Spot on. 2023 is a long way away for Truss, there has to be some betting on 2022.
More seriously, how exactly will they get rid of her? The current rules prohibit for a year. There no obvious unity, saviour over the water candidate. But there are the likes of Braverman, Boris, waiting for an opportunity knowing membership will favour them. Sunak preferred by voters of other parties, would be contentious and split the Tory party. And whilst Truss and Kwarteng are diabolical communicators, if it’s the economic approach and ideological message that has sunk Tory’s in the polls, what platform and themes do they want to fight election on?
Why isn’t 2025 on the chart 🙂
Well, a 2025 election would require campaigning over Christmas 2024/New Year 2025. Possible, but not likely
We had a December one last time.
Why call it earlier when something might turn up to save you?
Yes and no.
2019 was in December, but it was over before the serious run-up to the feast.
A January 2025 election would need to take a break for Christmas. That really would push Conservative ratings into single figures.
There was a discussion on the site yesterday regards a Scottish referendum, I believe in relation to the Supreme Court case as to whether such a vote would be legal. I have to say I am very puzzled by a lot of the arguments going around about this.
Firstly the Brexit precedent. The argument goes that it is now constitutional to have a referendum with a 50+1 majority needed for change. There are several flaws with this. The first of which being the obvious point that the UK is an internationally recognised sovereign state and has been for centuries. Scotland is not. So why would the Brexit vote matter? Secondly the Brexit vote was not legally binding anyway. The pledges made by David Cameron and others to respect the result were a matter of taking him at his word. In reality this meant that MPs felt they had little choice but to vote for withdrawal. But that was based on the political consequences of them not doing so. At no point was it seriously suggested that those MPs obstructing Brexit should be prosecuted and sent to prison.
I don't know what the Supreme Court will do. To me they seem to move in mysterious ways, though maybe that's just because I am not a legal expert. Modern physics can feel rather odd too. I would find it extraordinary if the Supreme Court believed a Scottish referendum could be legally binding but what exactly would be the opposition to an advisory vote? After all what is it but a glorified and very expensive opinion poll? Should the Scottish government not be allowed to hold such a vote? Sturgeon could claim that she would respect the result whichever way it went but since the UK government wouldn't be recognising the legalilty of the vote it wouldn't be worth a can of beans.
Some people might think my dismissal of Scottish sovereignty is rather cold and unfair. With respect I would question how much they have actually thought through the repercussions of a new vote. There was a referendum 8 years ago on independence that provided a solid if not overwhelming majority for the status quo, that being a sovereign UK. So a determination that it is up to Scots to choose whether they remain in the UK means what? Presumably a 50+1 referendum vote. Such a vote would likely produce several areas or regions with a majority for remaining in the UK. Should these regions be allowed to stay in the UK? Would they have any right of secession from an independent Scotland? My guess is that would not go down well with the SNP. So the position would appear to be that a simple majority in a referendum not authorised by Westminster would be satisfactory and there are no rules as to how often or how many referendum you can hold. There is no indication that any regions of Scotland would have the right to secede at any point either.
I was one of the people saying this and citing the Brexit vote. As you say, the brexit referendum legally was advisory. But politically it was binding. AIUI the Scottish government's case to the SC is that their proposed referendum is also advisory, so does not tread on the toes of the reserved power held by Westminster.
The mess created by the Brexit referendum is that legally advisory polls are now treated as politically binding. If Scotland votes to leave - and I believe we will this time simply because ScotCons will try and boycott it - it becomes politically very difficult to set the result aside. "Its only advisory" - and yet the Brexit vote bound the hands of successive parliaments despite also only being advisory.
The best result will be for the SC to rule against the Scottish government. But as they are asking for an advisory referendum which does not challenge the reserved powers held by Westminster, on what grounds would they say no? The SNP win either way. Sadly.
The argument is very simple. The intention of Westminster Parliament in drafting the law was very clear. The courts look to the intention if the wording is ambiguous (I don’t think it is actually which is why the SNP’s position references the principle of self determination).
Westminster intention was gerrof my turf
If we go back to the intention of the legislation then I think it's pretty clear that the government did not intend, when granting and reserving powers, that the Scottish Parliament would be calling 'advisory' referendums on constitutional matters. Whether the Supreme Court feels that is enough of a hurdle to deny it, or sees it as a permissible unintended consequence, I cannot say.
Oxfordshire County Council has written to government minsters to explain why it has decided the county should not bid to be involved in Whitehall’s investment zones initiative, which involves creating targeted areas where planning regulations would be relaxed in an attempt to drive growth.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, has written a formal letter to Simon Clark, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, to explain why it was thought this was not the right move for Oxfordshire.
She said: “We have thanked the government for inviting Oxfordshire to bid for investment zone status. We have decided not to progress this opportunity. Oxfordshire continues to support many very exciting business developments, particularly in the areas of science and technology, so in writing a letter to government I wanted to explain the logic behind why we feel that applying for an investment zone does not fit with our ambitions....
“We consider that the de-regularisation of planning controls and reductions in environmental protection, which appear to be a condition of any investment zone, are incompatible with our net zero carbon aspirations and our commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity and environmental quality, as stated in our vision.
i think you have to be careful of extrapolating Oxfordshire to the entire country. It's a county where the council changes have been disproportionately - not in a bad way - swayed by local concerns over overbuilding on rural land. It's not surprising the local council has said this. Others may be different.
Yes of course. But the weird thing, which I cannot understand, is how the government believe that 'reductions in environmental protections' is a message that is going to be politically popular. After they have spent years laying the ground for net zero, etc, and whilst they have their own MP's moaning about raw sewage going in to the sea, etc. They also have a policy of 'reducing affordable housing'. How do they expect this to be a politically popular policy? Do they even have the vaguest idea about what they are doing?
Well, this is the whole debate; growth vs environment? Because you really, really cannot have both. Either you have newts and songbirds and orchids or you have nice houses for people to live in and malls for them to shop in and factories to earn good money in.
You absolutely can have both. You just need to discourage building houses and malls in places that harm the newts and songbirds
Don't be a wombat, mate. You will find that both are pretty universal where there are not roads and houses, and non existent where there are roads and houses. Or rather you personally won't if you don't already know that. Do you really think there are just a few isolated newt sanctuaries which we have to steer clear of and then we'll be fine?
Generally, I'm very uncomfortable that governments can be brought down by the shenanigans of the financial markets. The idea that high financiers, hedge-fund managers and greedy speculators can have such an impact on political decision-making rather sticks in the craw.
However, I'm willing to make an exception in the context of the current omnishambles of a government.
Oxfordshire County Council has written to government minsters to explain why it has decided the county should not bid to be involved in Whitehall’s investment zones initiative, which involves creating targeted areas where planning regulations would be relaxed in an attempt to drive growth.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, has written a formal letter to Simon Clark, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, to explain why it was thought this was not the right move for Oxfordshire.
She said: “We have thanked the government for inviting Oxfordshire to bid for investment zone status. We have decided not to progress this opportunity. Oxfordshire continues to support many very exciting business developments, particularly in the areas of science and technology, so in writing a letter to government I wanted to explain the logic behind why we feel that applying for an investment zone does not fit with our ambitions....
“We consider that the de-regularisation of planning controls and reductions in environmental protection, which appear to be a condition of any investment zone, are incompatible with our net zero carbon aspirations and our commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity and environmental quality, as stated in our vision.
i think you have to be careful of extrapolating Oxfordshire to the entire country. It's a county where the council changes have been disproportionately - not in a bad way - swayed by local concerns over overbuilding on rural land. It's not surprising the local council has said this. Others may be different.
Yes of course. But the weird thing, which I cannot understand, is how the government believe that 'reductions in environmental protections' is a message that is going to be politically popular. After they have spent years laying the ground for net zero, etc, and whilst they have their own MP's moaning about raw sewage going in to the sea, etc. They also have a policy of 'reducing affordable housing'. How do they expect this to be a politically popular policy? Do they even have the vaguest idea about what they are doing?
Well, this is the whole debate; growth vs environment? Because you really, really cannot have both. Either you have newts and songbirds and orchids or you have nice houses for people to live in and malls for them to shop in and factories to earn good money in.
I think the vision, which until a few weeks ago the government espoused, is that you can; that was how policies like biodiversity net gain came about. Every development leads to biodiversity enhancement. And the world has changed, people now really believe in all this stuff. Truss and Co seem to be stuck in the 1980s (when people shopped in malls and worked in factories).
"Even in her worst nightmares, Liz Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad The Government is frozen rigid in terror, unable to move as it stares vacantly at incoming traffic
Everywhere you look, it’s unravelling. Liz Truss is presiding over a full-spectrum, system-wide, multifaceted political breakdown. It’s a complete disintegration of function and will – and it is taking place faster than anyone thought possible. In every aspect and at every level, the Government is falling apart.
After just a few weeks, her incompetence has reduced the Bank of England to functional incoherence. It is losing any sense of institutional identity in the face of the chaos she has created.
...
Even in her worst nightmares, Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad. We’ve never seen political failure on this scale or at this velocity. It would be fascinating, if only it were happening somewhere else."
So the Bank of England is being incompetent, and this incompetence is the fault of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, by osmosis. Great, sure, got it, thanks Ian Twunt.
Found the same in Edinburgh a couple of weeks ago. This really doesn't feel like a recession in the capitals....
Anecdote alert.
Quite a few friends are using some of their WFH/pandemic enforced savings they've built up since March 2020.
More Anecdata. I am having quite a few cancellations in my private practice, mostly of the self pay. To a degree because of catch up in the NHS, in part I think people saving money. It was quite a leading indicator in the GFC too.
I know we're not meant to say this, and I am a "fucking appeaser", and after this I will kill myself in shame, but looking at the bald economic stats: Russia could win this war
Because it is Europe which is bleeding out, not Russia. Despite everything
It's really not.
Europe is enduring a recession.
But that's it. Some people aren't working. Some businesses will go under. People will set their thermostats at lower levels. Governments will be unpopular.
Russia has lost its best tanks, planes, artillery, rockets, drones, and missiles.
And tens and tens of thousands of its young men.
By contrast, Ukraine is getting supplied with new kit every day. Even the Germans are stepping up.
The combined armaments production capacity of the West - which is not hobbled by sanctions - is probably 40-times that of Russia. And Russia isn't 100x larger than Ukraine in terms of population, it's maybe 3x.
The only way Russia can win is if Ukraine stops fighting. (And, by the way, the people who are really suffering are the Ukrainians.) And I see no likelihood that will happen.
So stop being a fucking appeaser, and get with the program.
One day, England will manage to govern herself competently.
One day.
The Cobbler's Children Have No Shoes. We have the governance of the northern colony at such a state of perfection, we forget about our own interests. You can call it altruism if you want, it's just the way we are wired.
I know we're not meant to say this, and I am a "fucking appeaser", and after this I will kill myself in shame, but looking at the bald economic stats: Russia could win this war
Because it is Europe which is bleeding out, not Russia. Despite everything
It's really not.
Europe is enduring a recession.
But that's it. Some people aren't working. Some businesses will go under. People will set their thermostats at lower levels. Governments will be unpopular.
Russia has lost its best tanks, planes, artillery, rockets, drones, and missiles.
And tens and tens of thousands of its young men.
By contrast, Ukraine is getting supplied with new kit every day. Even the Germans are stepping up.
The combined armaments production capacity of the West - which is not hobbled by sanctions - is probably 40-times that of Russia. And Russia isn't 100x larger than Ukraine in terms of population, it's maybe 3x.
The only way Russia can win is if Ukraine stops fighting. (And, by the way, the people who are really suffering are the Ukrainians.) And I see no likelihood that will happen.
So stop being a fucking appeaser, and get with the program.
Sean doesn’t need to get with the programme (note correct spelling). He wrote the programme.
Sanctions took about 3-4% off the economy, not the expected 8-10%
Meanwhile Europe teeters near to outright collapse
I wouldn't believe the Russian growth figures. They're probably outright lies. Afterall, that's where the phrase 'tractor stats' does come from.
The Economist believes this. Coz this isn't Russian data, they are using more reliable indicators
With all due respect, it's not that surprising at all:
Russia exports commodities, particularly energy. 54% (last year!) of all exports were energy. The price of coal is up 4x, the price of their LNG cargoes to China and Japan has trebled, what they (previously) got for sending gas to Europe was at 6x what they got in 2021, and the price of oil is up, even if not so much.
In other words - and I said this months ago - the war is partially self funding because it increases the value of Russia's exports.
The problem is that the energy economy is not the economy of most of the country. If you work in a factory where parts have been cut off due to sanctions, then your factory isn't working. GDP in total can look fine, but you are personally doing shit.
And it doesn't help Russia with their core problem with the war: they are expending materiel far more quickly than they are producing it. Those drones and missiles and rockets rely on technology from China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan (and probably the UK, France and Germany too). Even the starter motors on their tanks are going to rely on batteries that aren't made in Russia.
That - not a GDP buouyed by energy prices - is Russia's problem.
Oh yeah... and every day Europe (and the world) gets less dependent and less hooked on Russian energy. So when the war ends, and it will end, Russia will see reduced prices and fewer customers. That's not a great place to be.
Also that, O&G aside, Russia has been cut off from the currency and equities markets, leading to an artificial boost to the Ruble, and to Russian stocks in Moscow.
At some point in the future, probably some years in the future, the Russian economy will have to re-engage internationally, and see market forces on the Ruble and stock markets.
To add to that, the brain drain. As with post-war Germany, anyone with skills or money has either left Russia already, or plans to leave soon.
Oxfordshire County Council has written to government minsters to explain why it has decided the county should not bid to be involved in Whitehall’s investment zones initiative, which involves creating targeted areas where planning regulations would be relaxed in an attempt to drive growth.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, has written a formal letter to Simon Clark, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, to explain why it was thought this was not the right move for Oxfordshire.
She said: “We have thanked the government for inviting Oxfordshire to bid for investment zone status. We have decided not to progress this opportunity. Oxfordshire continues to support many very exciting business developments, particularly in the areas of science and technology, so in writing a letter to government I wanted to explain the logic behind why we feel that applying for an investment zone does not fit with our ambitions....
“We consider that the de-regularisation of planning controls and reductions in environmental protection, which appear to be a condition of any investment zone, are incompatible with our net zero carbon aspirations and our commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity and environmental quality, as stated in our vision.
i think you have to be careful of extrapolating Oxfordshire to the entire country. It's a county where the council changes have been disproportionately - not in a bad way - swayed by local concerns over overbuilding on rural land. It's not surprising the local council has said this. Others may be different.
Yes of course. But the weird thing, which I cannot understand, is how the government believe that 'reductions in environmental protections' is a message that is going to be politically popular. After they have spent years laying the ground for net zero, etc, and whilst they have their own MP's moaning about raw sewage going in to the sea, etc. They also have a policy of 'reducing affordable housing'. How do they expect this to be a politically popular policy? Do they even have the vaguest idea about what they are doing?
Well, this is the whole debate; growth vs environment? Because you really, really cannot have both. Either you have newts and songbirds and orchids or you have nice houses for people to live in and malls for them to shop in and factories to earn good money in.
I think the vision, which until a few weeks ago the government espoused, is that you can; that was how policies like biodiversity net gain came about. Every development leads to biodiversity enhancement. And the world has changed, people now really believe in all this stuff. Truss and Co seem to be stuck in the 1980s (when people shopped in malls and worked in factories).
You cannae change the laws of physics, Cap'n. There's a finite amount of ground, and you either tarmac it or not. You can't offset 100 acres of new town by calling into existence 100 new acres of rewilded wilderness.
Brooklyn Center man who claimed vandals spray painted "Biden 2020" on his garage and torched his camper due to a Trump 2020 flag has pleaded guilty to fraud for faking the incident.
Thirty-year-old Denis Molla was charged in the case after the fire in September 2020, in which prosecutors say he falsely reported to police that three men lit his camper on fire and vandalized his garage with graffiti supporting President Biden, Black Lives Matter, and Antifa. Molla also claimed the vandals targeted his camper because of a "Trump 2020" flag he had on it.
Authorities say Molla submitted multiple insurance claims for the damage to his camper, garage, and vehicles. Prosecutors say he collected $61,000 in insurance claims and more than $17,000 from a GoFundMe.
Molla pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in the hoax. He will be sentenced at a later date for the crime.
A member of Truss's own cabinet tells me Truss's and Kwarteng's governance is so dire that some Tory MPs would vote against her in a confidence vote, preferring even a general election that cost them their seats to the current economic chaos
One day, England will manage to govern herself competently.
One day.
The Cobbler's Children Have No Shoes. We have the governance of the northern colony at such a state of perfection, we forget about our own interests. You can call it altruism if you want, it's just the way we are wired.
Indeed, the English are renowned for their….. er….. altruism.
There was a discussion on the site yesterday regards a Scottish referendum, I believe in relation to the Supreme Court case as to whether such a vote would be legal. I have to say I am very puzzled by a lot of the arguments going around about this.
Firstly the Brexit precedent. The argument goes that it is now constitutional to have a referendum with a 50+1 majority needed for change. There are several flaws with this. The first of which being the obvious point that the UK is an internationally recognised sovereign state and has been for centuries. Scotland is not. So why would the Brexit vote matter? Secondly the Brexit vote was not legally binding anyway. The pledges made by David Cameron and others to respect the result were a matter of taking him at his word. In reality this meant that MPs felt they had little choice but to vote for withdrawal. But that was based on the political consequences of them not doing so. At no point was it seriously suggested that those MPs obstructing Brexit should be prosecuted and sent to prison.
I don't know what the Supreme Court will do. To me they seem to move in mysterious ways, though maybe that's just because I am not a legal expert. Modern physics can feel rather odd too. I would find it extraordinary if the Supreme Court believed a Scottish referendum could be legally binding but what exactly would be the opposition to an advisory vote? After all what is it but a glorified and very expensive opinion poll? Should the Scottish government not be allowed to hold such a vote? Sturgeon could claim that she would respect the result whichever way it went but since the UK government wouldn't be recognising the legalilty of the vote it wouldn't be worth a can of beans.
Some people might think my dismissal of Scottish sovereignty is rather cold and unfair. With respect I would question how much they have actually thought through the repercussions of a new vote. There was a referendum 8 years ago on independence that provided a solid if not overwhelming majority for the status quo, that being a sovereign UK. So a determination that it is up to Scots to choose whether they remain in the UK means what? Presumably a 50+1 referendum vote. Such a vote would likely produce several areas or regions with a majority for remaining in the UK. Should these regions be allowed to stay in the UK? Would they have any right of secession from an independent Scotland? My guess is that would not go down well with the SNP. So the position would appear to be that a simple majority in a referendum not authorised by Westminster would be satisfactory and there are no rules as to how often or how many referendum you can hold. There is no indication that any regions of Scotland would have the right to secede at any point either.
I was one of the people saying this and citing the Brexit vote. As you say, the brexit referendum legally was advisory. But politically it was binding. AIUI the Scottish government's case to the SC is that their proposed referendum is also advisory, so does not tread on the toes of the reserved power held by Westminster.
The mess created by the Brexit referendum is that legally advisory polls are now treated as politically binding. If Scotland votes to leave - and I believe we will this time simply because ScotCons will try and boycott it - it becomes politically very difficult to set the result aside. "Its only advisory" - and yet the Brexit vote bound the hands of successive parliaments despite also only being advisory.
The best result will be for the SC to rule against the Scottish government. But as they are asking for an advisory referendum which does not challenge the reserved powers held by Westminster, on what grounds would they say no? The SNP win either way. Sadly.
'Advisory polls are now treated as politically binding'
By whom exactly? Not the law I would have thought. It was determined that Theresa May had to get Parliamentary approval to enforce Article 50. Followed by years of arguments in Parliament about what to do including two general elections before we actually left. What would have happened if we hadn't left? There might have been civil unrest and MPs risked losing their seats at the next election but that didn't make it binding.
Politically binding - the clue is in the name. Legally the politicians can ignore it, but politically they would be in deep shit.
Oxfordshire County Council has written to government minsters to explain why it has decided the county should not bid to be involved in Whitehall’s investment zones initiative, which involves creating targeted areas where planning regulations would be relaxed in an attempt to drive growth.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, has written a formal letter to Simon Clark, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, to explain why it was thought this was not the right move for Oxfordshire.
She said: “We have thanked the government for inviting Oxfordshire to bid for investment zone status. We have decided not to progress this opportunity. Oxfordshire continues to support many very exciting business developments, particularly in the areas of science and technology, so in writing a letter to government I wanted to explain the logic behind why we feel that applying for an investment zone does not fit with our ambitions....
“We consider that the de-regularisation of planning controls and reductions in environmental protection, which appear to be a condition of any investment zone, are incompatible with our net zero carbon aspirations and our commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity and environmental quality, as stated in our vision.
i think you have to be careful of extrapolating Oxfordshire to the entire country. It's a county where the council changes have been disproportionately - not in a bad way - swayed by local concerns over overbuilding on rural land. It's not surprising the local council has said this. Others may be different.
Yes of course. But the weird thing, which I cannot understand, is how the government believe that 'reductions in environmental protections' is a message that is going to be politically popular. After they have spent years laying the ground for net zero, etc, and whilst they have their own MP's moaning about raw sewage going in to the sea, etc. They also have a policy of 'reducing affordable housing'. How do they expect this to be a politically popular policy? Do they even have the vaguest idea about what they are doing?
Well, this is the whole debate; growth vs environment? Because you really, really cannot have both. Either you have newts and songbirds and orchids or you have nice houses for people to live in and malls for them to shop in and factories to earn good money in.
I think the vision, which until a few weeks ago the government espoused, is that you can; that was how policies like biodiversity net gain came about. Every development leads to biodiversity enhancement. And the world has changed, people now really believe in all this stuff. Truss and Co seem to be stuck in the 1980s (when people shopped in malls and worked in factories).
You cannae change the laws of physics, Cap'n. There's a finite amount of ground, and you either tarmac it or not. You can't offset 100 acres of new town by calling into existence 100 new acres of rewilded wilderness.
And yet reality has proved you wrong, as environmental protections and economic growth have existed at the same time!
One day, England will manage to govern herself competently.
One day.
The Cobbler's Children Have No Shoes. We have the governance of the northern colony at such a state of perfection, we forget about our own interests. You can call it altruism if you want, it's just the way we are wired.
Indeed, the English are renowned for their….. er….. altruism.
They don't call it the white man's burden for nothing. But we do not repine.
Oxfordshire County Council has written to government minsters to explain why it has decided the county should not bid to be involved in Whitehall’s investment zones initiative, which involves creating targeted areas where planning regulations would be relaxed in an attempt to drive growth.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, has written a formal letter to Simon Clark, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, to explain why it was thought this was not the right move for Oxfordshire.
She said: “We have thanked the government for inviting Oxfordshire to bid for investment zone status. We have decided not to progress this opportunity. Oxfordshire continues to support many very exciting business developments, particularly in the areas of science and technology, so in writing a letter to government I wanted to explain the logic behind why we feel that applying for an investment zone does not fit with our ambitions....
“We consider that the de-regularisation of planning controls and reductions in environmental protection, which appear to be a condition of any investment zone, are incompatible with our net zero carbon aspirations and our commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity and environmental quality, as stated in our vision.
i think you have to be careful of extrapolating Oxfordshire to the entire country. It's a county where the council changes have been disproportionately - not in a bad way - swayed by local concerns over overbuilding on rural land. It's not surprising the local council has said this. Others may be different.
Yes of course. But the weird thing, which I cannot understand, is how the government believe that 'reductions in environmental protections' is a message that is going to be politically popular. After they have spent years laying the ground for net zero, etc, and whilst they have their own MP's moaning about raw sewage going in to the sea, etc. They also have a policy of 'reducing affordable housing'. How do they expect this to be a politically popular policy? Do they even have the vaguest idea about what they are doing?
Well, this is the whole debate; growth vs environment? Because you really, really cannot have both. Either you have newts and songbirds and orchids or you have nice houses for people to live in and malls for them to shop in and factories to earn good money in.
You absolutely can have both. You just need to discourage building houses and malls in places that harm the newts and songbirds
Given population projections are broadly flat (depending on what ONS variant you pick), and lots of office is barely used, I don't really get why we need to smash the newts anyway?!
Need to encourage conversion of current buildings. More controversially, get younger people to hitch up earlier and start sharing bedrooms, and discourage divorces (with children at least).
A bit baffled about why we always discuss supply rather than demand.
"In 1970, the Soviet Union produced more than three times the number of tractors and combines that were sold in the U.S."
and when they switched from tractors to T-34s in 1940 they made a fuck of a lot of non-imaginary T-34s.
Nine months ago, there were 13,000 tanks in Russia - until people started actually looking for them, then they realised the actual number was more like 3,000.
And the Ukranians have destroyed or captured 2,000 of them, in those nine months.
In the 1970s the Soviet Union starved, with all those tractors. Food ration up and down the line, buying grain from the West. With the Black Soil land no less.
One of the successes of the end of the Soviet Union was getting food production working. Which required Western machinery
Oxfordshire County Council has written to government minsters to explain why it has decided the county should not bid to be involved in Whitehall’s investment zones initiative, which involves creating targeted areas where planning regulations would be relaxed in an attempt to drive growth.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, has written a formal letter to Simon Clark, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, to explain why it was thought this was not the right move for Oxfordshire.
She said: “We have thanked the government for inviting Oxfordshire to bid for investment zone status. We have decided not to progress this opportunity. Oxfordshire continues to support many very exciting business developments, particularly in the areas of science and technology, so in writing a letter to government I wanted to explain the logic behind why we feel that applying for an investment zone does not fit with our ambitions....
“We consider that the de-regularisation of planning controls and reductions in environmental protection, which appear to be a condition of any investment zone, are incompatible with our net zero carbon aspirations and our commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity and environmental quality, as stated in our vision.
i think you have to be careful of extrapolating Oxfordshire to the entire country. It's a county where the council changes have been disproportionately - not in a bad way - swayed by local concerns over overbuilding on rural land. It's not surprising the local council has said this. Others may be different.
Yes of course. But the weird thing, which I cannot understand, is how the government believe that 'reductions in environmental protections' is a message that is going to be politically popular. After they have spent years laying the ground for net zero, etc, and whilst they have their own MP's moaning about raw sewage going in to the sea, etc. They also have a policy of 'reducing affordable housing'. How do they expect this to be a politically popular policy? Do they even have the vaguest idea about what they are doing?
Well, this is the whole debate; growth vs environment? Because you really, really cannot have both. Either you have newts and songbirds and orchids or you have nice houses for people to live in and malls for them to shop in and factories to earn good money in.
I think the vision, which until a few weeks ago the government espoused, is that you can; that was how policies like biodiversity net gain came about. Every development leads to biodiversity enhancement. And the world has changed, people now really believe in all this stuff. Truss and Co seem to be stuck in the 1980s (when people shopped in malls and worked in factories).
You cannae change the laws of physics, Cap'n. There's a finite amount of ground, and you either tarmac it or not. You can't offset 100 acres of new town by calling into existence 100 new acres of rewilded wilderness.
Indeed, but you can offset 100 acres of building in the Oxford Green Belt by expanding the Green Belt by 100 acres on the outside.
Of course that isn't what's happening. The thousands of new houses (euphemistically called a Garden Village) are literally going just beyond the outer edge of the Oxford Green Belt, which means that the A40 will be clogged up with people driving in from there to Oxford. I despair sometimes.
Generally, I'm very uncomfortable that governments can be brought down by the shenanigans of the financial markets. The idea that high financiers, hedge-fund managers and greedy speculators can have such an impact on political decision-making rather sticks in the craw.
However, I'm willing to make an exception in the context of the current omnishambles of a government.
Governments can only be brought down by markets if they depend on borrowing money. Governments which live within their means and are free of debt can do whatever the hell they like. Sadly, such things are vanishingly rare.
Brooklyn Center man who claimed vandals spray painted "Biden 2020" on his garage and torched his camper due to a Trump 2020 flag has pleaded guilty to fraud for faking the incident.
Thirty-year-old Denis Molla was charged in the case after the fire in September 2020, in which prosecutors say he falsely reported to police that three men lit his camper on fire and vandalized his garage with graffiti supporting President Biden, Black Lives Matter, and Antifa. Molla also claimed the vandals targeted his camper because of a "Trump 2020" flag he had on it.
Authorities say Molla submitted multiple insurance claims for the damage to his camper, garage, and vehicles. Prosecutors say he collected $61,000 in insurance claims and more than $17,000 from a GoFundMe.
Molla pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in the hoax. He will be sentenced at a later date for the crime.
A member of Truss's own cabinet tells me Truss's and Kwarteng's governance is so dire that some Tory MPs would vote against her in a confidence vote, preferring even a general election that cost them their seats to the current economic chaos
These snippets from Tory MPs are irritating. If they are annoyed with Truss, they need to actually do something about the situation, not go leaking their frustrations to journalists.
A member of Truss's own cabinet tells me Truss's and Kwarteng's governance is so dire that some Tory MPs would vote against her in a confidence vote, preferring even a general election that cost them their seats to the current economic chaos
Must be a significant number of Tory MPs who can't see any way they can win their seats, whenever the election is. Might as well get their pay-off now and get started on their new careers.
Truss, by now, ought be assuming that she is going to have a brief tenure - either she'll lose the next election or be replaced before it - so ought simply to focus on doing a few under-the-radar things that are not necessarily headline-grabbing (either positively or negatively) but have a positive effect. It won't do her any personal political good now, but at least in 20 years her tenure could be looked back on with a brief and grudging mutter of 'ok, I'll give her that one', which she may have to settle for.
Case in point: the potential and currently endangered trade deal with India. The long term fiscal impact of such a trade deal would be greater than the negative effects of the Kamikwasi Budget/Synthetically Black Wednesday. This is a market greater than either the EU or USA, and substantially younger than either of them (and obviously far, far younger than China). It would be a very good idea to get it done this parliament, as Labour's election literature suggests an even more tetchy relationship with Delhi when they enter goverment. Truss is a former Trade Secretary and avowedly anti-protectionist; by rights this if anything should be her special subject. If it means shafting Braverman, all the better, just get on with it.
The big one to go for next is the CPTPP, but other areas to look at in general for trade agreements would, I presume, be West Africa (particularly Nigeria) and South East Asia, following the same pattern of young and growing markets.
Oxfordshire County Council has written to government minsters to explain why it has decided the county should not bid to be involved in Whitehall’s investment zones initiative, which involves creating targeted areas where planning regulations would be relaxed in an attempt to drive growth.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, has written a formal letter to Simon Clark, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, to explain why it was thought this was not the right move for Oxfordshire.
She said: “We have thanked the government for inviting Oxfordshire to bid for investment zone status. We have decided not to progress this opportunity. Oxfordshire continues to support many very exciting business developments, particularly in the areas of science and technology, so in writing a letter to government I wanted to explain the logic behind why we feel that applying for an investment zone does not fit with our ambitions....
“We consider that the de-regularisation of planning controls and reductions in environmental protection, which appear to be a condition of any investment zone, are incompatible with our net zero carbon aspirations and our commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity and environmental quality, as stated in our vision.
i think you have to be careful of extrapolating Oxfordshire to the entire country. It's a county where the council changes have been disproportionately - not in a bad way - swayed by local concerns over overbuilding on rural land. It's not surprising the local council has said this. Others may be different.
Yes of course. But the weird thing, which I cannot understand, is how the government believe that 'reductions in environmental protections' is a message that is going to be politically popular. After they have spent years laying the ground for net zero, etc, and whilst they have their own MP's moaning about raw sewage going in to the sea, etc. They also have a policy of 'reducing affordable housing'. How do they expect this to be a politically popular policy? Do they even have the vaguest idea about what they are doing?
Well, this is the whole debate; growth vs environment? Because you really, really cannot have both. Either you have newts and songbirds and orchids or you have nice houses for people to live in and malls for them to shop in and factories to earn good money in.
I think the vision, which until a few weeks ago the government espoused, is that you can; that was how policies like biodiversity net gain came about. Every development leads to biodiversity enhancement. And the world has changed, people now really believe in all this stuff. Truss and Co seem to be stuck in the 1980s (when people shopped in malls and worked in factories).
You cannae change the laws of physics, Cap'n. There's a finite amount of ground, and you either tarmac it or not. You can't offset 100 acres of new town by calling into existence 100 new acres of rewilded wilderness.
And yet reality has proved you wrong, as environmental protections and economic growth have existed at the same time!
What the fuck are you on about? You have 2,000 acres of undeveloped land. you build houses and factories on half of it and designate the other half a Totally protected nature reserve national park AONB SSSI Newt Reserve, yippee.
Sanctions took about 3-4% off the economy, not the expected 8-10%
Meanwhile Europe teeters near to outright collapse
It just shows what an imperfect measure GDP is. Military spending and fossil fuel revenues do not make up for the loss of a million or more working age young men.
GDP doesn't count: friendship, going for walks in the sunshine, conversation in the street, child care by parents and family, including bedtime stories, birdsong, growing cabbages in allotments, picking brambles, kindness, voluntary contributions to PB, lots of voluntary work, having a life partner, playing table tennis or chess for fun, Shakespeare, Beethoven.
Misses everything really.
GDP doesn't count but it makes all the things that do count possible.
Oxfordshire County Council has written to government minsters to explain why it has decided the county should not bid to be involved in Whitehall’s investment zones initiative, which involves creating targeted areas where planning regulations would be relaxed in an attempt to drive growth.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, has written a formal letter to Simon Clark, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, to explain why it was thought this was not the right move for Oxfordshire.
She said: “We have thanked the government for inviting Oxfordshire to bid for investment zone status. We have decided not to progress this opportunity. Oxfordshire continues to support many very exciting business developments, particularly in the areas of science and technology, so in writing a letter to government I wanted to explain the logic behind why we feel that applying for an investment zone does not fit with our ambitions....
“We consider that the de-regularisation of planning controls and reductions in environmental protection, which appear to be a condition of any investment zone, are incompatible with our net zero carbon aspirations and our commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity and environmental quality, as stated in our vision.
i think you have to be careful of extrapolating Oxfordshire to the entire country. It's a county where the council changes have been disproportionately - not in a bad way - swayed by local concerns over overbuilding on rural land. It's not surprising the local council has said this. Others may be different.
Yes of course. But the weird thing, which I cannot understand, is how the government believe that 'reductions in environmental protections' is a message that is going to be politically popular. After they have spent years laying the ground for net zero, etc, and whilst they have their own MP's moaning about raw sewage going in to the sea, etc. They also have a policy of 'reducing affordable housing'. How do they expect this to be a politically popular policy? Do they even have the vaguest idea about what they are doing?
Well, this is the whole debate; growth vs environment? Because you really, really cannot have both. Either you have newts and songbirds and orchids or you have nice houses for people to live in and malls for them to shop in and factories to earn good money in.
I think the vision, which until a few weeks ago the government espoused, is that you can; that was how policies like biodiversity net gain came about. Every development leads to biodiversity enhancement. And the world has changed, people now really believe in all this stuff. Truss and Co seem to be stuck in the 1980s (when people shopped in malls and worked in factories).
You cannae change the laws of physics, Cap'n. There's a finite amount of ground, and you either tarmac it or not. You can't offset 100 acres of new town by calling into existence 100 new acres of rewilded wilderness.
Indeed, but you can offset 100 acres of building in the Oxford Green Belt by expanding the Green Belt by 100 acres on the outside.
Of course that isn't what's happening. The thousands of new houses (euphemistically called a Garden Village) are literally going just beyond the outer edge of the Oxford Green Belt, which means that the A40 will be clogged up with people driving in from there to Oxford. I despair sometimes.
You think that relabelling green land as Green Belt is the same as magicking land up out of nothing. In your scenario, is there a net loss of natural land to housing, or a net standstill?
"Even in her worst nightmares, Liz Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad The Government is frozen rigid in terror, unable to move as it stares vacantly at incoming traffic
Everywhere you look, it’s unravelling. Liz Truss is presiding over a full-spectrum, system-wide, multifaceted political breakdown. It’s a complete disintegration of function and will – and it is taking place faster than anyone thought possible. In every aspect and at every level, the Government is falling apart.
After just a few weeks, her incompetence has reduced the Bank of England to functional incoherence. It is losing any sense of institutional identity in the face of the chaos she has created.
...
Even in her worst nightmares, Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad. We’ve never seen political failure on this scale or at this velocity. It would be fascinating, if only it were happening somewhere else."
So the Bank of England is being incompetent, and this incompetence is the fault of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, by osmosis. Great, sure, got it, thanks Ian Twunt.
You are making it fit your preconceptions. Truss can do no wrong, thus it must be someone else's fault.
Why do you think you are in a tiny minority? Could it perhaps be that the rest of the world is right and you are wrong?
Read the article. It's an article about the incompetent behaviour of the BOE. He's just put this peculiar spin on it where he blames their incompetence on Truss and Kwarteng.
I know we're not meant to say this, and I am a "fucking appeaser", and after this I will kill myself in shame, but looking at the bald economic stats: Russia could win this war
Because it is Europe which is bleeding out, not Russia. Despite everything
Presumably this is because the price of raw materials, energy etc, which Russia exports, has gone up?
It was inevitable that Europe was going to suffer when this war started. But just as things start to get bad for Europeans, Russia keeps doing things that remind them to continue supporting the war, like bombing childrens playgrounds. And then they make territorial claims based on sham referendums that irritate its 'allies' who cannot support such acts because of the precedents it would set for their own territorial problems and disputes. So it keeps going with these bizarre own goals by the master strategist Putin.
I don't really see how Russia wins the war because it can't easily fix the problems with its military, even if it pumps unlimited amounts of money in to it, it cannot really change anything. Russia doesn't have the motivation to win and Ukraine does.
The idea that Russia is only 3-4% down on pre-invasion GDP is clearly bunkum. They have had hundreds of thousands of young professionals leave the country, disproportionately from skilled, productive trades. In addition, we know there are shortages in a lot of manufacturing plants, slowing production. It's just clearly nonsense numbers.
Yes, clearly down to energy fluctuations and / or the price of oil. A more meaningful measure would be GDP ex-energy production, which The Economist didn't comment on, which is bizarre.
Also look at this in terms of the $ - Russia is a commodity producer and commodities are priced in dollars. Which raises the question of what their GDP numbers will be like when commodities fall.
That is an absolutely shit argument. It's like saying those of working age in this country must be much better off than the elderly because look how much younger and harder working they are. Earned and unearned money are exactly equally valuable dollar for dollar.
Nope. One is more valuable than the other, if only because of the volatility angle.
If GDP growth is generated by healthy industry and a wealthy population, it has a resilience commodity prices don't.
If you want a real-life example, look at commodity rich countries in Africa. By your argument, they should be happy with remaining commodity providers if prices remain high. But any sensible person knows that's a fool's game because prices can change beyond your control. It's part of the reason why the Middle East countries are trying to diversify.
"Even in her worst nightmares, Liz Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad The Government is frozen rigid in terror, unable to move as it stares vacantly at incoming traffic
Everywhere you look, it’s unravelling. Liz Truss is presiding over a full-spectrum, system-wide, multifaceted political breakdown. It’s a complete disintegration of function and will – and it is taking place faster than anyone thought possible. In every aspect and at every level, the Government is falling apart.
After just a few weeks, her incompetence has reduced the Bank of England to functional incoherence. It is losing any sense of institutional identity in the face of the chaos she has created.
...
Even in her worst nightmares, Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad. We’ve never seen political failure on this scale or at this velocity. It would be fascinating, if only it were happening somewhere else."
So the Bank of England is being incompetent, and this incompetence is the fault of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, by osmosis. Great, sure, got it, thanks Ian Twunt.
You are making it fit your preconceptions. Truss can do no wrong, thus it must be someone else's fault.
Why do you think you are in a tiny minority? Could it perhaps be that the rest of the world is right and you are wrong?
Read the article. It's an article about the incompetent behaviour of the BOE. He's just put this peculiar spin on it where he blames their incompetence on Truss and Kwarteng.
So, who appointed this numpty governor of the BoE for his soundness on Brexit...
Sanctions took about 3-4% off the economy, not the expected 8-10%
Meanwhile Europe teeters near to outright collapse
I wouldn't believe the Russian growth figures. They're probably outright lies. Afterall, that's where the phrase 'tractor stats' does come from.
The Economist believes this. Coz this isn't Russian data, they are using more reliable indicators
With all due respect, it's not that surprising at all:
Russia exports commodities, particularly energy. 54% (last year!) of all exports were energy. The price of coal is up 4x, the price of their LNG cargoes to China and Japan has trebled, what they (previously) got for sending gas to Europe was at 6x what they got in 2021, and the price of oil is up, even if not so much.
In other words - and I said this months ago - the war is partially self funding because it increases the value of Russia's exports.
The problem is that the energy economy is not the economy of most of the country. If you work in a factory where parts have been cut off due to sanctions, then your factory isn't working. GDP in total can look fine, but you are personally doing shit.
And it doesn't help Russia with their core problem with the war: they are expending materiel far more quickly than they are producing it. Those drones and missiles and rockets rely on technology from China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan (and probably the UK, France and Germany too). Even the starter motors on their tanks are going to rely on batteries that aren't made in Russia.
That - not a GDP buouyed by energy prices - is Russia's problem.
Oh yeah... and every day Europe (and the world) gets less dependent and less hooked on Russian energy. So when the war ends, and it will end, Russia will see reduced prices and fewer customers. That's not a great place to be.
Not sure how much UK technology will be in them these days, unless they use What 3 Words to acquire their targets.
A member of Truss's own cabinet tells me Truss's and Kwarteng's governance is so dire that some Tory MPs would vote against her in a confidence vote, preferring even a general election that cost them their seats to the current economic chaos
These snippets from Tory MPs are irritating. If they are annoyed with Truss, they need to actually do something about the situation, not go leaking their frustrations to journalists.
It was like this with Johnson too. We've got months before they actually go for it.
A member of Truss's own cabinet tells me Truss's and Kwarteng's governance is so dire that some Tory MPs would vote against her in a confidence vote, preferring even a general election that cost them their seats to the current economic chaos
These snippets from Tory MPs are irritating. If they are annoyed with Truss, they need to actually do something about the situation, not go leaking their frustrations to journalists.
It was like this with Johnson too. We've got months before they actually go for it.
Oxfordshire County Council has written to government minsters to explain why it has decided the county should not bid to be involved in Whitehall’s investment zones initiative, which involves creating targeted areas where planning regulations would be relaxed in an attempt to drive growth.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, has written a formal letter to Simon Clark, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, to explain why it was thought this was not the right move for Oxfordshire.
She said: “We have thanked the government for inviting Oxfordshire to bid for investment zone status. We have decided not to progress this opportunity. Oxfordshire continues to support many very exciting business developments, particularly in the areas of science and technology, so in writing a letter to government I wanted to explain the logic behind why we feel that applying for an investment zone does not fit with our ambitions....
“We consider that the de-regularisation of planning controls and reductions in environmental protection, which appear to be a condition of any investment zone, are incompatible with our net zero carbon aspirations and our commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity and environmental quality, as stated in our vision.
i think you have to be careful of extrapolating Oxfordshire to the entire country. It's a county where the council changes have been disproportionately - not in a bad way - swayed by local concerns over overbuilding on rural land. It's not surprising the local council has said this. Others may be different.
Yes of course. But the weird thing, which I cannot understand, is how the government believe that 'reductions in environmental protections' is a message that is going to be politically popular. After they have spent years laying the ground for net zero, etc, and whilst they have their own MP's moaning about raw sewage going in to the sea, etc. They also have a policy of 'reducing affordable housing'. How do they expect this to be a politically popular policy? Do they even have the vaguest idea about what they are doing?
Well, this is the whole debate; growth vs environment? Because you really, really cannot have both. Either you have newts and songbirds and orchids or you have nice houses for people to live in and malls for them to shop in and factories to earn good money in.
I think the vision, which until a few weeks ago the government espoused, is that you can; that was how policies like biodiversity net gain came about. Every development leads to biodiversity enhancement. And the world has changed, people now really believe in all this stuff. Truss and Co seem to be stuck in the 1980s (when people shopped in malls and worked in factories).
You cannae change the laws of physics, Cap'n. There's a finite amount of ground, and you either tarmac it or not. You can't offset 100 acres of new town by calling into existence 100 new acres of rewilded wilderness.
Indeed, but you can offset 100 acres of building in the Oxford Green Belt by expanding the Green Belt by 100 acres on the outside.
Of course that isn't what's happening. The thousands of new houses (euphemistically called a Garden Village) are literally going just beyond the outer edge of the Oxford Green Belt, which means that the A40 will be clogged up with people driving in from there to Oxford. I despair sometimes.
You think that relabelling green land as Green Belt is the same as magicking land up out of nothing. In your scenario, is there a net loss of natural land to housing, or a net standstill?
No, I don't. There's a net loss and I'm fine with that.
A sane conservation policy isn't about preserving all land no matter what, it's about protecting and enhancing the most valuable land for conservation and access.
That isn't the policy we currently have. But nor is it the policy espoused by the kneejerk YIMBYs whose general attitude is "I live in a city, property prices are expensive, I never go to the countryside is shit so let's just have a bonfire of planning regs". What that gets you is US-style sprawl.
Sanctions took about 3-4% off the economy, not the expected 8-10%
Meanwhile Europe teeters near to outright collapse
I wouldn't believe the Russian growth figures. They're probably outright lies. Afterall, that's where the phrase 'tractor stats' does come from.
The Economist believes this. Coz this isn't Russian data, they are using more reliable indicators
With all due respect, it's not that surprising at all:
Russia exports commodities, particularly energy. 54% (last year!) of all exports were energy. The price of coal is up 4x, the price of their LNG cargoes to China and Japan has trebled, what they (previously) got for sending gas to Europe was at 6x what they got in 2021, and the price of oil is up, even if not so much.
In other words - and I said this months ago - the war is partially self funding because it increases the value of Russia's exports.
The problem is that the energy economy is not the economy of most of the country. If you work in a factory where parts have been cut off due to sanctions, then your factory isn't working. GDP in total can look fine, but you are personally doing shit.
And it doesn't help Russia with their core problem with the war: they are expending materiel far more quickly than they are producing it. Those drones and missiles and rockets rely on technology from China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan (and probably the UK, France and Germany too). Even the starter motors on their tanks are going to rely on batteries that aren't made in Russia.
That - not a GDP buouyed by energy prices - is Russia's problem.
Oh yeah... and every day Europe (and the world) gets less dependent and less hooked on Russian energy. So when the war ends, and it will end, Russia will see reduced prices and fewer customers. That's not a great place to be.
Not sure how much UK technology will be in them these days, unless they use What 3 Words to acquire their targets.
I know we're not meant to say this, and I am a "fucking appeaser", and after this I will kill myself in shame, but looking at the bald economic stats: Russia could win this war
Because it is Europe which is bleeding out, not Russia. Despite everything
Presumably this is because the price of raw materials, energy etc, which Russia exports, has gone up?
It was inevitable that Europe was going to suffer when this war started. But just as things start to get bad for Europeans, Russia keeps doing things that remind them to continue supporting the war, like bombing childrens playgrounds. And then they make territorial claims based on sham referendums that irritate its 'allies' who cannot support such acts because of the precedents it would set for their own territorial problems and disputes. So it keeps going with these bizarre own goals by the master strategist Putin.
I don't really see how Russia wins the war because it can't easily fix the problems with its military, even if it pumps unlimited amounts of money in to it, it cannot really change anything. Russia doesn't have the motivation to win and Ukraine does.
The idea that Russia is only 3-4% down on pre-invasion GDP is clearly bunkum. They have had hundreds of thousands of young professionals leave the country, disproportionately from skilled, productive trades. In addition, we know there are shortages in a lot of manufacturing plants, slowing production. It's just clearly nonsense numbers.
Yes, clearly down to energy fluctuations and / or the price of oil. A more meaningful measure would be GDP ex-energy production, which The Economist didn't comment on, which is bizarre.
Also look at this in terms of the $ - Russia is a commodity producer and commodities are priced in dollars. Which raises the question of what their GDP numbers will be like when commodities fall.
That is an absolutely shit argument. It's like saying those of working age in this country must be much better off than the elderly because look how much younger and harder working they are. Earned and unearned money are exactly equally valuable dollar for dollar.
Nope. One is more valuable than the other, if only because of the volatility angle.
If GDP growth is generated by healthy industry and a wealthy population, it has a resilience commodity prices don't.
If you want a real-life example, look at commodity rich countries in Africa. By your argument, they should be happy with remaining commodity providers if prices remain high. But any sensible person knows that's a fool's game because prices can change beyond your control. It's part of the reason why the Middle East countries are trying to diversify.
What? In any business at all demand for the product can balloon or vanish. I have probably been to a minimum of 5x as many African countries as you have. The reason they are fucked is not what you think it is.
One Tory MP describes Truss' appearance at the 1922 committee as "funereal." Another, asked if she had done more to reassure colleagues, replies "absolutely not."
Robert Halfon, who chairs the education select committee, told Truss she had "trashed the last 10 years" of the Conservative economic record, according to one colleague.
The Danish General Election campaign is getting going - it looks as though we will have fairly regular polling from Megafon, Voxmeter and Gallup.
One thing I will be watching is the relative standings of Venstre, the Conservatives and Denmark Democrats. Most polls have them in that order (Megafon has 12.9, 10.5 and 10.1 while Voxmeter has 13.8, 9.8 and 9.0 respectively).
The YouGov poll however has the Denmark Democrats on 11.2%, the Conservatives on 10.8% and Venstre on a disastrous 9.5%. To be fair, YouGov's numbers don't sit well with those of other pollsters.
The other pollster I see is Epinion and they tend to have slightly higher sample numbers, 1,700-2,000 as distinct from around 1,000 from the other pollsters.
"Even in her worst nightmares, Liz Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad The Government is frozen rigid in terror, unable to move as it stares vacantly at incoming traffic
Everywhere you look, it’s unravelling. Liz Truss is presiding over a full-spectrum, system-wide, multifaceted political breakdown. It’s a complete disintegration of function and will – and it is taking place faster than anyone thought possible. In every aspect and at every level, the Government is falling apart.
After just a few weeks, her incompetence has reduced the Bank of England to functional incoherence. It is losing any sense of institutional identity in the face of the chaos she has created.
...
Even in her worst nightmares, Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad. We’ve never seen political failure on this scale or at this velocity. It would be fascinating, if only it were happening somewhere else."
So the Bank of England is being incompetent, and this incompetence is the fault of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, by osmosis. Great, sure, got it, thanks Ian Twunt.
You're a funny guy Lucky, I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last.
Generally, I'm very uncomfortable that governments can be brought down by the shenanigans of the financial markets. The idea that high financiers, hedge-fund managers and greedy speculators can have such an impact on political decision-making rather sticks in the craw.
However, I'm willing to make an exception in the context of the current omnishambles of a government.
Governments can only be brought down by markets if they depend on borrowing money. Governments which live within their means and are free of debt can do whatever the hell they like. Sadly, such things are vanishingly rare.
I suspect they’ll be coming back into fashion. Electors are hard, and fickle, masters.
"In 1970, the Soviet Union produced more than three times the number of tractors and combines that were sold in the U.S."
and when they switched from tractors to T-34s in 1940 they made a fuck of a lot of non-imaginary T-34s.
Nine months ago, there were 13,000 tanks in Russia - until people started actually looking for them, then they realised the actual number was more like 3,000.
And the Ukranians have destroyed or captured 2,000 of them, in those nine months.
In the 1970s the Soviet Union starved, with all those tractors. Food ration up and down the line, buying grain from the West. With the Black Soil land no less.
One of the successes of the end of the Soviet Union was getting food production working. Which required Western machinery
Now they have the “Czech tractors” that won awards for innovation and Russian manufacturing.
Except that they didn’t licence the design and make them in Russia, they’re still made in Europe, then shipped in pieces and assembled in Russia. Guess how many of these tractors are being made right now?
"Even in her worst nightmares, Liz Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad The Government is frozen rigid in terror, unable to move as it stares vacantly at incoming traffic
Everywhere you look, it’s unravelling. Liz Truss is presiding over a full-spectrum, system-wide, multifaceted political breakdown. It’s a complete disintegration of function and will – and it is taking place faster than anyone thought possible. In every aspect and at every level, the Government is falling apart.
After just a few weeks, her incompetence has reduced the Bank of England to functional incoherence. It is losing any sense of institutional identity in the face of the chaos she has created.
...
Even in her worst nightmares, Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad. We’ve never seen political failure on this scale or at this velocity. It would be fascinating, if only it were happening somewhere else."
So the Bank of England is being incompetent, and this incompetence is the fault of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, by osmosis. Great, sure, got it, thanks Ian Twunt.
You're a funny guy Lucky, I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last.
Thanks.
It is a very silly article though.
Remember when I promised I would kill you last? I lied.
Truss supporter (!) post-22 tonight: "I mean, she's cardboard isn't she ... we have to accept that". Me: "But that's not going to win you an election, is it?" - "Of course not, we're going to lose. Nothing makes any difference now, we're fucked".
Spot on. 2023 is a long way away for Truss, there has to be some betting on 2022.
More seriously, how exactly will they get rid of her? The current rules prohibit for a year. There no obvious unity, saviour over the water candidate. But there are the likes of Braverman, Boris, waiting for an opportunity knowing membership will favour them. Sunak preferred by voters of other parties, would be contentious and split the Tory party. And whilst Truss and Kwarteng are diabolical communicators, if it’s the economic approach and ideological message that has sunk Tory’s in the polls, what platform and themes do they want to fight election on?
Why isn’t 2025 on the chart 🙂
Well, a 2025 election would require campaigning over Christmas 2024/New Year 2025. Possible, but not likely
We had a December one last time.
Why call it earlier when something might turn up to save you?
Yes and no.
2019 was in December, but it was over before the serious run-up to the feast.
A January 2025 election would need to take a break for Christmas. That really would push Conservative ratings into single figures.
"In 1970, the Soviet Union produced more than three times the number of tractors and combines that were sold in the U.S."
and when they switched from tractors to T-34s in 1940 they made a fuck of a lot of non-imaginary T-34s.
Nine months ago, there were 13,000 tanks in Russia - until people started actually looking for them, then they realised the actual number was more like 3,000.
And the Ukranians have destroyed or captured 2,000 of them, in those nine months.
In the 1970s the Soviet Union starved, with all those tractors. Food ration up and down the line, buying grain from the West. With the Black Soil land no less.
One of the successes of the end of the Soviet Union was getting food production working. Which required Western machinery
Now they have the “Czech tractors” that won awards for innovation and Russian manufacturing.
Except that they didn’t licence the design and make them in Russia, they’re still made in Europe, then shipped in pieces and assembled in Russia. Guess how many of these tractors are being made right now?
"Even in her worst nightmares, Liz Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad The Government is frozen rigid in terror, unable to move as it stares vacantly at incoming traffic
Everywhere you look, it’s unravelling. Liz Truss is presiding over a full-spectrum, system-wide, multifaceted political breakdown. It’s a complete disintegration of function and will – and it is taking place faster than anyone thought possible. In every aspect and at every level, the Government is falling apart.
After just a few weeks, her incompetence has reduced the Bank of England to functional incoherence. It is losing any sense of institutional identity in the face of the chaos she has created.
...
Even in her worst nightmares, Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad. We’ve never seen political failure on this scale or at this velocity. It would be fascinating, if only it were happening somewhere else."
So the Bank of England is being incompetent, and this incompetence is the fault of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, by osmosis. Great, sure, got it, thanks Ian Twunt.
You are making it fit your preconceptions. Truss can do no wrong, thus it must be someone else's fault.
Why do you think you are in a tiny minority? Could it perhaps be that the rest of the world is right and you are wrong?
Read the article. It's an article about the incompetent behaviour of the BOE. He's just put this peculiar spin on it where he blames their incompetence on Truss and Kwarteng.
So, who appointed this numpty governor of the BoE for his soundness on Brexit...
No arguments from me there.
I will say I don't think Carney would have been sounder. We need to get away from Government appointees who are just part of an elitist jobs merry-go-round (in the BOE's case a junior part, because it's not a top prize like the IMF or World Bank), and actually want to benefit the British economy.
Oxfordshire County Council has written to government minsters to explain why it has decided the county should not bid to be involved in Whitehall’s investment zones initiative, which involves creating targeted areas where planning regulations would be relaxed in an attempt to drive growth.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, has written a formal letter to Simon Clark, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, to explain why it was thought this was not the right move for Oxfordshire.
She said: “We have thanked the government for inviting Oxfordshire to bid for investment zone status. We have decided not to progress this opportunity. Oxfordshire continues to support many very exciting business developments, particularly in the areas of science and technology, so in writing a letter to government I wanted to explain the logic behind why we feel that applying for an investment zone does not fit with our ambitions....
“We consider that the de-regularisation of planning controls and reductions in environmental protection, which appear to be a condition of any investment zone, are incompatible with our net zero carbon aspirations and our commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity and environmental quality, as stated in our vision.
i think you have to be careful of extrapolating Oxfordshire to the entire country. It's a county where the council changes have been disproportionately - not in a bad way - swayed by local concerns over overbuilding on rural land. It's not surprising the local council has said this. Others may be different.
Yes of course. But the weird thing, which I cannot understand, is how the government believe that 'reductions in environmental protections' is a message that is going to be politically popular. After they have spent years laying the ground for net zero, etc, and whilst they have their own MP's moaning about raw sewage going in to the sea, etc. They also have a policy of 'reducing affordable housing'. How do they expect this to be a politically popular policy? Do they even have the vaguest idea about what they are doing?
Well, this is the whole debate; growth vs environment? Because you really, really cannot have both. Either you have newts and songbirds and orchids or you have nice houses for people to live in and malls for them to shop in and factories to earn good money in.
I think the vision, which until a few weeks ago the government espoused, is that you can; that was how policies like biodiversity net gain came about. Every development leads to biodiversity enhancement. And the world has changed, people now really believe in all this stuff. Truss and Co seem to be stuck in the 1980s (when people shopped in malls and worked in factories).
You cannae change the laws of physics, Cap'n. There's a finite amount of ground, and you either tarmac it or not. You can't offset 100 acres of new town by calling into existence 100 new acres of rewilded wilderness.
Indeed, but you can offset 100 acres of building in the Oxford Green Belt by expanding the Green Belt by 100 acres on the outside.
Of course that isn't what's happening. The thousands of new houses (euphemistically called a Garden Village) are literally going just beyond the outer edge of the Oxford Green Belt, which means that the A40 will be clogged up with people driving in from there to Oxford. I despair sometimes.
You think that relabelling green land as Green Belt is the same as magicking land up out of nothing. In your scenario, is there a net loss of natural land to housing, or a net standstill?
No, I don't. There's a net loss and I'm fine with that.
A sane conservation policy isn't about preserving all land no matter what, it's about protecting and enhancing the most valuable land for conservation and access.
That isn't the policy we currently have. But nor is it the policy espoused by the kneejerk YIMBYs whose general attitude is "I live in a city, property prices are expensive, I never go to the countryside is shit so let's just have a bonfire of planning regs". What that gets you is US-style sprawl.
That is true, but it is surprising how much people think anything green (or even not that green) is 'Green Belt', and therefore fight as hard as if it is.
Spot on. 2023 is a long way away for Truss, there has to be some betting on 2022.
More seriously, how exactly will they get rid of her? The current rules prohibit for a year. There no obvious unity, saviour over the water candidate. But there are the likes of Braverman, Boris, waiting for an opportunity knowing membership will favour them. Sunak preferred by voters of other parties, would be contentious and split the Tory party. And whilst Truss and Kwarteng are diabolical communicators, if it’s the economic approach and ideological message that has sunk Tory’s in the polls, what platform and themes do they want to fight election on?
Why isn’t 2025 on the chart 🙂
Well, a 2025 election would require campaigning over Christmas 2024/New Year 2025. Possible, but not likely
We had a December one last time.
Why call it earlier when something might turn up to save you?
December 2019 was BEFORE Christmas.
My point: A 2025 election means January 2025.
I may not have gone to school much, but I can count 😆
Politicians just like to hang on hoping for something to turn up don’t they.
It is surely impossible for sentient Tory backbenchers either to precipitate an election, or to allow Truss to continue as leader, with polling like this ?
The “give her a chance” line is just madness in this context,
Part of me wants the idiot members to own this loss though. If the MPs remove her it will just give them an out "well she never got a chance so we don't know if she could have turned it around" and "the media destroyed her and Tory MPs betrayed her and us" etc...
Let Liz take a gigantic L and force the members to realise just how out of touch they are with modern Britain.
This is the same party membership that gave us Iain Duncan Smith over Ken Clarke twenty years ago. They haven't changed. They're not gonna change.
I think you mean the same MPs who rejected Portillo, the obvious choice, who was a moderate eurosceptic, and made it a choice between Ken Clarke and IDS.
Remember that the Blue Wall Tories voted for Sunak - Liz's majority comes from the rest of the country membership.
The surface numbers are bad enough for the Conservatives but with over 60% of BOTH Labour and LD voters prepared to vote tactically they may be even worse.
The list of seats in the survey is a curious mix of the low hanging fruit such as Guildford, Hendon and St Ives but also includes the likes of Thornbury and Yate and Wantage which would, until a few weeks back, have been at the far outer reach of LD expectations.
The LDs need a 9.4% swing to take Wantage, 9.1% in Woking and 12% in Thornbury & Yate. Ordinarily, I'd say impossible but if you can get a high tactical vote from Labour supporters plus Conservative switchers and abstentions, who knows?
There's a very long way to go and whatever some on here might say, I imagine most in the non-Conservative ranks will be taking nothing for granted and going out to fight for every vote.
As @HYUFD wisely opines, the 2023 local elections (still more than half a year away) will be informative particularly for rural and suburban England.
One Tory MP describes Truss' appearance at the 1922 committee as "funereal." Another, asked if she had done more to reassure colleagues, replies "absolutely not."
Robert Halfon, who chairs the education select committee, told Truss she had "trashed the last 10 years" of the Conservative economic record, according to one colleague.
Little known fact, Robert Halfon’s old man was backpacking around Italy during the filming of Spartacus when he was offered an extra’s role for the equivalent of a tenner and a good pasta lunch and all the wine he could drink.
He’s now immortalised in film three down from Spartacus in the crucifixion scene.
Truss supporter (!) post-22 tonight: "I mean, she's cardboard isn't she ... we have to accept that". Me: "But that's not going to win you an election, is it?" - "Of course not, we're going to lose. Nothing makes any difference now, we're fucked".
It is surely impossible for sentient Tory backbenchers either to precipitate an election, or to allow Truss to continue as leader, with polling like this ?
The “give her a chance” line is just madness in this context,
Part of me wants the idiot members to own this loss though. If the MPs remove her it will just give them an out "well she never got a chance so we don't know if she could have turned it around" and "the media destroyed her and Tory MPs betrayed her and us" etc...
Let Liz take a gigantic L and force the members to realise just how out of touch they are with modern Britain.
This is the same party membership that gave us Iain Duncan Smith over Ken Clarke twenty years ago. They haven't changed. They're not gonna change.
I think you mean the same MPs who rejected Portillo, the obvious choice, who was a moderate eurosceptic, and made it a choice between Ken Clarke and IDS.
Yes, it's the MPs that screwed this up because the polling was clear that Tory members would vote for ANYONE over Sunak, so they should have made sure Sunak was up against either Penny or Kemi.
Either of them would have beaten Rishi Rich with the membership.
I know we're not meant to say this, and I am a "fucking appeaser", and after this I will kill myself in shame, but looking at the bald economic stats: Russia could win this war
Because it is Europe which is bleeding out, not Russia. Despite everything
Europe bleeding out doesnt matter. Its whether ukraine feels its bleeding out or winning. I doubt they give a shit if france or germany are having some economic pain
It is surely impossible for sentient Tory backbenchers either to precipitate an election, or to allow Truss to continue as leader, with polling like this ?
The “give her a chance” line is just madness in this context,
Part of me wants the idiot members to own this loss though. If the MPs remove her it will just give them an out "well she never got a chance so we don't know if she could have turned it around" and "the media destroyed her and Tory MPs betrayed her and us" etc...
Let Liz take a gigantic L and force the members to realise just how out of touch they are with modern Britain.
This is the same party membership that gave us Iain Duncan Smith over Ken Clarke twenty years ago. They haven't changed. They're not gonna change.
I think you mean the same MPs who rejected Portillo, the obvious choice, who was a moderate eurosceptic, and made it a choice between Ken Clarke and IDS.
Yes, it's the MPs that screwed this up because the polling was clear that Tory members would vote for ANYONE over Sunak, so they should have made sure Sunak was up against either Penny or Kemi.
Either of them would have beaten Rishi Rich with the membership.
Rishi’s team did that; they wanted to go up against the weakest candidate. That's what Kemi's Gove-sponsored candidature was all about. Turned out even the weakest candidate wasn't weak enough.
When we think of assisted suicide or euthanasia, we imagine a limited number of elderly people with late-stage cancer or advanced ALS in severe pain. The argument for helping them die is clear: Death is imminent. Why should they be forced to suffer?
In 2015, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that assisted suicide was constitutional. In June 2016, Parliament passed Bill C-14, otherwise known as the Medical Assistance in Dying Act. MAiD was now the law of the land. Anyone who could show that their death was “reasonably foreseeable” was eligible...
Today, thousands of people who could live for many years are applying—successfully—to kill themselves.
Indeed, in some Canadian provinces nearly 5 percent of deaths are MAiD deaths. In 2021, the province of Quebec reported that 4.7 percent of deaths in the province were due to MAiD; in British Columbia, the number was 4.8 percent. Progressive Vancouver Island is unofficially known as the “assisted-death capital of the world,” doctors told me.
Why the dramatic increase? Over the past few years, doctors have taken an increasingly liberal view when it comes to defining “reasonably foreseeable” death. Then, last year, the government amended the original legislation, stating that one could apply for MAiD even if one’s death were not reasonably foreseeable. This second track of applicants simply had to show that they had a condition that was “intolerable to them” and could not “be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable...
Next March, the government is scheduled to expand the pool of eligible suicide-seekers to include the mentally ill and “mature minors.” According to Canada’s Department of Justice, parents are generally “entitled to make treatment decisions on their children’s behalf. The mature minor doctrine, however, allows children deemed sufficiently mature to make their own treatment decisions.”
"Can you give me any tips on how to boost my approval ratings?"
Chas knows a thing or two about plumbing the depths of unpopularity... Not sure his advice would help Liz much though given it took 25 years just to become merely tolerated and he had to bump off his ex-wife too...
When we think of assisted suicide or euthanasia, we imagine a limited number of elderly people with late-stage cancer or advanced ALS in severe pain. The argument for helping them die is clear: Death is imminent. Why should they be forced to suffer?
In 2015, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that assisted suicide was constitutional. In June 2016, Parliament passed Bill C-14, otherwise known as the Medical Assistance in Dying Act. MAiD was now the law of the land. Anyone who could show that their death was “reasonably foreseeable” was eligible...
Today, thousands of people who could live for many years are applying—successfully—to kill themselves.
Indeed, in some Canadian provinces nearly 5 percent of deaths are MAiD deaths. In 2021, the province of Quebec reported that 4.7 percent of deaths in the province were due to MAiD; in British Columbia, the number was 4.8 percent. Progressive Vancouver Island is unofficially known as the “assisted-death capital of the world,” doctors told me.
Why the dramatic increase? Over the past few years, doctors have taken an increasingly liberal view when it comes to defining “reasonably foreseeable” death. Then, last year, the government amended the original legislation, stating that one could apply for MAiD even if one’s death were not reasonably foreseeable. This second track of applicants simply had to show that they had a condition that was “intolerable to them” and could not “be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable...
Next March, the government is scheduled to expand the pool of eligible suicide-seekers to include the mentally ill and “mature minors.” According to Canada’s Department of Justice, parents are generally “entitled to make treatment decisions on their children’s behalf. The mature minor doctrine, however, allows children deemed sufficiently mature to make their own treatment decisions.”
Isn't everyone's death "reasonably foreseeable?" Nay inevitable.
"Can you give me any tips on how to boost my approval ratings?"
Chas knows a thing or two about plumbing the depths of unpopularity... Not sure his advice would help Liz much though given it took 25 years just to become merely tolerated and he had to bump off his ex-wife too...
*ducks*
An utterly infallible wanker indicator, is that wink emoji.
One Tory MP describes Truss' appearance at the 1922 committee as "funereal." Another, asked if she had done more to reassure colleagues, replies "absolutely not."
Robert Halfon, who chairs the education select committee, told Truss she had "trashed the last 10 years" of the Conservative economic record, according to one colleague.
Little known fact, Robert Halfon’s old man was backpacking around Italy during the filming of Spartacus when he was offered an extra’s role for the equivalent of a tenner and a good pasta lunch and all the wine he could drink.
He’s now immortalised in film three down from Spartacus in the crucifixion scene.
Like others I hear that the mood at tonight’s 1922 was very bad. I’m told MPs were “utterly shocked” by the PM’s performance. “From delusion to devastation — writ large on her face.” Feels like, if anything, her situation has worsened. https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1580265694750715904
"Can you give me any tips on how to boost my approval ratings?"
Chas knows a thing or two about plumbing the depths of unpopularity... Not sure his advice would help Liz much though given it took 25 years just to become merely tolerated and he had to bump off his ex-wife too...
*ducks*
An utterly infallible wanker indicator, is that wink emoji.
One Tory MP describes Truss' appearance at the 1922 committee as "funereal." Another, asked if she had done more to reassure colleagues, replies "absolutely not."
Robert Halfon, who chairs the education select committee, told Truss she had "trashed the last 10 years" of the Conservative economic record, according to one colleague.
Little known fact, Robert Halfon’s old man was backpacking around Italy during the filming of Spartacus when he was offered an extra’s role for the equivalent of a tenner and a good pasta lunch and all the wine he could drink.
He’s now immortalised in film three down from Spartacus in the crucifixion scene.
Brooklyn Center man who claimed vandals spray painted "Biden 2020" on his garage and torched his camper due to a Trump 2020 flag has pleaded guilty to fraud for faking the incident.
Thirty-year-old Denis Molla was charged in the case after the fire in September 2020, in which prosecutors say he falsely reported to police that three men lit his camper on fire and vandalized his garage with graffiti supporting President Biden, Black Lives Matter, and Antifa. Molla also claimed the vandals targeted his camper because of a "Trump 2020" flag he had on it.
Authorities say Molla submitted multiple insurance claims for the damage to his camper, garage, and vehicles. Prosecutors say he collected $61,000 in insurance claims and more than $17,000 from a GoFundMe.
Molla pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in the hoax. He will be sentenced at a later date for the crime.
When we think of assisted suicide or euthanasia, we imagine a limited number of elderly people with late-stage cancer or advanced ALS in severe pain. The argument for helping them die is clear: Death is imminent. Why should they be forced to suffer?
In 2015, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that assisted suicide was constitutional. In June 2016, Parliament passed Bill C-14, otherwise known as the Medical Assistance in Dying Act. MAiD was now the law of the land. Anyone who could show that their death was “reasonably foreseeable” was eligible...
Today, thousands of people who could live for many years are applying—successfully—to kill themselves.
Indeed, in some Canadian provinces nearly 5 percent of deaths are MAiD deaths. In 2021, the province of Quebec reported that 4.7 percent of deaths in the province were due to MAiD; in British Columbia, the number was 4.8 percent. Progressive Vancouver Island is unofficially known as the “assisted-death capital of the world,” doctors told me.
Why the dramatic increase? Over the past few years, doctors have taken an increasingly liberal view when it comes to defining “reasonably foreseeable” death. Then, last year, the government amended the original legislation, stating that one could apply for MAiD even if one’s death were not reasonably foreseeable. This second track of applicants simply had to show that they had a condition that was “intolerable to them” and could not “be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable...
Next March, the government is scheduled to expand the pool of eligible suicide-seekers to include the mentally ill and “mature minors.” According to Canada’s Department of Justice, parents are generally “entitled to make treatment decisions on their children’s behalf. The mature minor doctrine, however, allows children deemed sufficiently mature to make their own treatment decisions.”
And?
We are dedicating an appalling amount of GDP to keeping eldely vegetables breathing past the age of 75 for £1000 per week or whatever it costs. If the veg positively want to croak they are to be applauded, if not incentivized by free funeral offers. I don't see the problem here.
"Even in her worst nightmares, Liz Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad The Government is frozen rigid in terror, unable to move as it stares vacantly at incoming traffic
Everywhere you look, it’s unravelling. Liz Truss is presiding over a full-spectrum, system-wide, multifaceted political breakdown. It’s a complete disintegration of function and will – and it is taking place faster than anyone thought possible. In every aspect and at every level, the Government is falling apart.
After just a few weeks, her incompetence has reduced the Bank of England to functional incoherence. It is losing any sense of institutional identity in the face of the chaos she has created.
...
Even in her worst nightmares, Truss could never have dreamed it would be this bad. We’ve never seen political failure on this scale or at this velocity. It would be fascinating, if only it were happening somewhere else."
So the Bank of England is being incompetent, and this incompetence is the fault of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, by osmosis. Great, sure, got it, thanks Ian Twunt.
You are making it fit your preconceptions. Truss can do no wrong, thus it must be someone else's fault.
Why do you think you are in a tiny minority? Could it perhaps be that the rest of the world is right and you are wrong?
Read the article. It's an article about the incompetent behaviour of the BOE. He's just put this peculiar spin on it where he blames their incompetence on Truss and Kwarteng.
So, who appointed this numpty governor of the BoE for his soundness on Brexit...
"Can you give me any tips on how to boost my approval ratings?"
Chas knows a thing or two about plumbing the depths of unpopularity... Not sure his advice would help Liz much though given it took 25 years just to become merely tolerated and he had to bump off his ex-wife too...
*ducks*
To be fair, it was jolly decent of Liz Truss to use her unpopularity to give a boost to the King, by banning him from the climate conference.
Remember that the Blue Wall Tories voted for Sunak - Liz's majority comes from the rest of the country membership.
A couple of thoughts, Nick - first, Liz Truss probably won not because of who she was but who she wasn't. Those looking to avenge Boris and blaming Sunak (and Javid) for being the first two with the knives got some recompense but a pyrrhic victory I suspect.
Second, Redfield & Wilton has Labour sweeping the "Blue Wall" but 60% of Labour voters would vote tactically to unseat a Conservative so perhaps as in 1997 one or two LD gains made by tactical voting.
I'm also wondering what your thoughts are on the 2023 locals - I know Guildford and Waverley are working closely together these days - perhaps they see a future South West Surrey unitary authority (with Woking perhaps?) on the horizon. Do you see any way back for the Conservatives in the likes of Guildford, Waverley and Tandridge next year?
Comments
2019 was in December, but it was over before the serious run-up to the feast.
A January 2025 election would need to take a break for Christmas. That really would push Conservative ratings into single figures.
One day.
However, I'm willing to make an exception in the context of the current omnishambles of a government.
Europe is enduring a recession.
But that's it. Some people aren't working. Some businesses will go under. People will set their thermostats at lower levels. Governments will be unpopular.
Russia has lost its best tanks, planes, artillery, rockets, drones, and missiles.
And tens and tens of thousands of its young men.
By contrast, Ukraine is getting supplied with new kit every day. Even the Germans are stepping up.
The combined armaments production capacity of the West - which is not hobbled by sanctions - is probably 40-times that of Russia. And Russia isn't 100x larger than Ukraine in terms of population, it's maybe 3x.
The only way Russia can win is if Ukraine stops fighting. (And, by the way, the people who are really suffering are the Ukrainians.) And I see no likelihood that will happen.
So stop being a fucking appeaser, and get with the program.
At some point in the future, probably some years in the future, the Russian economy will have to re-engage internationally, and see market forces on the Ruble and stock markets.
To add to that, the brain drain. As with post-war Germany, anyone with skills or money has either left Russia already, or plans to leave soon.
Great news.
A member of Truss's own cabinet tells me Truss's and Kwarteng's governance is so dire that some Tory MPs would vote against her in a confidence vote, preferring even a general election that cost them their seats to the current economic chaos
Need to encourage conversion of current buildings. More controversially, get younger people to hitch up earlier and start sharing bedrooms, and discourage divorces (with children at least).
A bit baffled about why we always discuss supply rather than demand.
One of the successes of the end of the Soviet Union was getting food production working. Which required Western machinery
That way you retain the "green crap" (© a former Oxfordshire MP) while building houses in the places people actually want them, and you save money because you don't need ££££ of new roads for people to get to work.
Of course that isn't what's happening. The thousands of new houses (euphemistically called a Garden Village) are literally going just beyond the outer edge of the Oxford Green Belt, which means that the A40 will be clogged up with people driving in from there to Oxford. I despair sometimes.
Governments which live within their means and are free of debt can do whatever the hell they like. Sadly, such things are vanishingly rare.
Case in point: the potential and currently endangered trade deal with India. The long term fiscal impact of such a trade deal would be greater than the negative effects of the Kamikwasi Budget/Synthetically Black Wednesday. This is a market greater than either the EU or USA, and substantially younger than either of them (and obviously far, far younger than China). It would be a very good idea to get it done this parliament, as Labour's election literature suggests an even more tetchy relationship with Delhi when they enter goverment. Truss is a former Trade Secretary and avowedly anti-protectionist; by rights this if anything should be her special subject. If it means shafting Braverman, all the better, just get on with it.
The big one to go for next is the CPTPP, but other areas to look at in general for trade agreements would, I presume, be West Africa (particularly Nigeria) and South East Asia, following the same pattern of young and growing markets.
What do you think has actually happened?
Congratulations to CR too, that's great news.
The Guardian long read on the timeline is jaw dropping. How they were allowed to take control is astounding.
If GDP growth is generated by healthy industry and a wealthy population, it has a resilience commodity prices don't.
If you want a real-life example, look at commodity rich countries in Africa. By your argument, they should be happy with remaining commodity providers if prices remain high. But any sensible person knows that's a fool's game because prices can change beyond your control. It's part of the reason why the Middle East countries are trying to diversify.
A sane conservation policy isn't about preserving all land no matter what, it's about protecting and enhancing the most valuable land for conservation and access.
That isn't the policy we currently have. But nor is it the policy espoused by the kneejerk YIMBYs whose general attitude is "I live in a city, property prices are expensive, I never go to the countryside is shit so let's just have a bonfire of planning regs". What that gets you is US-style sprawl.
https://what3words.com/blast.this.immediately
First, congratulations to @Casino_Royale and family.
The Danish General Election campaign is getting going - it looks as though we will have fairly regular polling from Megafon, Voxmeter and Gallup.
One thing I will be watching is the relative standings of Venstre, the Conservatives and Denmark Democrats. Most polls have them in that order (Megafon has 12.9, 10.5 and 10.1 while Voxmeter has 13.8, 9.8 and 9.0 respectively).
The YouGov poll however has the Denmark Democrats on 11.2%, the Conservatives on 10.8% and Venstre on a disastrous 9.5%. To be fair, YouGov's numbers don't sit well with those of other pollsters.
The other pollster I see is Epinion and they tend to have slightly higher sample numbers, 1,700-2,000 as distinct from around 1,000 from the other pollsters.
It is a very silly article though.
Except that they didn’t licence the design and make them in Russia, they’re still made in Europe, then shipped in pieces and assembled in Russia. Guess how many of these tractors are being made right now?
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1501360272442896388
Truss supporter (!) post-22 tonight: "I mean, she's cardboard isn't she ... we have to accept that". Me: "But that's not going to win you an election, is it?" - "Of course not, we're going to lose. Nothing makes any difference now, we're fucked".
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1580268039643070464
No worries.
You can't get better
Than a Zetor.
I will say I don't think Carney would have been sounder. We need to get away from Government appointees who are just part of an elitist jobs merry-go-round (in the BOE's case a junior part, because it's not a top prize like the IMF or World Bank), and actually want to benefit the British economy.
Politicians just like to hang on hoping for something to turn up don’t they.
🤝 The King welcomes Prime Minister Liz Truss to Buckingham Palace for the first of their regular weekly audiences.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1580269333582077952
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/blue-wall-voting-intention-7-8-october-2022/
The surface numbers are bad enough for the Conservatives but with over 60% of BOTH Labour and LD voters prepared to vote tactically they may be even worse.
The list of seats in the survey is a curious mix of the low hanging fruit such as Guildford, Hendon and St Ives but also includes the likes of Thornbury and Yate and Wantage which would, until a few weeks back, have been at the far outer reach of LD expectations.
The LDs need a 9.4% swing to take Wantage, 9.1% in Woking and 12% in Thornbury & Yate. Ordinarily, I'd say impossible but if you can get a high tactical vote from Labour supporters plus Conservative switchers and abstentions, who knows?
There's a very long way to go and whatever some on here might say, I imagine most in the non-Conservative ranks will be taking nothing for granted and going out to fight for every vote.
As @HYUFD wisely opines, the 2023 local elections (still more than half a year away) will be informative particularly for rural and suburban England.
He’s now immortalised in film three down from Spartacus in the crucifixion scene.
And worth having a tenner on at 100/1, admittedly.
Either of them would have beaten Rishi Rich with the membership.
https://www.commonsense.news/p/scheduled-to-die-the-rise-of-canadas?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cta&utm_source=substack
When we think of assisted suicide or euthanasia, we imagine a limited number of elderly people with late-stage cancer or advanced ALS in severe pain. The argument for helping them die is clear: Death is imminent. Why should they be forced to suffer?
In 2015, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that assisted suicide was constitutional. In June 2016, Parliament passed Bill C-14, otherwise known as the Medical Assistance in Dying Act. MAiD was now the law of the land. Anyone who could show that their death was “reasonably foreseeable” was eligible...
Today, thousands of people who could live for many years are applying—successfully—to kill themselves.
Indeed, in some Canadian provinces nearly 5 percent of deaths are MAiD deaths. In 2021, the province of Quebec reported that 4.7 percent of deaths in the province were due to MAiD; in British Columbia, the number was 4.8 percent. Progressive Vancouver Island is unofficially known as the “assisted-death capital of the world,” doctors told me.
Why the dramatic increase? Over the past few years, doctors have taken an increasingly liberal view when it comes to defining “reasonably foreseeable” death. Then, last year, the government amended the original legislation, stating that one could apply for MAiD even if one’s death were not reasonably foreseeable. This second track of applicants simply had to show that they had a condition that was “intolerable to them” and could not “be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable...
Next March, the government is scheduled to expand the pool of eligible suicide-seekers to include the mentally ill and “mature minors.” According to Canada’s Department of Justice, parents are generally “entitled to make treatment decisions on their children’s behalf. The mature minor doctrine, however, allows children deemed sufficiently mature to make their own treatment decisions.”
*ducks*
Nay inevitable.
*ducks* is also pretty reliable.
He is Spartacus
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1580265694750715904
That was Kirk Douglas Home.
"Nadhim is waiting in the emergency room"
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1580277356996227072
"There's a lot of Qs about Kwasi. MPs think he is a busted flush already. Maybe Liz'll have to make changes
"I feel embarrassed to have sold [the PM] as a safe pair of hands. I sold them a pup"
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1580276459154784256
"There's nothing between the ears. She didn't answer a bloody question and kept asking us what we should do. It's clear panic has set in."
https://twitter.com/8jlogan/status/1580245015947018242
The underlying stuff matters.
We are dedicating an appalling amount of GDP to keeping eldely vegetables breathing past the age of 75 for £1000 per week or whatever it costs. If the veg positively want to croak they are to be applauded, if not incentivized by free funeral offers. I don't see the problem here.
Second, Redfield & Wilton has Labour sweeping the "Blue Wall" but 60% of Labour voters would vote tactically to unseat a Conservative so perhaps as in 1997 one or two LD gains made by tactical voting.
I'm also wondering what your thoughts are on the 2023 locals - I know Guildford and Waverley are working closely together these days - perhaps they see a future South West Surrey unitary authority (with Woking perhaps?) on the horizon. Do you see any way back for the Conservatives in the likes of Guildford, Waverley and Tandridge next year?