I wouldn't read too much into it - but it does sound as though nukes aren't quite as imminent as @Leon keeps assuring us.
FWIW, the reality is that Putin's best hope is to prolong the war as long as he can and hope for Europe getting fatigue and Trump coming back.
And we shouldn't be flying our elint planes quite so close to Russian airspace.
I think that Fiona Hill made a good point, that in any 'peace' deal, the ability of Ukraine to defend itself with Western support should not be compromised. Because Russia won't stop. It may perversely be in our interest to prolong the war, whilst Russia is struggling - if a lot of mobilised soldiers die because of the incompetence of the Russian Army, then it may have some effect on Russians and their willingness to do these types of wars in the future.
I don't think it's in our interest to prolong the war; it's in our interest for it to finish as soon as possible with a defeat for the invasion. And I don't think there will be a deal until at least one of Russia and Ukraine realises they can't win. As it's existential for Ukraine, that side is unlikely to be them.
The war is not finishing anytime soon. See the thread posted earlier; Putin thinks if he plays it long enough he is in with a chance.
And, given a possible return from Trump, he is not necessarily wrong.
Even if the US suddenly went isolationist, I don't think it necessarily means Putin would win, but it would dramatically increase the pressure on Europe to act, and would therefore increase the chance of other countries getting directly involved.
The danger is that the US goes more isolationist and that governments around Europe fail to step up. (And you can see how the cost of living crisis puts enormous pressure on governments.)
Fortunately, the trend (currently) is for European countries to become resolute. But that could easily change with public anger at increased gas and electricity bills.
Endorsements 68 - Rishi Sunak 36 - Boris Johnson 17 - Penny Mordaunt
If this is right, it suggests Boris may not have the momentum he needs, and that in turn explains why Penny has confirmed she's standing. She would have a decent chance if Boris decides that the party is not yet ready for his Second Coming.
Currently 71/40/18 according to the Telegraph.
Scaling that up to 357, that would give around 196 Rishi, 110 Boris, 50 Penny. We might yet see a Rishi coronation on Monday.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're still talking about nominations, not votes. Is there any reason to think anything like all the Tory MPs will nominate someone?
You are right of course, but it's the best indication of votes we've got.
The vote, the nomination (which is secret), and the public statement are all separate, right? So conceivably an MP could nominate one candidate, say that they've nominated another, and then vote for the third?
That is still a big bounce for all of them compared to the 19% the Tories are on on the main poll.
Indeed Sunak would slash the current projected over 400 seat Labour majority into a hung parliament on the new boundaries if the preferred PM figures convert to voting intention, albeit with Labour still most seats
Yup. Johnson and Sunak will look at that and think “I could turn this round”.
It will be interesting to see what polling resets to, i'd expect the absolute anger out there to hold back the limit of any polling recovery certainly before we enter formally a GE period, but i think the Tory poll rating should recover to high 20s and Labour in the 40s in the short term. Local by elections this month certainly suggest a Tory total wipeout is not yet in any way likely.
@vonderburchard In what sounds like a swipe against U.S. push for decoupling from China, Scholz said in Brussels that he wants to maintain close trade ties with Beijing
"The EU prides itself on being a union interested in global trade and it does not side with those who promote deglobalization"
Endorsements 68 - Rishi Sunak 36 - Boris Johnson 17 - Penny Mordaunt
If this is right, it suggests Boris may not have the momentum he needs, and that in turn explains why Penny has confirmed she's standing. She would have a decent chance if Boris decides that the party is not yet ready for his Second Coming.
Currently 71/40/18 according to the Telegraph.
Scaling that up to 357, that would give around 196 Rishi, 110 Boris, 50 Penny. We might yet see a Rishi coronation on Monday.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're still talking about nominations, not votes. Is there any reason to think anything like all the Tory MPs will nominate someone?
You are right of course, but it's the best indication of votes we've got.
The vote, the nomination (which is secret), and the public statement are all separate, right? So conceivably an MP could nominate one candidate, say that they've nominated another, and then vote for the third?
Absolutely. And certainly some (most?) of them will have privately indicated support for more than one candidate, just to be on the right side whoever wins.
What should happen to underpin Hunt's ongoing attempts to maintain the UK financial system stability is for all 3 candidates (or 2 if Mordant doesn't make it) to have a meeting with Hunt, get the outline or even the detail of what he is planning and state publicly that whoever wins will maintain Hunt's proposals at least until there has been time to assess their effectiveness or otherwise. I know this would be an extraordinary thing to do but these are extraordinary times and for the next few months stability and reassurance to the markets seems to me to be the key.
Any candidate who is not able to make that pledge for the good of the country probably shouldn't be let near No.10
Yes, something like that is needed. Alternatively, especially if the winner is Sunak, I suppose they could postpone the budget for a short time, say a week or two, without spooking the markets, if they handled the announcement carefully. That would mean the new PM could form the replacement government and then give a stronger political stamp of approval to the financial plans.
The main thing will be to convince the markets that there's a credible plan, that they are committed to it, and that they can deliver it. Clearly none of this is ideal, and it could easily be blown up by on-going political chaos.
The challenges here are immense. The most fundamental change between Kwarteng and Hunt was not really the tax changes but the recognition that if we were going to be subsidising everyone's gas bill this winter the (unknown) cost of that had to be offset by cuts elsewhere rather than being stuck on the credit card. We are about to divert tens of billions from social security, defence, education, local government and possibly even social care to paying for gas.
On one view we have gone from one extreme to the other. KK thought he could just ignore the cost of his 2 year scheme and carry on spending on everything else regardless. That was reckless. Hunt is looking to recoup the costs of the truncated scheme over a very short period of time. That is arguably unnecessarily severe but you can see why he had to do something like that to assuage the markets.
The gas scheme will end for the vast majority of the population and businesses in 6 months time: we simply cannot afford this redirection of resources. All we can hope is that by then gas prices are much lower.
I loathe the Kwarteng / Truss plan to cap per KwH rates - it's enormously expensive and it dents the price signal.
We would be much better off calculating its cost, dividing it by 70 million people, and send it as direct cheques to people. (Indeed, I'd gross it up 40% and then make it taxable, so that it poorer people - who spend more of their income on energy - benefit most.)
That would mean that people would have the choice: hmmm, I could spend the money on gas/electric, or I could turn the thermostat down, the lights off, and spend it on going down the pub instead. It would reduce demand by a greater extent, and would cushion people just as much.
The correlation isn't as you describe. Within each income band, there are heavier users (say 4 kids) who will get the same cheque as single person households.
Leon, enjoy the sunshine in Utah while you can - cold front with rain heading your way this weekend.
UGH
I was at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City a few years back, where we had two feet of champagne powder overnight - night after night.
Somehow, the place coped.
Sure, I’ve just used to unbroken sun and pure blue skies for ten days. The US west/SW has such a lovely climate at this time of year
The golden aspens trembling on the red rock slopes, where the elks languidly drink in the beaver lakes. Sigh
Utah is special, but I prefer Arizona. Painted Desert, Meteor Crater, Desert Museum, that canyon (obs) and the wild country along the Mexican border. Guy there showed me his large collection of hummingbird feeders - dozens of them smashed to bits, cuz the bears like a sweet drink....
Any special recommendations along the Ariz/Mex border?
What should happen to underpin Hunt's ongoing attempts to maintain the UK financial system stability is for all 3 candidates (or 2 if Mordant doesn't make it) to have a meeting with Hunt, get the outline or even the detail of what he is planning and state publicly that whoever wins will maintain Hunt's proposals at least until there has been time to assess their effectiveness or otherwise. I know this would be an extraordinary thing to do but these are extraordinary times and for the next few months stability and reassurance to the markets seems to me to be the key.
Any candidate who is not able to make that pledge for the good of the country probably shouldn't be let near No.10
Yes, something like that is needed. Alternatively, especially if the winner is Sunak, I suppose they could postpone the budget for a short time, say a week or two, without spooking the markets, if they handled the announcement carefully. That would mean the new PM could form the replacement government and then give a stronger political stamp of approval to the financial plans.
The main thing will be to convince the markets that there's a credible plan, that they are committed to it, and that they can deliver it. Clearly none of this is ideal, and it could easily be blown up by on-going political chaos.
The challenges here are immense. The most fundamental change between Kwarteng and Hunt was not really the tax changes but the recognition that if we were going to be subsidising everyone's gas bill this winter the (unknown) cost of that had to be offset by cuts elsewhere rather than being stuck on the credit card. We are about to divert tens of billions from social security, defence, education, local government and possibly even social care to paying for gas.
On one view we have gone from one extreme to the other. KK thought he could just ignore the cost of his 2 year scheme and carry on spending on everything else regardless. That was reckless. Hunt is looking to recoup the costs of the truncated scheme over a very short period of time. That is arguably unnecessarily severe but you can see why he had to do something like that to assuage the markets.
The gas scheme will end for the vast majority of the population and businesses in 6 months time: we simply cannot afford this redirection of resources. All we can hope is that by then gas prices are much lower.
I loathe the Kwarteng / Truss plan to cap per KwH rates - it's enormously expensive and it dents the price signal.
We would be much better off calculating its cost, dividing it by 70 million people, and send it as direct cheques to people. (Indeed, I'd gross it up 40% and then make it taxable, so that it poorer people - who spend more of their income on energy - benefit most.)
That would mean that people would have the choice: hmmm, I could spend the money on gas/electric, or I could turn the thermostat down, the lights off, and spend it on going down the pub instead. It would reduce demand by a greater extent, and would cushion people just as much.
The correlation isn't as you describe. Within each income band, there are heavier users (say 4 kids) who will get the same cheque as single person households.
Shitty Film Details! @ShitFilmDetails · 23h With principal photography for "Love Actually"(2001) lasting 2 months, actor Hugh Grant played the British Prime Minister longer than some actual British Prime Ministers.
Some implies plural. It needs to be *an* actual British Prime Minister.
I would be content with either Mordaunt or Sunak as leader. I also would be very happy to see the likes of Mogg, Chope , etc. quit the party in disgust. Then we might in due course see an element of pollinmg bounce but at the least the slow return of a genuine centre-right party. Like others I'm very fearful of what damage a 400+ majority Labour might do albeit given the financial strats they'll be operating under.
That is still a big bounce for all of them compared to the 19% the Tories are on on the main poll.
Indeed Sunak would slash the current projected over 400 seat Labour majority into a hung parliament on the new boundaries if the preferred PM figures convert to voting intention, albeit with Labour still most seats
There's also Starmer being less popular than Labour in most polls, while even if a new Tory leader impresses, surely the Tory brand won't recover so easily.
What should happen to underpin Hunt's ongoing attempts to maintain the UK financial system stability is for all 3 candidates (or 2 if Mordant doesn't make it) to have a meeting with Hunt, get the outline or even the detail of what he is planning and state publicly that whoever wins will maintain Hunt's proposals at least until there has been time to assess their effectiveness or otherwise. I know this would be an extraordinary thing to do but these are extraordinary times and for the next few months stability and reassurance to the markets seems to me to be the key.
Any candidate who is not able to make that pledge for the good of the country probably shouldn't be let near No.10
Yes, something like that is needed. Alternatively, especially if the winner is Sunak, I suppose they could postpone the budget for a short time, say a week or two, without spooking the markets, if they handled the announcement carefully. That would mean the new PM could form the replacement government and then give a stronger political stamp of approval to the financial plans.
The main thing will be to convince the markets that there's a credible plan, that they are committed to it, and that they can deliver it. Clearly none of this is ideal, and it could easily be blown up by on-going political chaos.
The challenges here are immense. The most fundamental change between Kwarteng and Hunt was not really the tax changes but the recognition that if we were going to be subsidising everyone's gas bill this winter the (unknown) cost of that had to be offset by cuts elsewhere rather than being stuck on the credit card. We are about to divert tens of billions from social security, defence, education, local government and possibly even social care to paying for gas.
On one view we have gone from one extreme to the other. KK thought he could just ignore the cost of his 2 year scheme and carry on spending on everything else regardless. That was reckless. Hunt is looking to recoup the costs of the truncated scheme over a very short period of time. That is arguably unnecessarily severe but you can see why he had to do something like that to assuage the markets.
The gas scheme will end for the vast majority of the population and businesses in 6 months time: we simply cannot afford this redirection of resources. All we can hope is that by then gas prices are much lower.
I loathe the Kwarteng / Truss plan to cap per KwH rates - it's enormously expensive and it dents the price signal.
We would be much better off calculating its cost, dividing it by 70 million people, and send it as direct cheques to people. (Indeed, I'd gross it up 40% and then make it taxable, so that it poorer people - who spend more of their income on energy - benefit most.)
That would mean that people would have the choice: hmmm, I could spend the money on gas/electric, or I could turn the thermostat down, the lights off, and spend it on going down the pub instead. It would reduce demand by a greater extent, and would cushion people just as much.
The correlation isn't as you describe. Within each income band, there are heavier users (say 4 kids) who will get the same cheque as single person households.
BoJo ally Sir James Duddridge phones me & tells me he’s spoken to Boris Johnson & he’s “up for it” & told him: “I’m going to do it, Dudders!” Says ex-PM is returning to UK from Caribbean holiday.
The current (Rishi) £400 subsidy which is currently landing in utility accounts is really quite perverse. We're going to get three of them. Totally mad, we don't need any help. The Truss scheme will be another bung we don't need. At the same time, others are desperate for help.
Obviously we'll be upping our charitable donations to compensate, but it's not a well-designed use of public funds.
"It would be a very, very bad idea to bring Boris Johnson back...it's possibly the worst idea I've heard in the 46 years I've been a member of the Conservatives."
Bringing back Boris could send the Tories into a 'death spiral', @WilliamJHague tells #TimesRadio.
+£360 Rishi +£40 Penny -£660 Boris +£1,100 Starmer
Also plus four figures on Badenoch and Braverman in case there's a rumour of them standing, so I can trade, but doubt will happen
Tried to catch you earlier.
I was intrigued by your post early this morning that there is a quick route to Starmer. I don’t see one. Surely the PCP will do anything - absolutely anything! - to avoid a general election?
Rob Ford was on the radio shooting down the "Boris is a winner" guff. He made the point that it's not 2019, he's not facing Corbyn, and Boris has recently recorded some of the worst ratings seen, probably beaten now by Truss. I think it's fair to say the Ford thinks the Boris backing Tories are deluding themselves.
What should happen to underpin Hunt's ongoing attempts to maintain the UK financial system stability is for all 3 candidates (or 2 if Mordant doesn't make it) to have a meeting with Hunt, get the outline or even the detail of what he is planning and state publicly that whoever wins will maintain Hunt's proposals at least until there has been time to assess their effectiveness or otherwise. I know this would be an extraordinary thing to do but these are extraordinary times and for the next few months stability and reassurance to the markets seems to me to be the key.
Any candidate who is not able to make that pledge for the good of the country probably shouldn't be let near No.10
Yes, something like that is needed. Alternatively, especially if the winner is Sunak, I suppose they could postpone the budget for a short time, say a week or two, without spooking the markets, if they handled the announcement carefully. That would mean the new PM could form the replacement government and then give a stronger political stamp of approval to the financial plans.
The main thing will be to convince the markets that there's a credible plan, that they are committed to it, and that they can deliver it. Clearly none of this is ideal, and it could easily be blown up by on-going political chaos.
The challenges here are immense. The most fundamental change between Kwarteng and Hunt was not really the tax changes but the recognition that if we were going to be subsidising everyone's gas bill this winter the (unknown) cost of that had to be offset by cuts elsewhere rather than being stuck on the credit card. We are about to divert tens of billions from social security, defence, education, local government and possibly even social care to paying for gas.
On one view we have gone from one extreme to the other. KK thought he could just ignore the cost of his 2 year scheme and carry on spending on everything else regardless. That was reckless. Hunt is looking to recoup the costs of the truncated scheme over a very short period of time. That is arguably unnecessarily severe but you can see why he had to do something like that to assuage the markets.
The gas scheme will end for the vast majority of the population and businesses in 6 months time: we simply cannot afford this redirection of resources. All we can hope is that by then gas prices are much lower.
I loathe the Kwarteng / Truss plan to cap per KwH rates - it's enormously expensive and it dents the price signal.
We would be much better off calculating its cost, dividing it by 70 million people, and send it as direct cheques to people. (Indeed, I'd gross it up 40% and then make it taxable, so that it poorer people - who spend more of their income on energy - benefit most.)
That would mean that people would have the choice: hmmm, I could spend the money on gas/electric, or I could turn the thermostat down, the lights off, and spend it on going down the pub instead. It would reduce demand by a greater extent, and would cushion people just as much.
The correlation isn't as you describe. Within each income band, there are heavier users (say 4 kids) who will get the same cheque as single person households.
That's why I said per person, not per household.
I claim for my whole household?
Mr Smith gets a cheque Mrs Smith gets a cheque Master Smith gets a cheque Miss Smith gets a cheque
Parents can pay their kids cheques into their own accounts.
Tory members seem to be drunk on power . The cheek of some to moan that it’s not democratic if they don’t have a say .
By "democratic" they REALLY mean "oligarchic".
Over a century ago, in the great Badger State of Wisconsin, insurgent Governor Robert LaFollette got the legislature to pioneer a number of major political reforms, designed to make state government more responsive to the public will and less beholden - or rather totally controlled - by corporate interests most notably the railroads. Which by the way ran most of the state legislatures in the USA around the turn of the 19th>20th century.
One of the reforms was the initiative and referendum process, so that voters could make (or unmake) laws independent of the legislature, based on voter support AND voting majorities.
Another reform was instituting primary elections to chose party nominees for partisan offices, in place of party caucuses and conventions - proverbial smoke-filled rooms dominated by party hacks.
Over the next century, the "Wisconsin System" was adopted to some extent - especially the primary - across the US from sea to shining sea.
Giving this lecture because, seems to me that one of the biggest flaws of the UK, CAN and most other parliamentary systems in Westminster mode, his the process for selecting party candidates, relying on party members, who are gonna be a small minority in ANY constituency.
For all its manifold faults - with most of the devil in the details - primary nomination system is WAY better than convention-caucus-clubhouse system.
The return of Boris Johnson to Number 10 would send the Conservative Party into a ‘death spiral’, William Hague has warned.
The Tory grandee, once leader himself and former Foreign Secretary, said Mr Johnson’s return was “the worst idea I’ve heard of in the 46 years I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party”.
"It would be a very, very bad idea to bring Boris Johnson back...it's possibly the worst idea I've heard in the 46 years I've been a member of the Conservatives."
Bringing back Boris could send the Tories into a 'death spiral', @WilliamJHague tells #TimesRadio.
Hague - a much underrated voice and a serious intellect - is right, of course. But will the collection of clowns, morons and incompetents in the PCP listen?
Taking Boris is a bet that 100 of them won’t, still arguably value at 3.5…
Quick reminder that the reason Boris Johnson stopped being leader of the Conservative Party is that he quite literally - I mean, quite literally, this is the straightforward meaning of the sequence of events at the time - could not lead the Conservative Party. https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/1583509756949327874
What should happen to underpin Hunt's ongoing attempts to maintain the UK financial system stability is for all 3 candidates (or 2 if Mordant doesn't make it) to have a meeting with Hunt, get the outline or even the detail of what he is planning and state publicly that whoever wins will maintain Hunt's proposals at least until there has been time to assess their effectiveness or otherwise. I know this would be an extraordinary thing to do but these are extraordinary times and for the next few months stability and reassurance to the markets seems to me to be the key.
Any candidate who is not able to make that pledge for the good of the country probably shouldn't be let near No.10
Yes, something like that is needed. Alternatively, especially if the winner is Sunak, I suppose they could postpone the budget for a short time, say a week or two, without spooking the markets, if they handled the announcement carefully. That would mean the new PM could form the replacement government and then give a stronger political stamp of approval to the financial plans.
The main thing will be to convince the markets that there's a credible plan, that they are committed to it, and that they can deliver it. Clearly none of this is ideal, and it could easily be blown up by on-going political chaos.
The challenges here are immense. The most fundamental change between Kwarteng and Hunt was not really the tax changes but the recognition that if we were going to be subsidising everyone's gas bill this winter the (unknown) cost of that had to be offset by cuts elsewhere rather than being stuck on the credit card. We are about to divert tens of billions from social security, defence, education, local government and possibly even social care to paying for gas.
On one view we have gone from one extreme to the other. KK thought he could just ignore the cost of his 2 year scheme and carry on spending on everything else regardless. That was reckless. Hunt is looking to recoup the costs of the truncated scheme over a very short period of time. That is arguably unnecessarily severe but you can see why he had to do something like that to assuage the markets.
The gas scheme will end for the vast majority of the population and businesses in 6 months time: we simply cannot afford this redirection of resources. All we can hope is that by then gas prices are much lower.
I loathe the Kwarteng / Truss plan to cap per KwH rates - it's enormously expensive and it dents the price signal.
We would be much better off calculating its cost, dividing it by 70 million people, and send it as direct cheques to people. (Indeed, I'd gross it up 40% and then make it taxable, so that it poorer people - who spend more of their income on energy - benefit most.)
That would mean that people would have the choice: hmmm, I could spend the money on gas/electric, or I could turn the thermostat down, the lights off, and spend it on going down the pub instead. It would reduce demand by a greater extent, and would cushion people just as much.
The correlation isn't as you describe. Within each income band, there are heavier users (say 4 kids) who will get the same cheque as single person households.
That's why I said per person, not per household.
I claim for my whole household?
Mr Smith gets a cheque Mrs Smith gets a cheque Master Smith gets a cheque Miss Smith gets a cheque
Parents can pay their kids cheques into their own accounts.
Dave must bitterly regret that Brexit-referendum decision. It was all done to stave off Nigel Farage. Okay, so the Tories might have suffered a few defections or had a few years in opposition because of him, but that is nothing compared to the Tory horrors that single decision unleashed. We're talking the death of a major political party here.
His error was not in holding the referendum, which absolutely was needed - there was no democratic consent for all the changes beginning with Maastricht including especially Lisbon (which Brown signed despite a specific manifesto commitment against it).
His errors were:
(a) treating the referendum as something to be won for Remain, rather than as somethign to settle the EU issue one way or the other; and (b) flouncing immediately after it.
No it was holding a referendum because it wasn't an issue that should be decided that way because people don't know what the outcome would be, and hence we've spent six years struggling to make sense of what it should mean, and will probably spend decades in a constant state of argument over it. If he thought leaving was a good idea and/or popular he should've put it in an election manifesto and explained the consequences, how it should work and so on so people could make an informed choice. If he thought it was a terrible idea (as it seems he did) he shouldn't have promised that and made the argument that we were better off in. Instead, the problem was he took the coward's option of spending most of his time EU-bashing because it was politically convenient and helped with party management, while knowing full well that he thought the benefits outweighed costs, and ran on a referendum promise as a cop out that allowed him to face both ways by flaunting his Euroscepticism while hoping voters would save him from its consequences.
No, that doesn't work - the membership question was always going to have to be resolved by referendum, mixing it in with a general election wouldn't have flown.
The problems come entirely from him so strongly taking one side and then losing. If he had either put EEA on the ballot paper as a subsidiary question (Q2: If Q1 = Leave, then EEA = Yes/No?) or allowed the government to put forward a position on what Leave meant, then the vast majority of problems that arose wouldn't have done.
But he didn't want to settle the issue fairly, he just wanted to win.
That would have been better than what happened but still would have created problems. As leavers would have complained they had been kept in the EEA by remainers answering that way and thus it wasn't 'real' Brexit. Remainers would also argue that if we ended up in EEA it was because it offered a 'soft' way of leaving that wasn't actually a good option. It would have also been ludicrous to remain neutral given it would in effect decide his government's economic policies. Referendums work for questions with relatively minor and certain impacts that require a certain amount of moral legitimacy so those with moral objections get the chance to register them, and if there's enough, reject them. Or if offering a specific direction to a government to sign or not sign something. Labour should/could of on Lisbon and maybe lanced the boil. Deciding such an all encompassing choice over the direction of the country should be part of a manifesto so people can judge it alongside your other plans and if they add up. If they're plausible and popular and you are elected, then great, you have a mandate to do it. If not, then tough. Leavers always favoured an EU referendum because they knew that they had a proposition that was relatively popular in the abstract in being against something - you could lump any grievance about EU membership into 'Leave' - but much less so when put forward as a positive proposal such as say EEA (not 'leave' enough), a Singapore on Thames type approach (lots of voters don't want the public spending squeeze/tax cuts for wealthy accompanying it) or a Faragist pull up the drawbridge approach (massively economically damaging and a turn off for those with more liberal views). So it was the only way, they thought, of getting out, as no party would risk putting a Brexit plan likely to alienate a group of their voters in a manifesto, even though in terms of governance, that was how should've got a mandate.
Blimey, what a block of text. Please use paragraphs!
I'll just address the first point: a Leave vote of 60% and an EEA vote of 80%, both of which would have been very plausible, couldn't have been spun as EEA only winning because Remain voters on the first question had voted for it.
Leon, enjoy the sunshine in Utah while you can - cold front with rain heading your way this weekend.
UGH
I was at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City a few years back, where we had two feet of champagne powder overnight - night after night.
Somehow, the place coped.
Sure, I’ve just used to unbroken sun and pure blue skies for ten days. The US west/SW has such a lovely climate at this time of year
The golden aspens trembling on the red rock slopes, where the elks languidly drink in the beaver lakes. Sigh
Utah is special, but I prefer Arizona. Painted Desert, Meteor Crater, Desert Museum, that canyon (obs) and the wild country along the Mexican border. Guy there showed me his large collection of hummingbird feeders - dozens of them smashed to bits, cuz the bears like a sweet drink....
Any special recommendations along the Ariz/Mex border?
Gila Bend. One of the most nowhere places in all of smalltown America, it's where one of the most memorable events of my young life took place. Our family friends were in front of us on a dead straight road in mid July 1993, about a mile before the Gila Bend turnoff. The mother, Gill, was driving.
Gill got sleepy or distracted and veered across the hard shoulder, across and past the back of a broken-down Porsche with a German tourist standing behind the boot (the only car for miles), and crashed into a Saguaro cactus writing off the car. An Arizona policeman came after a few minutes, wearing a hat and big shades. Asked her to step out of the car and took her details in a little notepad. The German looked on in shock, white as a sheet. It was 43C on the dashboard. The car was towed away after a couple of hours and we all headed to a local motel waiting to find out if she would be questioned for reckless driving.
I'll never forget that afternoon. Wind like a hairdryer, cacti everywhere and a weird feeling combinign "oh shit" with Mad Max.
What should happen to underpin Hunt's ongoing attempts to maintain the UK financial system stability is for all 3 candidates (or 2 if Mordant doesn't make it) to have a meeting with Hunt, get the outline or even the detail of what he is planning and state publicly that whoever wins will maintain Hunt's proposals at least until there has been time to assess their effectiveness or otherwise. I know this would be an extraordinary thing to do but these are extraordinary times and for the next few months stability and reassurance to the markets seems to me to be the key.
Any candidate who is not able to make that pledge for the good of the country probably shouldn't be let near No.10
Yes, something like that is needed. Alternatively, especially if the winner is Sunak, I suppose they could postpone the budget for a short time, say a week or two, without spooking the markets, if they handled the announcement carefully. That would mean the new PM could form the replacement government and then give a stronger political stamp of approval to the financial plans.
The main thing will be to convince the markets that there's a credible plan, that they are committed to it, and that they can deliver it. Clearly none of this is ideal, and it could easily be blown up by on-going political chaos.
The challenges here are immense. The most fundamental change between Kwarteng and Hunt was not really the tax changes but the recognition that if we were going to be subsidising everyone's gas bill this winter the (unknown) cost of that had to be offset by cuts elsewhere rather than being stuck on the credit card. We are about to divert tens of billions from social security, defence, education, local government and possibly even social care to paying for gas.
On one view we have gone from one extreme to the other. KK thought he could just ignore the cost of his 2 year scheme and carry on spending on everything else regardless. That was reckless. Hunt is looking to recoup the costs of the truncated scheme over a very short period of time. That is arguably unnecessarily severe but you can see why he had to do something like that to assuage the markets.
The gas scheme will end for the vast majority of the population and businesses in 6 months time: we simply cannot afford this redirection of resources. All we can hope is that by then gas prices are much lower.
I loathe the Kwarteng / Truss plan to cap per KwH rates - it's enormously expensive and it dents the price signal.
We would be much better off calculating its cost, dividing it by 70 million people, and send it as direct cheques to people. (Indeed, I'd gross it up 40% and then make it taxable, so that it poorer people - who spend more of their income on energy - benefit most.)
That would mean that people would have the choice: hmmm, I could spend the money on gas/electric, or I could turn the thermostat down, the lights off, and spend it on going down the pub instead. It would reduce demand by a greater extent, and would cushion people just as much.
The correlation isn't as you describe. Within each income band, there are heavier users (say 4 kids) who will get the same cheque as single person households.
That's why I said per person, not per household.
I claim for my whole household?
Mr Smith gets a cheque Mrs Smith gets a cheque Master Smith gets a cheque Miss Smith gets a cheque
Parents can pay their kids cheques into their own accounts.
So how many checks (apologies!) will Boris get on this basis? Somewhere around 57 (like Heinz varieties)?
ADDENDUM - BTW (also FYI) your truly is an orphan and definitely UP for adoption!
Evening all. David Gauke obviously reads pb as he was suggesting my idea from yesterday of Lab/LD standing aside for Tory MP no confidence voters who stand as indies in the ensuing GE.
Why on earth would Starmer agree to any of these wheezes? He is best advised to sit tight, criticise the “chaos”, keep demanding an election, and think about his choice of No 10 curtains in early 2025. He wants maximum Labour MPs, nothing else.
Actually if I was Labour I’d start some serious re-vetting of candidates way down the list of expected wins now. Still time to bin a few.
Labour dont want a 400 seat majority, it probably necessitates a split in order for there to be a functioning opposition.
And they won’t get one (well Baldwin more or less did so I suppose it’s possible). There will be reversion to the mean and Starmer just needs to worry about winning Labour seats and ignore the rest. I’m sure he’s doing just that.
McDonald was the Prime Minister when the National Government won 556-73 in 1931. Not Baldwin. He was leader when their majority was reduced to 'only' 240 in 1935.
For clarity by "He was leader when when their majority was reduced to 'only' 240 in 1935" you mean Baldwin, not McDonald.
McDonald's 492 seat majority remains the largest ever, assuming you don't count the wartime national coalition.
If the Tories had any sense at all they'd go for Rishi. He's far and away the best candidate. The thought of Boris Johnson is laughable unless you're SKS who'll think it's Christmas. Labour's ad agency will have a ball
The current (Rishi) £400 subsidy which is currently landing in utility accounts is really quite perverse. We're going to get three of them. Totally mad, we don't need any help. The Truss scheme will be another bung we don't need. At the same time, others are desperate for help.
Obviously we'll be upping our charitable donations to compensate, but it's not a well-designed use of public funds.
Yes but there'll be plenty out there who wouldn't get it if it was means tested in the usual ways (UC) who could probably do with it.
If the Tories had any sense at all they'd go for Rishi. He's far and away the best candidate. The thought of Boris Johnson is laughable unless you're SKS who'll think it's Christmas. Labour's ad agency will have a ball
If the Tories had any sense at all they'd go for Rishi. He's far and away the best candidate. The thought of Boris Johnson is laughable unless you're SKS who'll think it's Christmas. Labour's ad agency will have a ball
There’s a logical flaw in your first sentence. I won’t use the phrase heavy lifting as it’s on my banned list.
'The worst idea in 46 years' says William Hague......
What happened 46 years go?
Dunno, but the worst idea in his lifetime was his 1998 decision to give members the vote.
Hague said re-electing Boris was the worst idea since he joined the Tories 46 years ago.
Is he saying he considers joining the Tory Party in 1976 an even greater mistake?
Here you go:
The return of Boris Johnson to Number 10 would send the Conservative Party into a ‘death spiral’, William Hague has warned.
The Tory grandee, once leader himself and former Foreign Secretary, said Mr Johnson’s return was “the worst idea I’ve heard of in the 46 years I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party”.
If the Tories had any sense at all they'd go for Rishi. He's far and away the best candidate. The thought of Boris Johnson is laughable unless you're SKS who'll think it's Christmas. Labour's ad agency will have a ball
There’s 0 logic in backing Boris. The standards committee will report on Johnson, and the Tories will be back to the vicious cycle of defending the indefensible. They have lost their minds
'The worst idea in 46 years' says William Hague......
What happened 46 years go?
He joined the Tories 46 years ago. He said it was the worst idea since he joined 46 years ago.
Meaning his decision to join the Tories was an even more egregious error?
Here you go:
The return of Boris Johnson to Number 10 would send the Conservative Party into a ‘death spiral’, William Hague has warned.
The Tory grandee, once leader himself and former Foreign Secretary, said Mr Johnson’s return was “the worst idea I’ve heard of in the 46 years I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party”.
What should happen to underpin Hunt's ongoing attempts to maintain the UK financial system stability is for all 3 candidates (or 2 if Mordant doesn't make it) to have a meeting with Hunt, get the outline or even the detail of what he is planning and state publicly that whoever wins will maintain Hunt's proposals at least until there has been time to assess their effectiveness or otherwise. I know this would be an extraordinary thing to do but these are extraordinary times and for the next few months stability and reassurance to the markets seems to me to be the key.
Any candidate who is not able to make that pledge for the good of the country probably shouldn't be let near No.10
Yes, something like that is needed. Alternatively, especially if the winner is Sunak, I suppose they could postpone the budget for a short time, say a week or two, without spooking the markets, if they handled the announcement carefully. That would mean the new PM could form the replacement government and then give a stronger political stamp of approval to the financial plans.
The main thing will be to convince the markets that there's a credible plan, that they are committed to it, and that they can deliver it. Clearly none of this is ideal, and it could easily be blown up by on-going political chaos.
The challenges here are immense. The most fundamental change between Kwarteng and Hunt was not really the tax changes but the recognition that if we were going to be subsidising everyone's gas bill this winter the (unknown) cost of that had to be offset by cuts elsewhere rather than being stuck on the credit card. We are about to divert tens of billions from social security, defence, education, local government and possibly even social care to paying for gas.
On one view we have gone from one extreme to the other. KK thought he could just ignore the cost of his 2 year scheme and carry on spending on everything else regardless. That was reckless. Hunt is looking to recoup the costs of the truncated scheme over a very short period of time. That is arguably unnecessarily severe but you can see why he had to do something like that to assuage the markets.
The gas scheme will end for the vast majority of the population and businesses in 6 months time: we simply cannot afford this redirection of resources. All we can hope is that by then gas prices are much lower.
I loathe the Kwarteng / Truss plan to cap per KwH rates - it's enormously expensive and it dents the price signal.
We would be much better off calculating its cost, dividing it by 70 million people, and send it as direct cheques to people. (Indeed, I'd gross it up 40% and then make it taxable, so that it poorer people - who spend more of their income on energy - benefit most.)
That would mean that people would have the choice: hmmm, I could spend the money on gas/electric, or I could turn the thermostat down, the lights off, and spend it on going down the pub instead. It would reduce demand by a greater extent, and would cushion people just as much.
The correlation isn't as you describe. Within each income band, there are heavier users (say 4 kids) who will get the same cheque as single person households.
That's why I said per person, not per household.
I claim for my whole household?
Mr Smith gets a cheque Mrs Smith gets a cheque Master Smith gets a cheque Miss Smith gets a cheque
Parents can pay their kids cheques into their own accounts.
How do we know where everyone lives?
And what happens if Mrs S has a different surname, and Master Smith is actually a stepson with the surname Jones?
'The worst idea in 46 years' says William Hague......
What happened 46 years go?
He means his teenage speech at Tory conference or punk rock, I think. Which it very much wasn't.
Here you go:
The return of Boris Johnson to Number 10 would send the Conservative Party into a ‘death spiral’, William Hague has warned.
The Tory grandee, once leader himself and former Foreign Secretary, said Mr Johnson’s return was “the worst idea I’ve heard of in the 46 years I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party”.
Evening all. David Gauke obviously reads pb as he was suggesting my idea from yesterday of Lab/LD standing aside for Tory MP no confidence voters who stand as indies in the ensuing GE.
A fine idea - until 340 of them take up the offer!
Gauke suggests restructing it to 10k majorities plus
The last thing Starmer needs to allow himself to be presented as is engaging in any parliamentary or democratic game playing. His answer to everything needs to be that he wants a Labour majority and to beat all comers.
I can see whip-less Tories supporting a VoNC. They'll be out at the next election anyway as they won't be the candidate. Taking out Boris might seem the only way to save their party.
BTW, had the Pfizer jab again (like all the other times). Arm kicked by a horse, headache, but I'll take that for the protection it gives....
I had Moderna booster this week. I thought all boosters this time were Moderna.
No, we didn’t get enough of the moderna for all. The Pfizer one will do ok. Despite endless warbling on covid twitter, there has been no significant immune escape, at least in terms of protection against serious illness.
Edit - I see you may have had the Pfizer bivalent, in which case excellent news.
bad news indeed - the tesco meal deal has gone up for the first time in ten years - inflation is still here with us
Still £3 with a clubcard though. And it remains - imho - the very best £3 lunch out there.
You poor Brits!
"Costco's CEO confirmed to CNBC that its hot dog prices will remain the same. It follows rumors of a price hike, despite previous denials by senior company figures. The hot dog and soda combo costs $1.50 and has remained the same price since 1985."
Note you can substitute Polish sausage for a beef hot dog. Also that these are BIG suckers, not weenie weenies.
Any Tory member voting in this contest needs to spend a SERIOUS amount of time digesting and coming to terms with this poll.
Just look at the spread between (existing) Tory voters and the wider public's views of Boris Johnson. You're supporting a fantasy: it doesn't support the comeback kid vibe - by a country mile.
I wouldn't read too much into it - but it does sound as though nukes aren't quite as imminent as @Leon keeps assuring us.
FWIW, the reality is that Putin's best hope is to prolong the war as long as he can and hope for Europe getting fatigue and Trump coming back.
And we shouldn't be flying our elint planes quite so close to Russian airspace.
I think that Fiona Hill made a good point, that in any 'peace' deal, the ability of Ukraine to defend itself with Western support should not be compromised. Because Russia won't stop. It may perversely be in our interest to prolong the war, whilst Russia is struggling - if a lot of mobilised soldiers die because of the incompetence of the Russian Army, then it may have some effect on Russians and their willingness to do these types of wars in the future.
I don't think it's in our interest to prolong the war; it's in our interest for it to finish as soon as possible with a defeat for the invasion. And I don't think there will be a deal until at least one of Russia and Ukraine realises they can't win. As it's existential for Ukraine, that side is unlikely to be them.
The war is not finishing anytime soon. See the thread posted earlier; Putin thinks if he plays it long enough he is in with a chance.
And, given a possible return from Trump, he is not necessarily wrong.
Even if the US suddenly went isolationist, I don't think it necessarily means Putin would win, but it would dramatically increase the pressure on Europe to act, and would therefore increase the chance of other countries getting directly involved.
The danger is that the US goes more isolationist and that governments around Europe fail to step up. (And you can see how the cost of living crisis puts enormous pressure on governments.)
Fortunately, the trend (currently) is for European countries to become resolute. But that could easily change with public anger at increased gas and electricity bills.
I don't think they would respond in the same way, so it would exacerbate the current splits in the response. In particular I can't see Poland sitting back and doing nothing.
Hague said Michael Howard has already said something similar.
If Rishi v Boris does go to the members then all former Con leaders need to get together and make a high profile joint declaration of support for Rishi and say how disastrous Boris would be.
That would give enough members pause for thought to get Rishi over the line - if he isn't over the line anyway.
BTW, had the Pfizer jab again (like all the other times). Arm kicked by a horse, headache, but I'll take that for the protection it gives....
I had Moderna booster this week. I thought all boosters this time were Moderna.
No, we didn’t get enough of the moderna for all. The Pfizer one will do ok. Despite endless warbling on covid twitter, there has been no significant immune escape, at least in terms of protection against serious illness.
Edit - I see you may have had the Pfizer bivalent, in which case excellent news.
How do you get a booster? Do I need to ask for one or is it automatic?
The return of Boris Johnson to Number 10 would send the Conservative Party into a ‘death spiral’, William Hague has warned.
The Tory grandee, once leader himself and former Foreign Secretary, said Mr Johnson’s return was “the worst idea I’ve heard of in the 46 years I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party”.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth Hearing Laura Pidcock, once viewed as a successor to Jeremy Corbyn as leader, has quit the Labour Party. It's not clear why.
To think that Pidcock might well have been Labour leader if she'd held her seat.
Comments
Fortunately, the trend (currently) is for European countries to become resolute. But that could easily change with public anger at increased gas and electricity bills.
£3.90
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63346320.amp
See: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?locations=EU
Weighted average tariffs have dropped two-thirds since the early 90s.
Any special recommendations along the Ariz/Mex border?
How are they able to get such resolution from all 17 of them they found?
+£360 Rishi
+£40 Penny
-£660 Boris
+£1,100 Starmer
Also plus four figures on Badenoch and Braverman in case there's a rumour of them standing, so I can trade, but doubt will happen
https://twitter.com/joncraig/status/1583507734049091590
Obviously we'll be upping our charitable donations to compensate, but it's not a well-designed use of public funds.
Bringing back Boris could send the Tories into a 'death spiral', @WilliamJHague tells #TimesRadio.
@cathynewman https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1583508806264201216/video/1
I was intrigued by your post early this morning that there is a quick route to Starmer. I don’t see one. Surely the PCP will do anything - absolutely anything! - to avoid a general election?
Mrs Smith gets a cheque
Master Smith gets a cheque
Miss Smith gets a cheque
Parents can pay their kids cheques into their own accounts.
WTF?
Over a century ago, in the great Badger State of Wisconsin, insurgent Governor Robert LaFollette got the legislature to pioneer a number of major political reforms, designed to make state government more responsive to the public will and less beholden - or rather totally controlled - by corporate interests most notably the railroads. Which by the way ran most of the state legislatures in the USA around the turn of the 19th>20th century.
One of the reforms was the initiative and referendum process, so that voters could make (or unmake) laws independent of the legislature, based on voter support AND voting majorities.
Another reform was instituting primary elections to chose party nominees for partisan offices, in place of party caucuses and conventions - proverbial smoke-filled rooms dominated by party hacks.
Over the next century, the "Wisconsin System" was adopted to some extent - especially the primary - across the US from sea to shining sea.
Giving this lecture because, seems to me that one of the biggest flaws of the UK, CAN and most other parliamentary systems in Westminster mode, his the process for selecting party candidates, relying on party members, who are gonna be a small minority in ANY constituency.
For all its manifold faults - with most of the devil in the details - primary nomination system is WAY better than convention-caucus-clubhouse system.
The return of Boris Johnson to Number 10 would send the Conservative Party into a ‘death spiral’, William Hague has warned.
The Tory grandee, once leader himself and former Foreign Secretary, said Mr Johnson’s return was “the worst idea I’ve heard of in the 46 years I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party”.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-tory-party-leadership-latest-vote-rishi-sunak-liz-truss-penny-mordaunt-b1034274.html
Hague - a much underrated voice and a serious intellect - is right, of course. But will the collection of clowns, morons and incompetents in the PCP listen?
Taking Boris is a bet that 100 of them won’t, still arguably value at 3.5…
https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/1583509756949327874
But what if - and hear me out on this - he had a new team of advisers around him?
https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/1583509756949327874
Sounds to me her only chance is if BJ pulls out
Hotmail - Urban Dictionary
A mailing system delivered by Microsoft that gives you spam on toast in the morning and then feeds you junk in the evening.
I'll just address the first point: a Leave vote of 60% and an EEA vote of 80%, both of which would have been very plausible, couldn't have been spun as EEA only winning because Remain voters on the first question had voted for it.
"lol"
Gill got sleepy or distracted and veered across the hard shoulder, across and past the back of a broken-down Porsche with a German tourist standing behind the boot (the only car for miles), and crashed into a Saguaro cactus writing off the car. An Arizona policeman came after a few minutes, wearing a hat and big shades. Asked her to step out of the car and took her details in a little notepad. The German looked on in shock, white as a sheet. It was 43C on the dashboard. The car was towed away after a couple of hours and we all headed to a local motel waiting to find out if she would be questioned for reckless driving.
I'll never forget that afternoon. Wind like a hairdryer, cacti everywhere and a weird feeling combinign "oh shit" with Mad Max.
ADDENDUM - BTW (also FYI) your truly is an orphan and definitely UP for adoption!
McDonald's 492 seat majority remains the largest ever, assuming you don't count the wartime national coalition.
An indictment of Tory education policies.
Know that OGH is vacationing (with BJ in Dominican Republic?) but standards MUST be upheld in his absence!
The return of Boris Johnson to Number 10 would send the Conservative Party into a ‘death spiral’, William Hague has warned.
The Tory grandee, once leader himself and former Foreign Secretary, said Mr Johnson’s return was “the worst idea I’ve heard of in the 46 years I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party”.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-tory-party-leadership-latest-vote-rishi-sunak-liz-truss-penny-mordaunt-b1034274.html
Here you go:
The return of Boris Johnson to Number 10 would send the Conservative Party into a ‘death spiral’, William Hague has warned.
The Tory grandee, once leader himself and former Foreign Secretary, said Mr Johnson’s return was “the worst idea I’ve heard of in the 46 years I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party”.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-tory-party-leadership-latest-vote-rishi-sunak-liz-truss-penny-mordaunt-b1034274.html
Here you go:
The return of Boris Johnson to Number 10 would send the Conservative Party into a ‘death spiral’, William Hague has warned.
The Tory grandee, once leader himself and former Foreign Secretary, said Mr Johnson’s return was “the worst idea I’ve heard of in the 46 years I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party”.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-tory-party-leadership-latest-vote-rishi-sunak-liz-truss-penny-mordaunt-b1034274.html
Edit - I see you may have had the Pfizer bivalent, in which case excellent news.
"Costco's CEO confirmed to CNBC that its hot dog prices will remain the same. It follows rumors of a price hike, despite previous denials by senior company figures. The hot dog and soda combo costs $1.50 and has remained the same price since 1985."
Note you can substitute Polish sausage for a beef hot dog. Also that these are BIG suckers, not weenie weenies.
Just look at the spread between (existing) Tory voters and the wider public's views of Boris Johnson. You're supporting a fantasy: it doesn't support the comeback kid vibe - by a country mile.
Sunak is the only chance we've got.
Title: Tories on their knees – and here comes Boris Johnson. Dear reader, look away
Marina Hyde
If Rishi v Boris does go to the members then all former Con leaders need to get together and make a high profile joint declaration of support for Rishi and say how disastrous Boris would be.
That would give enough members pause for thought to get Rishi over the line - if he isn't over the line anyway.
…or ‘able’.
And entirely why it will happen.
The membership don't care anymore. It is a Cult of fools.
Crediting the Tory party with any sense is always a shaky foundation for a betting strategy
@REWearmouth
Hearing Laura Pidcock, once viewed as a successor to Jeremy Corbyn as leader, has quit the Labour Party. It's not clear why.
To think that Pidcock might well have been Labour leader if she'd held her seat.