages, and oversees the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Through PEPFAR, the U.S. government has invested nearly $100 billion in the global HIV/AIDS response, the largest commitment by any nation to address a single disease in history, saving 21 million lives, preventing millions of HIV infections, and accelerating progress toward controlling the global HIV/AIDS pandemic in more than 50 countries."
source: https://www.state.gov/pepfar/
The program the George W. Bush administration started is now on its fourth president, and still going strong. Thanks in part to the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who urged the Obama administration to leave it alone: https://www.devex.com/news/desmond-tutu-urges-obama-to-reconsider-pepfar-funding-68583
Those who administered it believe part of the reason it has succeeded is because from the beginning it measured results: https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/resources-reports/reports/pepfar-series/measurement-as-management-tool.html
(My apologies for this off-topic comment, but I thought you might like some good news for a change. And if you would like a little bit of fun, share this news with some of your friends and family.
And there is a political betting point to this: Quite often, elected officials get little credit for their successes from our journalists, especially if the officials belong to the "wrong" party.)
If people want to avoid tax they will do so regardless of the level of tax unless it's at a low (below say 25% rate)..
and I say that because most of the tax avoidance schemes seem to have moved to plans that return 75% of the money to you (temporarily).
On the question of whether it raises more or less tax, how about this - start at 44p and if that raises more than 45p then move to 43p. Keep repeating every year until we get to the optimal level which may be higher or lower than 45p.
Even those who believe AGW is a myth would surely see the sense in moving away from the current reliance on fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world and pushing for domestic renewables.
Fort Worth Police Department have a history of making unusual recruitment videos to encourage people to join the PD. After 3 star wars themed videos, the latest has adopted the 'used car salesman' style.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yy4QXJqFmE
And yes this is for real.
We are going to get where we need to be by prioritising nuclear, renewables, home insulation and other efficiency measures, not by madly scrambling to dig up more fossil crap.
Medium to long term we need far more renewables and more stable sources of gas.
Short term we need to hope for mild winters.
Charles has also long been a leader on organic farming, climate change etc
No true Tory PM would ever forget that
Probably one of the things that made him unpopular with certain members of the government at the time - he showed them how it was supposed to be done. (Although all that conniving & plotting didn’t help.)
You can't wish away the issues of climate change and need to combat it, simply by pointing to shorter term economic downsides at best, and promoting denialist views at worst. But that is the path that it looks like the Truss Govt (Rees Mogg in charge!!!) are heading down.
In which case she is a libertarian not a Tory and it is her not the monarch who has to go
We also need to allow the Cumbrian coking coal mine to go ahead, so our steel industry (which is a strategic necessity) is relying on British coal not imports from Russia.
Medium term, we need to be burning 100% of our non-recyclable waste (this is a renewable), so we need to ensure waste from energy sites are sped through the planning process, which currently takes eons.
Medium term, we need to end constraint payments to wind providers, forcing them to store their power, or they won't be paid for it.
Long term, we should have widespread use of tidal barrages as a reliable and dependable form of renewable energy. No surprises that in the current set up, the most reliable resource is the one we're not exploiting.
Whether he's p*ssed off or not (as per my 'jokey' post that started the discussion) is another matter.
She is the female John Redwood. We knew her policy agenda is Redwood-like, but so is her personal style. Really uncanny.
Julian Jessop
@julianHjessop
·
4h
The political risks are obvious. It is hard to think of anything more toxic than cutting the real value of benefits at the same time as lowering the top rate of income tax to 40p. The optics of a real-terms cut in benefits but not in pensions could be dreadful too.
Politically, it seems like madness.
The exception to this is tidal power which has been totally and inexplicably neglected and opposed by the Government for many years.
But our real problem is that we have chosen an arbitrary date to end the use of fossil fuels and then tried to force the market in that direction when it was always going to be unable to fill the power gap - all the more so when instead of having it driven by demand we decided to curtail supply. That is why we are in the mess we are now.
That said I agree with you that fracking for shale gas is a red herring. It won't do anything to ease the position we now find ourselves in.
Or they're right and a lot of people tomorrow are going to wake up to an almight shock!