A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.
The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher
Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.
Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.
If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers
But it might not since cash purchasers (who form the majority of BTL landlords and other property "investors" last time I saw) would evade the tax. Also those who've paid off their mortgage wouldn't be paying the tax or incentivised to downsize or not hold multiple properties.
Taxes should be simple but consistent, if you're going to tax land then tax land, don't tax mortgages.
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
Come on. Boris and May did not go because of poor local election results.
A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.
The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher
Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.
Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.
If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers
The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.
As discussed on here before the solutions are:
Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra LVT to replace council tax Reduce housing benefit substantially Remove govt props that support the market Build more homes
Liz Truss and Kwasi Karteng have had a crash course over the last few weeks on the limits of our 'sovereignty'.
Yes. The battle to win it back is far from over.
Win it back from who? The financial markets? Because you don't achieve that by going into more debt to them, which is exactly what Truss is doing it. All for tax cuts for the rich and a massively inefficiently designed energy subsidy.
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..
Go back to 1625 and add Cromwell and you might have a point. I also wonder how far Vicky relied on darling Albert, who was a seriously serious cookie by comparison with a lot of the formal kings.
I reckon young George has got a chance to shine here, if and when of course he gets his chance! Kate has provided a significant benefit to the gene pool, having no aristocratic background!
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.
Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.
The higher debt interest bills, twice what the OBR expected in March, are extraordinarily politically painful because they buy nothing: no new police officers, doctors or hospitals https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/kwasi-vs-the-markets
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
You're the chump who can't understand the meaning of the word "deterrence".
As long as the war doesn't escalate to WMDs then we will not get directly involved, that is our red line, as it should. If it does, then we absolutely should and must.
Actually you’re a chump who doesn’t understand why tactical nukes were invented in the first place. The whole idea is to provide a military option which falls short of all out nuclear war but levels the conventional playing field. Back in the day NATO were keen on them because they could never hope to defeat an all out invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets conventionally. In my opinion that is a highly dangerous doctrine as it would probably lead to escalation but to threaten to immediately fire our strategic nukes as soon as a tactical nuke is just suicidal.
Oof. About to go to Heathrow for an agreeable and extended trip abroad
But a couple of faint symptoms of covid. And I have been socialising a fair bit recently
MORAL DILEMMA
Ignore the symptoms (they are minor) get on the plane and see more of the world?
Or take a test, risk a positive: be forced to stay home and also inconvenience quite a few people?
No dilemma, get on the plane. Testing is not required anymore.
No LEGAL dilemma.
Depends on airline and where you are flying. Not unusual to have to declare no symptoms. IANAL but assume false declarations could create potential legal issues either abroad or as a civil matter.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
Don’t worry, a small tactical nuke won’t be met by an overwhelming nuclear response.
It’ll be met by an overwhelming conventional response. Overwhelming, as in every NATO country throwing everything it has available against the Russian military. There won’t be a Black Sea fleet, and there won’t be dozens of bases from which further attacks might be launched.
Yes, my expectation would be a conventional escalation.
It will be a conventional escalation, NATO doesn’t want a nuclear war. There will be *one* opportunity for Russia to back down, and very quickly. Leave Ukraine by tomorrow, or face what they know would be coming.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
You're the chump who can't understand the meaning of the word "deterrence".
As long as the war doesn't escalate to WMDs then we will not get directly involved, that is our red line, as it should. If it does, then we absolutely should and must.
Actually you’re a chump who doesn’t understand why tactical nukes were invented in the first place. The whole idea is to provide a military option which falls short of all out nuclear war but levels the conventional playing field. Back in the day NATO were keen on them because they could never hope to defeat an all out invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets conventionally. In my opinion that is a highly dangerous doctrine as it would probably lead to escalation but to threaten to immediately fire our strategic nukes as soon as a tactical nuke is just suicidal.
Deterrence has succeeded in avoiding nuclear escalation for over three quarters of a century.
I won't reject that for the usual suspects here wanting to be apologists for Putin's aggression.
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 watched the clip hoping to summarize it and I think it's pretty strategically ambiguous...
He says clearly that a nuclear attack on Ukraine wouldn't be a nuclear attack on France under its doctrine, which I think is obvious and doesn't give anything away. Then he says Russia has a responsibility not to escalate the conflict in either direction, either vertically (chemical or nuclear weapons) or horizontally (widening the territory involved in the conflict) which you could take to mean that if Russia used chemical or nuclear weapons, either NATO would get directly involved in Ukraine, or NATO would attack Russia, or NATO would arm Ukraine so that they could attack Russia.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.
Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.
And on that should hangs the fate of humanity. What if it doesn’t work in deterring Putin? You either don’t escalate and prove yourself toothless or you doom every single person in the country.
If Truss can get the Tory share in the polls back up to 30% she's probably safe in the medium-term, which might happen over the next couple of months. Of course that's why everyone who wants to get rid of her wants to do it as quickly as possible, in case her position does recover slightly.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
Don’t worry, a small tactical nuke won’t be met by an overwhelming nuclear response.
It’ll be met by an overwhelming conventional response. Overwhelming, as in every NATO country throwing everything it has available against the Russian military. There won’t be a Black Sea fleet, and there won’t be dozens of bases from which further attacks might be launched.
That ends in the same place as a nuclear response so you might as well go with Bart Stromberg's Trident launch and save a few a days on the way to the extirpation of modern civilisation in the Northern Hemisphere.
The higher debt interest bills, twice what the OBR expected in March, are extraordinarily politically painful because they buy nothing: no new police officers, doctors or hospitals https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/kwasi-vs-the-markets
Which brings us back to a question not really being asked in the papers.
Even if we were going to do the Kamikwaze budget, seeing as it mostly applies from April, why not announce it in April rather than September and have an extra seven months of lower government debt, and lower mortgage costs for homeowners?
Who knows, maybe by April the Ukraine war might have ended and some of the Kamikwaze stuff would have been affordable by then?
A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.
The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher
Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.
Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.
If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers
But it might not since cash purchasers (who form the majority of BTL landlords and other property "investors" last time I saw) would evade the tax. Also those who've paid off their mortgage wouldn't be paying the tax or incentivised to downsize or not hold multiple properties.
Taxes should be simple but consistent, if you're going to tax land then tax land, don't tax mortgages.
This is not precluding a land tax in any way, the main intent is so governement has a lever they can pull when houses are in an inflationary spiral and needs to be damped down. Therefore as the number of cash buyers is actually small compared to the total number of buyers it would still work. Revenue raised is a secondary effect and if house prices are stable I would expect the extra to approach 0%
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Liz Truss and Kwasi Karteng have had a crash course over the last few weeks on the limits of our 'sovereignty'.
Yes. The battle to win it back is far from over.
It's not over for North Korea either.
It's very straightforward to regain sovereignty from the markets. Just don't depend on them. Don't spend more than you have got. Don't be in a trillion pounds worth of debt. Unfortunately this is one of those 'I wouldn't have started from here' situations.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
You're the chump who can't understand the meaning of the word "deterrence".
As long as the war doesn't escalate to WMDs then we will not get directly involved, that is our red line, as it should. If it does, then we absolutely should and must.
Actually you’re a chump who doesn’t understand why tactical nukes were invented in the first place. The whole idea is to provide a military option which falls short of all out nuclear war but levels the conventional playing field. Back in the day NATO were keen on them because they could never hope to defeat an all out invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets conventionally. In my opinion that is a highly dangerous doctrine as it would probably lead to escalation but to threaten to immediately fire our strategic nukes as soon as a tactical nuke is just suicidal.
Deterrence has succeeded in avoiding nuclear escalation for over three quarters of a century.
I won't reject that for the usual suspects here wanting to be apologists for Putin's aggression.
For a libertarian that is inconsistent- Most libertarians would not want the state to decide (or risk it ) when they die
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.
Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.
You’re a pathetic coward. A fucking appeaser
We should say to Putin that if he moves a single division to a NATO border we will nuke Moscow and destroy St Petersburg. No, if he moves a single battalion
No, if another Russian soldier moves more than ten metres
No. If just one rifle is aimed west
No, if Putin does a single poo west of Moscow that’s it. Nukes. No more restrooms in Smolensk for you, Vladimir. We’ve got captain @BartholomewRoberts manning the red button, and if you do a single jobby this side of the Urals we bravely flush you down the Khazi of history even tho it means everyone in the world immediately dies in frantic and fiery agony
Ole Penny is a far better communicator than Truss (in parliament now). Though that’s not a high bar to cross
Penny probably dodged a bit of a bullet in all honesty. She was on board the tax cut train too throughout the campaign. I have to set aside my prejudices to say there is a chance she could easily have been in Truss’ position right now, albeit I don’t think she would have made the situation worse by being a sh*t communicator.
She might end up getting the job anyway, but having seen the whole “slash tax” argument crash and burn allows her to play a more consensus-building tune.
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
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
No, because they only got the vote with the agreement of the UK government. Scotland had no legal route to unilaterally leaving the UK, without UK consent, so was not sovereign (and the same still applies). The UK was able to unilaterally leave the EU with no one else's permission, so it was sovereign.
ETA: But it's somewhat semantics anyway. We pooled sovereignty in the EU and it's fair enough to object to that.
As I said other countries explicitly grant parts of their own country the right to secede if they vote to do so, just as the EU does, its not unprecedented. As per your ETA if we pooled sovereignty in the EU then we clearly weren't fully sovereign, just as Nevis and New Caledonia aren't fully sovereign even though they have the right to become so just as we did. We had more sovereignty than them, but we weren't fully sovereign and now we are.
Its fair to claim that pooling sovereignty was a good idea, because it was more beneficial than being fully sovereign if that's what you believe.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
You're the chump who can't understand the meaning of the word "deterrence".
As long as the war doesn't escalate to WMDs then we will not get directly involved, that is our red line, as it should. If it does, then we absolutely should and must.
Actually you’re a chump who doesn’t understand why tactical nukes were invented in the first place. The whole idea is to provide a military option which falls short of all out nuclear war but levels the conventional playing field. Back in the day NATO were keen on them because they could never hope to defeat an all out invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets conventionally. In my opinion that is a highly dangerous doctrine as it would probably lead to escalation but to threaten to immediately fire our strategic nukes as soon as a tactical nuke is just suicidal.
Deterrence has succeeded in avoiding nuclear escalation for over three quarters of a century.
I won't reject that for the usual suspects here wanting to be apologists for Putin's aggression.
If nuclear weapons were Putin's ace in the hole, he'd have used them already.
If Truss can get the Tory share in the polls back up to 30% she's probably safe in the medium-term, which might happen over the next couple of months. Of course that's why everyone who wants to get rid of her wants to do it as quickly as possible, in case her position does recover slightly.
Not at all, I simply want her gone in 2022 because of my Betfair book.......
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.
Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.
In which case there likely would actually be a Russian nuke on London.
Trident is to defend the UK as a last resort, not to attack a nuclear missiles armed power to defend a non NATO state
Which brings us back to a question not really being asked in the papers.
Even if we were going to do the Kamikwaze budget, seeing as it mostly applies from April, why not announce it in April rather than September and have an extra seven months of lower government debt, and lower mortgage costs for homeowners?
Who knows, maybe by April the Ukraine war might have ended and some of the Kamikwaze stuff would have been affordable by then?
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
You're the chump who can't understand the meaning of the word "deterrence".
As long as the war doesn't escalate to WMDs then we will not get directly involved, that is our red line, as it should. If it does, then we absolutely should and must.
Actually you’re a chump who doesn’t understand why tactical nukes were invented in the first place. The whole idea is to provide a military option which falls short of all out nuclear war but levels the conventional playing field. Back in the day NATO were keen on them because they could never hope to defeat an all out invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets conventionally. In my opinion that is a highly dangerous doctrine as it would probably lead to escalation but to threaten to immediately fire our strategic nukes as soon as a tactical nuke is just suicidal.
Deterrence has succeeded in avoiding nuclear escalation for over three quarters of a century.
I won't reject that for the usual suspects here wanting to be apologists for Putin's aggression.
For a libertarian that is inconsistent- Most libertarians would not want the state to decide (or risk it ) when they die
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, there is a role for the state and matters of war and self-defence are in my eyes self-evidently part of that.
Preventing nuclear escalation via deterrence is a legitimate role for the state.
She's a good looking woman now. Not exactly a shocking revelation that this was always the case. I'd be more impressed if you managed to discern that Merkel or Therese Coffey had been fit.
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
She's a good looking woman now. Not exactly a shocking revelation that this was always the case. I'd be more impressed if you managed to discern that Merkel or Therese Coffey had been fit.
Fair. I just wanted an excuse to check her out as a young woman. Oooooof
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl
Have you done your Covid test? If so what was the result?
A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.
The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher
Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.
Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.
If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers
The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.
As discussed on here before the solutions are:
Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra LVT to replace council tax Reduce housing benefit substantially Remove govt props that support the market Build more homes
“Build more homes” needs to be the starting point. Every solution requires building more homes.
Anyone suggesting immigration as a solution to labour shortages, needs to be clear that more homes are required first.
A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.
The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher
Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.
Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.
If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers
The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.
As discussed on here before the solutions are:
Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra LVT to replace council tax Reduce housing benefit substantially Remove govt props that support the market Build more homes
“Build more homes” needs to be the starting point. Every solution requires building more homes.
Anyone suggesting immigration as a solution to labour shortages, needs to be clear that more homes are required first.
Kind of. Build more homes obviously comes with a time lag, so it will take longest to have an impact. The others can be much quicker, some very quickly. They all need to be done.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.
Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.
And on that should hangs the fate of humanity. What if it doesn’t work in deterring Putin? You either don’t escalate and prove yourself toothless or you doom every single person in the country.
Then Putin has made his choice.
What if Putin nukes London, should we not retaliate so that those of us living in the North West can survive escalation?
A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.
The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher
Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.
Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.
If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers
The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.
As discussed on here before the solutions are:
Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra LVT to replace council tax Reduce housing benefit substantially Remove govt props that support the market Build more homes
“Build more homes” needs to be the starting point. Every solution requires building more homes.
Anyone suggesting immigration as a solution to labour shortages, needs to be clear that more homes are required first.
In addition people have been saying the year on year rise is unsustainable and the market will self correct for the last 25 years...yet to happen and yes partly because politicians keep interfering to keep the spiral going
This omits Shetland (tech issue) - which would tend slightly to improve the figures, it says.
What I can't work out is hwo they deal with waits in ambulances. The English data seem to omit any waits in ambulances for up to 4 hours. But I may be misreading this.
The English link: "The Monthly A&E Attendances and Emergency Admissions collection collects the total number of attendances in the calendar month for all A&E types, including Minor Injury Units and Walk-in Centres, and of these, the number discharged, admitted or transferred within four hours of arrival.
Also included are the number of Emergency Admissions, and any waits of over four hours for admission following decision to admit."
But Scottish criteria just say 'arrival' tout court.
Liz Truss and Kwasi Karteng have had a crash course over the last few weeks on the limits of our 'sovereignty'.
Yes. The battle to win it back is far from over.
It's not over for North Korea either.
It's very straightforward to regain sovereignty from the markets. Just don't depend on them. Don't spend more than you have got. Don't be in a trillion pounds worth of debt. Unfortunately this is one of those 'I wouldn't have started from here' situations.
Difficulty is that part of the Sovereignty some people want is to be free to spend like a sailor without consequences.
And walking away from Eurorestrictions doesn't remove many of the consequences.
MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position. #backliz https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584
A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.
The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher
Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.
Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.
If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers
The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.
As discussed on here before the solutions are:
Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra LVT to replace council tax Reduce housing benefit substantially Remove govt props that support the market Build more homes
“Build more homes” needs to be the starting point. Every solution requires building more homes.
Anyone suggesting immigration as a solution to labour shortages, needs to be clear that more homes are required first.
In addition people have been saying the year on year rise is unsustainable and the market will self correct for the last 25 years...yet to happen and yes partly because politicians keep interfering to keep the spiral going
There is a limit though. Central London prices went through what the rest of the country have been doing since 2010 a decade or so earlier, but the prices have flatlined here in nominal terms, decreased real terms, for the last six or seven years here. Expect the same to start happening over the rest of the country, apart from the most desirable areas, as the very well off are continuing to do very well despite the economic turmoil.
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
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position. #backliz https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584
Interesting question IMO: would Labour really want Boris back as PM? After all, he won a 365 to 203 seats victory less than 3 years ago.
MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position. #backliz https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584
Tell us Nadine, do you have an answer to that mindbender? Someone who isn't Liz Truss but can claim that the public voted for them?
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
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Welcome back Malcolm! First post I've seen from you for ages.
A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.
The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher
Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.
Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.
If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers
The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.
As discussed on here before the solutions are:
Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra LVT to replace council tax Reduce housing benefit substantially Remove govt props that support the market Build more homes
“Build more homes” needs to be the starting point. Every solution requires building more homes.
Anyone suggesting immigration as a solution to labour shortages, needs to be clear that more homes are required first.
Kind of. Build more homes obviously comes with a time lag, so it will take longest to have an impact. The others can be much quicker, some very quickly. They all need to be done.
Building houses can be fast, it’s the planning and bureaucracy that takes the time.
You can now buy a 3-bed house in a dozen containers, delivered by lorry to your site for less than £100k. What’s required, is for it to be easy to get planning permission for these, and for banks to give 20-year loans on them.
MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position. #backliz https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584
Interesting question IMO: would Labour really want Boris back as PM? After all, he won a 365 to 203 seats victory less than 3 years ago.
How can you bring back a PM who less than 6 months ago most of the MPs refused to serve in a government under?
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl
Okay, enlighten me.
If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?
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
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Hello Malky!! Nice to see you back and to see you channelling Buchanan. Hope you and your lady are well and that it is as sunny as it is over on this side.
MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position. #backliz https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584
Tell us Nadine, do you have an answer to that mindbender? Someone who isn't Liz Truss but can claim that the public voted for them?
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
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
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
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position. #backliz https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584
Tell us Nadine, do you have an answer to that mindbender? Someone who isn't Liz Truss but can claim that the public voted for them?
It's very cryptic but "smorgasboard" could be a clue she's thinking of someone blond.
MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position. #backliz https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584
Tell us Nadine, do you have an answer to that mindbender? Someone who isn't Liz Truss but can claim that the public voted for them?
Subtle, isn't she?
Still, good to have confirmation that MPs are already starting to discuss the successor…
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.
Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.
I have some sympathy with your argument, but I think the problem is that a promise to nuke Moscow in retaliation for Russia using a nuke on a Ukrainian trench in rural Donetsk lacks a certain credibility when Britain hasn't yet been willing to commit its own soldiers, tanks and fighter jets to the war.
If I was Putin I wouldn't take such a threat of nuclear deterrence seriously while British tanks were parading in Poland and Estonia, rather than joining a Ukrainian attempt to liberate Melitopol.
So I think that the threat of a conventional response, sinking the Black Sea fleet, destroying airbases, etc, is more credible, and therefore more likely to act as a deterrent.
@EmmanuelMacron We are helping Ukraine to resist on its soil, never to attack Russia. Vladimir Putin must stop this war and respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Yesterday the talk amongst Tory MPs was whether or not Liz Truss should go. Today it’s shifted to how quickly she goes, what’s the mechanism and who do they replace her with. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1580510779291619329
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl
Okay, enlighten me.
If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?
Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway
It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
Don’t worry, a small tactical nuke won’t be met by an overwhelming nuclear response.
It’ll be met by an overwhelming conventional response. Overwhelming, as in every NATO country throwing everything it has available against the Russian military. There won’t be a Black Sea fleet, and there won’t be dozens of bases from which further attacks might be launched.
That ends in the same place as a nuclear response so you might as well go with Bart Stromberg's Trident launch and save a few a days on the way to the extirpation of modern civilisation in the Northern Hemisphere.
I’m hoping that I’m south enough to avoid all that radioactive fallout sh!t
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
It's a fantastic construct you've made for yourself. 'We have sovereignty therefore Brexit can never be wrong, and I, Leon, can always proclaim I was right to vote Leave.'
You can airily wave away all the damage it has caused and is continuing to cause, all the unfilled promises that swung God knows how many votes that the government has abandoned one by one since 2016, by burbling on about sovereignty.
I don't really care, and I suspect most people including the vast majority of Leave voters other than the real hardcore, cared about sovereignty, how much of it was shared, all that jazz, before the referendum campaign. It was boring political theory. Cummings - I assume it was he but whoever it was - their malign genius was to make sovereignty a synonym for whatever your pet concern was. Borders? Sovereignty. Red tape? Sovereignty. A trade deal with the US? Sovereignty. Ensuring any French made cars are dumped in the Channel? Sovereignty. (Someone told my Dad they voted Leave because they hate Peugeot cars. Seriously. Still astounds me. I know someone who voted Leave, after fully expecting to vote Remain, cos they didn't like George Osborne's apocalyptic warnings about economic meltdown. Cheers George.)
It's genius really. Like 'Take Back Control' - you can make it mean whatever you want it to. It can never be rebutted. Because even if the Union crumbles, even if we continue to have massive labour shortages, even if we're all hunting rats, none of it matters. Cos sovereignty.
@EmmanuelMacron We are helping Ukraine to resist on its soil, never to attack Russia. Vladimir Putin must stop this war and respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl
Okay, enlighten me.
If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?
Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway
It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing
Which is exactly why the old drugs should be legal.
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl
Okay, enlighten me.
If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?
Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway
It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing
That's all the more reason to legalise.
Legal and regulated gives certainty on product quality and standards and that what you buy isn't laced with something else.
Legalised beer and wine can be much safer and lower ABV than prohibition era moonshine.
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Have we had a thread on why the LibDems don't seem to be benefiting from the trussterfuck?
More interesting that REFUK are not benefitting either.
She is so bad people just want her gone and the clearest way is a Labour win.
Not sure. Much more overlap between Trussology and Reform UK than between Ms T and your actual LD sandal wearer/soft Tory (as appropriate). Different phenomena there, I think?
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Just rejoice that we have Brexited. And we are proud and free, once again
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Just rejoice that we have Brexited. And we are proud and free, once again
Work on your trolling. This schtick is getting old.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.
Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.
In which case there likely would actually be a Russian nuke on London.
Trident is to defend the UK as a last resort, not to attack a nuclear missiles armed power to defend a non NATO state
Trident is on submarines so that it provides a second-strike capability. Therefore it would only ever be used once it had already failed to deter attack, when it would be too late to defend the UK.
It only defends the UK by the deterrence effect. It has no other utility. It's incorrect to talk about it as a last resort.
Have we had a thread on why the LibDems don't seem to be benefiting from the trussterfuck?
More interesting that REFUK are not benefitting either.
She is so bad people just want her gone and the clearest way is a Labour win.
Not sure. Much more overlap between Trussology and Reform UK than between Ms T and your actual LD sandal wearer/soft Tory (as appropriate). Different phenomena there, I think?
Agreed that is a big part of REFUKs failure to improve. Another being their choice of acronym.
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl
Okay, enlighten me.
If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?
Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway
It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing
That's all the more reason to legalise.
Legal and regulated gives certainty on product quality and standards and that what you buy isn't laced with something else.
Legalised beer and wine can be much safer and lower ABV than prohibition era moonshine.
Just on the issue of Moonshine, there is a problem with this in Scandinavian countries, it is hard and expensive to get alcohol, so people brew their own. Not sure how much this goes on but I have seen it. It would probably be the same with drugs. I don't oppose legalising them but it won't stop the black market for stronger and cheaper stuff, so regulating it may not result in an overall improvement in product standards.
Have we had a thread on why the LibDems don't seem to be benefiting from the trussterfuck?
More interesting that REFUK are not benefitting either.
She is so bad people just want her gone and the clearest way is a Labour win.
When did you last see the leader of either Lib Dems or REFUK interviewed on a major TV channel or or in a major newspaper? And Davey as a former Energy Secretary presumably has something to say.
@EmmanuelMacron We are helping Ukraine to resist on its soil, never to attack Russia. Vladimir Putin must stop this war and respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
JRM opposes ban on farmland solar. How is it possible that he's turned into a more reasonable cabinet minister. Truss is a moron.
Yep, it's a bit like folk harking back to the good old days of Priti Patel as HS, now we've got Braverman. FFS, that's some shift in the Overton window.
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Just rejoice that we have Brexited. And we are proud and free, once again
Work on your trolling. This schtick is getting old.
Trolling is designed to elicit a pointless response. Which this did. You responded. QED
Once again I have very very very very slightly worsened the life of a pompous, inane, and middlebrow Remoaner, an achievement which gives me more pleasure than it ought
JRM opposes ban on farmland solar. How is it possible that he's turned into a more reasonable cabinet minister. Truss is a moron.
Yep, it's a bit like folk harking back to the good old days of Priti Patel as HS, now we've got Braverman. FFS, that's some shift in the Overton window.
Well, people wanted Patel and Boris gone - be careful what you wish for!
This is why Penny is needed! Also, Labour need to be very careful as Thangam Debbonaire looks positively gleeful about the state of the UK financial situation.
During #PMQs yesterday, "the Leader of the House couldn't even muster a nod for her prime minister", Shadow Leader of the House Thangam Debbonaire says
"My resting face is that of a bulldog chewing a wasp," says Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.
Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.
In which case there likely would actually be a Russian nuke on London.
Trident is to defend the UK as a last resort, not to attack a nuclear missiles armed power to defend a non NATO state
Trident is on submarines so that it provides a second-strike capability. Therefore it would only ever be used once it had already failed to deter attack, when it would be too late to defend the UK.
It only defends the UK by the deterrence effect. It has no other utility. It's incorrect to talk about it as a last resort.
It is a last resort, as any power that tries to attack the UK knows that it risks a Trident nuclear missile attack on its capital city in response.
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
Don’t worry, a small tactical nuke won’t be met by an overwhelming nuclear response.
It’ll be met by an overwhelming conventional response. Overwhelming, as in every NATO country throwing everything it has available against the Russian military. There won’t be a Black Sea fleet, and there won’t be dozens of bases from which further attacks might be launched.
That ends in the same place as a nuclear response so you might as well go with Bart Stromberg's Trident launch and save a few a days on the way to the extirpation of modern civilisation in the Northern Hemisphere.
Be nice to use the big T in a way. Would silence the likes of me who doubt its utility or VFM. Would silence quite a few other people too.
Comments
Taxes should be simple but consistent, if you're going to tax land then tax land, don't tax mortgages.
As discussed on here before the solutions are:
Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra
LVT to replace council tax
Reduce housing benefit substantially
Remove govt props that support the market
Build more homes
Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.
*Fans self with covid test packet*
I won't reject that for the usual suspects here wanting to be apologists for Putin's aggression.
He says clearly that a nuclear attack on Ukraine wouldn't be a nuclear attack on France under its doctrine, which I think is obvious and doesn't give anything away. Then he says Russia has a responsibility not to escalate the conflict in either direction, either vertically (chemical or nuclear weapons) or horizontally (widening the territory involved in the conflict) which you could take to mean that if Russia used chemical or nuclear weapons, either NATO would get directly involved in Ukraine, or NATO would attack Russia, or NATO would arm Ukraine so that they could attack Russia.
Almost like you are trying to convince yourselves...
Even if we were going to do the Kamikwaze budget, seeing as it mostly applies from April, why not announce it in April rather than September and have an extra seven months of lower government debt, and lower mortgage costs for homeowners?
Who knows, maybe by April the Ukraine war might have ended and some of the Kamikwaze stuff would have been affordable by then?
Just incredulous stupidity.
Unfortunately this is one of those 'I wouldn't have started from here' situations.
We should say to Putin that if he moves a single division to a NATO border we will nuke Moscow and destroy St Petersburg. No, if he moves a single battalion
No, if another Russian soldier moves more than ten metres
No. If just one rifle is aimed west
No, if Putin does a single poo west of Moscow that’s it. Nukes. No more restrooms in Smolensk for you, Vladimir. We’ve got captain @BartholomewRoberts manning the red button, and if you do a single jobby this side of the Urals we bravely flush you down the Khazi of history even tho it means everyone in the world immediately dies in frantic and fiery agony
She might end up getting the job anyway, but having seen the whole “slash tax” argument crash and burn allows her to play a more consensus-building tune.
Its fair to claim that pooling sovereignty was a good idea, because it was more beneficial than being fully sovereign if that's what you believe.
Trident is to defend the UK as a last resort, not to attack a nuclear missiles armed power to defend a non NATO state
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Preventing nuclear escalation via deterrence is a legitimate role for the state.
Anyone suggesting immigration as a solution to labour shortages, needs to be clear that more homes are required first.
What if Putin nukes London, should we not retaliate so that those of us living in the North West can survive escalation?
https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/nhs-performs-weekly-update-of-emergency-department-activity-and-waiting-time-statistics/nhs-performs-weekly-update-of-emergency-department-activity-and-waiting-time-statistics-week-ending-2-october-2022/
This omits Shetland (tech issue) - which would tend slightly to improve the figures, it says.
What I can't work out is hwo they deal with waits in ambulances. The English data seem to omit any waits in ambulances for up to 4 hours. But I may be misreading this.
The English link: "The Monthly A&E Attendances and Emergency Admissions collection collects the total number of attendances in the calendar month for all A&E types, including Minor Injury Units and Walk-in Centres, and of these, the number discharged, admitted or transferred within four hours of arrival.
Also included are the number of Emergency Admissions, and any waits of over four hours for admission following decision to admit."
But Scottish criteria just say 'arrival' tout court.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/nhsscotland-performance-against-ldp-standards/pages/accident-and-emergency-waiting-times/
And walking away from Eurorestrictions doesn't remove many of the consequences.
#backliz
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584
You can now buy a 3-bed house in a dozen containers, delivered by lorry to your site for less than £100k. What’s required, is for it to be easy to get planning permission for these, and for banks to give 20-year loans on them.
If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?
It won't help him actually do anything about the problems the country faces, though!
If I was Putin I wouldn't take such a threat of nuclear deterrence seriously while British tanks were parading in Poland and Estonia, rather than joining a Ukrainian attempt to liberate Melitopol.
So I think that the threat of a conventional response, sinking the Black Sea fleet, destroying airbases, etc, is more credible, and therefore more likely to act as a deterrent.
@EmmanuelMacron
We do not want a World War.
@EmmanuelMacron
We are helping Ukraine to resist on its soil, never to attack Russia. Vladimir Putin must stop this war and respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
https://www.twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1580505003714048001
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1580510779291619329
Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway
It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing
She is so bad people just want her gone and the clearest way is a Labour win.
You can airily wave away all the damage it has caused and is continuing to cause, all the unfilled promises that swung God knows how many votes that the government has abandoned one by one since 2016, by burbling on about sovereignty.
I don't really care, and I suspect most people including the vast majority of Leave voters other than the real hardcore, cared about sovereignty, how much of it was shared, all that jazz, before the referendum campaign. It was boring political theory. Cummings - I assume it was he but whoever it was - their malign genius was to make sovereignty a synonym for whatever your pet concern was. Borders? Sovereignty. Red tape? Sovereignty. A trade deal with the US? Sovereignty. Ensuring any French made cars are dumped in the Channel? Sovereignty. (Someone told my Dad they voted Leave because they hate Peugeot cars. Seriously. Still astounds me. I know someone who voted Leave, after fully expecting to vote Remain, cos they didn't like George Osborne's apocalyptic warnings about economic meltdown. Cheers George.)
It's genius really. Like 'Take Back Control' - you can make it mean whatever you want it to. It can never be rebutted. Because even if the Union crumbles, even if we continue to have massive labour shortages, even if we're all hunting rats, none of it matters. Cos sovereignty.
Legal and regulated gives certainty on product quality and standards and that what you buy isn't laced with something else.
Legalised beer and wine can be much safer and lower ABV than prohibition era moonshine.
It only defends the UK by the deterrence effect. It has no other utility. It's incorrect to talk about it as a last resort.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/13/green-energy-guardian-reader-growth-net-zero-liz-truss-jacob-rees-mogg
I’m maligned as a ‘green energy sceptic’. I’m not. Dear Guardian reader, here’s what I think
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Which council employee thought this was a legitimate ticket?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11310931/Driver-pulled-bus-lane-let-ambulance-pass-fined-130-causing-backlash-Brits.html
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4165367#Comment_4165367
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4165486#Comment_4165486
Once again I have very very very very slightly worsened the life of a pompous, inane, and middlebrow Remoaner, an achievement which gives me more pleasure than it ought
“I’ll have you know I am a qualified lawyer”
Lol
During #PMQs yesterday, "the Leader of the House couldn't even muster a nod for her prime minister", Shadow Leader of the House Thangam Debbonaire says
"My resting face is that of a bulldog chewing a wasp," says Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt
bbc.in/3esZUkM
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1580514243681607680
The Ukraine is neither in the UK nor NATO