Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse
“If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”
“But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”
Spoke to a Conservative MP this week who said they would struggle to back Truss if it came to a confidence vote in the Commons… 👀
Think maybe Number 10 underestimating how mentally checked out some Tory MPs are - some resigned to losing their seats, they feel like they’ve got nothing to lose. So threat of whip withdrawal not as powerful as it once was.
I think it's clear from Musk's tweets that Starlink has basically been commandeered by the Pentagon and there's nothing he can do about it if he wants to keep launching rockets in the USA ?
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 37m As said earlier, there's talk that the threshold for nominations to be leader be lifted to 100 MPs, even third of party (c120) in order to try to force through a unity candidate. Who in shot of that - right now MPs saying Sunak/Hunt/Mordaunt
Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse
“If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”
“But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”
Starmer's rating of 48%, an 11pt rise from last month, is his highest ever figure (previous high 41%, July 2022), and Truss' score of 20% is a drop of 15pts since September and lower than Boris Johnson ever achieved (previous low for a Conservative leader 26%, July 2022). https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1582749293013700608/photo/1
Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse
“If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”
“But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”
What he's saying, and let's be very clear about this, is:
We should submit to nuclear blackmail
Because that's what this is. And if we submit this time, what are you going to say if China says "Taiwan is ours. We would regard any help to the regime there as an attack on us, and would respond with nuclear weapons."
And - fwiw - everyone would now need nuclear weapons. Because the only way to avoid nuclear blackmail is to have your own nukes.
If you really think that submitting to nuclear blackmail leads to a safer world, then you are genuinely retarded.
Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse
“If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”
“But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”
We’re too busy watching Liz Truss surprise on the upside to worry about the twitterings of a tech bro stoner (even an astronomically rich one) with his tongue further up Putin’s arse than even you.
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
But it's not and hasn't been for decades.
They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.
No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.
So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
But that's been reversed, so we're starting from a base of any NI increase hitting people earning £12.57k or more.
Even at the time I suggested it should be paid for by decreasing the additional rate threshold and adding 2p to the basic and higher rates. Ideally not at all and the state takes a charge on estate values.
You want poor people to subsidise your inheritance. I don't.
10% on all estates to pay for social care seems entirely sensible to me, but politicians always shoot it down in concert with the rightwing tabloids.
No, just make NI payable on pension income. Hyfud wants it to be an insurance scheme again, well it can be an insurance for healthcare and social care for older people and healthcare and pensions for working age people. It's stupid but maybe he'll agree to it. I doubt it because NI on pension income would hurt his core voters.
I don't oppose NI on pension income no in return for keeping the £86k care costs cap. Most state pensioners would not be much affected anyway
I've got a good Tory policy idea for you: People's inheritances are being eroded by spending on necessities like food and heating, so there should be a cap, with any spending above a certain lifetime limit covered by the state. You could manage it by issuing everyone with a government credit card, and that way your inheritance will be safe.
“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
Towards the end of the Second World, Hitler was in his bunker, moving around imaginary armies to defeat the invasion of the Fatherland.
Putin isn't watching CNN, or looking at Oryx, he's hearing what his Generals tell him.
And they're probably telling him that Yes, losses have been high, but they've been even worse for the Ukrainians. The current attack means that the last of the Ukrainian reserves will have been committed. And the Ukrainian spirit is close to broken with our targeted infrastructure attacks. With our 300,000 fresh soldiers and a broken and battered enemy, we just need one more push and Zelenskky will sue for peace.
That’s exactly the end of Red Storm Rising. The Central Committee start telling themselves -
- nukes will divide/panic NATO - our untrained reservists are a brilliant army just waiting to win - the other side must have taken even heavier casualties than us.
I reread it about a year ago. It's a terrific book.
Of course, he overestimated the abilties of the Soviet/Russian army. He thought it would take NATO to stop them, rather than a ragtag bunch of Ukrainians mostly using captured Russian kit.
Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse
“If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”
“But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”
Spoke to a Conservative MP this week who said they would struggle to back Truss if it came to a confidence vote in the Commons… 👀
Think maybe Number 10 underestimating how mentally checked out some Tory MPs are - some resigned to losing their seats, they feel like they’ve got nothing to lose. So threat of whip withdrawal not as powerful as it once was.
Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse
“If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”
“But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”
What he's saying, and let's be very clear about this, is:
We should submit to nuclear blackmail
Because that's what this is. And if we submit this time, what are you going to say if China says "Taiwan is ours. We would regard any help to the regime there as an attack on us, and would respond with nuclear weapons."
And - fwiw - everyone would now need nuclear weapons. Because the only way to avoid nuclear blackmail is to have your own nukes.
If you really think that submitting to nuclear blackmail leads to a safer world, then you are genuinely retarded.
Sometimes I think Elon thinks he is Leon (and not just with a typo spelling his own name), someone who can make these brash, sweeping calls, knowing some days he will be right and those days he is wrong, well, nothing happens. Except Elon does have an audience and consequences do follow.
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
But it's not and hasn't been for decades.
They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.
No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.
So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
But that's been reversed, so we're starting from a base of any NI increase hitting people earning £12.57k or more.
Even at the time I suggested it should be paid for by decreasing the additional rate threshold and adding 2p to the basic and higher rates. Ideally not at all and the state takes a charge on estate values.
You want poor people to subsidise your inheritance. I don't.
10% on all estates to pay for social care seems entirely sensible to me, but politicians always shoot it down in concert with the rightwing tabloids.
No, just make NI payable on pension income. Hyfud wants it to be an insurance scheme again, well it can be an insurance for healthcare and social care for older people and healthcare and pensions for working age people. It's stupid but maybe he'll agree to it. I doubt it because NI on pension income would hurt his core voters.
I don't oppose NI on pension income no in return for keeping the £86k care costs cap. Most state pensioners would not be much affected anyway
I've got a good Tory policy idea for you: People's inheritances are being eroded by spending on necessities like food and heating, so there should be a cap, with any spending above a certain lifetime limit covered by the state. You could manage it by issuing everyone with a government credit card, and that way your inheritance will be safe.
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
But it's not and hasn't been for decades.
They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.
No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.
So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
But that's been reversed, so we're starting from a base of any NI increase hitting people earning £12.57k or more.
Even at the time I suggested it should be paid for by decreasing the additional rate threshold and adding 2p to the basic and higher rates. Ideally not at all and the state takes a charge on estate values.
You want poor people to subsidise your inheritance. I don't.
10% on all estates to pay for social care seems entirely sensible to me, but politicians always shoot it down in concert with the rightwing tabloids.
No, just make NI payable on pension income. Hyfud wants it to be an insurance scheme again, well it can be an insurance for healthcare and social care for older people and healthcare and pensions for working age people. It's stupid but maybe he'll agree to it. I doubt it because NI on pension income would hurt his core voters.
I don't oppose NI on pension income no in return for keeping the £86k care costs cap. Most state pensioners would not be much affected anyway
I've got a good Tory policy idea for you: People's inheritances are being eroded by spending on necessities like food and heating, so there should be a cap, with any spending above a certain lifetime limit covered by the state. You could manage it by issuing everyone with a government credit card, and that way your inheritance will be safe.
The government is already halfway there anyway with the energy price cap the government has introduced subsidising rising energy bills so consumers don't have to
“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
It is also not a way he can win.
It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
This from @ozymandias seems the best explanation for recent events
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
I think it's clear from Musk's tweets that Starlink has basically been commandeered by the Pentagon and there's nothing he can do about it if he wants to keep launching rockets in the USA ?
I would imagine the Pentagon are already figuring out ways of separating Musk from SpaceX, they must be getting very concerned that the a company they are highly dependent on is run by a loony parroting Russian talking points.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 37m As said earlier, there's talk that the threshold for nominations to be leader be lifted to 100 MPs, even third of party (c120) in order to try to force through a unity candidate. Who in shot of that - right now MPs saying Sunak/Hunt/Mordaunt
I'm sure the members will love that and feel democratically enfranchised
Madness. They literally voted for these tax cuts in August.
No they literally did not.
They voted for National Insurance, which has gone ahead.
The 1p tax cut, the 45p tax cut etc were never part of the leadership debate. Instead Kwarteng took the policy Truss was already accused of not being able to afford and decided to add his own rabbits in on top.
Tactiacal voting would certainly reduce the number of Tory MPs, probably down to single figures.
The LDs might just become the official Opposition, but more likely it would be the SNP. Ian Blackwood must be having wet dreams at the possibility, and it certainly is possible.
Madness. They literally voted for these tax cuts in August.
No they literally did not.
They voted for National Insurance, which has gone ahead.
The 1p tax cut, the 45p tax cut etc were never part of the leadership debate. Instead Kwarteng took the policy Truss was already accused of not being able to afford and decided to add his own rabbits in on top.
Um Kwarteng claims that the 45p tax cut came from Truss as did some of the other items. Remember revoking IR35 was a Truss campaign commitment
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole NEW: Rumour the Home Secretary will be departing shortly - no10 sources insisting she has not been sacked. No response from Home Office
Madness. They literally voted for these tax cuts in August.
No they literally did not.
They voted for National Insurance, which has gone ahead.
The 1p tax cut, the 45p tax cut etc were never part of the leadership debate. Instead Kwarteng took the policy Truss was already accused of not being able to afford and decided to add his own rabbits in on top.
Um Kwarteng claims that the 45p tax cut came from Truss as did some of the other items. Remember revoking IR35 was a Truss campaign commitment
The members voted for Truss, but they did not "literally" vote for the 45p tax cut in any figurative or literal way.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole NEW: Rumour the Home Secretary will be departing shortly - no10 sources insisting she has not been sacked. No response from Home Office
He is behind the curve. the tofu eating wokerati have done the deed
It seems to me that the standout figure from the R and W survey in the header is not the one about fracking.
It's the figure of only 16% opposition to further North Sea oil and gas permits. It looks as if support for broadly environmentalist 'Stop Oil', net zero etc stuff is flaky and wafer thin in the extreme when push comes to shove, and autumn and the Russian army arrive.
Tactiacal voting would certainly reduce the number of Tory MPs, probably down to single figures.
The LDs might just become the official Opposition, but more likely it would be the SNP. Ian Blackwood must be having wet dreams at the possibility, and it certainly is possible.
How can the Scottish Nationalists be His Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.
Offshore wind is far more efficient and can be scaled in a way that onshore can't. It also won't get stuck in planning for 20 years.
Dogger Bank III, IV and V please.
Not Lake District I, Cairngorms I or even North Pennines I.
I think the crisis we are in justifies an approach of doing everything we can, as quickly as we can, rather than worrying about how to optimise it.
So, in March earlier this year, we should have pushed the big red button on going ahead with more onshore and offshore wind, and fracking, and gas storage, and tidal, and North Sea oil and gas, and modular nukes, and anything else that was vaguely plausible. It's an emergency, so you have an emergency response.
That then gives us the best chance of not experiencing an emergency several winters in a row, and once we're past the emergency stage we can see what has worked, what hasn't, where we want to trim, and what we want to reinforce.
Instead, we've done everything very slowly (even the simple decision to reopen Rough took many months), and we've backed off from pursuing all the options available to us.
Nothing would have made much of a difference for this winter (except perhaps Rough) but if we have problems next winter it will be because of this sluggish and half-hearted response.
None of those things would be ready by next winter. In the timescale of actually building stuff, there will be no difference between building onshore and offshore wind, for instance.
Unless you want to try building the nukes Soviet style. I wonder if we could rent some Zeks from China?
Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.
Offshore wind is far more efficient and can be scaled in a way that onshore can't. It also won't get stuck in planning for 20 years.
Dogger Bank III, IV and V please.
Not Lake District I, Cairngorms I or even North Pennines I.
Travelled back from Pembrokeshire on monday (itself well populated by wind turbines). In the distance a forest of turbines on the Black Mountains. People will have different opinions, but at least they are non-polluting sources of power, and tbh, not unattractive.
Like keeping the football world cup on free to air TV, there must be some locations that are kept free of turbines, but for bog standard farmland in much of the country I don't see an issue.
That said, I suspect (but don't know) that North Sea turbines are less likely to be completely lacking in wind. They are also bigger (I think) and we have the tech to keep building them.
I agree, they aren't that bad in a bog standard farmed landscape. From our local NNR in the Flatlands you can see well over 100 of the things and they aren't _that_ bad.
In the uplands it is slightly more difficult. They are visible for miles and if built on peat soil may not actually be reducing CO2 emissions. New roads are required in places where there really shouldn't be roads.
The offshore ones can be bigger, don't need new roads, are easier to get heavy equipment to, allow bigger blades and perform an additional service of protecting the sea bed from trawling.
The only issue is sea birds but I don't know what the latest research is on that.
I do look forward to West Burton Fusion Power though!
No way seabirds should be allowed to stop progress on this. I've had enough of U-Terns.
Madness. They literally voted for these tax cuts in August.
No they literally did not.
They voted for National Insurance, which has gone ahead.
The 1p tax cut, the 45p tax cut etc were never part of the leadership debate. Instead Kwarteng took the policy Truss was already accused of not being able to afford and decided to add his own rabbits in on top.
Um Kwarteng claims that the 45p tax cut came from Truss as did some of the other items. Remember revoking IR35 was a Truss campaign commitment
The members voted for Truss, but they did not "literally" vote for the 45p tax cut in any figurative or literal way.
My point was that Kwarteng did add the 45p as his rabbit from the hat - it came from Truss.
Braverman and Kwarteng were key Truss allies, if Shapps joins fellow Sunak supporter Hunt as their replacements Truss is just paving the way for her ultimate replacement by Rishi
Madness. They literally voted for these tax cuts in August.
No they literally did not.
They voted for National Insurance, which has gone ahead.
The 1p tax cut, the 45p tax cut etc were never part of the leadership debate. Instead Kwarteng took the policy Truss was already accused of not being able to afford and decided to add his own rabbits in on top.
Um Kwarteng claims that the 45p tax cut came from Truss as did some of the other items. Remember revoking IR35 was a Truss campaign commitment
The members voted for Truss, but they did not "literally" vote for the 45p tax cut in any figurative or literal way.
My point was that Kwarteng did add the 45p as his rabbit from the hat - it came from Truss.
Whoever's hat it came from, it wasn't "literally" voted for by the members now, was it?
As I understand it @SuellaBraverman has been asked to resign over an issue relating to “security”. Resignation letter soon. Being replaced by @grantshapps
Robert Peston @Peston · 1m As I understand it @SuellaBraverman has been asked to resign over an issue relating to “security”. Resignation letter soon. Being replaced by @grantshapps
Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.
Offshore wind is far more efficient and can be scaled in a way that onshore can't. It also won't get stuck in planning for 20 years.
Dogger Bank III, IV and V please.
Not Lake District I, Cairngorms I or even North Pennines I.
Travelled back from Pembrokeshire on monday (itself well populated by wind turbines). In the distance a forest of turbines on the Black Mountains. People will have different opinions, but at least they are non-polluting sources of power, and tbh, not unattractive.
Like keeping the football world cup on free to air TV, there must be some locations that are kept free of turbines, but for bog standard farmland in much of the country I don't see an issue.
That said, I suspect (but don't know) that North Sea turbines are less likely to be completely lacking in wind. They are also bigger (I think) and we have the tech to keep building them.
I agree, they aren't that bad in a bog standard farmed landscape. From our local NNR in the Flatlands you can see well over 100 of the things and they aren't _that_ bad.
In the uplands it is slightly more difficult. They are visible for miles and if built on peat soil may not actually be reducing CO2 emissions. New roads are required in places where there really shouldn't be roads.
The offshore ones can be bigger, don't need new roads, are easier to get heavy equipment to, allow bigger blades and perform an additional service of protecting the sea bed from trawling.
The only issue is sea birds but I don't know what the latest research is on that.
I do look forward to West Burton Fusion Power though!
No way seabirds should be allowed to stop progress on this. I've had enough of U-Terns.
As I understand it @SuellaBraverman has been asked to resign over an issue relating to “security”. Resignation letter soon. Being replaced by @grantshapps
Robert Peston @Peston · 1m As I understand it @SuellaBraverman has been asked to resign over an issue relating to “security”. Resignation letter soon. Being replaced by @grantshapps
If anyone needs me during these last hours before Armageddon, I’m on this train heading from Denver to Moab
I’d like to think this gives me a slender chance of survival but unfortunately the tracks go right past a major NORAD HQ
Catch up with you in the afterlife then. Take care.
We carry on with PB in the afterlife, but without @HYUFD, who will be the only one allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven. The rest of us will have to hope that @TSE will allow us to join him in Jannah.
Multiple sources told me this avo that Braverman was being sacked - with some claiming at behest of Jeremy Hunt who they said was now “pulling the strings".
(No 10 sources still denying she was "sacked" - and Hunt's people denying responsibility 🤨)
OK. You know how I said that Truss was going to keep her head down, hope for a resolution in Ukraine, and would see her ratings (and Tory polling) recover somewhat.
I was wrong.
Sacking Braverman (an I am no Suella fan) weeks into the job is madness, and pretty much guarantees an imminent challenge.
As I understand it @SuellaBraverman has been asked to resign over an issue relating to “security”. Resignation letter soon. Being replaced by @grantshapps
Doesn't being Home Secretary require you to pass an elevated background / security check....going to take the spooks ages to wade through all his past aliases.
Robert Peston @Peston · 53s Just to be clear, the Tory right already telling me Braverman has been stitched up by Truss. This will make it much harder for Truss to survive.
Is that another 40-50 extra letters heading to Mr Brady in the next hour?
Braverman and Kwarteng were key Truss allies, if Shapps joins fellow Sunak supporter Hunt as their replacements Truss is just paving the way for her ultimate replacement by Rishi
Tactiacal voting would certainly reduce the number of Tory MPs, probably down to single figures.
The LDs might just become the official Opposition, but more likely it would be the SNP. Ian Blackwood must be having wet dreams at the possibility, and it certainly is possible.
How can the Scottish Nationalists be His Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, OKC, but they would be second largest Party in Westminster, ...so they automatically become the official Opposition.
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.
Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.
Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.
The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.
So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
That is the 2nd time now you have accused me of saying 'poor' when I actually said 'poorer' The words have very different meanings. Try reading what I say.
You want people POORER (not the poor) than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth.
Was saving the @SavantaComRes net favourability ratings for tomorrow, but may as well mention that Braverman's is -19 (14% favourable, 33% unfavourable, 29% neither, 24% DK).
Tactiacal voting would certainly reduce the number of Tory MPs, probably down to single figures.
The LDs might just become the official Opposition, but more likely it would be the SNP. Ian Blackwood must be having wet dreams at the possibility, and it certainly is possible.
How can the Scottish Nationalists be His Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, OKC, but they would be second largest Party in Westminster, ...so they automatically become the official Opposition.
Comments
Of course this makes him a “fucking appeaser” etc etc
Think maybe Number 10 underestimating how mentally checked out some Tory MPs are - some resigned to losing their seats, they feel like they’ve got nothing to lose. So threat of whip withdrawal not as powerful as it once was.
https://twitter.com/wizbates/status/1582749028315717632
@BethRigby
·
37m
As said earlier, there's talk that the threshold for nominations to be leader be lifted to 100 MPs, even third of party (c120) in order to try to force through a unity candidate. Who in shot of that - right now MPs saying Sunak/Hunt/Mordaunt
What he's saying, and let's be very clear about this, is:
We should submit to nuclear blackmail
Because that's what this is. And if we submit this time, what are you going to say if China says "Taiwan is ours. We would regard any help to the regime there as an attack on us, and would respond with nuclear weapons."
And - fwiw - everyone would now need nuclear weapons. Because the only way to avoid nuclear blackmail is to have your own nukes.
If you really think that submitting to nuclear blackmail leads to a safer world, then you are genuinely retarded.
Right decision: 57%
Wrong decision: 36%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/10/19/conservative-members-say-cancelling-kwartengs-tax- https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1582749137669222406/photo/1
Of course, he overestimated the abilties of the Soviet/Russian army. He thought it would take NATO to stop them, rather than a ragtag bunch of Ukrainians mostly using captured Russian kit.
He's already said that on live TV.
US intel to date says no nukes have been moved from any of their storage areas.
And if enough MPs abstain then it's not really possible for Truss to throw 100+ MPs out of the party..
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
It’s not nice. But that adds up
Chechnya's leader Ramzan Kadyrov calls for Ukraine's government to be "wiped off the face of the earth"
https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1582751743469027331
Kwarteng should be sacked. Oh.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
24m
I'm sorry. I got it wrong, & helped inflict Truss upon you.
If you give into nuclear blackmail here, then why would or should Putin stop here? The future will be nothing other than nuclear blackmail.
I’d like to think this gives me a slender chance of survival but unfortunately the tracks go right past a major NORAD HQ
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1582751384725700608
They voted for National Insurance, which has gone ahead.
The 1p tax cut, the 45p tax cut etc were never part of the leadership debate. Instead Kwarteng took the policy Truss was already accused of not being able to afford and decided to add his own rabbits in on top.
Tactiacal voting would certainly reduce the number of Tory MPs, probably down to single figures.
The LDs might just become the official Opposition, but more likely it would be the SNP. Ian Blackwood must be having wet dreams at the possibility, and it certainly is possible.
And who is he? New selection?
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
NEW: Rumour the Home Secretary will be departing shortly - no10 sources insisting she has not been sacked. No response from Home Office
'Clever'ly next?
It's the figure of only 16% opposition to further North Sea oil and gas permits. It looks as if support for broadly environmentalist 'Stop Oil', net zero etc stuff is flaky and wafer thin in the extreme when push comes to shove, and autumn and the Russian army arrive.
What is the lifespan of a UK gov minister at the mo
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
2m
Multiple sources now saying Suella is off and HAS been fired.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/20162025/suella-braverman-sacked-as-home-secretary/
Was Braverman leaking? In any case surely makes Truss even more unpopular with a certain grouping of Tory MPs.
Unless you want to try building the nukes Soviet style. I wonder if we could rent some Zeks from China?
My view right now
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582755650672525313
Robert Peston
@Peston
·
1m
As I understand it
@SuellaBraverman
has been asked to resign over an issue relating to “security”. Resignation letter soon. Being replaced by
@grantshapps
And an appeasing fuckwit.
I'll take being a dork.
(No 10 sources still denying she was "sacked" - and Hunt's people denying responsibility 🤨)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/19/suella-braverman-departs-as-uk-home-secretary-liz-truss
I was wrong.
Sacking Braverman (an I am no Suella fan) weeks into the job is madness, and pretty much guarantees an imminent challenge.
Unsustainable chaos
@Peston
·
53s
Just to be clear, the Tory right already telling me Braverman has been stitched up by Truss. This will make it much harder for Truss to survive.
Is that another 40-50 extra letters heading to Mr Brady in the next hour?
No?
She ranks just below Cleverly, but higher than her predecessor (Patel, -40).
https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1582756290278748166