Never mind style guides for old-style text formatting, what about one for displaying videos, which were filmed in portrait mode, on Twitter? Why the hell do people display these with ugly blurry bands either side, and not only ugly and blurry, but also spectacularly distracting from the central band of the actual content because they aren't static? They make the videos unwatchable. Presumably some eight-year old thought this was a cool idea, but that's no reason for anyone else to use this mode.
Wouldn't mind knowing, myself. Maybe it's a bandwidth thing - only get good image on the middle bit.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
This is a genuinely stupid argument and you should be ashamed. What you are saying, quite blatantly, is that because we have good and useful government regulation we should also accept all the bad, stupid and unnecessary regulation as well.
There is a world of difference between stopping someone poisoning us and forcing us down a particular route that happens to suit the current health fad. Maybe you missed the fact that for decades Governments were complicit in pushing the line that the primary cause of obesity and ill health was fat when much of the evidence now is that it was refined and processed carbs.
If the Government decided that alcohol was bad for us and so should be banned would you support that? Or would you consider it an infringement of your rights and a Nanny state. Because that is the natural progression of your argument. And if you forget it was tried once before and failed very badly.
Obviously there are good and useful government regulations and there are bad, stupid and unnecessary government regulations. We want more of the former and fewer of the latter. This shouldn't need saying. 90% of people get that. However, there are a few hardcore libertarians, with well-thumbed copies of "Atlas Shrugged", who see all or any, or at least the vast majority, of government regulations to be in the bad category. In the past, such odd views were confined to Internet message boards, but unfortunately they now seem to have captured much of the Conservative Party, as they previously captured the Republican Party in the US.
These libertarians rant and rail against many things. It seems helpful to remind them, on occasion, that actually many forms of government regulation are enormously successful. The modern state is not like it is as part of a conspiracy to restrict their rights: the modern state is like it is because it has evolved successful approaches over centuries.
And yet I don't see a single example of that sort of American extremism on here. It certainly exists in some dark corners of British politics - I mentioned the extremist Propertarian movement on here the other day - but no one here on PB has advocated that sort of blanket approach. Advocating small government is not the same as advocating no government. So your original posting was, at best, misleading and was, in fact, designed to undermine any reasonable discussion about the proper limits of Government power and the Nanny State.
I certainly do not wish to undermine reasonable discussion, nor suggest that those who support smaller government necessarily support more hardline libertarian positions. It appears we disagree on whether we've seen these more extreme positions put forth on vf.PB.com. For example, I note that Bart has explicitly said we should let old people die in the streets to reduce government spending. If that's not extreme, I don't know what is.
Bullshit.
I said we need to recognise there are limits to what we can do. We can't keep everyone alive forever, death is inevitable for everyone.
I want us to help old people as much as we can and as smartly as we can with the resources available for the NHS and without stripping others of basic liberties like leaving your home.
You've said that if there's no money left in the NHS budget, we should cut off treatment and let people die. And that this would save money.
Are you familiar with NICE?
The NHS has never had a limitless budget.
I have often worked with NICE. NICE's approach is quite different from what you have often proposed. If you're rolling back on past statements and just think we should tweak the cost per QALY thresholds used by NICE, I'm glad to hear that.
No, my prior statements were entirely consistent with QALY considerations.
Last time we discussed this I specifically said that I think lockdown restrictions for instance, putting in an appropriately high "cost" for lost education, liberties etc would mean that lockdown was not appropriate on a QALY basis.
And yes I said the NHS should have a budget and do the best it can with that budget. If there's not enough money then QALY thresholds should be tweaked until we are back in equilibrium.
OTOH if the NHS has more money than it presently needs it can tweak thresholds the other way so that treatments that weren't previously viable now would be.
In 1992, the polls had been drifting blue-to-red all summer, and that drift continued at roughly the same speed. Even at Christmas '92, the score was roughly C33 L48.
The Conservatives could lose all of their London seats at the next general election, a new poll has suggested.
Labour are on 59 per cent in the capital, according to a Survation MRP poll for the 38 Degrees campaigning group, while the Tories poll 22 per cent and the Liberal Democrats 13 per cent.
Translated to a general election, Survation's analysis would mean the Conservatives would lose all 21 of the constituencies in the capital that have been blue since the 2019 election.
Gaps between parties tend to close in the run up to general elections, but this polling spells out the scale of the challenge facing Liz Truss after her first few weeks.
What would put off that 20% that agent Truss hasn't already tried 🤔
The only groups the Conservatives still lead on are 2016 Leavers (C40 L39) and aged 65+ (C38 L37), so something like Free Bus Passes for visitors from Europe.
If it is a coin toss in those groups between Con and Lab then the Tories are toast. Black smoking ash of toast.
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
This is a genuinely stupid argument and you should be ashamed. What you are saying, quite blatantly, is that because we have good and useful government regulation we should also accept all the bad, stupid and unnecessary regulation as well.
There is a world of difference between stopping someone poisoning us and forcing us down a particular route that happens to suit the current health fad. Maybe you missed the fact that for decades Governments were complicit in pushing the line that the primary cause of obesity and ill health was fat when much of the evidence now is that it was refined and processed carbs.
If the Government decided that alcohol was bad for us and so should be banned would you support that? Or would you consider it an infringement of your rights and a Nanny state. Because that is the natural progression of your argument. And if you forget it was tried once before and failed very badly.
Obviously there are good and useful government regulations and there are bad, stupid and unnecessary government regulations. We want more of the former and fewer of the latter. This shouldn't need saying. 90% of people get that. However, there are a few hardcore libertarians, with well-thumbed copies of "Atlas Shrugged", who see all or any, or at least the vast majority, of government regulations to be in the bad category. In the past, such odd views were confined to Internet message boards, but unfortunately they now seem to have captured much of the Conservative Party, as they previously captured the Republican Party in the US.
These libertarians rant and rail against many things. It seems helpful to remind them, on occasion, that actually many forms of government regulation are enormously successful. The modern state is not like it is as part of a conspiracy to restrict their rights: the modern state is like it is because it has evolved successful approaches over centuries.
And yet I don't see a single example of that sort of American extremism on here. It certainly exists in some dark corners of British politics - I mentioned the extremist Propertarian movement on here the other day - but no one here on PB has advocated that sort of blanket approach. Advocating small government is not the same as advocating no government. So your original posting was, at best, misleading and was, in fact, designed to undermine any reasonable discussion about the proper limits of Government power and the Nanny State.
Barty - build houses wherever you want.
LuckyGuy - frack away.
Neither position advocates no government rules. They are simply specific policies that they happen to have views on. You could have an extremely centralised and rule bound government that allowed fracking and that let people build where they like whilst still have lots of controls on how they build.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
This is a genuinely stupid argument and you should be ashamed. What you are saying, quite blatantly, is that because we have good and useful government regulation we should also accept all the bad, stupid and unnecessary regulation as well.
There is a world of difference between stopping someone poisoning us and forcing us down a particular route that happens to suit the current health fad. Maybe you missed the fact that for decades Governments were complicit in pushing the line that the primary cause of obesity and ill health was fat when much of the evidence now is that it was refined and processed carbs.
If the Government decided that alcohol was bad for us and so should be banned would you support that? Or would you consider it an infringement of your rights and a Nanny state. Because that is the natural progression of your argument. And if you forget it was tried once before and failed very badly.
Obviously there are good and useful government regulations and there are bad, stupid and unnecessary government regulations. We want more of the former and fewer of the latter. This shouldn't need saying. 90% of people get that. However, there are a few hardcore libertarians, with well-thumbed copies of "Atlas Shrugged", who see all or any, or at least the vast majority, of government regulations to be in the bad category. In the past, such odd views were confined to Internet message boards, but unfortunately they now seem to have captured much of the Conservative Party, as they previously captured the Republican Party in the US.
These libertarians rant and rail against many things. It seems helpful to remind them, on occasion, that actually many forms of government regulation are enormously successful. The modern state is not like it is as part of a conspiracy to restrict their rights: the modern state is like it is because it has evolved successful approaches over centuries.
And yet I don't see a single example of that sort of American extremism on here. It certainly exists in some dark corners of British politics - I mentioned the extremist Propertarian movement on here the other day - but no one here on PB has advocated that sort of blanket approach. Advocating small government is not the same as advocating no government. So your original posting was, at best, misleading and was, in fact, designed to undermine any reasonable discussion about the proper limits of Government power and the Nanny State.
I certainly do not wish to undermine reasonable discussion, nor suggest that those who support smaller government necessarily support more hardline libertarian positions. It appears we disagree on whether we've seen these more extreme positions put forth on vf.PB.com. For example, I note that Bart has explicitly said we should let old people die in the streets to reduce government spending. If that's not extreme, I don't know what is.
What would put off that 20% that agent Truss hasn't already tried 🤔
The only groups the Conservatives still lead on are 2016 Leavers (C40 L39) and aged 65+ (C38 L37), so something like Free Bus Passes for visitors from Europe.
If it is a coin toss in those groups between Con and Lab then the Tories are toast. Black smoking ash of toast.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
This is a genuinely stupid argument and you should be ashamed. What you are saying, quite blatantly, is that because we have good and useful government regulation we should also accept all the bad, stupid and unnecessary regulation as well.
There is a world of difference between stopping someone poisoning us and forcing us down a particular route that happens to suit the current health fad. Maybe you missed the fact that for decades Governments were complicit in pushing the line that the primary cause of obesity and ill health was fat when much of the evidence now is that it was refined and processed carbs.
If the Government decided that alcohol was bad for us and so should be banned would you support that? Or would you consider it an infringement of your rights and a Nanny state. Because that is the natural progression of your argument. And if you forget it was tried once before and failed very badly.
Obviously there are good and useful government regulations and there are bad, stupid and unnecessary government regulations. We want more of the former and fewer of the latter. This shouldn't need saying. 90% of people get that. However, there are a few hardcore libertarians, with well-thumbed copies of "Atlas Shrugged", who see all or any, or at least the vast majority, of government regulations to be in the bad category. In the past, such odd views were confined to Internet message boards, but unfortunately they now seem to have captured much of the Conservative Party, as they previously captured the Republican Party in the US.
These libertarians rant and rail against many things. It seems helpful to remind them, on occasion, that actually many forms of government regulation are enormously successful. The modern state is not like it is as part of a conspiracy to restrict their rights: the modern state is like it is because it has evolved successful approaches over centuries.
And yet I don't see a single example of that sort of American extremism on here. It certainly exists in some dark corners of British politics - I mentioned the extremist Propertarian movement on here the other day - but no one here on PB has advocated that sort of blanket approach. Advocating small government is not the same as advocating no government. So your original posting was, at best, misleading and was, in fact, designed to undermine any reasonable discussion about the proper limits of Government power and the Nanny State.
I certainly do not wish to undermine reasonable discussion, nor suggest that those who support smaller government necessarily support more hardline libertarian positions. It appears we disagree on whether we've seen these more extreme positions put forth on vf.PB.com. For example, I note that Bart has explicitly said we should let old people die in the streets to reduce government spending. If that's not extreme, I don't know what is.
Bullshit.
I said we need to recognise there are limits to what we can do. We can't keep everyone alive forever, death is inevitable for everyone.
I want us to help old people as much as we can and as smartly as we can with the resources available for the NHS and without stripping others of basic liberties like leaving your home.
I don't see how you and Liz Truss promoting 2 for 1 deals on gutbusting processed food is helping old people as much as we can and as smartly as we can with the resources available for the NHS and without stripping others of basic liberties like leaving your home.
The Conservatives could lose all of their London seats at the next general election, a new poll has suggested.
Labour are on 59 per cent in the capital, according to a Survation MRP poll for the 38 Degrees campaigning group, while the Tories poll 22 per cent and the Liberal Democrats 13 per cent.
Translated to a general election, Survation's analysis would mean the Conservatives would lose all 21 of the constituencies in the capital that have been blue since the 2019 election.
Gaps between parties tend to close in the run up to general elections, but this polling spells out the scale of the challenge facing Liz Truss after her first few weeks.
37 POINTS
We all know she is not up to the scale of that challenge.
She must know she is a duffer. If she doesn't, all the more reason to move her on.
What would put off that 20% that agent Truss hasn't already tried 🤔
Perhaps 8% agree with her. Another 8% are too afraid of Labour and always will be. So I think the floor is going to be about 16% (unless another right wing challenger party intervenes), and expect her to reach that before the end of the year.
Bit of an issue though when the "trans woman" turns out to actually be an abusive man though.
It's a shame we can't have sensible discussions in this issue and it has to be all or nothing.
And your first line was supposed to be an effort at a 'sensible discussion', was it?
The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule. Every crime is a tragedy and should be investigated, but the number is tiny. In comparison, the amount of abuse against women by non-trans men is shocking. In fact, the general level of violence in our society is shocking, in whatever direction it is directed.
That's the effing issue. That's what you should be screaming against. But it's easier to look and point at the marginalised people instead and make *them* out to be the problem, because they are 'different'. And then to make *all* of 'them' be the problem because they are 'different'. And then we can sleep safely at night, knowing the screams and bangs we hear through the wall from our neighbour cannot possible be him beating her, because he isn't trans.
What would put off that 20% that agent Truss hasn't already tried 🤔
Perhaps 8% agree with her. Another 8% are too afraid of Labour and always will be. So I think the floor is going to be about 16% (unless another right wing challenger party intervenes), and expect her to reach that before the end of the year.
This kind of work, done by a trusted international broadcaster like the BBC, is immensely valuable.
Since #MahsaAmini protests in Iran began, we across multiple BBC departments have been verifying videos on a daily basis, keeping a national heatmap, monitoring online hashtags and the impact of the internet shutdown. Here's what we've found https://twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1578000889226448896
We should not be cutting funding for overseas reporting.
The soft power of such things is amazing.
I might have given this anecdote before, but when she was young Mrs J came over to live in London for a couple of years, and had to learn English quickly to fit in at primary school. When she went back home (via Tehran...) she used the British Council Library and read everything they had. This set her up well for her schooling at an English-language university in Ankara. (*)
She loved the British Council Library, and it played a pivotal role in her life. We get rid of such things at our cost.
(*) I do find it odd that a major university in a foreign country teaches in a foreign (for them) language...
I understand that one or two in the Netherlands do and I believe that much higher education in Thailand is conducted in English. Certainly when I've talked to groups of people doing higher degrees there, their English has been fine. And every Thai doctor I've talked to has used good English, although admittedly they've all been in Bangkok.
Same in India, Singapore and UAE. The only university courses here not in English, are Islamic Studies.
What would put off that 20% that agent Truss hasn't already tried 🤔
Perhaps 8% agree with her. Another 8% are too afraid of Labour and always will be. So I think the floor is going to be about 16% (unless another right wing challenger party intervenes), and expect her to reach that before the end of the year.
Don't Reform qualify for the RWCP?
Doubt it. Aren't they on similar ground to Truss anyway?
That's worse than Black Wednesday. Conservatives never dropped to 20% in the 92-97 Parliament (I think they lowest they went to was around 23% in 1995)
I remember the voter strike in 2019, when the Conservative-inclined voters wanted rid of May. The Conservatives got just 23.9% at the Euro elections.
What would put off that 20% that agent Truss hasn't already tried 🤔
Perhaps 8% agree with her. Another 8% are too afraid of Labour and always will be. So I think the floor is going to be about 16% (unless another right wing challenger party intervenes), and expect her to reach that before the end of the year.
Don't Reform qualify for the RWCP?
Doubt it. Aren't they on similar ground to Truss anyway?
Fair enough, thanks. Something more like the Rory the ex-Tory Party, then.
Bit of an issue though when the "trans woman" turns out to actually be an abusive man though.
It's a shame we can't have sensible discussions in this issue and it has to be all or nothing.
And your first line was supposed to be an effort at a 'sensible discussion', was it?
The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule. Every crime is a tragedy and should be investigated, but the number is tiny. In comparison, the amount of abuse against women by non-trans men is shocking. In fact, the general level of violence in our society is shocking, in whatever direction it is directed.
That's the effing issue. That's what you should be screaming against. But it's easier to look and point at the marginalised people instead and make *them* out to be the problem, because they are 'different'. And then to make *all* of 'them' be the problem because they are 'different'. And then we can sleep safely at night, knowing the screams and bangs we hear through the wall from our neighbour cannot possible be him beating her, because he isn't trans.
Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule".
And violating that safeguarding that was done for women by allowing men into those spaces, whether those men by genuinely trans women or falsely "trans women" who want to abuse women, violates their safety.
We need to provide appropriate safeguarding for trans women, but not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and violating female-only safe spaces.
Going to ask again: how do you get rid of Liz Truss?
First the 1922 need to change the rules, in particular stopping a membership vote.
I suspect that the damage is done, but a further leadership contest would be a farce. The MPs need to only nominate and support candidates who are not completely bonkers, but that is fishing in a very small pond
Well I think we have to start coming to the conclusion that “electing Liz Truss as Tory leader” counts as one of the all time greatest political errors.
What would put off that 20% that agent Truss hasn't already tried 🤔
Perhaps 8% agree with her. Another 8% are too afraid of Labour and always will be. So I think the floor is going to be about 16% (unless another right wing challenger party intervenes), and expect her to reach that before the end of the year.
Don't Reform qualify for the RWCP?
Doubt it. Aren't they on similar ground to Truss anyway?
Fair enough, thanks. Something more like the Rory the ex-Tory Party, then.
That or a Faragist/Boris socially conservative, authoritarian, but economically more centrist party are where the gaps are for people on the right who don't like the direction under Truss.
Going to ask again: how do you get rid of Liz Truss?
First the 1922 need to change the rules, in particular stopping a membership vote.
I suspect that the damage is done, but a further leadership contest would be a farce. The MPs need to only nominate and support candidates who are not completely bonkers, but that is fishing in a very small pond
Truss is not completely bonkers.
She may not be popular, she might lose the election, but she's not completely bonkers.
That's worse than Black Wednesday. Conservatives never dropped to 20% in the 92-97 Parliament (I think they lowest they went to was around 23% in 1995)
I remember the voter strike in 2019, when the Conservative-inclined voters wanted rid of May. The Conservatives got just 23.9% at the Euro elections.
7 months later, 43.6% with a new leader.
Heady times and certainly worth remembering. I think what we saw there was a large chunk of the electorate wanting Brexit done and expressing that view by voting one way in the Euro elections (which the electorate rarely treated as being like a normal election) and then another way at the general election with a new Tory leader.
It is not clear that we have a similar phenomenon now. There isn’t a single overriding policy that a new leader could jump on. This is more about a loss of trus(s)t in the Conservatives. Yes, a new Tory leader could drop some of the individual policies that are unpopular and stress the importance of fiscal competence, which would help, but the brand feels too tainted now.
“I think she’s comfortably the least impressive person to have become Prime Minister in my lifetime, since the advent of universal suffrage and perhaps even since the creation of the office”. https://twitter.com/dcsandbrook/status/1578272524336611328
Bit of an issue though when the "trans woman" turns out to actually be an abusive man though.
It's a shame we can't have sensible discussions in this issue and it has to be all or nothing.
And your first line was supposed to be an effort at a 'sensible discussion', was it?
The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule. Every crime is a tragedy and should be investigated, but the number is tiny. In comparison, the amount of abuse against women by non-trans men is shocking. In fact, the general level of violence in our society is shocking, in whatever direction it is directed.
That's the effing issue. That's what you should be screaming against. But it's easier to look and point at the marginalised people instead and make *them* out to be the problem, because they are 'different'. And then to make *all* of 'them' be the problem because they are 'different'. And then we can sleep safely at night, knowing the screams and bangs we hear through the wall from our neighbour cannot possible be him beating her, because he isn't trans.
Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule".
And violating that safeguarding that was done for women by allowing men into those spaces, whether those men by genuinely trans women or falsely "trans women" who want to abuse women, violates their safety.
We need to provide appropriate safeguarding for trans women, but not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and violating female-only safe spaces.
"Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule"."
I did not say violence against women is minuscule; quite the opposite.
Well I think we have to start coming to the conclusion that “electing Liz Truss as Tory leader” counts as one of the all time greatest political errors.
If things turn out as most people expect, the condensed history of this period will look crazy in the future: "Boris Johnson wins biggest Conservative majority for 30 years but then the party threw him out because of a party, and then the party got wiped out under the new leader."
That's worse than Black Wednesday. Conservatives never dropped to 20% in the 92-97 Parliament (I think they lowest they went to was around 23% in 1995)
I remember the voter strike in 2019, when the Conservative-inclined voters wanted rid of May. The Conservatives got just 23.9% at the Euro elections.
7 months later, 43.6% with a new leader.
8.8%, in fifth place, at the 2019 Euro elections in the UK for the Tories.
I was expecting the 30% leads to fade away. Maybe they still will later in the month.
I’ve had enough of the moaning minnies on here. ‘Oh we’re closer to nuclear war than we have been in 60 years’, ‘oh there will be blackouts across Europe this winter’, ‘oh the global plague blah blah blah’
It’s just constant negativity and sniping. Most of this is driven by jealousy
Yes I think most people get that you hysterically post on here (a) to control your existential crisis and dread when you wake up in the morning; (b) to try and create that same feeling in others.
But are more sensible enough not to get wound up about stuff they can't control, i.e. the bad shit in the world but also you telling them there is lots of bad shit in the world (we know).
No, I was trying to write comments simultaneously so inane and ridiculous it would be impossible to reply to them, and any attempted reply would itself be idiotic
Yet, that one still got two replies
From this I draw two enlightening conclusions: you and @turbotubbs are stupid, and I am bored
Bit of an issue though when the "trans woman" turns out to actually be an abusive man though.
It's a shame we can't have sensible discussions in this issue and it has to be all or nothing.
And your first line was supposed to be an effort at a 'sensible discussion', was it?
The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule. Every crime is a tragedy and should be investigated, but the number is tiny. In comparison, the amount of abuse against women by non-trans men is shocking. In fact, the general level of violence in our society is shocking, in whatever direction it is directed.
That's the effing issue. That's what you should be screaming against. But it's easier to look and point at the marginalised people instead and make *them* out to be the problem, because they are 'different'. And then to make *all* of 'them' be the problem because they are 'different'. And then we can sleep safely at night, knowing the screams and bangs we hear through the wall from our neighbour cannot possible be him beating her, because he isn't trans.
Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule".
And violating that safeguarding that was done for women by allowing men into those spaces, whether those men by genuinely trans women or falsely "trans women" who want to abuse women, violates their safety.
We need to provide appropriate safeguarding for trans women, but not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and violating female-only safe spaces.
"Unfortunately women-only safe spaces are needed because violence against women is not remotely "miniscule"."
I did not say violence against women is minuscule; quite the opposite.
And the rest of your post proves my point.
How does it prove your point?
Women want women-only safe spaces to be available to them, especially after potentially being abused by an abusive man.
Sturgeon is against that.
Why should there not be women-only safe spaces?
Trans women should have support, absolutely, and be protected and given their own safeguarding too but it should come at the cost of breaking safeguarding for real women.
Going to ask again: how do you get rid of Liz Truss?
First the 1922 need to change the rules, in particular stopping a membership vote.
I suspect that the damage is done, but a further leadership contest would be a farce. The MPs need to only nominate and support candidates who are not completely bonkers, but that is fishing in a very small pond
Truss is not completely bonkers.
She may not be popular, she might lose the election, but she's not completely bonkers.
I listened to the interview. She defended and explained her gender reforms and there was no slagging off of JKR. Reporting it like this looks to me like an attempt to stir the pot and get some anti-trans action going. Surprised at the Daily Mail.
“I think she’s comfortably the least impressive person to have become Prime Minister in my lifetime, since the advent of universal suffrage and perhaps even since the creation of the office”. https://twitter.com/dcsandbrook/status/1578272524336611328
And then Dominic Sandbrook @dcsandbrook Replying to @WTMAtkinson and @unherd I did think of Goderich. But he was a serious person and had been an excellent Chancellor, and was continuously in government for almost 30 years. I'm guessing he could have handled a local radio interview.
In 1992, the polls had been drifting blue-to-red all summer, and that drift continued at roughly the same speed. Even at Christmas '92, the score was roughly C33 L48.
Black Wednesday is the classic example of "news doesn't shift the polls".
The last few weeks have been much much worse than Black Wednesday.
Blimey, that polling history might give pause to those of us hoping the Tory party is in terminal decline.
The Tories had a 2% lead on 9 January 1993... then Labour were ahead in the polls until 15 September 2000. Over seven years of continual polling leads until the fuel protests in September 2000.
Labour had a 39.5% lead on 5/6/1993 and again on 30/6/1993. They were still seeing many 20%+ leads into 2000.
Well I think we have to start coming to the conclusion that “electing Liz Truss as Tory leader” counts as one of the all time greatest political errors.
If things turn out as most people expect, the condensed history of this period will look crazy in the future: "Boris Johnson wins biggest Conservative majority for 30 years but then the party threw him out because of a party, and then the party got wiped out under the new leader."
The 1066 and all That version of history, though. Rather more than just a party - or even parties.
“I think she’s comfortably the least impressive person to have become Prime Minister in my lifetime, since the advent of universal suffrage and perhaps even since the creation of the office”. https://twitter.com/dcsandbrook/status/1578272524336611328
And then Dominic Sandbrook @dcsandbrook Replying to @WTMAtkinson and @unherd I did think of Goderich. But he was a serious person and had been an excellent Chancellor, and was continuously in government for almost 30 years. I'm guessing he could have handled a local radio interview.
If Truss really is that bad a Prime Minister - off the dial bad, historically and imperiously bad - one has to ask how come she rose so high prior to this. She was Foreign Secretary, FFS, and that is no small thing. Nor was she obviously useless at that. I don't, for instance, think she made any huge gaffes as Foreign Sec, unlike Boris when he was in the job
So either her crapness as PM is being exaggerated, OR there is something unique in the job of PM, even when compared to high offices like FS, and it is a job only a few people can do
That's worse than Black Wednesday. Conservatives never dropped to 20% in the 92-97 Parliament (I think they lowest they went to was around 23% in 1995)
I remember the voter strike in 2019, when the Conservative-inclined voters wanted rid of May. The Conservatives got just 23.9% at the Euro elections.
7 months later, 43.6% with a new leader.
That's true. We live in MUCH more volatile times than 92-97. Voters are far more likely to switch allegiances.
That said I think the concern for Con is that this is pretty much a direct Con > Lab switch as opposed to 2019 when it was Con > Brexit Party or Con > NOTA
When they change leaders some of the Con > Lab switchers may come back but not all and probably not enough to prevent a Labour government.
I still think the next election will be won by Lab with a small majority. Of course if Con stick with Liz then it could be a Labour landslide but I don't think they will...
Going to ask again: how do you get rid of Liz Truss?
First the 1922 need to change the rules, in particular stopping a membership vote.
I suspect that the damage is done, but a further leadership contest would be a farce. The MPs need to only nominate and support candidates who are not completely bonkers, but that is fishing in a very small pond
Truss is not completely bonkers.
She may not be popular, she might lose the election, but she's not completely bonkers.
So did any PBers who are Con members actually vote for Liz as leader? Anybody here with the moral fibre to admit to that?
Not me, but a lady at work is a Con member and liked Truss from the outset. She's now just of the opinion Truss hasn't been given time to settle in, and actually likes her 'mini-budget' (as was) and thinks she shouldn't have U-turned on the 45% rate.
Is she a colleague or a patient?
I know your question was in jest but: She is a colleague. I'm an accountant, and so is she. She is very much of the True Blue mold of Conservative and very much liked Thatcher.
I’ve had enough of the moaning minnies on here. ‘Oh we’re closer to nuclear war than we have been in 60 years’, ‘oh there will be blackouts across Europe this winter’, ‘oh the global plague blah blah blah’
It’s just constant negativity and sniping. Most of this is driven by jealousy
Yes I think most people get that you hysterically post on here (a) to control your existential crisis and dread when you wake up in the morning; (b) to try and create that same feeling in others.
But are more sensible enough not to get wound up about stuff they can't control, i.e. the bad shit in the world but also you telling them there is lots of bad shit in the world (we know).
No, I was trying to write comments simultaneously so inane and ridiculous it would be impossible to reply to them, and any attempted reply would itself be idiotic.
Yet, that one still got two replies.
Not from me it didn't.
Just back from Waitrose and they had a deal on crisps - the big enormous bags - whereby it was £2.50 for one but only £3.50 for two.
How much better to just charge (say) £2.25 per bag and leave it at that.
Going to ask again: how do you get rid of Liz Truss?
First the 1922 need to change the rules, in particular stopping a membership vote.
I suspect that the damage is done, but a further leadership contest would be a farce. The MPs need to only nominate and support candidates who are not completely bonkers, but that is fishing in a very small pond
Truss is not completely bonkers.
She may not be popular, she might lose the election, but she's not completely bonkers.
So Truss has slipped from saviour of Britain to "not completely bonkers" in your eyes?
So did any PBers who are Con members actually vote for Liz as leader? Anybody here with the moral fibre to admit to that?
Not me, but a lady at work is a Con member and liked Truss from the outset. She's now just of the opinion Truss hasn't been given time to settle in, and actually likes her 'mini-budget' (as was) and thinks she shouldn't have U-turned on the 45% rate.
Is she a colleague or a patient?
I know your question was in jest but: She is a colleague. I'm an accountant, and so is she. She is very much of the True Blue mold of Conservative and very much liked Thatcher.
One or two of my colleagues like Truss and are disappointed that she caved in on the abolition of the 45% band.
The problem the Tories have is the talent pool is so low now that a new leader isn’t a given to improve the position.
Who actually can do the job and command the sort of presence it requires. Gove probably, but has his enemies. Wallace maybe, but a blank canvas. May has done it before, but her previous bumpy time in office defines her. Mordaunt and Badenoch are too green. Suella and Priti too extreme. Hunt too unpopular. Boris too tainted by partygate and the other scandals. Rishi too distrusted by the BoJo fans. Zahawi doesn’t have the presence. Javid has been an also-ran for too long and no real base in the party.
Going to ask again: how do you get rid of Liz Truss?
First the 1922 need to change the rules, in particular stopping a membership vote.
I suspect that the damage is done, but a further leadership contest would be a farce. The MPs need to only nominate and support candidates who are not completely bonkers, but that is fishing in a very small pond
Truss is not completely bonkers.
She may not be popular, she might lose the election, but she's not completely bonkers.
So Truss has slipped from saviour of Britain to "not completely bonkers" in your eyes?
I think she's good, got the right intentions, and if she can keep the MPs on side will be a good PM.
I think she might lose the next election despite that, because a lot of voters have other intentions and/or have simply had enough of the Tories now, plus I think Tory backbenches are restless and won't be disciplined under Truss or any other potential PM now so she may not be able to get her desired reforms through.
I have said all along, I think Truss should be PM even if she loses the next election. Winning the next election is not the pre-requisite for me.
If Truss really is that bad a Prime Minister - off the dial bad, historically and imperiously bad - one has to ask how come she rose so high prior to this. She was Foreign Secretary, FFS, and that is no small thing. Nor was she obviously useless at that. I don't, for instance, think she made any huge gaffes as Foreign Sec, unlike Boris when he was in the job
So either her crapness as PM is being exaggerated, OR there is something unique in the job of PM, even when compared to high offices like FS, and it is a job only a few people can do
As PM she made KK chancellor, and hasn't sacked him. She could only do that as PM
Those 2 fuckups alone exceed the scale of any other possible combined fuckups on her previous roles.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
This is a genuinely stupid argument and you should be ashamed. What you are saying, quite blatantly, is that because we have good and useful government regulation we should also accept all the bad, stupid and unnecessary regulation as well.
There is a world of difference between stopping someone poisoning us and forcing us down a particular route that happens to suit the current health fad. Maybe you missed the fact that for decades Governments were complicit in pushing the line that the primary cause of obesity and ill health was fat when much of the evidence now is that it was refined and processed carbs.
If the Government decided that alcohol was bad for us and so should be banned would you support that? Or would you consider it an infringement of your rights and a Nanny state. Because that is the natural progression of your argument. And if you forget it was tried once before and failed very badly.
Obviously there are good and useful government regulations and there are bad, stupid and unnecessary government regulations. We want more of the former and fewer of the latter. This shouldn't need saying. 90% of people get that. However, there are a few hardcore libertarians, with well-thumbed copies of "Atlas Shrugged", who see all or any, or at least the vast majority, of government regulations to be in the bad category. In the past, such odd views were confined to Internet message boards, but unfortunately they now seem to have captured much of the Conservative Party, as they previously captured the Republican Party in the US.
These libertarians rant and rail against many things. It seems helpful to remind them, on occasion, that actually many forms of government regulation are enormously successful. The modern state is not like it is as part of a conspiracy to restrict their rights: the modern state is like it is because it has evolved successful approaches over centuries.
And yet I don't see a single example of that sort of American extremism on here. It certainly exists in some dark corners of British politics - I mentioned the extremist Propertarian movement on here the other day - but no one here on PB has advocated that sort of blanket approach. Advocating small government is not the same as advocating no government. So your original posting was, at best, misleading and was, in fact, designed to undermine any reasonable discussion about the proper limits of Government power and the Nanny State.
Barty - build houses wherever you want.
LuckyGuy - frack away.
Neither position advocates no government rules. They are simply specific policies that they happen to have views on. You could have an extremely centralised and rule bound government that allowed fracking and that let people build where they like whilst still have lots of controls on how they build.
Oh dear, sounds like you are tying yourself in knots here. 'Let people build where they like whilst still have lots of controls on how they build.' lol.
Barty / LuckyGuy represent fringe points of view. I suspect bondegezou was making the fairly uncontroversial point that these fringe points of view seem to have, somehow, become quite prominent in the Conservative Party. It's obvious why that it is, because those sorts of individuals are hugely over-represented in the membership and on certain political forums, for that matter.
I’ve had enough of the moaning minnies on here. ‘Oh we’re closer to nuclear war than we have been in 60 years’, ‘oh there will be blackouts across Europe this winter’, ‘oh the global plague blah blah blah’
It’s just constant negativity and sniping. Most of this is driven by jealousy
Yes I think most people get that you hysterically post on here (a) to control your existential crisis and dread when you wake up in the morning; (b) to try and create that same feeling in others.
But are more sensible enough not to get wound up about stuff they can't control, i.e. the bad shit in the world but also you telling them there is lots of bad shit in the world (we know).
No, I was trying to write comments simultaneously so inane and ridiculous it would be impossible to reply to them, and any attempted reply would itself be idiotic.
Yet, that one still got two replies.
Not from me it didn't.
Just back from Waitrose and they had a deal on crisps - the big enormous bags - whereby it was £2.50 for one but only £3.50 for two.
How much better to just charge (say) £2.25 per bag and leave it at that.
The effect of that kind of offer on me is often to reduce sales. If I want just the one bag, I neither want to overpay by paying more tham half the price of two, nor overcrisp myself and spend an extra £, so I leave it.
This effect is less marked for 25% off 6 bottles offers.
Going to ask again: how do you get rid of Liz Truss?
First the 1922 need to change the rules, in particular stopping a membership vote.
I suspect that the damage is done, but a further leadership contest would be a farce. The MPs need to only nominate and support candidates who are not completely bonkers, but that is fishing in a very small pond
Truss is not completely bonkers.
She may not be popular, she might lose the election, but she's not completely bonkers.
So Truss has slipped from saviour of Britain to "not completely bonkers" in your eyes?
On Truss, it is notable that both Matthew Parris and Dominic Cummings - two observers who generally agree on nothing whatsoever, yet both astute in very different ways - reached the same conclusion: she really is bonkers, do not elect her
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
This is a genuinely stupid argument and you should be ashamed. What you are saying, quite blatantly, is that because we have good and useful government regulation we should also accept all the bad, stupid and unnecessary regulation as well.
There is a world of difference between stopping someone poisoning us and forcing us down a particular route that happens to suit the current health fad. Maybe you missed the fact that for decades Governments were complicit in pushing the line that the primary cause of obesity and ill health was fat when much of the evidence now is that it was refined and processed carbs.
If the Government decided that alcohol was bad for us and so should be banned would you support that? Or would you consider it an infringement of your rights and a Nanny state. Because that is the natural progression of your argument. And if you forget it was tried once before and failed very badly.
Obviously there are good and useful government regulations and there are bad, stupid and unnecessary government regulations. We want more of the former and fewer of the latter. This shouldn't need saying. 90% of people get that. However, there are a few hardcore libertarians, with well-thumbed copies of "Atlas Shrugged", who see all or any, or at least the vast majority, of government regulations to be in the bad category. In the past, such odd views were confined to Internet message boards, but unfortunately they now seem to have captured much of the Conservative Party, as they previously captured the Republican Party in the US.
These libertarians rant and rail against many things. It seems helpful to remind them, on occasion, that actually many forms of government regulation are enormously successful. The modern state is not like it is as part of a conspiracy to restrict their rights: the modern state is like it is because it has evolved successful approaches over centuries.
And yet I don't see a single example of that sort of American extremism on here. It certainly exists in some dark corners of British politics - I mentioned the extremist Propertarian movement on here the other day - but no one here on PB has advocated that sort of blanket approach. Advocating small government is not the same as advocating no government. So your original posting was, at best, misleading and was, in fact, designed to undermine any reasonable discussion about the proper limits of Government power and the Nanny State.
I certainly do not wish to undermine reasonable discussion, nor suggest that those who support smaller government necessarily support more hardline libertarian positions. It appears we disagree on whether we've seen these more extreme positions put forth on vf.PB.com. For example, I note that Bart has explicitly said we should let old people die in the streets to reduce government spending. If that's not extreme, I don't know what is.
Bullshit.
I said we need to recognise there are limits to what we can do. We can't keep everyone alive forever, death is inevitable for everyone.
I want us to help old people as much as we can and as smartly as we can with the resources available for the NHS and without stripping others of basic liberties like leaving your home.
Also, *letting* people die in the streets is not extreme.
People should be free to die where they want to die: at home, in shops, restaurants, etc. The government should not be prescribing that only certain places are acceptable for popping ones' clogs.
Or, Johson doesn't get the numbers from MPs but Braverman does.
Assuming they don't change the rules, I think KamiKwaze has pretty much queered the pitch for the batshit brigade.
Before any MP votes for Truss Mk2, the candidates will have to sign in blood that their very first act will not be to crash the economy.
That might rule out the nutters
At this stage MPs would be well served by refusing to nominate anybody who served in the Truss cabinet
I wonder whether the Tories will rebound from a socially more liberal, economically libertarian Trussism to a more socially conservative, fiscally conservative blame-asylum seekers-for-everything Bravermanism, or to an equally economically libertarian but blame-Woke-for-everything Badenochism?
“I think she’s comfortably the least impressive person to have become Prime Minister in my lifetime, since the advent of universal suffrage and perhaps even since the creation of the office”. https://twitter.com/dcsandbrook/status/1578272524336611328
And then Dominic Sandbrook @dcsandbrook Replying to @WTMAtkinson and @unherd I did think of Goderich. But he was a serious person and had been an excellent Chancellor, and was continuously in government for almost 30 years. I'm guessing he could have handled a local radio interview.
If Truss really is that bad a Prime Minister - off the dial bad, historically and imperiously bad - one has to ask how come she rose so high prior to this. She was Foreign Secretary, FFS, and that is no small thing. Nor was she obviously useless at that. I don't, for instance, think she made any huge gaffes as Foreign Sec, unlike Boris when he was in the job
So either her crapness as PM is being exaggerated, OR there is something unique in the job of PM, even when compared to high offices like FS, and it is a job only a few people can do
Our government is too presidential and inadequately Cabinet. After all May hung in there in the HO for a decade. They are all propped up by civil servants. To remedy this we need HSQ FSQ CXQ every week to give us more of a look at them.
Anyone wished Vlad a happy birthday yet? It’s a big one too. An opportunity to swing from a Moscow lamp-post might be an appropriate treat for the birthday boy?
Or skydiving from a Kremlin window without a parachute.
“I think she’s comfortably the least impressive person to have become Prime Minister in my lifetime, since the advent of universal suffrage and perhaps even since the creation of the office”. https://twitter.com/dcsandbrook/status/1578272524336611328
And then Dominic Sandbrook @dcsandbrook Replying to @WTMAtkinson and @unherd I did think of Goderich. But he was a serious person and had been an excellent Chancellor, and was continuously in government for almost 30 years. I'm guessing he could have handled a local radio interview.
If Truss really is that bad a Prime Minister - off the dial bad, historically and imperiously bad - one has to ask how come she rose so high prior to this. She was Foreign Secretary, FFS, and that is no small thing. Nor was she obviously useless at that. I don't, for instance, think she made any huge gaffes as Foreign Sec, unlike Boris when he was in the job
So either her crapness as PM is being exaggerated, OR there is something unique in the job of PM, even when compared to high offices like FS, and it is a job only a few people can do
So did any PBers who are Con members actually vote for Liz as leader? Anybody here with the moral fibre to admit to that?
Not me, but a lady at work is a Con member and liked Truss from the outset. She's now just of the opinion Truss hasn't been given time to settle in, and actually likes her 'mini-budget' (as was) and thinks she shouldn't have U-turned on the 45% rate.
Is she a colleague or a patient?
I know your question was in jest but: She is a colleague. I'm an accountant, and so is she. She is very much of the True Blue mold of Conservative and very much liked Thatcher.
You may be only an occasional poster but you successfully identified a joke so you're already ahead of about 80% of the people on here!
In 1992, the polls had been drifting blue-to-red all summer, and that drift continued at roughly the same speed. Even at Christmas '92, the score was roughly C33 L48.
Black Wednesday is the classic example of "news doesn't shift the polls".
The last few weeks have been much much worse than Black Wednesday.
Blimey, that polling history might give pause to those of us hoping the Tory party is in terminal decline.
The Tories had a 2% lead on 9 January 1993... then Labour were ahead in the polls until 15 September 2000. Over seven years of continual polling leads until the fuel protests in September 2000.
Labour had a 39.5% lead on 5/6/1993 and again on 30/6/1993. They were still seeing many 20%+ leads into 2000.
Correction, sorry: Labour had a 39.5% lead on 5/6/1995 and again on 30/6/1995
But those weren't the highest: 43.5% Labour lead on 9/1/1995 and 40% on 27/2/1995 (both with Gallup).
“I think she’s comfortably the least impressive person to have become Prime Minister in my lifetime, since the advent of universal suffrage and perhaps even since the creation of the office”. https://twitter.com/dcsandbrook/status/1578272524336611328
And then Dominic Sandbrook @dcsandbrook Replying to @WTMAtkinson and @unherd I did think of Goderich. But he was a serious person and had been an excellent Chancellor, and was continuously in government for almost 30 years. I'm guessing he could have handled a local radio interview.
If Truss really is that bad a Prime Minister - off the dial bad, historically and imperiously bad - one has to ask how come she rose so high prior to this. She was Foreign Secretary, FFS, and that is no small thing. Nor was she obviously useless at that. I don't, for instance, think she made any huge gaffes as Foreign Sec, unlike Boris when he was in the job
So either her crapness as PM is being exaggerated, OR there is something unique in the job of PM, even when compared to high offices like FS, and it is a job only a few people can do
My feeling at the time was that Boris promoted her to Foreign Sec. because he wanted to groom her as his successor and thwart the ambitions of Dom's man Rishi. Remember how adored she was by the membership for all those fabulous trade deals she'd negotiated, so would have been an ideal 'Stop Rishi' candidate from Boris's perspective. But, of course, she got her chance too soon.
I’ve had enough of the moaning minnies on here. ‘Oh we’re closer to nuclear war than we have been in 60 years’, ‘oh there will be blackouts across Europe this winter’, ‘oh the global plague blah blah blah’
It’s just constant negativity and sniping. Most of this is driven by jealousy
Yes I think most people get that you hysterically post on here (a) to control your existential crisis and dread when you wake up in the morning; (b) to try and create that same feeling in others.
But are more sensible enough not to get wound up about stuff they can't control, i.e. the bad shit in the world but also you telling them there is lots of bad shit in the world (we know).
No, I was trying to write comments simultaneously so inane and ridiculous it would be impossible to reply to them, and any attempted reply would itself be idiotic
Yet, that one still got two replies
From this I draw two enlightening conclusions: you and @turbotubbs are stupid, and I am bored
The contrast with your usual style was all so obvious it could not fail to draw attention.
Any updates from the Ukrainian 'professor' and his research that got you so excited just a few short weeks ago?
That poll has the LDs losing Richmond Park to Labour. Given the LDs were 48 points ahead of Labour there last time, I find it hard to take entirely seriously.
Going to ask again: how do you get rid of Liz Truss?
First the 1922 need to change the rules, in particular stopping a membership vote.
I suspect that the damage is done, but a further leadership contest would be a farce. The MPs need to only nominate and support candidates who are not completely bonkers, but that is fishing in a very small pond
Truss is not completely bonkers.
She may not be popular, she might lose the election, but she's not completely bonkers.
So Truss has slipped from saviour of Britain to "not completely bonkers" in your eyes?
On Truss, it is notable that both Matthew Parris and Dominic Cummings - two observers who generally agree on nothing whatsoever, yet both astute in very different ways - reached the same conclusion: she really is bonkers, do not elect her
As an aside, I am increasing wondering if you are right about the risk of nuclear war.
Sweet FA I can do about it though, so trying not to worry.
“I think she’s comfortably the least impressive person to have become Prime Minister in my lifetime, since the advent of universal suffrage and perhaps even since the creation of the office”. https://twitter.com/dcsandbrook/status/1578272524336611328
And then Dominic Sandbrook @dcsandbrook Replying to @WTMAtkinson and @unherd I did think of Goderich. But he was a serious person and had been an excellent Chancellor, and was continuously in government for almost 30 years. I'm guessing he could have handled a local radio interview.
If Truss really is that bad a Prime Minister - off the dial bad, historically and imperiously bad - one has to ask how come she rose so high prior to this. She was Foreign Secretary, FFS, and that is no small thing. Nor was she obviously useless at that. I don't, for instance, think she made any huge gaffes as Foreign Sec, unlike Boris when he was in the job
There was the time she didn't know Voronezh was in Russia. The signs were always there.
Cumstain (or it might have been Danny the Fink) said he genuinely believed she'd been given Cabinet jobs just to shut her up.
“I think she’s comfortably the least impressive person to have become Prime Minister in my lifetime, since the advent of universal suffrage and perhaps even since the creation of the office”. https://twitter.com/dcsandbrook/status/1578272524336611328
And then Dominic Sandbrook @dcsandbrook Replying to @WTMAtkinson and @unherd I did think of Goderich. But he was a serious person and had been an excellent Chancellor, and was continuously in government for almost 30 years. I'm guessing he could have handled a local radio interview.
If Truss really is that bad a Prime Minister - off the dial bad, historically and imperiously bad - one has to ask how come she rose so high prior to this. She was Foreign Secretary, FFS, and that is no small thing. Nor was she obviously useless at that. I don't, for instance, think she made any huge gaffes as Foreign Sec, unlike Boris when he was in the job
So either her crapness as PM is being exaggerated, OR there is something unique in the job of PM, even when compared to high offices like FS, and it is a job only a few people can do
Our government is too presidential and inadequately Cabinet. After all May hung in there in the HO for a decade. They are all propped up by civil servants. To remedy this we need HSQ FSQ CXQ every week to give us more of a look at them.
Indeed.
The exposure of Truss suggests that there may be plenty more raving lunatics and total inadequates hiding out in higher government, which is quite an unnerving thought
OR the criticism of Truss is being somewhat overdone, she is reckless and ideological at the worst time; at a time when we need pragmatic management of multiple crises. In that light she is more unlucky than mad, perhaps. But then I think about what Parris and Cummings both said...
She should probably go ASAP. Who next? They could do worse than get Boris back. He would turn it all into a joke, which is better than a calamity
I’ve had enough of the moaning minnies on here. ‘Oh we’re closer to nuclear war than we have been in 60 years’, ‘oh there will be blackouts across Europe this winter’, ‘oh the global plague blah blah blah’
It’s just constant negativity and sniping. Most of this is driven by jealousy
Yes I think most people get that you hysterically post on here (a) to control your existential crisis and dread when you wake up in the morning; (b) to try and create that same feeling in others.
But are more sensible enough not to get wound up about stuff they can't control, i.e. the bad shit in the world but also you telling them there is lots of bad shit in the world (we know).
No, I was trying to write comments simultaneously so inane and ridiculous it would be impossible to reply to them, and any attempted reply would itself be idiotic
Yet, that one still got two replies
From this I draw two enlightening conclusions: you and @turbotubbs are stupid, and I am bored
The contrast with your usual style was all so obvious it could not fail to draw attention.
Any updates from the Ukrainian 'professor' and his research that got you so excited just a few short weeks ago?
Comprehensively debunked, and disowned by his own university
Comments
Wandsworth didn't collapse when it went Labour. Labour owns this city.
Last time we discussed this I specifically said that I think lockdown restrictions for instance, putting in an appropriately high "cost" for lost education, liberties etc would mean that lockdown was not appropriate on a QALY basis.
And yes I said the NHS should have a budget and do the best it can with that budget. If there's not enough money then QALY thresholds should be tweaked until we are back in equilibrium.
OTOH if the NHS has more money than it presently needs it can tweak thresholds the other way so that treatments that weren't previously viable now would be.
In 1992, the polls had been drifting blue-to-red all summer, and that drift continued at roughly the same speed. Even at Christmas '92, the score was roughly C33 L48.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election
Black Wednesday is the classic example of "news doesn't shift the polls".
The last few weeks have been much much worse than Black Wednesday.
Labour are on 59 per cent in the capital, according to a Survation MRP poll for the 38 Degrees campaigning group, while the Tories poll 22 per cent and the Liberal Democrats 13 per cent.
Translated to a general election, Survation's analysis would mean the Conservatives would lose all 21 of the constituencies in the capital that have been blue since the 2019 election.
Gaps between parties tend to close in the run up to general elections, but this polling spells out the scale of the challenge facing Liz Truss after her first few weeks.
37 POINTS
Also finds people support uprating benefits in line with inflation by 57% to 15%. First polling I've seen on that.
Another poll has Labour 37pts ahead in London and the Tories losing all 21 of their remaining seats in the capital. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-labour-party-poll-election-survation-defeat-london-38-degrees-b1030965.html
On current national polling I don't think they'd have a single seat left in any city. Or in Scotland. Or Wales.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1578343995885117440
She must know she is a duffer. If she doesn't, all the more reason to move her on.
Conservatives have got to get rid in the next few weeks.
It'll have to be a coronation followed quickly by a general election... Tories... assume the brace position lol!
https://twitter.com/PetronellaWyatt/status/1578330204719616000
The number of 'trans' men who go about abusing women is miniscule. Every crime is a tragedy and should be investigated, but the number is tiny. In comparison, the amount of abuse against women by non-trans men is shocking. In fact, the general level of violence in our society is shocking, in whatever direction it is directed.
That's the effing issue. That's what you should be screaming against. But it's easier to look and point at the marginalised people instead and make *them* out to be the problem, because they are 'different'. And then to make *all* of 'them' be the problem because they are 'different'. And then we can sleep safely at night, knowing the screams and bangs we hear through the wall from our neighbour cannot possible be him beating her, because he isn't trans.
7 months later, 43.6% with a new leader.
And violating that safeguarding that was done for women by allowing men into those spaces, whether those men by genuinely trans women or falsely "trans women" who want to abuse women, violates their safety.
We need to provide appropriate safeguarding for trans women, but not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and violating female-only safe spaces.
BTW, what's the wee green seat in the SW?
I suspect that the damage is done, but a further leadership contest would be a farce. The MPs need to only nominate and support candidates who are not completely bonkers, but that is fishing in a very small pond
She may not be popular, she might lose the election, but she's not completely bonkers.
It is not clear that we have a similar phenomenon now. There isn’t a single overriding policy that a new leader could jump on. This is more about a loss of trus(s)t in the Conservatives. Yes, a new Tory leader could drop some of the individual policies that are unpopular and stress the importance of fiscal competence, which would help, but the brand feels too tainted now.
I did not say violence against women is minuscule; quite the opposite.
And the rest of your post proves my point.
Or, Johson doesn't get the numbers from MPs but Braverman does.
I was expecting the 30% leads to fade away. Maybe they still will later in the month.
Yet, that one still got two replies
From this I draw two enlightening conclusions: you and @turbotubbs are stupid, and I am bored
Women want women-only safe spaces to be available to them, especially after potentially being abused by an abusive man.
Sturgeon is against that.
Why should there not be women-only safe spaces?
Trans women should have support, absolutely, and be protected and given their own safeguarding too but it should come at the cost of breaking safeguarding for real women.
Dominic Sandbrook
@dcsandbrook
Replying to
@WTMAtkinson
and
@unherd
I did think of Goderich. But he was a serious person and had been an excellent Chancellor, and was continuously in government for almost 30 years. I'm guessing he could have handled a local radio interview.
https://twitter.com/dcsandbrook/status/1578275636820336641
The Tories had a 2% lead on 9 January 1993... then Labour were ahead in the polls until 15 September 2000. Over seven years of continual polling leads until the fuel protests in September 2000.
Labour had a 39.5% lead on 5/6/1993 and again on 30/6/1993. They were still seeing many 20%+ leads into 2000.
Before any MP votes for Truss Mk2, the candidates will have to sign in blood that their very first act will not be to crash the economy.
That might rule out the nutters
At this stage MPs would be well served by refusing to nominate anybody who served in the Truss cabinet
Is what I said here a few days ago.
I can't necessarily see it myself but it is certainly what is being talked about in the Cons higher echelons.
So either her crapness as PM is being exaggerated, OR there is something unique in the job of PM, even when compared to high offices like FS, and it is a job only a few people can do
That said I think the concern for Con is that this is pretty much a direct Con > Lab switch as opposed to 2019 when it was Con > Brexit Party or Con > NOTA
When they change leaders some of the Con > Lab switchers may come back but not all and probably not enough to prevent a Labour government.
I still think the next election will be won by Lab with a small majority. Of course if Con stick with Liz then it could be a Labour landslide but I don't think they will...
She is a colleague. I'm an accountant, and so is she.
She is very much of the True Blue mold of Conservative and very much liked Thatcher.
Just back from Waitrose and they had a deal on crisps - the big enormous bags - whereby it was £2.50 for one but only £3.50 for two.
How much better to just charge (say) £2.25 per bag and leave it at that.
Who actually can do the job and command the sort of presence it requires. Gove probably, but has his enemies. Wallace maybe, but a blank canvas. May has done it before, but her previous bumpy time in office defines her. Mordaunt and Badenoch are too green. Suella and Priti too extreme. Hunt too unpopular. Boris too tainted by partygate and the other scandals. Rishi too distrusted by the BoJo fans. Zahawi doesn’t have the presence. Javid has been an also-ran for too long and no real base in the party.
I think she might lose the next election despite that, because a lot of voters have other intentions and/or have simply had enough of the Tories now, plus I think Tory backbenches are restless and won't be disciplined under Truss or any other potential PM now so she may not be able to get her desired reforms through.
I have said all along, I think Truss should be PM even if she loses the next election. Winning the next election is not the pre-requisite for me.
Those 2 fuckups alone exceed the scale of any other possible combined fuckups on her previous roles.
Barty / LuckyGuy represent fringe points of view. I suspect bondegezou was making the fairly uncontroversial point that these fringe points of view seem to have, somehow, become quite prominent in the Conservative Party. It's obvious why that it is, because those sorts of individuals are hugely over-represented in the membership and on certain political forums, for that matter.
This effect is less marked for 25% off 6 bottles offers.
People should be free to die where they want to die: at home, in shops, restaurants, etc. The government should not be prescribing that only certain places are acceptable for popping ones' clogs.
Or skydiving from a Kremlin window without a parachute.
Prof Sandbrook's original piece here btw:
https://unherd.com/2022/10/is-truss-the-worst-pm-in-history/
But those weren't the highest: 43.5% Labour lead on 9/1/1995 and 40% on 27/2/1995 (both with Gallup).
IMHO that's a much bigger problem for her than inflation.
Any updates from the Ukrainian 'professor' and his research that got you so excited just a few short weeks ago?
And comparing a 2005 election result with a mid term protest poll.
Sweet FA I can do about it though, so trying not to worry.
Cumstain (or it might have been Danny the Fink) said he genuinely believed she'd been given Cabinet jobs just to shut her up.
The exposure of Truss suggests that there may be plenty more raving lunatics and total inadequates hiding out in higher government, which is quite an unnerving thought
OR the criticism of Truss is being somewhat overdone, she is reckless and ideological at the worst time; at a time when we need pragmatic management of multiple crises. In that light she is more unlucky than mad, perhaps. But then I think about what Parris and Cummings both said...
She should probably go ASAP. Who next? They could do worse than get Boris back. He would turn it all into a joke, which is better than a calamity
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ukrainian-uap-study-observation-of-events.12607/page-3
Flies or artillery shells