I don't know if anybody has any bets on the Brazilian election, but I was just up in town looking at the large crowds waiting to vote. The numerous Lula supporters mostly looked happy and optimistic and the few Bolonsaro ones looked pretty dejected.
So if my unscientific, pretty random sampling methodology is anything to go by, it's Lula for the next four years, until he's 80.
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.
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
The Monarchy is best supported in this case by encouraging the Monarch not to use his position to agitate politically for his pet ideologies. If the Monarchy becomes political, it is doomed.
And supporting secure, domestic energy supply, that employs British people and cannot be threatened by overseas potentates is surely the very essence of Toryism - if not, what the hell is?
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.
In the grand scheme of things, Rishi is pretty out-there. Writing pro-Brexit pamphlets before it was cool, being made Chancellor to do Dom's bidding, bringing some crazies into the government's Covid deliberations, backing Boris until the very last minute...
That he, like Gove, is too sane and realistic for this government ought to tell us something.
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.
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.
What is clear is that fracking in the UK operates on a massively biased basis which puts almost all the hazard on the taxpayer and the locals. That's not a libertarian policy at all, unless you think that mass theft is a libertarian policy.
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
No it didn't, the rule of law is still enforced and prosecuted in the name of the Crown
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
That ended well
Especially as we got the first Charles III. Terribly confusing.
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
The Monarchy is best supported in this case by encouraging the Monarch not to use his position to agitate politically for his pet ideologies. If the Monarchy becomes political, it is doomed.
And supporting secure, domestic energy supply, that employs British people and cannot be threatened by overseas potentates is surely the very essence of Toryism - if not, what the hell is?
Supporting fracking etc and more domestic fossil fuels might be the essence of the populist right but not Toryism. It does not have to be incompatible with it but renewables have to be the basis of most of our energy needs longer term
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
No it didn't, the rule of law is still enforced and prosecuted in the name of the Crown
Um yes I know that
Do you think the intent and effect of magna carta and the bill of rights was to enlarge or restrict the power of the crown?
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.
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.
Well, indeed, rising interest rates and the pressure applied by the energy crisis are merely bringing to a head the latest chapter of a struggle that goes back many centuries: that between paying for the state through taxation of productive economy activity (trade, industry, earnings) or through taxation of non-productive assets (property and inheritances.) Once spending demands are so great that heavy taxation is needed to cover them, the Tories' opposing economic tendencies - and voter blocks - are bound to start arguing over who should be made to pay the bills.
The only way to square that particular circle is to do what Liz Truss is going to attempt and simply stop spending so much. However, when the electorate expects you to keep spending on all their special goodies - pensions, working age benefits, good public services and vast support against the external shock of the energy crisis, all at the same time - so that the circumstances are not conducive to a low tax environment, you're really in the shit.
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.
You and whose army ?
The outcome is rather more likely to be Truss getting the boot. She has no divine, or indeed constitutional right to remain as PM - just the ability to command a majority. And if course ‘command’ actually means have the consent of.
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.
There are limits to this analogy. Dominic Grieve and others were taking what they felt to be a stance in the national interest which was nonetheless contrary to the views of Conservative voters, and the Conservative Party. In this case the overwhelming polling evidence is that the rebels have the overwhelming backing of Conservative voters, and possibly also parts of the cabinet who it turns out were not consulted on the budget and have been noticeably absent in defending it. Boris had massive momentum behind him in 2019 as the tories had just suffered a wipeout in the Euro elections, and smart people behind him. It seems like Truss is just a lonely figure flying solo at this, with no heavyweight support.
I don't know if anybody has any bets on the Brazilian election, but I was just up in town looking at the large crowds waiting to vote. The numerous Lula supporters mostly looked happy and optimistic and the few Bolonsaro ones looked pretty dejected.
So if my unscientific, pretty random sampling methodology is anything to go by, it's Lula for the next four years, until he's 80.
Yes, Lula will win. The questions are 1) whether or not it requires a run-off; and 2) more critically, whether Bolsonaro concedes. The indications are he’s going to be following the Trump playbook on this.
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.
He has a record of making wildly histrionic statements about the UK since the referendum. Not a serious commentator.
I had to check who you were talking about in this post as wildly histrionic statements about the UK since the referendum describes a lot of people, including a good half of the Conservative Party.
The intention to abolish the 45% tax rate was never put to Cabinet??
WTF?
They are chancers trying to push this though before anyone knows what’s happening. That’s why the cuts inevitable on the back of them haven’t been even admitted, let along costed by the OBR.
But it’s not just a lack of decent comms that is Truss’ real problem, it’s her lack of a coherent, costed detailed plan for the economy. City traders didn’t pounce in recent days because they were suddenly outraged by the inequality of redistributing more money to the richest. They pounced because Kwarteng announced a huge increase in debt without any serious attempt to say how it would be repaid or when.
Woke up (in old-school sense) flipped on the TV, just in time for the following joke on a re-run of the old classic "Laugh In" from way back in 1968:
"In response to a recent rash of bank robberies, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson stated that he was encouraged by this evidence of renewed confidence in the pound."
The intention to abolish the 45% tax rate was never put to Cabinet??
WTF?
They are chancers trying to push this though before anyone knows what’s happening. That’s why the cuts inevitable on the back of them haven’t been even admitted, let along costed by the OBR.
Delusional dishonesty.
I really cannot understand what they are trying to do. Even if their moves were going to create growth it would not be for a few years.
The only explanation that I can see is that they want to loot the public purse as much as possible before they get booted out.
The intention to abolish the 45% tax rate was never put to Cabinet??
WTF?
I remember when I could no longer give benefit of the doubt and that I had to switch my support away from Brexit, and it was when, more than a year after the referendum, and even well after the triggering of A50, there was repeated reports that the Cabinet as a whole still had not made up its mind what to seek, and in fact many of them had not even been told what was being contemplated.
I was just flabbergasted that for one a leader who needed the support of colleagues would leave them so in the dark and avoid taking any decisions in pursuit of some mythical unity, or that those colleagues would accept being treated with such disrespect that even when in the Cabinet they would not be told things or have their advice sought.
PMs blaming Chancellors for things is old as the hills, and is utter nonsense when the latter serve at the pleasure of the former. I never buy it for a second, even if I can buy that the rest are just told what to do.
But it’s not just a lack of decent comms that is Truss’ real problem, it’s her lack of a coherent, costed detailed plan for the economy. City traders didn’t pounce in recent days because they were suddenly outraged by the inequality of redistributing more money to the richest. They pounced because Kwarteng announced a huge increase in debt without any serious attempt to say how it would be repaid or when.
Woke up (in old-school sense) flipped on the TV, just in time for the following joke on a re-run of the old classic "Laugh In" from way back in 1968:
"In response to a recent rash of bank robberies, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson stated that he was encouraged by this evidence of renewed confidence in the pound."
Talk about déjà vu!
Even last night's Strictly couldnt help joining in. One couple were dressed as bank robbers and Claudia said she hoped they were after dollars not pounds.
But it’s not just a lack of decent comms that is Truss’ real problem, it’s her lack of a coherent, costed detailed plan for the economy. City traders didn’t pounce in recent days because they were suddenly outraged by the inequality of redistributing more money to the richest. They pounced because Kwarteng announced a huge increase in debt without any serious attempt to say how it would be repaid or when.
But it’s not just a lack of decent comms that is Truss’ real problem, it’s her lack of a coherent, costed detailed plan for the economy. City traders didn’t pounce in recent days because they were suddenly outraged by the inequality of redistributing more money to the richest. They pounced because Kwarteng announced a huge increase in debt without any serious attempt to say how it would be repaid or when.
Yes, absolutely. It's the total lack of preparation or argument, beyond platutides, for the proposals that was the disaster.
They seem to have assumed just saying 'Lower taxes' would cause spontaneous orgasms and that'd be the end of it.
And this in turn is the reason the Tories have collapsed in the polls. The red wall swing voters want them to help the working class. But the whole Tory voting electorate expects economic competence.
Co-author of the 2019 Tory manifesto Rachel Wolf says Truss govt “has rejected everything that Boris won the last election on” & rejects comparisons to ‘the lady is not for turning’ saying Thatcher had democratic and parliamentary mandates.
So let’s think about what happens next in the Tory Party psychodrama (FWIW I’m rather fed up of Tory Party psychodrama. Since 2016 it’s been one thing after another).
What I’m pretty sure won’t happen: Liz calms everyone down with her speech and the mini budget makes it through the House. Chance pretty much nil from what I can see. Tory MPs can’t sell this on the doorstep, the narrative has been set and it’s not a good one.
So it now seems the only option is: government U-turns or government loses the vote. Liz isn’t giving herself much room for manoeuvre but I suspect she will be persuaded to drop the plans at the eleventh hour. Because she will have to. However by leaving it this long she will have made herself even more unpopular and any chance of a recovery in her authority will be nil. If she does kamikaze it to a Commons vote, it will be exactly the same result but she will be even more wounded.
It seems, therefore that either way we will have a PM whose authority is completely shot. Stage 2 in this debacle will then revolve around what the Tory Party is minded to do about it. I don’t expect Liz is the type to use a loaded revolver handed to her by the party bigwigs - she will copy the Johnson playbook of trying to cling on. That will force the Tories to either meekly fall in line or do a mass-resignation again, which coming just a few months after the last one will make things even more chaotic. I can’t call that one right now - my gut says Truss is finished and can’t make it to Christmas, but then I think about the difficulty in prising her from office and I start coming round to the view that she may well make it to the new year. I am pretty sure, however, that one way or the other she will not be allowed to fight the next GE. What the Tories need to do now is come up with a plan B - and that means coalescing around a compromise candidate who can be given a coronation. They need to start putting their thinking caps on.
And that space the UK currently occupies rent-free in the Kremlin's head just got bigger....
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
The intention to abolish the 45% tax rate was never put to Cabinet??
WTF?
They are chancers trying to push this though before anyone knows what’s happening. That’s why the cuts inevitable on the back of them haven’t been even admitted, let along costed by the OBR.
Delusional dishonesty.
I really cannot understand what they are trying to do. Even if their moves were going to create growth it would not be for a few years.
The only explanation that I can see is that they want to loot the public purse as much as possible before they get booted out.
Characterising putting the top rate of tax back to where it was under Blair as "looting the public purse" is just absurd. I get that it's terrible timing politically to do it now but some people have lost their minds even more than they had when Johnson was PM.
But it’s not just a lack of decent comms that is Truss’ real problem, it’s her lack of a coherent, costed detailed plan for the economy. City traders didn’t pounce in recent days because they were suddenly outraged by the inequality of redistributing more money to the richest. They pounced because Kwarteng announced a huge increase in debt without any serious attempt to say how it would be repaid or when.
And that space the UK currently occupies rent-free in the Kremlin's head just got bigger....
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
So what is your alternative? What would yo do differently now? What would you have done differently back in February?
And that space the UK currently occupies rent-free in the Kremlin's head just got bigger....
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
So what is your alternative? What would yo do differently now? What would you have done differently back in February?
played much more of a back seat and certianly what shoudl be happening now (maybe it is ) is a reduction in military support - Russia has to save face in this otherwise the western world can easily come to an end
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
If Tory MPs do decide to get rid of Dizzy, Krazi and the rest of the loons, then I can only see one person capable of being a unity candidate - not a wet, not a Libertarian, but a mainstream authoritarian Tory with experience at the top of government.
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
Fighting fascism is always a good thing.
inane comment that was applicable 80 years ago before nukes - you have to be more realpolitik today of course
The intention to abolish the 45% tax rate was never put to Cabinet??
WTF?
They are chancers trying to push this though before anyone knows what’s happening. That’s why the cuts inevitable on the back of them haven’t been even admitted, let along costed by the OBR.
Delusional dishonesty.
I really cannot understand what they are trying to do. Even if their moves were going to create growth it would not be for a few years.
The only explanation that I can see is that they want to loot the public purse as much as possible before they get booted out.
Characterising putting the top rate of tax back to where it was under Blair as "looting the public purse" is just absurd. I get that it's terrible timing politically to do it now but some people have lost their minds even more than they had when Johnson was PM.
I was thinking more about the City speculation, deregulation of planning and environmental destruction. The public purse is not just money, but also assets that are to be distributed.
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
Fighting fascism is always a good thing.
inane comment that was applicable 80 years ago before nukes - you have to be more realpolitik today of course
The realpolitik is that if you aren't prepared to defend democracy against authoritarianism then you will lose democracy.
Not much chance of the state leaving you alone when it's a dictatorship.
But it’s not just a lack of decent comms that is Truss’ real problem, it’s her lack of a coherent, costed detailed plan for the economy. City traders didn’t pounce in recent days because they were suddenly outraged by the inequality of redistributing more money to the richest. They pounced because Kwarteng announced a huge increase in debt without any serious attempt to say how it would be repaid or when.
And that space the UK currently occupies rent-free in the Kremlin's head just got bigger....
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
So what is your alternative? What would yo do differently now? What would you have done differently back in February?
played much more of a back seat and certianly what shoudl be happening now (maybe it is ) is a reduction in military support - Russia has to save face in this otherwise the western world can easily come to an end
"Save face"?
Russia wants to take over all of Eastern Europe. Putin has shown himself willing to repeatedly use chemical or nucleotide weapons against us directly in our country.
The more we give Putin, the greater the threat to the world. This has been the message he has been spending over the last ten of fifteen years. He does a gross act, and we barely react. He then goes further, and we don't react again.
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
Fighting fascism is always a good thing.
inane comment that was applicable 80 years ago before nukes - you have to be more realpolitik today of course
The realpolitik is that if you aren't prepared to defend democracy against authoritarianism then you will lose democracy.
Not much chance of the state leaving you alone when it's a dictatorship.
Russia was not a threat to the Uk before this - it is now- its hard to tell on here but in the real Uk not many give a toss about Ukraine at all save to worry about the Uk becoming a target. There are a lot of military and war obsessives on here (witness the glee of retweeting twitter when a tank or helicoptor was blown up ) , in reality people care much more about their own families and indeed thousands of years of british civilisation and culture to want to risk it in inane visions of fighting dictators etc
Stunned reactions keep coming in with respect to Ukraine reclaiming Lyman. Andrey Gurulyov, former deputy commander of Russia's southern military district, said he couldn't explain the defeat. He blamed in on a system of lies, "top to bottom" and was suddenly disconnected. https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1576410989104627712
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
Fighting fascism is always a good thing.
inane comment that was applicable 80 years ago before nukes - you have to be more realpolitik today of course
The realpolitik is that if you aren't prepared to defend democracy against authoritarianism then you will lose democracy.
Not much chance of the state leaving you alone when it's a dictatorship.
Decent thread thinking about that one. Putin announces the illegal annexation of more of Ukrainian territory today, and states: “"We will defend our lands with all the means at our disposal.” Presumably a reference to nuclear weapons. How should this affect thinking about the war? 🧵1/10 https://twitter.com/bdtaylor_SU/status/1575860158240260102
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
Fighting fascism is always a good thing.
inane comment that was applicable 80 years ago before nukes - you have to be more realpolitik today of course
The realpolitik is that if you aren't prepared to defend democracy against authoritarianism then you will lose democracy.
Not much chance of the state leaving you alone when it's a dictatorship.
Russia was not a threat to the Uk before this - it is now- its hard to tell on here but in the real Uk not many give a toss about Ukraine at all save to worry about the Uk becoming a target. There are a lot of military and war obsessives on here (witness the glee of retweeting twitter when a tank or helicoptor was blown up ) , in reality people care much more about their own families and indeed thousands of years of british civilisation and culture to want to risk it in inane visions of fighting dictators etc
"Russia was not a threat to the Uk before this "
Ahem. Two names: Litvinenko. Salisbury.
He was definitely a threat to us. Worse, he had acted against us. We were exceptionally lucky with the Litvinenko incident that many more people did not get ill. And as we know, Salisbury was an incredible messy assassination attempt.
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
Fighting fascism is always a good thing.
inane comment that was applicable 80 years ago before nukes - you have to be more realpolitik today of course
The realpolitik is that if you aren't prepared to defend democracy against authoritarianism then you will lose democracy.
Not much chance of the state leaving you alone when it's a dictatorship.
Russia was not a threat to the Uk before this - it is now- its hard to tell on here but in the real Uk not many give a toss about Ukraine at all save to worry about the Uk becoming a target. There are a lot of military and war obsessives on here (witness the glee of retweeting twitter when a tank or helicoptor was blown up ) , in reality people care much more about their own families and indeed thousands of years of british civilisation and culture to want to risk it in inane visions of fighting dictators etc
"Russia was not a threat to the Uk before this "
Ahem. Two names: Litvinenko. Salisbury.
He was definitely a threat to us. Worse, he had acted against us. We were exceptionally lucky with the Litvinenko incident that many more people did not get ill. And as we know, Salisbury was an incredible messy assassination attempt.
Arguing that a country which has invaded a peaceful democratic neighbour in a war of conquest, and uses nuclear threats to attempt to compel our acquiescence, isn’t a threat to us is …. original.
And that space the UK currently occupies rent-free in the Kremlin's head just got bigger....
which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight
As long as no British troops or jets are involved and along with NATO we just send weapons it is manageable
It is perplexing to hear Truss suggest that optics don’t really matter when she’s spent years dragging a photographer around with her and focusing on her instagram account rather than her red box https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1576575896190078977
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.
Comments
So if my unscientific, pretty random sampling methodology is anything to go by, it's Lula for the next four years, until he's 80.
And supporting secure, domestic energy supply, that employs British people and cannot be threatened by overseas potentates is surely the very essence of Toryism - if not, what the hell is?
“It’s a cult. And will have to be gotten out somehow.”
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1576550638283997186
That he, like Gove, is too sane and realistic for this government ought to tell us something.
Do you think the intent and effect of magna carta and the bill of rights was to enlarge or restrict the power of the crown?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/21/fracking-wont-work-uk-founder-chris-cornelius-cuadrilla
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/21/liz-truss-fracking-britain-economic-political-low-carbon-cuadrilla
The only way to square that particular circle is to do what Liz Truss is going to attempt and simply stop spending so much. However, when the electorate expects you to keep spending on all their special goodies - pensions, working age benefits, good public services and vast support against the external shock of the energy crisis, all at the same time - so that the circumstances are not conducive to a low tax environment, you're really in the shit.
The outcome is rather more likely to be Truss getting the boot. She has no divine, or indeed constitutional right to remain as PM - just the ability to command a majority.
And if course ‘command’ actually means have the consent of.
Thanks
Bastards
https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/on-the-use-of-the-word-gotten/
Anyway, I’m off. My therapist has set me some exercises to do.
One day I will go to prison for murdering someone who says it in front of me.
https://jeremybutterfield.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/at-this-moment-in-time/
It is a magnificent piece of TV, a sublime work of art; and I am thankful to PB for turning me on to it
I am also pretty sure several of the images from it will be with me til my dying day
I have also enthused about it to friends and family. Last night my niece watched it with her husband and now they are equally OMFG
Delusional dishonesty.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/not-liz-truss-bad-communications-spooked-market-tory-mps-lack-coherent-plan-1889507
"In response to a recent rash of bank robberies, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson stated that he was encouraged by this evidence of renewed confidence in the pound."
Talk about déjà vu!
Which I remember from the original broadcast.
The only explanation that I can see is that they want to loot the public purse as much as possible before they get booted out.
Here is one:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/series/networker
I was just flabbergasted that for one a leader who needed the support of colleagues would leave them so in the dark and avoid taking any decisions in pursuit of some mythical unity, or that those colleagues would accept being treated with such disrespect that even when in the Cabinet they would not be told things or have their advice sought.
PMs blaming Chancellors for things is old as the hills, and is utter nonsense when the latter serve at the pleasure of the former. I never buy it for a second, even if I can buy that the rest are just told what to do.
They seem to have assumed just saying 'Lower taxes' would cause spontaneous orgasms and that'd be the end of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDCe1dmXu0
Burning ET
The woman crying as she decorates the flat
The pathetic arguments in the bunker as you actually hear another bomb drop
The woman with the dead baby
The hospital without any electricity or medicine
The dust
The endless fucking howling wind
The shoes of the dead granny
The rotten sheep they eat
The birth scene where she bites the umbilical cord
The daughter's mute language
The daughter's rape
Skulls and skeletons, skeletons and skulls. WORDS AND PICTURES
The final shot
I could name a dozen more. What a piece of TV. It's equal has not been made
Via @robpowellnews
What I’m pretty sure won’t happen: Liz calms everyone down with her speech and the mini budget makes it through the House. Chance pretty much nil from what I can see. Tory MPs can’t sell this on the doorstep, the narrative has been set and it’s not a good one.
So it now seems the only option is: government U-turns or government loses the vote. Liz isn’t giving herself much room for manoeuvre but I suspect she will be persuaded to drop the plans at the eleventh hour. Because she will have to. However by leaving it this long she will have made herself even more unpopular and any chance of a recovery in her authority will be nil. If she does kamikaze it to a Commons vote, it will be exactly the same result but she will be even more wounded.
It seems, therefore that either way we will have a PM whose authority is completely shot. Stage 2 in this debacle will then revolve around what the Tory Party is minded to do about it. I don’t expect Liz is the type to use a loaded revolver handed to her by the party bigwigs - she will copy the Johnson playbook of trying to cling on. That will force the Tories to either meekly fall in line or do a mass-resignation again, which coming just a few months after the last one will make things even more chaotic. I can’t call that one right now - my gut says Truss is finished and can’t make it to Christmas, but then I think about the difficulty in prising her from office and I start coming round to the view that she may well make it to the new year. I am pretty sure, however, that one way or the other she will not be allowed to fight the next GE. What the Tories need to do now is come up with a plan B - and that means coalescing around a compromise candidate who can be given a coronation. They need to start putting their thinking caps on.
And that space the UK currently occupies rent-free in the Kremlin's head just got bigger....
American flags should be everywhere.
#Priti4Leader
Not much chance of the state leaving you alone when it's a dictatorship.
Russia wants to take over all of Eastern Europe. Putin has shown himself willing to repeatedly use chemical or nucleotide weapons against us directly in our country.
The more we give Putin, the greater the threat to the world. This has been the message he has been spending over the last ten of fifteen years. He does a gross act, and we barely react. He then goes further, and we don't react again.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1576410989104627712
Putin announces the illegal annexation of more of Ukrainian territory today, and states: “"We will defend our lands with all the means at our disposal.” Presumably a reference to nuclear weapons. How should this affect thinking about the war? 🧵1/10
https://twitter.com/bdtaylor_SU/status/1575860158240260102
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63106024
Ahem. Two names:
Litvinenko.
Salisbury.
He was definitely a threat to us. Worse, he had acted against us. We were exceptionally lucky with the Litvinenko incident that many more people did not get ill. And as we know, Salisbury was an incredible messy assassination attempt.
https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1576575896190078977