The Tory parliamentary party are clearly right that Truss needs to be removed ASAP and replaced by acclamation.
But a safety first leader is the wrong replacement. Someone like Sunak can staunch the bleeding, but the Tories have badly lost a lot of voters and a lot won't come back unless they see someone they actively like in there. You need someone seen as credible and serious, yes, but also a big personality. Someone like Mordaunt would be very good.
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.
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!
In which jurisdiction would they file for bankruptcy? Switzerland?
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.
Sizewell currently uses uranium from Russia.
You know, the same Sizewell that had C pushed through by Boris as his last act as PM.
This might seem a little grumbly, but it does seem a little charity-tastic. I just want someone to say "I'm doing it for myself; my own challenge."
(I've raised money for charity on walks on the past, but I've also been criticised for *not* doing on other occasions. which seems a bit sh*t, especially as one of the people who said it is an effing lazy pos who does nothing for others.)
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.
Your stance on the fracking ban is wholly illogical. If something can be done safely, then it is for the market to decide whether it is profitable or not, not for the Government to say it's not profitable, but by the way we're imposing a ban. There are existing wells in Lancashire capable of extracting gas. If only they are switched on, and they pump enough gas to power a small town, and they extract it under a special arrangement selling the gas at below the current market rate, that helps in an energy crisis. Any more than that, helps a bit more, etc. I am afraid your stance on this smacks of having taken a view on onshore fracking, and not wanting to expose that view to the potential of being disproven.
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.
The country's done relatively well on renewables, albeit that Conservatives have hamstrung the onshore wind effort because of nimbyism. One of the few things the latest leadership has got right is, allegedly, to have eased that prohibition - though we'll see how long that suggestion survives actual contact with enraged nimbies.
What we have been hopeless at now for decades, stretching well back beyond 2010, is nuclear. Crudely put, it's expensive to construct and operate new nuclear capacity, but not as expensive as ending up in hock to the various despotisms that control much of the world's gas supply, or facing real worries about rolling blackouts.
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).
Why doesn't the Prince of Wales go? Apart from the fact that it will cause a lot of confusion in some quarters! He'd only be doing what his father did. And it is traditional for the heir to the throne to take a slightly controversial view!
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'.
And the Crypto market for years said "stonks go up". I still thought buying into that Pyramid Scheme was a bad idea.
The market economy works better than all alternatives in the long term, just as democracy works better than all alternatives in the long term. The snap judgements of either voters or markets are influenced by human factors and not necessarily correct.
The big problem for Truss and co, confirmed on TV this morning, is while she really doesn't care if this stuff is popular, her MPS really, really do care.
And she is claiming a mandate for this stuff they don't think she has.
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?
They may not be empty but there are plenty of gaps. You hear plenty of people moaning about things being "out of stock". Our local M&S seems to just be filling up more and more shelves with bottles of wine.If you don't believe anything has changed I suggest you aren't looking very closely
Michael Gove is transitioning into Dominic Grieve.
If he votes against the whip on a matter of confidence and supply, he needs to face the same outcome. He fought the leadership campaign against Truss very bitterly, and he lost.
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.
Both excellent politicians.
You win the award for moron.
Well, Jizzy Lizzy became PM which is the absolute pinnacle of British politics so by any objective standard she must very good at it. It's perhaps more impressive that she gained these towering heights with such a bizarre personality, niche ideological fetishes and a face that looks like it's made of plasticine.
TrussyGuy1983 is in a deep and deeply strange parasocial relationship with her though.
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'.
And the Crypto market for years said "stonks go up". I still thought buying into that Pyramid Scheme was a bad idea.
The market economy works better than all alternatives in the long term, just as democracy works better than all alternatives in the long term. The snap judgements of either voters or markets are influenced by human factors and not necessarily correct.
So why do you think "stonks go up" it's bad but when Truss says "growth go up" it's fine and dandy?
Michael Gove is transitioning into Dominic Grieve.
If he votes against the whip on a matter of confidence and supply, he needs to face the same outcome. He fought the leadership campaign against Truss very bitterly, and he lost.
Yes, well, perhaps - though if there are enough like him (those considering quitting Parliament, or who think they've no chance of holding their seats regardless, and are therefore prepared to withdraw support,) then it's bye bye Government regardless. Will be interesting to see what happens when these budgetary measures actually come to a vote.
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.
Politically, it seems like madness.
From his tweets this week it was clear he was not aware of the cut in the top rate.
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.
Your stance on the fracking ban is wholly illogical. If something can be done safely, then it is for the market to decide whether it is profitable or not, not for the Government to say it's not profitable, but by the way we're imposing a ban. There are existing wells in Lancashire capable of extracting gas. If only they are switched on, and they pump enough gas to power a small town, and they extract it under a special arrangement selling the gas at below the current market rate, that helps in an energy crisis. Any more than that, helps a bit more, etc. I am afraid your stance on this smacks of having taken a view on onshore fracking, and not wanting to expose that view to the potential of being disproven.
It is not illogical at all.
If an oil company wants to develop a field in the North Sea (or onshore if it is a conventional well) then they have to prove they have sufficient funds in the bank to cover all the costs of decommissioning and end of life and also the insurance to cover potential issues during development and operation. This can be several billion pounds worth of ringfenced finance that is reviewed on a yearly basis to ensure they are still able to cover the costs.
This proviso has not been applied to fracking. The companies do not have to have the necessary CoP funds available nor can they generally get the sorts of insurance that they would need to cover the risks to the environment that are inherent in any hydrocarbon exploitation. I am not talking at all about climate stuff here - just the basic issues of pollution, contamination and other failures. All of that will fall on the taxpayer when it turns out the fields are not viable and the company goes into liquidation.
And you are wrong about the viability of the wells already existing. You don't just 'switch it on' for a start. Even with conventional reservoirs you don't do that and this is all the more the case with shale gas plays and fracking. Given the bloke who actually runs the company that developed those wells says fracking is not viable in the UK based on his current experiences, why do you think you know better?
Michael Gove is transitioning into Dominic Grieve.
If he votes against the whip on a matter of confidence and supply, he needs to face the same outcome. He fought the leadership campaign against Truss very bitterly, and he lost.
Yes, well, perhaps - though if there are enough like him (those considering quitting Parliament, or who think they've no chance of holding their seats regardless, and are therefore prepared to withdraw support,) then it's bye bye Government regardless. Will be interesting to see what happens when these budgetary measures actually come to a vote.
If any MP is willing to vote to cut the 45% tax rate while also voting to increase benefits by less than inflation I think they are being incredibly brave.
And I wouldn't recommend them visiting any outdoor venue over the next few months - because those sort of plans are going to lead to violence and it's going to be aimed at politicians.
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.
Sizewell currently uses uranium from Russia.
You know, the same Sizewell that had C pushed through by Boris as his last act as PM.
Though EDF has 2 years worth of uranium in stock for Sizewell and is able to source uranium from other parts of the world, so isn't dependant upon Russia. If we had 2 years of gas in stock then we'd be in a very different position now, so apples and oranges.
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 mentioned it earlier in the thread. They aren’t the only ones who could be in trouble 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.
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.
Hey matey hope you are keeping well.
Excellent post.
Fine thanks. Too bloody busy and could do with a break but otherwise loving the transition to autumn and winter.
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'.
And the Crypto market for years said "stonks go up". I still thought buying into that Pyramid Scheme was a bad idea.
The market economy works better than all alternatives in the long term, just as democracy works better than all alternatives in the long term. The snap judgements of either voters or markets are influenced by human factors and not necessarily correct.
So why do you think "stonks go up" it's bad but when Truss says "growth go up" it's fine and dandy?
Because there's a reason that I believe lower taxes will lead to growth.
I see no reason for underlying value to crypto.
Its a judgement call. I make my own, not just follow what others are saying.
Michael Gove is transitioning into Dominic Grieve.
If he votes against the whip on a matter of confidence and supply, he needs to face the same outcome. He fought the leadership campaign against Truss very bitterly, and he lost.
Problem is simple. Johnson binned his own majority to force an election he knew he'd win Your lass is dumb, and thinks she can copy Truss bins her own majority and whoops apocalypse gets into an election where she's smashed
This might seem a little grumbly, but it does seem a little charity-tastic. I just want someone to say "I'm doing it for myself; my own challenge."
(I've raised money for charity on walks on the past, but I've also been criticised for *not* doing on other occasions. which seems a bit sh*t, especially as one of the people who said it is an effing lazy pos who does nothing for others.)
I get you. It feels a bit churlish to say it, but once the elite races are finished it is pretty much bye bye running event, hello Children in Need. But it's not as if you have to sit there and watch it so it's no big deal.
Personally I'd typically prefer to bung a good cause some of my own money than do something to fundraise. I've no moral objection to the latter at all, it's just personally I'd feel like I was pestering other people for cash, which makes me uncomfortable full stop but especially under present circumstances.
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 mentioned it earlier in the thread. They aren’t the only ones who could be in trouble too.
That's a who's who of general suspects from the past 15 years. At some point one of them is going to go belly up but they've all managed to last 15 years longer than many people expected...
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.
Your stance on the fracking ban is wholly illogical. If something can be done safely, then it is for the market to decide whether it is profitable or not, not for the Government to say it's not profitable, but by the way we're imposing a ban. There are existing wells in Lancashire capable of extracting gas. If only they are switched on, and they pump enough gas to power a small town, and they extract it under a special arrangement selling the gas at below the current market rate, that helps in an energy crisis. Any more than that, helps a bit more, etc. I am afraid your stance on this smacks of having taken a view on onshore fracking, and not wanting to expose that view to the potential of being disproven.
It is not illogical at all.
If an oil company wants to develop a field in the North Sea (or onshore if it is a conventional well) then they have to prove they have sufficient funds in the bank to cover all the costs of decommissioning and end of life and also the insurance to cover potential issues during development and operation. This can be several billion pounds worth of ringfenced finance that is reviewed on a yearly basis to ensure they are still able to cover the costs.
This proviso has not been applied to fracking. The companies do not have to have the necessary CoP funds available nor can they generally get the sorts of insurance that they would need to cover the risks to the environment that are inherent in any hydrocarbon exploitation. I am not talking at all about climate stuff here - just the basic issues of pollution, contamination and other failures. All of that will fall on the taxpayer when it turns out the fields are not viable and the company goes into liquidation.
And you are wrong about the viability of the wells already existing. You don't just 'switch it on' for a start. Even with conventional reservoirs you don't do that and this is all the more the case with shale gas plays and fracking. Given the bloke who actually runs the company that developed those wells says fracking is not viable in the UK based on his current experiences, why do you think you know better?
I'm still puzzled about this distinction, ever since you explained it the first time a few weeks back. Surely all extraction of hydrocarbons is caught on the same legislation whether fracking or not? It's clearly not an on/offshore distinctionfrom what you say. If an act of parliament talks about coal mining surely all coal mines would be caught even if you (say) used lasers and concrete replacement pillars to get all the coal.
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 mentioned it earlier in the thread. They aren’t the only ones who could be in trouble too.
That's a who's who of general suspects from the past 15 years. At some point one of them is going to go belly up but they've all managed to last 15 years longer than many people expected...
Michael Gove is transitioning into Dominic Grieve.
If he votes against the whip on a matter of confidence and supply, he needs to face the same outcome. He fought the leadership campaign against Truss very bitterly, and he lost.
Yes, well, perhaps - though if there are enough like him (those considering quitting Parliament, or who think they've no chance of holding their seats regardless, and are therefore prepared to withdraw support,) then it's bye bye Government regardless. Will be interesting to see what happens when these budgetary measures actually come to a vote.
If any MP is willing to vote to cut the 45% tax rate while also voting to increase benefits by less than inflation I think they are being incredibly brave.
And I wouldn't recommend them visiting any outdoor venue over the next few months - because those sort of plans are going to lead to violence and it's going to be aimed at politicians.
Sadly, when - and it is when - they announce they are taking an axe to public services and to welfare payments, there will be fucking riots.
The risk is that unlike when we have had other pockets of poor people rioting and the middle classes tut in disapproval, instead they look at the hell they are facing over mortgages and inflation and cheer the rioters on...
Michael Gove is transitioning into Dominic Grieve.
If he votes against the whip on a matter of confidence and supply, he needs to face the same outcome. He fought the leadership campaign against Truss very bitterly, and he lost.
Yes, well, perhaps - though if there are enough like him (those considering quitting Parliament, or who think they've no chance of holding their seats regardless, and are therefore prepared to withdraw support,) then it's bye bye Government regardless. Will be interesting to see what happens when these budgetary measures actually come to a vote.
If any MP is willing to vote to cut the 45% tax rate while also voting to increase benefits by less than inflation I think they are being incredibly brave.
And I wouldn't recommend them visiting any outdoor venue over the next few months - because those sort of plans are going to lead to violence and it's going to be aimed at politicians.
Sadly, when - and it is when - they announce they are taking an axe to public services and to welfare payments, there will be fucking riots.
The risk is that unlike when we have had other pockets of poor people rioting and the middle classes tut in disapproval, instead they look at the hell they are facing over mortgages and inflation and cheer the rioters on...
Or indeed do a Bristol Statue thing when on a jury and find the rioters not guilty. [Edit] It wouild, unintentionally, also be a way of giving two fingers to the Tory elite.
Given the track record of Liz and KK at doing sums, what price they do remove the whip from 40 MPs..
Oh I think it will be more than 40 MPs - if Gove and co are willing to abstain then many others will...
Indeed, but above 40 the number doesn't matter. Is Truss willing to sacrifice her majority for a symbolic gesture.
I think she is just mad enough to try it...
Above 40 makes the easier so much clearer.
30 MPs and Liz can continue, 40 MPs and Liz has a problem, 60 MPs and Liz has a problem that can't be solved....
Clearly Liz and Kwasi are trying to ensure the tax cuts are kept away from the spending cuts so the important thing is to keep those forthcoming cuts in the publics mind....
Michael Gove is transitioning into Dominic Grieve.
If he votes against the whip on a matter of confidence and supply, he needs to face the same outcome. He fought the leadership campaign against Truss very bitterly, and he lost.
Yes, well, perhaps - though if there are enough like him (those considering quitting Parliament, or who think they've no chance of holding their seats regardless, and are therefore prepared to withdraw support,) then it's bye bye Government regardless. Will be interesting to see what happens when these budgetary measures actually come to a vote.
If any MP is willing to vote to cut the 45% tax rate while also voting to increase benefits by less than inflation I think they are being incredibly brave.
And I wouldn't recommend them visiting any outdoor venue over the next few months - because those sort of plans are going to lead to violence and it's going to be aimed at politicians.
Sadly, when - and it is when - they announce they are taking an axe to public services and to welfare payments, there will be fucking riots.
The risk is that unlike when we have had other pockets of poor people rioting and the middle classes tut in disapproval, instead they look at the hell they are facing over mortgages and inflation and cheer the rioters on...
If they stick with slashing benefits in real terms whilst bunging bankers a tax cut then I totally agree, we are looking at serious civil disorder over food and energy costs.
The Tory parliamentary party are clearly right that Truss needs to be removed ASAP and replaced by acclamation.
But a safety first leader is the wrong replacement. Someone like Sunak can staunch the bleeding, but the Tories have badly lost a lot of voters and a lot won't come back unless they see someone they actively like in there. You need someone seen as credible and serious, yes, but also a big personality. Someone like Mordaunt would be very good.
Mordaunt was the obvious choice from the very beginning, recognising that there’d be an element of gamble involved with anyone new.
Why the Tories were unable to see the obvious remains a mystery,
This might seem a little grumbly, but it does seem a little charity-tastic. I just want someone to say "I'm doing it for myself; my own challenge."
(I've raised money for charity on walks on the past, but I've also been criticised for *not* doing on other occasions. which seems a bit sh*t, especially as one of the people who said it is an effing lazy pos who does nothing for others.)
I get you. It feels a bit churlish to say it, but once the elite races are finished it is pretty much bye bye running event, hello Children in Need. But it's not as if you have to sit there and watch it so it's no big deal.
Personally I'd typically prefer to bung a good cause some of my own money than do something to fundraise. I've no moral objection to the latter at all, it's just personally I'd feel like I was pestering other people for cash, which makes me uncomfortable full stop but especially under present circumstances.
You don't even need to give money; time can be just as valuable to charities. I've started volunteering at Junior Park Runs on Sunday mornings. 45 minutes of my time and I get to see lots of smiling kids - and some grumpy ones being pulled along by their parents. ;;)
Twenty years ago, a guy called Tom Isaacs walked around the coastline of Britain. Which was an incredible achievement as he had early-onset Parkinsons Disease, and could often not walk a yard without a cocktail of drugs. He finished in London a couple of days before the London Marathon, and then ran the marathon.
He barely got a mention for what was an incredible feat (and he raised loads of money for a Parkinsons charity). Z-list celebrities got much more air time. Though a year or so later he was on Radio 4 on the Claire Balding walking program.
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.
Politically, it seems like madness.
From his tweets this week it was clear he was not aware of the cut in the top rate.
That story says: "Michael Gove, the talismanic Tory love-hate figure, crowned himself leader of the internal opposition on TV this morning, and suggested he'd vote against the 45p top rate when it comes to Parliament probably in March."
Read that carefully. Does it mean Gove will vote to scrap the 45p rate, vote against scrapping it, or not vote at all?
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.
Your stance on the fracking ban is wholly illogical. If something can be done safely, then it is for the market to decide whether it is profitable or not, not for the Government to say it's not profitable, but by the way we're imposing a ban. There are existing wells in Lancashire capable of extracting gas. If only they are switched on, and they pump enough gas to power a small town, and they extract it under a special arrangement selling the gas at below the current market rate, that helps in an energy crisis. Any more than that, helps a bit more, etc. I am afraid your stance on this smacks of having taken a view on onshore fracking, and not wanting to expose that view to the potential of being disproven.
It is not illogical at all.
If an oil company wants to develop a field in the North Sea (or onshore if it is a conventional well) then they have to prove they have sufficient funds in the bank to cover all the costs of decommissioning and end of life and also the insurance to cover potential issues during development and operation. This can be several billion pounds worth of ringfenced finance that is reviewed on a yearly basis to ensure they are still able to cover the costs.
This proviso has not been applied to fracking. The companies do not have to have the necessary CoP funds available nor can they generally get the sorts of insurance that they would need to cover the risks to the environment that are inherent in any hydrocarbon exploitation. I am not talking at all about climate stuff here - just the basic issues of pollution, contamination and other failures. All of that will fall on the taxpayer when it turns out the fields are not viable and the company goes into liquidation.
And you are wrong about the viability of the wells already existing. You don't just 'switch it on' for a start. Even with conventional reservoirs you don't do that and this is all the more the case with shale gas plays and fracking. Given the bloke who actually runs the company that developed those wells says fracking is not viable in the UK based on his current experiences, why do you think you know better?
I'm still puzzled about this distinction, ever since you explained it the first time a few weeks back. Surely all extraction of hydrocarbons is caught on the same legislation whether fracking or not? It's clearly not an on/offshore distinctionfrom what you say. If an act of parliament talks about coal mining surely all coal mines would be caught even if you (say) used lasers and concrete replacement pillars to get all the coal.
Sadly not. It was one of the warning signs when fracking was first licenced in the UK. All conventional offshore and onshore hydrocarbon extraction is governed by a specific set of rules covering health, safety and the environment. Whilst these generally match the HSE rules onshore in much of their scope, they are far more strict both in incident reporting and environmental controls. So all rigs in the North sea, as an example, have to run a zero release system for hydrocarbons. This means that no hydrocarbons at all are allowed to escape the rig and this is so strict it includes collecting all the rain water that falls on the rig and transporting it back to shore for processing in case it has been contaminated. The lower reporting limit for hydrocarbon releases under what is known as a PON1 is zero. We have to go through exactly the same measures of reporting and sanction if we lose 10 mil of fluid or 100 cubes.
These rules also apply to conventional onshore hydrocarbon extraction. Prior to starting a well the whole site has to have its topsoil stripped back into bunds and the internal area is covered in an impermeable membrane prior to recovering with hardcore or soil. This is to prevent accidental hydrocarbon releases from the site. It is in effect treated like an enclosed offshore rig.
When the rules were put in place for fracking, the Government should have introduced the same regulatory framework as they do for offshore. They chose not to and instead the sites are covered by standard HSE rules which apply to any workplace in the UK.
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.
Truss is already just about our most toxic and unpopular PM for decades. Even if the King has had to follow her advice and not go to COP it does him no harm to make clear his distance from her already
The Tory parliamentary party are clearly right that Truss needs to be removed ASAP and replaced by acclamation.
But a safety first leader is the wrong replacement. Someone like Sunak can staunch the bleeding, but the Tories have badly lost a lot of voters and a lot won't come back unless they see someone they actively like in there. You need someone seen as credible and serious, yes, but also a big personality. Someone like Mordaunt would be very good.
Mordaunt was the obvious choice from the very beginning, recognising that there’d be an element of gamble involved with anyone new.
Why the Tories were unable to see the obvious remains a mystery,
Mordaunt may have been the better choice for Conservatives then but now they need Rishi Sunak, the man who speaks markets.
That story says: "Michael Gove, the talismanic Tory love-hate figure, crowned himself leader of the internal opposition on TV this morning, and suggested he'd vote against the 45p top rate when it comes to Parliament probably in March."
Read that carefully. Does it mean Gove will vote to scrap the 45p rate, vote against scrapping it, or not vote at all?
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.
The most important role of any Tory is to support the monarchy, being a libertarian and pro fossil fuels does not automatically make you a Tory
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.
Your stance on the fracking ban is wholly illogical. If something can be done safely, then it is for the market to decide whether it is profitable or not, not for the Government to say it's not profitable, but by the way we're imposing a ban. There are existing wells in Lancashire capable of extracting gas. If only they are switched on, and they pump enough gas to power a small town, and they extract it under a special arrangement selling the gas at below the current market rate, that helps in an energy crisis. Any more than that, helps a bit more, etc. I am afraid your stance on this smacks of having taken a view on onshore fracking, and not wanting to expose that view to the potential of being disproven.
It is not illogical at all.
If an oil company wants to develop a field in the North Sea (or onshore if it is a conventional well) then they have to prove they have sufficient funds in the bank to cover all the costs of decommissioning and end of life and also the insurance to cover potential issues during development and operation. This can be several billion pounds worth of ringfenced finance that is reviewed on a yearly basis to ensure they are still able to cover the costs.
This proviso has not been applied to fracking. The companies do not have to have the necessary CoP funds available nor can they generally get the sorts of insurance that they would need to cover the risks to the environment that are inherent in any hydrocarbon exploitation. I am not talking at all about climate stuff here - just the basic issues of pollution, contamination and other failures. All of that will fall on the taxpayer when it turns out the fields are not viable and the company goes into liquidation.
And you are wrong about the viability of the wells already existing. You don't just 'switch it on' for a start. Even with conventional reservoirs you don't do that and this is all the more the case with shale gas plays and fracking. Given the bloke who actually runs the company that developed those wells says fracking is not viable in the UK based on his current experiences, why do you think you know better?
I'm still puzzled about this distinction, ever since you explained it the first time a few weeks back. Surely all extraction of hydrocarbons is caught on the same legislation whether fracking or not? It's clearly not an on/offshore distinctionfrom what you say. If an act of parliament talks about coal mining surely all coal mines would be caught even if you (say) used lasers and concrete replacement pillars to get all the coal.
Sadly not. It was one of the warning signs when fracking was first licenced in the UK. All conventional offshore and onshore hydrocarbon extraction is governed by a specific set of rules covering health, safety and the environment. Whilst these generally match the HSE rules onshore in much of their scope, they are far more strict both in incident reporting and environmental controls. So all rigs in the North sea, as an example, have to run a zero release system for hydrocarbons. This means that no hydrocarbons at all are allowed to escape the rig and this is so strict it includes collecting all the rain water that falls on the rig and transporting it back to shore for processing in case it has been contaminated. The lower reporting limit for hydrocarbon releases under what is known as a PON1 is zero. We have to go through exactly the same measures of reporting and sanction if we lose 10 mil of fluid or 100 cubes.
These rules also apply to conventional onshore hydrocarbon extraction. Prior to starting a well the whole site has to have its topsoil stripped back into bunds and the internal area is covered in an impermeable membrane prior to recovering with hardcore or soil. This is to prevent accidental hydrocarbon releases from the site. It is in effect treated like an enclosed offshore rig.
When the rules were put in place for fracking, the Government should have introduced the same regulatory framework as they do for offshore. They chose not to and instead the sites are covered by standard HSE rules which apply to any workplace in the UK.
Many thanks; that's most interesting. A huge moral hazard, wilfully taken on (from the wrong side). And yet, even with this, fracking is still not economical.
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.
Sizewell currently uses uranium from Russia.
You know, the same Sizewell that had C pushed through by Boris as his last act as PM.
Though EDF has 2 years worth of uranium in stock for Sizewell and is able to source uranium from other parts of the world, so isn't dependant upon Russia. If we had 2 years of gas in stock then we'd be in a very different position now, so apples and oranges.
2 years? Call that security of supply? I can get 2 millenia of seawater. For starters. I don't need to source it outside of our territorial waters. What's more, it delivers itself - twice a day. Impervious to anything Putin wants to happen.
The only way our supply gets buggered is if the Moon goes AWOL. In which case, we have a bigger problem.
The enriched uranium markets on the other hand are much more fun to watch....
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'.
And the Crypto market for years said "stonks go up". I still thought buying into that Pyramid Scheme was a bad idea.
The market economy works better than all alternatives in the long term, just as democracy works better than all alternatives in the long term. The snap judgements of either voters or markets are influenced by human factors and not necessarily correct.
So why do you think "stonks go up" it's bad but when Truss says "growth go up" it's fine and dandy?
Because there's a reason that I believe lower taxes will lead to growth.
I see no reason for underlying value to crypto.
Its a judgement call. I make my own, not just follow what others are saying.
But you don’t think Gove should make his own judgement call instead of just following what others are saying?
George Eaton @georgeeaton · Oct 1 Benefits were frozen for four years, so the standard monthly payment is worth *£52 less* than when the Conservatives entered office.
The main reason the welfare state has grown is an ageing population (as in every western country).
This might seem a little grumbly, but it does seem a little charity-tastic. I just want someone to say "I'm doing it for myself; my own challenge."
(I've raised money for charity on walks on the past, but I've also been criticised for *not* doing on other occasions. which seems a bit sh*t, especially as one of the people who said it is an effing lazy pos who does nothing for others.)
I get you. It feels a bit churlish to say it, but once the elite races are finished it is pretty much bye bye running event, hello Children in Need. But it's not as if you have to sit there and watch it so it's no big deal.
Personally I'd typically prefer to bung a good cause some of my own money than do something to fundraise. I've no moral objection to the latter at all, it's just personally I'd feel like I was pestering other people for cash, which makes me uncomfortable full stop but especially under present circumstances.
You don't even need to give money; time can be just as valuable to charities. I've started volunteering at Junior Park Runs on Sunday mornings. 45 minutes of my time and I get to see lots of smiling kids - and some grumpy ones being pulled along by their parents. ;;)
Twenty years ago, a guy called Tom Isaacs walked around the coastline of Britain. Which was an incredible achievement as he had early-onset Parkinsons Disease, and could often not walk a yard without a cocktail of drugs. He finished in London a couple of days before the London Marathon, and then ran the marathon.
He barely got a mention for what was an incredible feat (and he raised loads of money for a Parkinsons charity). Z-list celebrities got much more air time. Though a year or so later he was on Radio 4 on the Claire Balding walking program.
I wouldn't actually mind getting involved in the local Parkrun, were it not for the unfortunate fact that it's not very local. Done at a National Trust estate, which I'm sure is all very leafy and pretty but also about ten miles away, and therefore useless unless you're either in training for a marathon (and thus prepared to spend several hours running there and back as well,) or, ironically, you've got a car to get there. But such is life.
That story says: "Michael Gove, the talismanic Tory love-hate figure, crowned himself leader of the internal opposition on TV this morning, and suggested he'd vote against the 45p top rate when it comes to Parliament probably in March."
Read that carefully. Does it mean Gove will vote to scrap the 45p rate, vote against scrapping it, or not vote at all?
How can letting the sore fester until March make any sense?
Even if you take the proposal in the terms it was made, the earlier it is decided, the longer it will have to work, in terms of influencing business behaviour.
That story says: "Michael Gove, the talismanic Tory love-hate figure, crowned himself leader of the internal opposition on TV this morning, and suggested he'd vote against the 45p top rate when it comes to Parliament probably in March."
Read that carefully. Does it mean Gove will vote to scrap the 45p rate, vote against scrapping it, or not vote at all?
How can letting the sore fester until March make any sense?
Even if you take the proposal in the terms it was made, the earlier it is decided, the longer it will have to work, in terms of influencing business behaviour.
I suppose the issue is that they cannot vote against something if it is not presented to Parliament.
That story says: "Michael Gove, the talismanic Tory love-hate figure, crowned himself leader of the internal opposition on TV this morning, and suggested he'd vote against the 45p top rate when it comes to Parliament probably in March."
Read that carefully. Does it mean Gove will vote to scrap the 45p rate, vote against scrapping it, or not vote at all?
How can letting the sore fester until March make any sense?
Even if you take the proposal in the terms it was made, the earlier it is decided, the longer it will have to work, in terms of influencing business behaviour.
I suppose the issue is that they cannot vote against something if it is not presented to Parliament.
They are going to have to present the IR35 changes to Parliament sooner rather than later - there is no way of earth things could be implemented in April if confirmation only appeared in March..
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.
Truss is already just about our most toxic and unpopular PM for decades. Even if the King has had to follow her advice and not go to COP it does him no harm to make clear his distance from her already
I never thought I'd see the day. An Epping Tory, and not just any old Epping Tory, but the great HYUFD himself, calling Truss the "most toxic and unpopular PM for decades".
Michael Gove doesn't waste time: "The majority Boris got in 2019 was a One Nation majority.... We’ve got to, I think, stay true to that tradition and recognise that people who lent us their vote in 2019 wanted to see a One Nation, compassionate government.”
Michael Gove: “It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to argue that it is right to reduce welfare when we’re also reducing taxes for the wealthiest.”
That story says: "Michael Gove, the talismanic Tory love-hate figure, crowned himself leader of the internal opposition on TV this morning, and suggested he'd vote against the 45p top rate when it comes to Parliament probably in March."
Read that carefully. Does it mean Gove will vote to scrap the 45p rate, vote against scrapping it, or not vote at all?
How can letting the sore fester until March make any sense?
Even if you take the proposal in the terms it was made, the earlier it is decided, the longer it will have to work, in terms of influencing business behaviour.
If that's the extent of the 'rebellion leader's' rebellion, Truss is definitely safe for 2022. A bet on her to go in 23 is plausible but a 22 to go bet is delusional and the price should have another zero after it.
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.
The most important role of any Tory is to support the monarchy, being a libertarian and pro fossil fuels does not automatically make you a Tory
No. That is AN important role for a Tory. I’d have thought “rule of law” and “property rights” were higher up the hierarchy, though with recent leadership I understand the confusion on the former. If you had to pick two out of three?
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.
The most important role of any Tory is to support the monarchy, being a libertarian and pro fossil fuels does not automatically make you a Tory
No. That is AN important role for a Tory. I’d have thought “rule of law” and “property rights” were higher up the hierarchy, though with recent leadership I understand the confusion on the former. If you had to pick two out of three?
Support for the monarchy and the landed gentry is what the Tory Party emerged to support. The rule of law and property rights emerged from that.
The problem is Truss is not a Tory but a libertarian Liberal or old Whig. She also as Gove correctly states has no interest in the One Nation Tory tradition which wins the Tories elections, including the last one
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.
The most important role of any Tory is to support the monarchy, being a libertarian and pro fossil fuels does not automatically make you a Tory
No. That is AN important role for a Tory. I’d have thought “rule of law” and “property rights” were higher up the hierarchy, though with recent leadership I understand the confusion on the former. If you had to pick two out of three?
Support for the monarchy and the landed gentry is what the Tory Party emerged to support. The rule of law and property rights emerged from that
Where they ended up is more important than how they got there.
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 mentioned it earlier in the thread. They aren’t the only ones who could be in trouble too.
That's a who's who of general suspects from the past 15 years. At some point one of them is going to go belly up but they've all managed to last 15 years longer than many people expected...
If one does, and the chatter has been growing this week will tell.
If something does go awry it is a great look the Tories abolishing the cap on bankers bonuses !
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 mentioned it earlier in the thread. They aren’t the only ones who could be in trouble too.
That's a who's who of general suspects from the past 15 years. At some point one of them is going to go belly up but they've all managed to last 15 years longer than many people expected...
If one does, and the chatter has been growing this week will tell.
If something does go awry it is a great look the Tories abolishing the cap on bankers bonuses !
Last week's tremors in the gilts market are, I fear, just a harbinger of much worse to come. And not just in Britain.
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.
The most important role of any Tory is to support the monarchy, being a libertarian and pro fossil fuels does not automatically make you a Tory
No. That is AN important role for a Tory. I’d have thought “rule of law” and “property rights” were higher up the hierarchy, though with recent leadership I understand the confusion on the former. If you had to pick two out of three?
Support for the monarchy and the landed gentry is what the Tory Party emerged to support. The rule of law and property rights emerged from that.
The problem is Truss is not a Tory but a libertarian Liberal or old Whig. She also as Gove correctly states has no interest in the One Nation Tory tradition which wins the Tories elections, including the last one
Ages ago I posted about the fundamental problem the Tories have is reconciling its HYUFD and its Barty (then under an another moniker IIRC) tendencies. And here we go again.
Tory party basically having a nervous breakdown in front of our eyes. It should have been done in opposition rather than in government and thus much terrible damage will be done to our country before the two years are up.
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.
No, it’s rather that we’d wrongly assumed the field would exclude the completely batshit.
Given the track record of Liz and KK at doing sums, what price they do remove the whip from 40 MPs..
Oh I think it will be more than 40 MPs - if Gove and co are willing to abstain then many others will...
Indeed, but above 40 the number doesn't matter. Is Truss willing to sacrifice her majority for a symbolic gesture.
I think she is just mad enough to try it...
It would be interesting if Liz Truss no longer had the confidence of the House, but say Rishi did.
Quite.
Fuck the Tory party membership. VONC in the Commons and install Sunak as PM without any further leadership contest.
The economic situation is incredibly perilous and we need someone with a semblance of competence in charge until the next election.
Agreed. We need some grown-ips in the room. Is it too much to ask?
Truss's interview with Kuensberg was a car crash. She has no understanding of economics. She was like an A level student who had mugged up on a few paragraphs from the text book and regurgitated them as best she could regardless of what question she was asked.
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.
The most important role of any Tory is to support the monarchy, being a libertarian and pro fossil fuels does not automatically make you a Tory
No. That is AN important role for a Tory. I’d have thought “rule of law” and “property rights” were higher up the hierarchy, though with recent leadership I understand the confusion on the former. If you had to pick two out of three?
Support for the monarchy and the landed gentry is what the Tory Party emerged to support. The rule of law and property rights emerged from that.
The problem is Truss is not a Tory but a libertarian Liberal or old Whig. She also as Gove correctly states has no interest in the One Nation Tory tradition which wins the Tories elections, including the last one
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.
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.
The most important role of any Tory is to support the monarchy, being a libertarian and pro fossil fuels does not automatically make you a Tory
No. That is AN important role for a Tory. I’d have thought “rule of law” and “property rights” were higher up the hierarchy, though with recent leadership I understand the confusion on the former. If you had to pick two out of three?
Support for the monarchy and the landed gentry is what the Tory Party emerged to support. The rule of law and property rights emerged from that.
The problem is Truss is not a Tory but a libertarian Liberal or old Whig. She also as Gove correctly states has no interest in the One Nation Tory tradition which wins the Tories elections, including the last one
The original Tories were Jacobites.
And were successful in supporting Charles IInd in his efforts to ensure his brother was not excluded from the throne. He indeed became James IInd
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.
Your stance on the fracking ban is wholly illogical. If something can be done safely, then it is for the market to decide whether it is profitable or not, not for the Government to say it's not profitable, but by the way we're imposing a ban. There are existing wells in Lancashire capable of extracting gas. If only they are switched on, and they pump enough gas to power a small town, and they extract it under a special arrangement selling the gas at below the current market rate, that helps in an energy crisis. Any more than that, helps a bit more, etc. I am afraid your stance on this smacks of having taken a view on onshore fracking, and not wanting to expose that view to the potential of being disproven.
It is not illogical at all.
If an oil company wants to develop a field in the North Sea (or onshore if it is a conventional well) then they have to prove they have sufficient funds in the bank to cover all the costs of decommissioning and end of life and also the insurance to cover potential issues during development and operation. This can be several billion pounds worth of ringfenced finance that is reviewed on a yearly basis to ensure they are still able to cover the costs.
This proviso has not been applied to fracking. The companies do not have to have the necessary CoP funds available nor can they generally get the sorts of insurance that they would need to cover the risks to the environment that are inherent in any hydrocarbon exploitation. I am not talking at all about climate stuff here - just the basic issues of pollution, contamination and other failures. All of that will fall on the taxpayer when it turns out the fields are not viable and the company goes into liquidation.
And you are wrong about the viability of the wells already existing. You don't just 'switch it on' for a start. Even with conventional reservoirs you don't do that and this is all the more the case with shale gas plays and fracking. Given the bloke who actually runs the company that developed those wells says fracking is not viable in the UK based on his current experiences, why do you think you know better?
This post is disappointing in its basic lack of factual accuracy. Firstly, the recent intervention by the co-founder of Cuadrilla supports the lifting of the ban, he just doesn't see fracking transforming Britain's energy situation, so he agrees with me, not you. Secondly, he no longer works for Cuadrilla and is now working on behalf of oil concerns in South America. Try reading something before citing it.
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.
Also nuclear. The new generation of power station could have been built significantly sooner, and in larger numbers. And could have been paid for far more easily than is now the case.
The real problem was believing it was sensible to rely so much on cheap gas. There was a decent economic case for it, but from a point of view of energy security it was a risk.
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.
The most important role of any Tory is to support the monarchy, being a libertarian and pro fossil fuels does not automatically make you a Tory
No. That is AN important role for a Tory. I’d have thought “rule of law” and “property rights” were higher up the hierarchy, though with recent leadership I understand the confusion on the former. If you had to pick two out of three?
Support for the monarchy and the landed gentry is what the Tory Party emerged to support. The rule of law and property rights emerged from that.
The problem is Truss is not a Tory but a libertarian Liberal or old Whig. She also as Gove correctly states has no interest in the One Nation Tory tradition which wins the Tories elections, including the last one
Ages ago I posted about the fundamental problem the Tories have is reconciling its HYUFD and its Barty (then under an another moniker IIRC) tendencies. And here we go again.
Barry is a libertarian, I am a Tory.
It is as big a gap as that between Corbynites and Blairites in Labour ideologically sometimes
Given the track record of Liz and KK at doing sums, what price they do remove the whip from 40 MPs..
Oh I think it will be more than 40 MPs - if Gove and co are willing to abstain then many others will...
Indeed, but above 40 the number doesn't matter. Is Truss willing to sacrifice her majority for a symbolic gesture.
I think she is just mad enough to try it...
It would be interesting if Liz Truss no longer had the confidence of the House, but say Rishi did.
Quite.
Fuck the Tory party membership. VONC in the Commons and install Sunak as PM without any further leadership contest.
The economic situation is incredibly perilous and we need someone with a semblance of competence in charge until the next election.
Agreed. We need some grown-ips in the room. Is it too much to ask?
Truss's interview with Kuensberg was a car crash. She has no understanding of economics. She was like an A level student who had mugged up on a few paragraphs from the text book and regurgitated them as best she could regardless of what question she was asked.
She's like a doll with 10 strings out the back each with a recorded answer. Sometimes it takes her a while to work out which to pull and even then it can be irrelevant to the question.
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.
The most important role of any Tory is to support the monarchy, being a libertarian and pro fossil fuels does not automatically make you a Tory
No. That is AN important role for a Tory. I’d have thought “rule of law” and “property rights” were higher up the hierarchy, though with recent leadership I understand the confusion on the former. If you had to pick two out of three?
Support for the monarchy and the landed gentry is what the Tory Party emerged to support. The rule of law and property rights emerged from that.
The problem is Truss is not a Tory but a libertarian Liberal or old Whig. She also as Gove correctly states has no interest in the One Nation Tory tradition which wins the Tories elections, including the last one
The rule of law grew out of opposition to monarchy which prefers the rule of monarchs
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.
Sizewell currently uses uranium from Russia.
You know, the same Sizewell that had C pushed through by Boris as his last act as PM.
Comments
But a safety first leader is the wrong replacement. Someone like Sunak can staunch the bleeding, but the Tories have badly lost a lot of voters and a lot won't come back unless they see someone they actively like in there. You need someone seen as credible and serious, yes, but also a big personality. Someone like Mordaunt would be very good.
Excellent post.
You know, the same Sizewell that had C pushed through by Boris as his last act as PM.
Liz Truss has appointed Dominic Johnson, Tory donor & co-founder of Somerset Capital with Rees-Mogg, as trade minister
Announcement quietly dropped on gov.uk
He's being handed a peerage to boot
Confirms @fletcherr scoop
Liz Truss is a Lib Dem sleeper agent
This might seem a little grumbly, but it does seem a little charity-tastic. I just want someone to say "I'm doing it for myself; my own challenge."
(I've raised money for charity on walks on the past, but I've also been criticised for *not* doing on other occasions. which seems a bit sh*t, especially as one of the people who said it is an effing lazy pos who does nothing for others.)
What we have been hopeless at now for decades, stretching well back beyond 2010, is nuclear. Crudely put, it's expensive to construct and operate new nuclear capacity, but not as expensive as ending up in hock to the various despotisms that control much of the world's gas supply, or facing real worries about rolling blackouts.
And it is traditional for the heir to the throne to take a slightly controversial view!
https://news.sky.com/story/rocky-start-to-trusss-first-tory-party-conference-as-pm-gives-off-toxic-impression-of-her-relationship-with-kwarteng-12710114
The market economy works better than all alternatives in the long term, just as democracy works better than all alternatives in the long term. The snap judgements of either voters or markets are influenced by human factors and not necessarily correct.
And she is claiming a mandate for this stuff they don't think she has.
If he votes against the whip on a matter of confidence and supply, he needs to face the same outcome. He fought the leadership campaign against Truss very bitterly, and he lost.
I'd rather run *not* to get Alzheimers...
The electoral legacy of Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-Budget could be as damaging for the Tories as Black Wednesday was in the 1990s.
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/09/conservatives-permanently-destroyed-economic-reputation
https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/1576524353705213952
TrussyGuy1983 is in a deep and deeply strange parasocial relationship with her though.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/02/cordon-bleugh-worms-and-crickets-could-soon-be-tickling-french-palates
Apparently Burgundy. Appelation controlee? I see they are looking for UK partners - maybe something for @MarqueeMark .
Until she has one, she can't complain when MPs rebel against her. Withdrawing the whip doesn't create a majority for her proposals.
If an oil company wants to develop a field in the North Sea (or onshore if it is a conventional well) then they have to prove they have sufficient funds in the bank to cover all the costs of decommissioning and end of life and also the insurance to cover potential issues during development and operation. This can be several billion pounds worth of ringfenced finance that is reviewed on a yearly basis to ensure they are still able to cover the costs.
This proviso has not been applied to fracking. The companies do not have to have the necessary CoP funds available nor can they generally get the sorts of insurance that they would need to cover the risks to the environment that are inherent in any hydrocarbon exploitation. I am not talking at all about climate stuff here - just the basic issues of pollution, contamination and other failures. All of that will fall on the taxpayer when it turns out the fields are not viable and the company goes into liquidation.
And you are wrong about the viability of the wells already existing. You don't just 'switch it on' for a start. Even with conventional reservoirs you don't do that and this is all the more the case with shale gas plays and fracking. Given the bloke who actually runs the company that developed those wells says fracking is not viable in the UK based on his current experiences, why do you think you know better?
And I wouldn't recommend them visiting any outdoor venue over the next few months - because those sort of plans are going to lead to violence and it's going to be aimed at politicians.
https://twitter.com/macleodfinance/status/1576491265218134016?s=21&t=BcIK2DspgtU4UTKBdurAHg
I see no reason for underlying value to crypto.
Its a judgement call. I make my own, not just follow what others are saying.
Johnson binned his own majority to force an election he knew he'd win
Your lass is dumb, and thinks she can copy
Truss bins her own majority and whoops apocalypse gets into an election where she's smashed
Personally I'd typically prefer to bung a good cause some of my own money than do something to fundraise. I've no moral objection to the latter at all, it's just personally I'd feel like I was pestering other people for cash, which makes me uncomfortable full stop but especially under present circumstances.
I think she is just mad enough to try it...
I haven't seen it mentioned. Could be an outbreak of COVID on the Tory benches.
The risk is that unlike when we have had other pockets of poor people rioting and the middle classes tut in disapproval, instead they look at the hell they are facing over mortgages and inflation and cheer the rioters on...
John Curtice writes for State of the Nation:
The electoral legacy of Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-Budget could be as damaging for the Tories as Black Wednesday was in the 1990s.
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/09/conservatives-permanently-destroyed-economic-reputation
30 MPs and Liz can continue, 40 MPs and Liz has a problem, 60 MPs and Liz has a problem that can't be solved....
Clearly Liz and Kwasi are trying to ensure the tax cuts are kept away from the spending cuts so the important thing is to keep those forthcoming cuts in the publics mind....
Why the Tories were unable to see the obvious remains a mystery,
Twenty years ago, a guy called Tom Isaacs walked around the coastline of Britain. Which was an incredible achievement as he had early-onset Parkinsons Disease, and could often not walk a yard without a cocktail of drugs. He finished in London a couple of days before the London Marathon, and then ran the marathon.
He barely got a mention for what was an incredible feat (and he raised loads of money for a Parkinsons charity). Z-list celebrities got much more air time. Though a year or so later he was on Radio 4 on the Claire Balding walking program.
Read that carefully. Does it mean Gove will vote to scrap the 45p rate, vote against scrapping it, or not vote at all?
WTF?
However. It wasn't a Budget of course.
These rules also apply to conventional onshore hydrocarbon extraction. Prior to starting a well the whole site has to have its topsoil stripped back into bunds and the internal area is covered in an impermeable membrane prior to recovering with hardcore or soil. This is to prevent accidental hydrocarbon releases from the site. It is in effect treated like an enclosed offshore rig.
When the rules were put in place for fracking, the Government should have introduced the same regulatory framework as they do for offshore. They chose not to and instead the sites are covered by standard HSE rules which apply to any workplace in the UK.
No demands.
Gove is a battlefield.
In 2022 it's Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng wearing Tory Rosettes that say "F*** You"
Fuck the Tory party membership. VONC in the Commons and install Sunak as PM without any further leadership contest.
The economic situation is incredibly perilous and we need someone with a semblance of competence in charge until the next election.
Reducing the 45% rate is definitely one of those - annoying HMRC by binning IR35 is another one....
The only way our supply gets buggered is if the Moon goes AWOL. In which case, we have a bigger problem.
The enriched uranium markets on the other hand are much more fun to watch....
@georgeeaton
·
Oct 1
Benefits were frozen for four years, so the standard monthly payment is worth *£52 less* than when the Conservatives entered office.
The main reason the welfare state has grown is an ageing population (as in every western country).
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1576126315341950976
How can letting the sore fester until March make any sense?
Even if you take the proposal in the terms it was made, the earlier it is decided, the longer it will have to work, in terms of influencing business behaviour.
Who'd have thought it? Hats off to you, sir.
Michael Gove: “It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to argue that it is right to reduce welfare when we’re also reducing taxes for the wealthiest.”
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1576544140602609664
And there’s more where that came from…
support. The rule of law and property rights emerged from that.
The problem is Truss is not a Tory but a libertarian Liberal or old Whig. She also as Gove correctly states has no interest in the One Nation Tory tradition which wins the Tories elections, including the last one
Q: Why should people in red wall seats back cutting the 45% top rate of tax?
A: Because red wall seats will benefit most from extra growth, Berry says
It’s not where you start it’s where you finish!
If something does go awry it is a great look the Tories abolishing the cap on bankers bonuses !
Last week's tremors in the gilts market are, I fear, just a harbinger of much worse to come. And not just in Britain.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/01/junckers-curse-looms-liz-truss-running-options/
Bleak.
Truss's interview with Kuensberg was a car crash. She has no understanding of economics. She was like an A level student who had mugged up on a few paragraphs from the text book and regurgitated them as best she could regardless of what question she was asked.
The two wells in question have not been desrcibed by anyone concerned as not being viable:
https://dir.md/politics/2022/02/09/end-fracking-cuadrilla-ordered-abandon-last-two-viable-wells/?host=www.telegraph.co.uk
So if you think you know better than the people who were actually pulling gas out until they were banned from so doing, by all means dazzle us.
The new generation of power station could have been built significantly sooner, and in larger numbers. And could have been paid for far more easily than is now the case.
The real problem was believing it was sensible to rely so much on cheap gas.
There was a decent economic case for it, but from a point of view of energy security it was a risk.
It is as big a gap as that between Corbynites and Blairites in Labour ideologically sometimes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves