If The Queen Consort wears it then it is an insult to over a billion people and the fact the the Royal Family don't give a shit about their bloody colonial past.
Plans for Queen Camilla to be honoured with a crown containing the Koh-i-Noor diamond at the coronation next year could be dropped because of “political sensitivities”, it was claimed yesterday.
The crown was specially made for Queen Elizabeth — later the Queen Mother — in 1937. Previously the diamond was mounted in the crowns of Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII, and Queen Mary, wife of George V.
The Koh-i-Noor was acquired by the East India Company after the Anglo-Sikh Wars and presented to Queen Victoria in 1850. A campaign has sprung up in India urging Britain to return it, although it is also claimed by Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A source told the Daily Mail: “There are serious political sensitivities and significant nervousness.”
According to The Daily Telegraph, a spokesman for the Bharatiya Janata Party of Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, said: “The coronation of Camilla and the use of the crown jewel Koh-i-Noor brings back painful memories of the colonial past.”
The diamond has been in the UK for almost 200 years, whether it is here or India makes sod all difference to the average Indian's lives, especially the lives of the poorest Indians. Interesting to see you doing Modi's business however
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Dickhead was always going to be like this. Everyone knew it.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
You’ve changed
Truss is a libertarian not a Tory who is trashing the party and leading it sleepwalking to its worst defeat since 1832 on current polls.
She has until the local elections to turn it round or she is gone
There's an alternative Universe where Gordon Brown not only doesn't knife Wendy Alexander in the back he actually goes all in on "Bring It On" and agrees to have a SIndy ref in 2009.
Given the economic circumstances Yes would have been lucky to get 35%. Brown would have gone into a 2010 not just the saviour of the banking sector but also of the Union.
Wendy Alexander, by coincidence, is on the front page of the Courier today because her salary as vice Chancellor of Dundee University is going up to over £170k, rather more than Nicola gets as FM. So it seems to have worked out for her. Kezia also has her almost weekly column in the same paper today as well. Both seem to have done rather better out of politics than they did in it.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
There's an alternative Universe where Gordon Brown not only doesn't knife Wendy Alexander in the back he actually goes all in on "Bring It On" and agrees to have a SIndy ref in 2009.
Given the economic circumstances Yes would have been lucky to get 35%. Brown would have gone into a 2010 not just the saviour of the banking sector but also of the Union.
Given Brown was in charge when the economy collapsed Yes would likely still have got 40 to 45%, that is the Nationalist core vote regardless
It looked at the start of the campaign in 2014 as though Yes would be lucky to get 30%. By the end one poll had it ahead.
Never make assumptions.
Yes and hence also never grant referendums either unless absolutely no alternative. They are divisive and the outcome never certain and we are a representative not direct democracy
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Dickhead was always going to be like this. Everyone knew it.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
If The Queen Consort wears it then it is an insult to over a billion people and the fact the the Royal Family don't give a shit about their bloody colonial past.
Plans for Queen Camilla to be honoured with a crown containing the Koh-i-Noor diamond at the coronation next year could be dropped because of “political sensitivities”, it was claimed yesterday.
The crown was specially made for Queen Elizabeth — later the Queen Mother — in 1937. Previously the diamond was mounted in the crowns of Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII, and Queen Mary, wife of George V.
The Koh-i-Noor was acquired by the East India Company after the Anglo-Sikh Wars and presented to Queen Victoria in 1850. A campaign has sprung up in India urging Britain to return it, although it is also claimed by Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A source told the Daily Mail: “There are serious political sensitivities and significant nervousness.”
According to The Daily Telegraph, a spokesman for the Bharatiya Janata Party of Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, said: “The coronation of Camilla and the use of the crown jewel Koh-i-Noor brings back painful memories of the colonial past.”
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
That's like expecting Boris to suddenly start telling the truth, people don't change.
The Queen was a good monarch, but that said more about the Queen as an individual than it did about the quality of monarchy. She was always going to leave big shoes to fill, but Charles is really not going to come close by any means.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
'seriously stupid'
Lol! Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
That reduction is an inevitable consequence of the unprecedented competition faced by the low to medium skilled from the development of what were previously third world countries, specifically China. The massive increase in global trade simply left those groups, which contain the majority of the population, with no negotiating power. If they don't like the lower wages the factory was transplanted and minimal tariffs meant that the business could still produce its product for the market in the US or the EU.
This is the same problem we had with the SM writ large. It was of course possible for us to thrive in the SM, as Germany did, but it would have needed a completely different policy mix from governments who almost certainly would not have been re-elected.
Simplistic, idealistic notions of the benefits of free trade, low or non existent tariffs have completely undermined the majority of western society. Those with capital or with exceptional skills at the top have, of course, gained massively and we have seen GDP creep up, usually with increasing trade deficits as we import much of what we used to make.
We have heard this song before of course. Between the First and Second World Wars, following the US passing of The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, a wave of protectionist measures were passed around the wold. This did not end well: world trade collapsed, and economies – that had been recovering – deteriorated further. The raising of tariff barriers around the world was one of the ultimate causes of the Second World War; something recognised in the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, which went on to become the World Trade Organisation in 1995.
World Trade 1929-1933, as % of World GDP
Source: League of Nations’ World Economic Survey 1932-33
It is true that the benefits of free trade appear very unequal: to an unemployed steel worker in Sunderland, the 1% in his country have gotten wealthier, as have the people of China and other emerging markets, while he has found himself without a job. The problem is that the proposed alternatives – of erecting tariff barriers – make the problem worse.
Raising tariff barriers on – say – imported steel to maintain jobs in Redcar or Port Talbot won’t save those jobs. Or, if it temporarily does, it will do so at the expense of the steel consumers of the UK – car makers and the like.
But let us imagine this issue could be solved (and that we could avoid retaliatory tariffs from those affected by our actions): who would be the purchaser of manufactured products from us if we attempted to protect our industries? We would be making a conscious decision to produce goods at above world market prices. And we need our exports: because without exports of goods and services, we cannot afford the natural gas and oil and the like we need.
As we discussed in Why We Were Rich, above, the developed world used to have the monopoly on manufacturing goods. It no longer does. Attempting to protect industries that are no longer competitive will not help them, it will merely unbalance economies further. Recognising this is painful. Not recognising it is worse.
Yet that period between WW1 and 2 was when the world of deference ebbed away - what we might in Britain glibly call the Downton Abbey world came to an end - and both equality and quality of life for working people improved considerably. Which is why you have to look at the politics and the economics together.
A nice point. One only need look at the council houses of the 1920s ands 1930s round here - decent buildings in decent garden plots erected because all the free market had to offer the workers was tied factory and mine owned boxes, and private landlord flats, often near-slums. The latter situation had very nearly led to revolution in Clydeside, and more generally cannot be blamed on planning and nimbies.
A lot of 1920's and 1930's housing is excellent, but unrestrained ribbon development led to introduction of planning controls under Attlee.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
Well yes. And also yes the ageing. He won’t make 96
I have higher hopes for William and Kate (who could be king and queen much sooner than we expect, for these reasons). They are a bit boring but that’s a virtue in this job
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.
I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.
Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.
The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.
I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.
I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.
I'm not completely sure this can be dismissed as hyperbole.
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/3683520-michael-cohen-says-he-fears-for-his-safety-if-trump-becomes-president-again/ Michael Cohen says he fears for his safety if Donald Trump ever becomes president again. “Yeah, I am,” Trump’s former personal lawyer said when asked if he’s worried about his well-being should the 45th commander in chief return to the Oval Office. “Actually, I’m worried for your safety, too,” he said, “and everybody else in America.” “My fear is that you’re going to see like what you see in Russia right now,” Cohen added in an interview with ITK this week. “All of these individuals flying out of windows or mysterious deaths of suicide. Donald has a very long list of — we’ll call it an enemies list — and I’m certain that I am definitively on it.”...
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
That's like expecting Boris to suddenly start telling the truth, people don't change.
The Queen was a good monarch, but that said more about the Queen as an individual than it did about the quality of monarchy. She was always going to leave big shoes to fill, but Charles is really not going to come close by any means.
No he is not. But in having a heirarchical monarchy you have to accept the rough with the smooth, that goes with the nature of appointment. What those around him need to do is limit the damage he might cause and explain that, contrary to his long held belief, even monarchists don't really care what he thinks.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
Given the PM, who is NOT elected by the public remember or even most Tory MPs but a small majority of Tory members is on record as speaking at a LD conference trashing the royal family and wanting a republic and told Charles not to go to COP the King's mild 'oh dear oh dear', probably unintentional remark was moderate if anything given the current public contempt for the hapless Truss and her government!!
If you are a republican or even consider becoming one then unfortunately like Truss you are a non Tory, just a libertarian
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
You’ve changed
Truss is a libertarian not a Tory who is trashing the party and leading it sleepwalking to its worst defeat since 1832 on current polls.
She has until the local elections to turn it round or she is gone
Why should it be the poor local councillors who have to be stuck with the fork to tell us what we all know
"Yep, she's done...."
Get rid before Christmas, start the New Year as afresh as this parliamentary party can muster.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
Not a lover of Truss, but [...] the misogynistic hatred propelled towards her is appalling.
I don't think it's got anything to do with her being a woman.
It's because she's fucking useless.
I'm no fan of hers, but I have no doubt that some of the (ahem) comments towards her are misogynistic. It's a particularly crass way of talking about her, as she's given people ample valid reasons to criticise her.
I agree
I think she is out of her depth and needs to go but I have detected a degree of misogyny in some comments that is not necessary
This is another thing Truss could suggest - that the criticism of her is misogynistic, and that she needs to carry on for this reason, don't give in to sexism etc. There will always be idiots who provide ammunition for this type of claim. But I would guess that it won't be received particularly well by the general public, who are primarily concerned with mortgage rates and cost of living issues. Also, I recall there was some polling recently that indicated that she was very unpopular with women, which will not help her. I don't think she is in any position where she can look for public sympathy in the way that Theresa May did. Unfortunately, the PM is a role where you just cannot keep someone on because you feel sorry for them.
The misogyny claim had some success against Sunak during their debates when he, err, pointed out that her policies would lead to interest rates of 7%.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
Not a lover of Truss, but [...] the misogynistic hatred propelled towards her is appalling.
I don't think it's got anything to do with her being a woman.
It's because she's fucking useless.
I'm no fan of hers, but I have no doubt that some of the (ahem) comments towards her are misogynistic. It's a particularly crass way of talking about her, as she's given people ample valid reasons to criticise her.
I agree
I think she is out of her depth and needs to go but I have detected a degree of misogyny in some comments that is not necessary
This is another thing Truss could suggest - that the criticism of her is misogynistic, and that she needs to carry on for this reason, don't give in to sexism etc. There will always be idiots who provide ammunition for this type of claim. But I would guess that it won't be received particularly well by the general public, who are primarily concerned with mortgage rates and cost of living issues. Also, I recall there was some polling recently that indicated that she was very unpopular with women, which will not help her. I don't think she is in any position where she can look for public sympathy in the way that Theresa May did. Unfortunately, the PM is a role where you just cannot keep someone on because you feel sorry for them.
"Nowt to do with yer sex, all to do with yer sucks...."
The origin of our current malaise was the Brexit referendum. Charitably, it was a risky bet on a radical shift in our long-established and reasonably successful economic and geopolitical model and the bet has been lost. What we are seeing now is government by sunk-cost fallacy.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I'm on record as saying King Charles III will be a total disaster and I stand by that prediction.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
That's like expecting Boris to suddenly start telling the truth, people don't change.
The Queen was a good monarch, but that said more about the Queen as an individual than it did about the quality of monarchy. She was always going to leave big shoes to fill, but Charles is really not going to come close by any means.
It's amusing to look at little things like this video, but it doesn't amount to much. Insofar as the Monarch has any importance, I think there's potential for KCIII to have a very consequential reign.
I've noted before that he seems to have spent quite a lot of time in the Republic of Ireland, and I think it's just possible that, when people look back at his reign, they will note the achievement of welcoming the Republic back into the Commonwealth and the peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland.
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
Three UK structural observations:
1) As the rewards for employment have fallen, the returns on capital have increased dramatically (especially true in the USA btw)
2) Income is taxed very heavily, capital is taxed relatively lightly and land not taxed at all.
3) The efficiency of government spending has collapsed as public services are no longer controlled by the taxpayer.
These problems date at least to the end of the 1960s.
Major reforms of employment are needed, including promoting self employment and small businesses. A major shift in the tax system is needed including an increase in wealth and capital taxes and a sharp reduction of the income tax burden. Major administrative reform is needed, including radical decentralization and a simplification of the role of the state.
At 10 million words, the UK still has the longest tax code in the world. Aiming to cut that would be a massive task, but the fiscal burden of administration is most definitely "anti-growth". We need a whole new approach, but our politics doesn´t even understand the question. Hence in order to address the economic crisis, we need to address the failures of our politics.
There can be no prosperity without reform.
Well said, which is why Liz Truss was a breath of fresh air in the leadership contest.
There is an urgent need to vastly simply the tax code, move government income from earnings to land, allow more taxes to be raised locally, and a proper zero-based review of government spending.
I had high hopes for the next few months, but the reluctance of the Tory MPs to engage with the project and support the leader they chose, is hugely disappointing.
It now sadly looks like we’ll muddle on for two years, until an election that gives us Starmer as PM and five more years of Blairism, or what Amercians describe as the “Uniparty” or the “Global Consensus” that exists primarily for the political donors and “The 1%”, with no-one prepared to take any risks.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
'seriously stupid'
Lol! Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..
Charles is an intellectual, he is not stupid. The Queen was not an intellectual even if maybe she had more common sense
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
Yes, elected under our system in exactly the same way as almost every other PM in recent history.
(Edited to add the "almost": Cameron's first term was a bit different.)
- “My 2022 and 2023 bets on her exit starting to look good.”
@stjohn says on the previous thread that the best value bet around at the moment is laying Truss to be PM after the next GE, over at Smarkets.
Ok, no punter likes tying up cash for too long, but he reckons that even if he has to wait two years, he’s going to make a 28% return. There are worse investments at the moment.
He’s theoretically risking his stake, but c’mon, Liz Truss is never going to be PM after the next GE. It is now virtually impossible.
Someone once said polls are a snapshot not a prediction.
If The Queen Consort wears it then it is an insult to over a billion people and the fact the the Royal Family don't give a shit about their bloody colonial past.
Plans for Queen Camilla to be honoured with a crown containing the Koh-i-Noor diamond at the coronation next year could be dropped because of “political sensitivities”, it was claimed yesterday.
The crown was specially made for Queen Elizabeth — later the Queen Mother — in 1937. Previously the diamond was mounted in the crowns of Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII, and Queen Mary, wife of George V.
The Koh-i-Noor was acquired by the East India Company after the Anglo-Sikh Wars and presented to Queen Victoria in 1850. A campaign has sprung up in India urging Britain to return it, although it is also claimed by Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A source told the Daily Mail: “There are serious political sensitivities and significant nervousness.”
According to The Daily Telegraph, a spokesman for the Bharatiya Janata Party of Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, said: “The coronation of Camilla and the use of the crown jewel Koh-i-Noor brings back painful memories of the colonial past.”
I don't wish to irritate those on the right, but the East India Company were an absolute disgrace. An appalling organisation which became a front for state-sponsored banditry, larceny, and manslaughter. (God I love an Oxford comma.) Their involvement not only in slavery but in, for example, the opium trade which led to millions of Chinese opium addicts is just one of the abysmal legacies which they both got away with and which funded some of Britain's colonial prosperity.
Just one of many history lessons that should be taught to ALL British school children but which never is:
Of course it should be noted that the East India Company did eventually fall foul of the British Government who decided that they had gone all Colonel Kurz on them.
The EIC were really the worlds first evil global corporation. Another British first!
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Dickhead was always going to be like this. Everyone knew it.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
Yes, elected under our system in exactly the same way as almost every other PM in recent history.
(Edited to add the "almost": Cameron's first term was a bit different.)
We have actually never had a PM who has neither won a general election or the support of a majority of their party's MPs in Parliament before Truss
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.
I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.
Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.
The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.
I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.
I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.
From 1970 to 1999, GDP per head grew by 2.5% pa. That way, everyone got get richer more or less, without too much difficulty.
Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.
I don't see how the UK benefits greatly from an India trade deal. We already import wonderful goods at a very low price, and certainly a fairly free market in services also seems to exist. I stand to be educated. At any rate, Camilla should wear the crown; these matters should not be dictated by foreign governments.
[Edit] Insistence on the crown being worn = Tories get to put two fingers up at the woke and at foreigners at the same time as shutting down a threatening pulse of immigration. Never mind the current importance of diplomacy vis-a-vis India, etc. etc.
I know you're being sarcastic, but this isn't a million miles away from the truth. We need to be seeking trade deals with India as part of TCPPCT (sp?) but if it doesn't happen on their side, I don't think it harms our candidature. We still afaik provide millions in foreign aid to India, and I don't see why we would allow them to dictate to us what crown our queen consort will wear.
Good morning everyone. The Guardian has a different take on the cabinet rows: 'Liz Truss on collision course with Jacob Rees-Mogg over solar power ban.' Apparently he is in favour of farmers farming solar panels, she isn't!
This is one of their policy battles that I just don't understand. Farmers are usually Tories. Farmers own their land and need to make a living. Many are struggling to make money farming (in part by post-Brexit idiocy and energy prices crippling our fertiliser industry and spiking prices). So they make £ putting solar farms up. Which produces critical power.
Why would you stop this? I know that the spin line is "we promote Nuclear and the other parties don't". But if they authorise a new nuclear plant today its 2030 at best before it generates electricity. Whereas solar can generate power as soon as they are plugged in...
Reading the details in the Guardian the whole thing seems to be a storm in a teacup. Solar farms are already restricted from the best farmland. The proposal is to change the definition of the most valuable farmland to include the next tier down, so that it includes grades 1-3b, instead of 1-3a, on a nominally five point scale (where the middle point is divided in two).
There is no great clash of principle here. No sweeping ban. It's a slight change in emphasis. A tweak. A light hand on the tiller.
Now, if you spent the time to look at it in detail you could probably make a case for one side or the other of the debate, but it's being elevated in importance out of all proportion to its effect.
Arguing about this is pure displacement activity. There are much bigger issues that need to be grasped.
The change proposed, is to stop a short-term rush for farmers to install solar panels in fields because of the power price spike, at the long-term cost of food production. It’s a sensible policy.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I'm on record as saying King Charles III will be a total disaster and I stand by that prediction.
The King has had a far better start to his reign than Truss has had to her premiership
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
Yes, elected under our system in exactly the same way as almost every other PM in recent history.
(Edited to add the "almost": Cameron's first term was a bit different.)
We have actually never had a PM who has neither won a general election or the support of a majority of their party's MPs in Parliament
She has the firm support of about 50-60 MPs, less than 10% of the house. This is completely unprecedented, not even enough to create majority support amongst the ministerial ranks, let alone the Tory parliamentary party or the commons.
There is zero chance she can lead a government through to 2024 (without an election).
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
You’ve changed
HYUFD, along with several other Tory supporters here, is enjoying a bit of a Truss-inspired wobbly meltdown at the moment. I'm hoping their testicles grow back at some point - thoughts and prayers.
If The Queen Consort wears it then it is an insult to over a billion people and the fact the the Royal Family don't give a shit about their bloody colonial past.
Plans for Queen Camilla to be honoured with a crown containing the Koh-i-Noor diamond at the coronation next year could be dropped because of “political sensitivities”, it was claimed yesterday.
The crown was specially made for Queen Elizabeth — later the Queen Mother — in 1937. Previously the diamond was mounted in the crowns of Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII, and Queen Mary, wife of George V.
The Koh-i-Noor was acquired by the East India Company after the Anglo-Sikh Wars and presented to Queen Victoria in 1850. A campaign has sprung up in India urging Britain to return it, although it is also claimed by Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A source told the Daily Mail: “There are serious political sensitivities and significant nervousness.”
According to The Daily Telegraph, a spokesman for the Bharatiya Janata Party of Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, said: “The coronation of Camilla and the use of the crown jewel Koh-i-Noor brings back painful memories of the colonial past.”
I don't wish to irritate those on the right, but the East India Company were an absolute disgrace. An appalling organisation which became a front for state-sponsored banditry, larceny, and manslaughter. (God I love an Oxford comma.) Their involvement not only in slavery but in, for example, the opium trade which led to millions of Chinese opium addicts is just one of the abysmal legacies which they both got away with and which funded some of Britain's colonial prosperity.
Just one of many history lessons that should be taught to ALL British school children but which never is:
Of course it should be noted that the East India Company did eventually fall foul of the British Government who decided that they had gone all Colonel Kurz on them.
The EIC were really the worlds first evil global corporation. Another British first!
Certainly not the first. They were following the model of Venice and other Italian city states, who turned allies into colonies, shut rivals out of trade, and sent taxes through the roof.
There was nothing really wrong with the EIC for the first 140 years of their existence. It's when they got involved in government that their employees started plundering the Indian population.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
You’ve changed
Truss is a libertarian not a Tory who is trashing the party and leading it sleepwalking to its worst defeat since 1832 on current polls.
She has until the local elections to turn it round or she is gone
Why should it be the poor local councillors who have to be stuck with the fork to tell us what we all know
"Yep, she's done...."
Get rid before Christmas, start the New Year as afresh as this parliamentary party can muster.
Boris and May only went after poor local election results in May 2019 and May 2022 respectively, Truss will likely be the same
I think talk like this is very dangerous. It's tantamount to giving Putin permission to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent · 18m ⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.
"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
- “My 2022 and 2023 bets on her exit starting to look good.”
@stjohn says on the previous thread that the best value bet around at the moment is laying Truss to be PM after the next GE, over at Smarkets.
Ok, no punter likes tying up cash for too long, but he reckons that even if he has to wait two years, he’s going to make a 28% return. There are worse investments at the moment.
He’s theoretically risking his stake, but c’mon, Liz Truss is never going to be PM after the next GE. It is now virtually impossible.
Someone once said polls are a snapshot not a prediction.
True - but a snapshot of a car crash can tell you quite a lot about the likely consequences.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I'm on record as saying King Charles III will be a total disaster and I stand by that prediction.
The King has had a far better start to his reign than Truss has had to her premiership
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
Her Majesty didn’t release videos of her audience with the PM. Not a good look, especially when political opponents of the incumbent PM (of any party) will jump on it.
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.
I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.
Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.
The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.
I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.
I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.
From 1970 to 1999, GDP per head grew by 2.5% pa. That way, everyone got get richer more or less, without too much difficulty.
Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.
Yes, but to my mind we are still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We are more concerned about how a pie that, per capita, is barely growing at all, is distributed than why our economy has been growing so slowly. That part of the Truss/Kwarteng analysis is right: we need more growth. Their prescription to achieve that, however, is bordering on madness both politically and economically.
There are far too many who are seeking to blame Truss and Kwarteng for really deep underlying problems that governments of all stripes have failed to address in the last 30 years. Some have not even tried. At best the Kamikwase mini budget made things slightly worse at the margins. The underlying problems are huge and I am not seeing any politician even attempting to address them. In particular those who think that everything will be fine again when SKS takes over are just deluding themselves.
I think talk like this is very dangerous. It's tantamount to giving Putin permission to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent · 18m ⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.
"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.
Good morning everyone. The Guardian has a different take on the cabinet rows: 'Liz Truss on collision course with Jacob Rees-Mogg over solar power ban.' Apparently he is in favour of farmers farming solar panels, she isn't!
This is one of their policy battles that I just don't understand. Farmers are usually Tories. Farmers own their land and need to make a living. Many are struggling to make money farming (in part by post-Brexit idiocy and energy prices crippling our fertiliser industry and spiking prices). So they make £ putting solar farms up. Which produces critical power.
Why would you stop this? I know that the spin line is "we promote Nuclear and the other parties don't". But if they authorise a new nuclear plant today its 2030 at best before it generates electricity. Whereas solar can generate power as soon as they are plugged in...
Reading the details in the Guardian the whole thing seems to be a storm in a teacup. Solar farms are already restricted from the best farmland. The proposal is to change the definition of the most valuable farmland to include the next tier down, so that it includes grades 1-3b, instead of 1-3a, on a nominally five point scale (where the middle point is divided in two).
There is no great clash of principle here. No sweeping ban. It's a slight change in emphasis. A tweak. A light hand on the tiller.
Now, if you spent the time to look at it in detail you could probably make a case for one side or the other of the debate, but it's being elevated in importance out of all proportion to its effect.
Arguing about this is pure displacement activity. There are much bigger issues that need to be grasped.
The change proposed, is to stop a short-term rush for farmers to install solar panels in fields because of the power price spike, at the long-term cost of food production. It’s a sensible policy.
The only change is to fields graded 3b. There's no change to fields graded 1-3a or 4-5.
Good morning everyone. The Guardian has a different take on the cabinet rows: 'Liz Truss on collision course with Jacob Rees-Mogg over solar power ban.' Apparently he is in favour of farmers farming solar panels, she isn't!
This is one of their policy battles that I just don't understand. Farmers are usually Tories. Farmers own their land and need to make a living. Many are struggling to make money farming (in part by post-Brexit idiocy and energy prices crippling our fertiliser industry and spiking prices). So they make £ putting solar farms up. Which produces critical power.
Why would you stop this? I know that the spin line is "we promote Nuclear and the other parties don't". But if they authorise a new nuclear plant today its 2030 at best before it generates electricity. Whereas solar can generate power as soon as they are plugged in...
Reading the details in the Guardian the whole thing seems to be a storm in a teacup. Solar farms are already restricted from the best farmland. The proposal is to change the definition of the most valuable farmland to include the next tier down, so that it includes grades 1-3b, instead of 1-3a, on a nominally five point scale (where the middle point is divided in two).
There is no great clash of principle here. No sweeping ban. It's a slight change in emphasis. A tweak. A light hand on the tiller.
Now, if you spent the time to look at it in detail you could probably make a case for one side or the other of the debate, but it's being elevated in importance out of all proportion to its effect.
Arguing about this is pure displacement activity. There are much bigger issues that need to be grasped.
The change proposed, is to stop a short-term rush for farmers to install solar panels in fields because of the power price spike, at the long-term cost of food production. It’s a sensible policy.
The only change is to fields graded 3b. There's no change to fields graded 1-3a or 4-5.
The Tories will blame covid but it’s only exacerbated an already dire situation.
The government could actually do something useful amid the chaos they have created. They could run a proper campaign to persuade the over 50s to get their Covid booster vaccine. My understanding is that take-up is not high enough, and this will lead (or has already led) to oldies clogging up hospitals as their older vaccines have worn off and Covid is still making some of them very ill. Even a 5-minute press conference by Truss/Coffey would have some impact.
Of course, this would fly in the face of a) the need not to be a nanny state, and b) the potential to reduce the financial burden by letting more oldies die. But more boosters would have some positive impact on hospital pressures as winter unfolds, I suspect.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I think talk like this is very dangerous. It's tantamount to giving Putin permission to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent · 18m ⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.
"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
'seriously stupid'
Lol! Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..
Charles is an intellectual, he is not stupid. The Queen was not an intellectual even if maybe she had more common sense
He did the BRNC commissioning course for Surface Warfare/Aviation officers in 6 weeks instead of the 49 weeks it normally takes. Genius.
I think talk like this is very dangerous. It's tantamount to giving Putin permission to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent · 18m ⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.
"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
Yes, elected under our system in exactly the same way as almost every other PM in recent history.
(Edited to add the "almost": Cameron's first term was a bit different.)
We have actually never had a PM who has neither won a general election or the support of a majority of their party's MPs in Parliament before Truss
Boris 36.4% actual support, since people are using the first round result as the measure of Truss's actual support.
And if the final round had been by MPs, do you really think Mordaunt voters would have split anything other than decisively for Truss?
I think talk like this is very dangerous. It's tantamount to giving Putin permission to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent · 18m ⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.
"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.
I think talk like this is very dangerous. It's tantamount to giving Putin permission to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent · 18m ⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.
"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.
I think talk like this is very dangerous. It's tantamount to giving Putin permission to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent · 18m ⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.
"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
Dear oh dear. Will this simple simon tripe never cease?
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
Three UK structural observations:
1) As the rewards for employment have fallen, the returns on capital have increased dramatically (especially true in the USA btw)
2) Income is taxed very heavily, capital is taxed relatively lightly and land not taxed at all.
3) The efficiency of government spending has collapsed as public services are no longer controlled by the taxpayer.
These problems date at least to the end of the 1960s.
Major reforms of employment are needed, including promoting self employment and small businesses. A major shift in the tax system is needed including an increase in wealth and capital taxes and a sharp reduction of the income tax burden. Major administrative reform is needed, including radical decentralization and a simplification of the role of the state.
At 10 million words, the UK still has the longest tax code in the world. Aiming to cut that would be a massive task, but the fiscal burden of administration is most definitely "anti-growth". We need a whole new approach, but our politics doesn´t even understand the question. Hence in order to address the economic crisis, we need to address the failures of our politics.
There can be no prosperity without reform.
Well said, which is why Liz Truss was a breath of fresh air in the leadership contest.
There is an urgent need to vastly simply the tax code, move government income from earnings to land, allow more taxes to be raised locally, and a proper zero-based review of government spending.
Regular WEF attendee, Jizzy Lizzy, wasn't actually indicating that she would do any of that though.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
Yes, elected under our system in exactly the same way as almost every other PM in recent history.
(Edited to add the "almost": Cameron's first term was a bit different.)
We have actually never had a PM who has neither won a general election or the support of a majority of their party's MPs in Parliament before Truss
Hmmm. What about Home? There isn't much doubt he wasn't the choice of MPs (who would have preferred Butler or Maudling) or indeed the party members (who wanted Hailsham).
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
'seriously stupid'
Lol! Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..
Charles is an intellectual, he is not stupid. The Queen was not an intellectual even if maybe she had more common sense
Charles is a poor successor to HMQ and frankly I do not listen to much he says, nor appreciate the way he allows people to bow to him
Good morning everyone. The Guardian has a different take on the cabinet rows: 'Liz Truss on collision course with Jacob Rees-Mogg over solar power ban.' Apparently he is in favour of farmers farming solar panels, she isn't!
This is one of their policy battles that I just don't understand. Farmers are usually Tories. Farmers own their land and need to make a living. Many are struggling to make money farming (in part by post-Brexit idiocy and energy prices crippling our fertiliser industry and spiking prices). So they make £ putting solar farms up. Which produces critical power.
Why would you stop this? I know that the spin line is "we promote Nuclear and the other parties don't". But if they authorise a new nuclear plant today its 2030 at best before it generates electricity. Whereas solar can generate power as soon as they are plugged in...
Reading the details in the Guardian the whole thing seems to be a storm in a teacup. Solar farms are already restricted from the best farmland. The proposal is to change the definition of the most valuable farmland to include the next tier down, so that it includes grades 1-3b, instead of 1-3a, on a nominally five point scale (where the middle point is divided in two).
There is no great clash of principle here. No sweeping ban. It's a slight change in emphasis. A tweak. A light hand on the tiller.
Now, if you spent the time to look at it in detail you could probably make a case for one side or the other of the debate, but it's being elevated in importance out of all proportion to its effect.
Arguing about this is pure displacement activity. There are much bigger issues that need to be grasped.
The change proposed, is to stop a short-term rush for farmers to install solar panels in fields because of the power price spike, at the long-term cost of food production. It’s a sensible policy.
What's needed are a rewriting of contracts for payments to be stopped or reduced if/when the grid is entirely run off of non fossil sources, and interconnectors are maxed for export (Not payments to carry on) - that creates the correct economic incentive for either batteries (So the farmer can sell the power back to the grid at another time) or farmers to return their land to food production. It's not really an issue right now and farmers would still build but it would stop a whole load of poorly allocated solar farms in the long run.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
Pity we couldn't change our electoral system before Brexit.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I'm on record as saying King Charles III will be a total disaster and I stand by that prediction.
The King has had a far better start to his reign than Truss has had to her premiership
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
'seriously stupid'
Lol! Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..
Charles is an intellectual, he is not stupid. The Queen was not an intellectual even if maybe she had more common sense
He did the BRNC commissioning course for Surface Warfare/Aviation officers in 6 weeks instead of the 49 weeks it normally takes. Genius.
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.
I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.
Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.
The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.
I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.
I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.
From 1970 to 1999, GDP per head grew by 2.5% pa. That way, everyone got get richer more or less, without too much difficulty.
Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.
Yes, but to my mind we are still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We are more concerned about how a pie that, per capita, is barely growing at all, is distributed than why our economy has been growing so slowly. That part of the Truss/Kwarteng analysis is right: we need more growth. Their prescription to achieve that, however, is bordering on madness both politically and economically.
There are far too many who are seeking to blame Truss and Kwarteng for really deep underlying problems that governments of all stripes have failed to address in the last 30 years. Some have not even tried. At best the Kamikwase mini budget made things slightly worse at the margins. The underlying problems are huge and I am not seeing any politician even attempting to address them. In particular those who think that everything will be fine again when SKS takes over are just deluding themselves.
I do think @Cicero made a lot of sound points upthread. Capital has to be taxed more, income less.
Just looked at the Chaz / Liz vid. Talk about fuss over nothing.
Agreed, but why was it even released? Assuming it had gone swimmingly are there loads of people who just have to see it?
I suspect the Palace was just trying to be helpful: Liz gets on with the boring, official stuff despite the political tumult, so things can't be all that bad.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
Dear oh dear. Will this simple simon tripe never cease?
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I'm on record as saying King Charles III will be a total disaster and I stand by that prediction.
The King has had a far better start to his reign than Truss has had to her premiership
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.
I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.
Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.
The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.
I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.
I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.
From 1970 to 1999, GDP per head grew by 2.5% pa. That way, everyone got get richer more or less, without too much difficulty.
Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.
Yes, but to my mind we are still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We are more concerned about how a pie that, per capita, is barely growing at all, is distributed than why our economy has been growing so slowly. That part of the Truss/Kwarteng analysis is right: we need more growth. Their prescription to achieve that, however, is bordering on madness both politically and economically.
There are far too many who are seeking to blame Truss and Kwarteng for really deep underlying problems that governments of all stripes have failed to address in the last 30 years. Some have not even tried. At best the Kamikwase mini budget made things slightly worse at the margins. The underlying problems are huge and I am not seeing any politician even attempting to address them. In particular those who think that everything will be fine again when SKS takes over are just deluding themselves.
Rishi had a plan to stimulate growth. It was rejected a couple of months back; it might not have worked but is hardly ancient history.
The only claim that anyone has to the Koh-I-Noor diamond is that their forebears looted it. That it is as true of India as any other claimant.
The only people who get really worked up about it are people who don't really have much in their lives to worry about.
All concerns that you don't share are kind of trivial in the grand scheme, aren't they?
It's not an issue that makes a difference to anybody's life, is it?
Could Bravermann our relationship with India further though. As much as I'd like to see it at the ceremony it has to be a consideration for the Lascelles of this world.
Just looked at the Chaz / Liz vid. Talk about fuss over nothing.
I know! It's completely fine. People on the right are such incredible snowflakes. Desperate to take offence and forever seeing insult when it isn't there.
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.
I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.
Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.
The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.
I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.
I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.
From 1970 to 1999, GDP per head grew by 2.5% pa. That way, everyone got get richer more or less, without too much difficulty.
Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.
Yes, but to my mind we are still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We are more concerned about how a pie that, per capita, is barely growing at all, is distributed than why our economy has been growing so slowly. That part of the Truss/Kwarteng analysis is right: we need more growth. Their prescription to achieve that, however, is bordering on madness both politically and economically.
There are far too many who are seeking to blame Truss and Kwarteng for really deep underlying problems that governments of all stripes have failed to address in the last 30 years. Some have not even tried. At best the Kamikwase mini budget made things slightly worse at the margins. The underlying problems are huge and I am not seeing any politician even attempting to address them. In particular those who think that everything will be fine again when SKS takes over are just deluding themselves.
I do think @Cicero made a lot of sound points upthread. Capital has to be taxed more, income less.
It's funny how increasingly people on left and right on this site can agree with principles like this.
The burden in income, capital and land is not remotely taxed evenly and as a result those working for an income (something we ought to want to encourage) bear the biggest burden of all.
Having said that I don't know of any good way to tax capital that doesn't lead to capital flight, but land can't take flight and the burden upon income versus land certain can be addressed.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
'seriously stupid'
Lol! Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..
Charles is an intellectual, he is not stupid. The Queen was not an intellectual even if maybe she had more common sense
Charles is a poor successor to HMQ and frankly I do not listen to much he says, nor appreciate the way he allows people to bow to him
Utter nonsense in these modern times
You also bowed to the Queen, it is protocol when meeting the monarch
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
Three UK structural observations:
1) As the rewards for employment have fallen, the returns on capital have increased dramatically (especially true in the USA btw)
2) Income is taxed very heavily, capital is taxed relatively lightly and land not taxed at all.
3) The efficiency of government spending has collapsed as public services are no longer controlled by the taxpayer.
These problems date at least to the end of the 1960s.
Major reforms of employment are needed, including promoting self employment and small businesses. A major shift in the tax system is needed including an increase in wealth and capital taxes and a sharp reduction of the income tax burden. Major administrative reform is needed, including radical decentralization and a simplification of the role of the state.
At 10 million words, the UK still has the longest tax code in the world. Aiming to cut that would be a massive task, but the fiscal burden of administration is most definitely "anti-growth". We need a whole new approach, but our politics doesn´t even understand the question. Hence in order to address the economic crisis, we need to address the failures of our politics.
There can be no prosperity without reform.
Well said, which is why Liz Truss was a breath of fresh air in the leadership contest.
There is an urgent need to vastly simply the tax code, move government income from earnings to land, allow more taxes to be raised locally, and a proper zero-based review of government spending.
I had high hopes for the next few months, but the reluctance of the Tory MPs to engage with the project and support the leader they chose, is hugely disappointing.
It now sadly looks like we’ll muddle on for two years, until an election that gives us Starmer as PM and five more years of Blairism, or what Amercians describe as the “Uniparty” or the “Global Consensus” that exists primarily for the political donors and “The 1%”, with no-one prepared to take any risks.
It was pure stupidity coupled with gross arrogance for Truss and Kwarteng to rush at this in the way they did. And their principal problem is markets, not MPs - MPs are naturally spooked by the market reaction, and correctly point out that vastly increased mortgage rates aren't going to make their constituents better off, but they are not the cause of the problem.
It's not unreasonable to argue for tax reform and lower tax. But it's completely incomprehensible to go into the Treasury, sack the most senior civil servant, then come out with the least mini of mini budgets within days, with absolutely none of the medium and long term plans to support that, no independent assessment, and no buy-in for the sorts of spending cuts to support the changes (indeed no real idea of what the spending cuts are). Of course it crashed the market. There was plenty of time to develop plans every bit as radical as you wanted but that would not have done so.
Unfortunately, Truss thought the real world would be as easily fooled as Tory members.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
'seriously stupid'
Lol! Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..
Elizabeth has left the Monarchy a completely different and significantly less important institution than it was when she inherited it. We are a much more democratic country now and the Monarch has become a decorative, if useful, part of our evolving constitution. That is as it should be in a modern state.
If Charles accepts that then he will do fine but I think that he has been deluded about the significance of the Monarch by what he saw in his childhood 60 odd years ago and the flummery of PM chats, kissing hands, red boxes and other nonsense. As @Leon has pointed out being intelligent in the current role of Monarch would be almost cruel. Fortunately this is a relatively low risk for a Windsor.
I think talk like this is very dangerous. It's tantamount to giving Putin permission to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent · 18m ⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.
"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.
Wording it like that makes it clear that there is also no French nuclear umbrella for the EU.
French nuclear weapons are outside EU (and NATO) control. If other countries want the perceived protection of the 'Force de dissuasion' they have to do a bilateral defence treaty with France as Greece did. And buy a lot of French weapons, also as Greece did.
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.
I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.
Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.
The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.
I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.
I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.
From 1970 to 1999, GDP per head grew by 2.5% pa. That way, everyone got get richer more or less, without too much difficulty.
Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.
Yes, but to my mind we are still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We are more concerned about how a pie that, per capita, is barely growing at all, is distributed than why our economy has been growing so slowly. That part of the Truss/Kwarteng analysis is right: we need more growth. Their prescription to achieve that, however, is bordering on madness both politically and economically.
There are far too many who are seeking to blame Truss and Kwarteng for really deep underlying problems that governments of all stripes have failed to address in the last 30 years. Some have not even tried. At best the Kamikwase mini budget made things slightly worse at the margins. The underlying problems are huge and I am not seeing any politician even attempting to address them. In particular those who think that everything will be fine again when SKS takes over are just deluding themselves.
I do think @Cicero made a lot of sound points upthread. Capital has to be taxed more, income less.
It's funny how increasingly people on left and right on this site can agree with principles like this.
The burden in income, capital and land is not remotely taxed evenly and as a result those working for an income (something we ought to want to encourage) bear the biggest burden of all.
Economically this is blatantly obvious. The problem is politically the votes are the other way around.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
Yes, elected under our system in exactly the same way as almost every other PM in recent history.
(Edited to add the "almost": Cameron's first term was a bit different.)
We have actually never had a PM who has neither won a general election or the support of a majority of their party's MPs in Parliament before Truss
Hmmm. What about Home? There isn't much doubt he wasn't the choice of MPs (who would have preferred Butler or Maudling) or indeed the party members (who wanted Hailsham).
But of course, he wasn't elected.
Can't be proved and of course Home actually won a majority of seats in England in the 1964 general election and only lost by a very narrow margin to Wilson, not the landslide defeat to Starmer Truss is heading for
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
You’ve changed
HYUFD, along with several other Tory supporters here, is enjoying a bit of a Truss-inspired wobbly meltdown at the moment. I'm hoping their testicles grow back at some point - thoughts and prayers.
I am not enjoying this and am thoroughly ashamed that Truss/ Kwarteng are leading the government and have made it clear to the Welsh conservatives neither my wife or I support them or the party until or unless they are removed
However, when reading @HYUFD posts he remains a disciple of the toxic Johnson and each and everyone other than Johnson would be a disaster, though maybe Farage would gain a pass mark
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I'm on record as saying King Charles III will be a total disaster and I stand by that prediction.
The King has had a far better start to his reign than Truss has had to her premiership
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.
'seriously stupid'
Lol! Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..
Charles is an intellectual, he is not stupid. The Queen was not an intellectual even if maybe she had more common sense
I agree he is not stupid, but why do you think he is an intellectual? He only got into Cambridge because of who he is, not because of his brains. His A levels were average. Whereas the Queen in a more modern era would also have gone to University. It could well be she was actually more intellectual than Charles. She may well have studied quite a bit. We shall never know.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
Yes, elected under our system in exactly the same way as almost every other PM in recent history.
(Edited to add the "almost": Cameron's first term was a bit different.)
We have actually never had a PM who has neither won a general election or the support of a majority of their party's MPs in Parliament before Truss
Boris 36.4% actual support, since people are using the first round result as the measure of Truss's actual support.
And if the final round had been by MPs, do you really think Mordaunt voters would have split anything other than decisively for Truss?
Boris got 51% in the final Tory MPs round and won a general election.
Some Mordaunt backing MPs like Davis switched to Sunak
What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Forget Brexit.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics. Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.
The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.
I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.
Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.
The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.
I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.
I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.
From 1970 to 1999, GDP per head grew by 2.5% pa. That way, everyone got get richer more or less, without too much difficulty.
Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.
Yes, but to my mind we are still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We are more concerned about how a pie that, per capita, is barely growing at all, is distributed than why our economy has been growing so slowly. That part of the Truss/Kwarteng analysis is right: we need more growth. Their prescription to achieve that, however, is bordering on madness both politically and economically.
There are far too many who are seeking to blame Truss and Kwarteng for really deep underlying problems that governments of all stripes have failed to address in the last 30 years. Some have not even tried. At best the Kamikwase mini budget made things slightly worse at the margins. The underlying problems are huge and I am not seeing any politician even attempting to address them. In particular those who think that everything will be fine again when SKS takes over are just deluding themselves.
I do think @Cicero made a lot of sound points upthread. Capital has to be taxed more, income less.
It's funny how increasingly people on left and right on this site can agree with principles like this.
The burden in income, capital and land is not remotely taxed evenly and as a result those working for an income (something we ought to want to encourage) bear the biggest burden of all.
Having said that I don't know of any good way to tax capital that doesn't lead to capital flight, but land can't take flight and the burden upon income versus land certain can be addressed.
I'm sure we'd still disagree on the rates of tax. Those on the left will generally want the state to do more, and so have higher tax rates, while those on the right will not.
More than a week after strikes reduced France's petrol output by over 60% and caused major disruptions at petrol stations, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said TotalEnergies had "the possibility and therefore the duty" to raise wages, adding the company had "come late" in starting talks with unions after making large profits.
Le Maire’s statement came as the French government on Thursday said it was prepared to force employees to go back to work at a TotalEnergies storage site, as the CGT union and the company remain in a gridlock over wages.
Comments
She has until the local elections to turn it round or she is gone
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
I liked the line "India, you're safe, we don't really want you back anyway".
The Queen was a good monarch, but that said more about the Queen as an individual than it did about the quality of monarchy. She was always going to leave big shoes to fill, but Charles is really not going to come close by any means.
Lol!
Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..
The Tories will blame covid but it’s only exacerbated an already dire situation.
I have higher hopes for William and Kate (who could be king and queen much sooner than we expect, for these reasons). They are a bit boring but that’s a virtue in this job
If you are a republican or even consider becoming one then unfortunately like Truss you are a non Tory, just a libertarian
"Yep, she's done...."
Get rid before Christmas, start the New Year as afresh as this parliamentary party can muster.
I've noted before that he seems to have spent quite a lot of time in the Republic of Ireland, and I think it's just possible that, when people look back at his reign, they will note the achievement of welcoming the Republic back into the Commonwealth and the peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland.
There is an urgent need to vastly simply the tax code, move government income from earnings to land, allow more taxes to be raised locally, and a proper zero-based review of government spending.
I had high hopes for the next few months, but the reluctance of the Tory MPs to engage with the project and support the leader they chose, is hugely disappointing.
It now sadly looks like we’ll muddle on for two years, until an election that gives us Starmer as PM and five more years of Blairism, or what Amercians describe as the “Uniparty” or the “Global Consensus” that exists primarily for the political donors and “The 1%”, with no-one prepared to take any risks.
The only people who get really worked up about it are people who don't really have much in their lives to worry about.
(Edited to add the "almost": Cameron's first term was a bit different.)
Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.
There is zero chance she can lead a government through to 2024 (without an election).
There was nothing really wrong with the EIC for the first 140 years of their existence. It's when they got involved in government that their employees started plundering the Indian population.
The Kyiv Independent
@KyivIndependent
·
18m
⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.
"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1580481219564687360
There are far too many who are seeking to blame Truss and Kwarteng for really deep underlying problems that governments of all stripes have failed to address in the last 30 years. Some have not even tried. At best the Kamikwase mini budget made things slightly worse at the margins. The underlying problems are huge and I am not seeing any politician even attempting to address them. In particular those who think that everything will be fine again when SKS takes over are just deluding themselves.
My point is that it's not a big change.
Of course, this would fly in the face of a) the need not to be a nanny state, and b) the potential to reduce the financial burden by letting more oldies die. But more boosters would have some positive impact on hospital pressures as winter unfolds, I suspect.
Labour should hope Truss survives till the next GE .
https://conservativehome.com/2016/02/12/lewis-baston-the-balfour-gambit-failed-altogether-in-1906-but-dont-rule-out-a-future-prime-minister-trying-it-again/
The 'Balfour gambit' seems a bit unlikely, but some of the historical parallels are notable.
And if the final round had been by MPs, do you really think Mordaunt voters would have split anything other than decisively for Truss?
But of course, he wasn't elected.
Utter nonsense in these modern times
It's not really an issue right now and farmers would still build but it would stop a whole load of poorly allocated solar farms in the long run.
The UK NHS needs radical reform but nobody is brave enough to attempt it
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The burden in income, capital and land is not remotely taxed evenly and as a result those working for an income (something we ought to want to encourage) bear the biggest burden of all.
Having said that I don't know of any good way to tax capital that doesn't lead to capital flight, but land can't take flight and the burden upon income versus land certain can be addressed.
It's not unreasonable to argue for tax reform and lower tax. But it's completely incomprehensible to go into the Treasury, sack the most senior civil servant, then come out with the least mini of mini budgets within days, with absolutely none of the medium and long term plans to support that, no independent assessment, and no buy-in for the sorts of spending cuts to support the changes (indeed no real idea of what the spending cuts are). Of course it crashed the market. There was plenty of time to develop plans every bit as radical as you wanted but that would not have done so.
Unfortunately, Truss thought the real world would be as easily fooled as Tory members.
If Charles accepts that then he will do fine but I think that he has been deluded about the significance of the Monarch by what he saw in his childhood 60 odd years ago and the flummery of PM chats, kissing hands, red boxes and other nonsense. As @Leon has pointed out being intelligent in the current role of Monarch would be almost cruel. Fortunately this is a relatively low risk for a Windsor.
However, when reading @HYUFD posts he remains a disciple of the toxic Johnson and each and everyone other than Johnson would be a disaster, though maybe Farage would gain a pass mark
Some Mordaunt backing MPs like Davis switched to Sunak
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20221013-totalenergies-must-negotiate-says-french-finance-minister-as-strikes-increase-fuel-disruptions
More than a week after strikes reduced France's petrol output by over 60% and caused major disruptions at petrol stations, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said TotalEnergies had "the possibility and therefore the duty" to raise wages, adding the company had "come late" in starting talks with unions after making large profits.
Le Maire’s statement came as the French government on Thursday said it was prepared to force employees to go back to work at a TotalEnergies storage site, as the CGT union and the company remain in a gridlock over wages.