Listening to the commmercial radio stations on the way home it seems Kevin O Sullivan and James O Brien seem to have differing views on the Braverman appointment.
Not sure head of Itsu complaining that he’s had to increase wages by 22.3% in past 18 months is the great argument about relaxing immigration he thinks it is.
I don't think Sunak's "of course they told me not to appoint Braverman" deflection will work. The question will keep coming back, someone will leak, and he will be forced to accept that he appointed her above the heads of the civil service.
The thing is I'd almost expect, or indeed, want, the civil service to question every ministerial decision, to be a bucket of cold water on the fires of their enthusiasm. It should be a key part of their role to act as a reality check.
So you'd expect that it would be part of the normal course of things for ministers to make decisions that went against concerns raised by civil servants. How many decisions are there that are so simple that there are no concerns to be raised about them?
You don't want civil servants to be simply yes men, and nor do you want ministers who are too scared by risks that they fail to act.
I really dislike the implications of that question from Starmer, and it unhelpfully politicises the civil service.
Implications? The machinery of government is entitled to raise security concerns about someone fired for a double breach of the ministerial code, one of which was a serious security screw up.
A Tory MP is now on Politics Live stating very explicitly that the PM does everything correctly, so if she was appointed there cannot have been a concern raised by Simon Case. This is a serious hostage to fortune - it isn't party political for senior civil servants to state the proposed minister (a) broke the code or (b) was highlighted as a security risk.
The implication is that ministers shouldn't ever do anything that the civil service express doubts about, which then leads to ministers wanting to appoint toady yes men to the civil service. It would be terribly bad.
It isn't that at all. We have a ministerial code, a strict set of guidelines which ministers of the crown MUST follow. She did not. We have the official secrets act, a strict legal framework which signatories MUST follow. The suggestion over her "security breach" is that she did not.
This is not remotely party political. She broke the code. Twice. With a serious security breach a part of that. According to the rules she absolutely should not have been reappointed.
The party political bit is that the Tory Party yet again treat the code with disregard. It is very sad that in his first action as PM Sunak would do this and side with idiots like Johnson instead of siding with the propriety shown by every previous PM of every party including his own.
Sure, and Labour should go after Sunak for that - but the angle of raising civil service advice is all wrong. I'm not defending the Braverman appointment.
As was explained the previous time Cooper tried this stunt - so she shouldn’t have been surprised to get the same answer again- matters for the Ministerial code reside with the PM and Cabinet Office. She should have asked a smarter question.
I don't think Sunak's "of course they told me not to appoint Braverman" deflection will work. The question will keep coming back, someone will leak, and he will be forced to accept that he appointed her above the heads of the civil service.
The thing is I'd almost expect, or indeed, want, the civil service to question every ministerial decision, to be a bucket of cold water on the fires of their enthusiasm. It should be a key part of their role to act as a reality check.
So you'd expect that it would be part of the normal course of things for ministers to make decisions that went against concerns raised by civil servants. How many decisions are there that are so simple that there are no concerns to be raised about them?
You don't want civil servants to be simply yes men, and nor do you want ministers who are too scared by risks that they fail to act.
I really dislike the implications of that question from Starmer, and it unhelpfully politicises the civil service.
Implications? The machinery of government is entitled to raise security concerns about someone fired for a double breach of the ministerial code, one of which was a serious security screw up.
A Tory MP is now on Politics Live stating very explicitly that the PM does everything correctly, so if she was appointed there cannot have been a concern raised by Simon Case. This is a serious hostage to fortune - it isn't party political for senior civil servants to state the proposed minister (a) broke the code or (b) was highlighted as a security risk.
The implication is that ministers shouldn't ever do anything that the civil service express doubts about, which then leads to ministers wanting to appoint toady yes men to the civil service. It would be terribly bad.
No, it's not. Rather the implication is that ministers should acknowledge when they have chosen to ignore advice, particularly on security matters.
Sunak: "I just addressed the issue with the home secretary."
[He didn't answer the question]
If the Braverman resignation had happened at any time other than the Truss defenestration, there is absolutely no way she would have been back in government, let alone at the head of the Home Office, within a matter of days,
Starmer is excellent. Sunak is just Johnson revisited
Don't be ridiculous. One of the most politically stupid and partisan posts I have ever seen on here
No.I think Roger summed it up pretty well there.
Just like Boris, Sunak came armed, with a sheet “if in trouble and can’t answer the question, reach for this instead”
Half way through his first PMQs Sunak looked down and he had used it all.
But Boris did evasive non answers far better than Sunak did. It was just too patently obvious Sunak wasn’t answering questions just shouting back yah boo stuff not remotely like what was asked.
Congratulations on producing a contender for the same prize that the ridiculous Roger attempted to claim an unsurpassable ownership of.
I am right of centre, though have always been a harsh critic of Johnson and his populism. I have paid Starmer a number of compliments over the years when many were unable to see his ability (SKS fans please explain etc.).
If you are unable to see how well Sunak did today, you are a partisan fool and have no political judgement
Sunak was not good in my opinion, based on his non answers were far too patently yah boo non answers, something Boris did far better than Sunak did today.
I don’t want to be rude but I don’t think you understand what PMQs is. It’s not a session where you ask a question and someone answers it, it’s political cage fighting.
I’m sure Sunak has a range of great skills, but political cage fighting is clearly not one of them, and you are just going to embarrass yourself claiming Sunak is great political cage fighter every week.
Lol. You weren't being rude, you were being very silly. I have watched/listened to PMQs for the best part of my 55 years, so I think I might just understand how it works, thanks. I will leave it for others to judge my understanding of politics versus yours, but I am reasonably confident that you might get as much support in that analysis as a Tory in a Glasgow working mens club.
I can see why Malc calls you foreskin, combative arn’t you? 😄
Why can’t you just concede you are wrong? I’ll even give you your concession statement
“Yah boo shouty partisan politics is clearly not Rishi’s forte, it clearly was Boris’ but then he was useless in every other regard! but if you had been paying proper attention to PMQs MoonRabbit, you would have realised what Sunak’s forte actually is today and why he done well today - he is skilfully moving the Tory policy back onto sane ground where the party can rebut Labour with delivery, that’s where he is such a problem to Labour.”
Malcolm is a loudmouth uncouth twat with a brain the size of an amoeba. If you think that referring to male anatomy is the height of wit I can see you have much in common with him. Your political analysis is about as balanced and nuanced as his, which I can assure you is not a compliment. But hey, you carry on believing Sunak isn't very good if it makes you sleep easier. You will be in exactly the same predicament as Tories who underestimated Starmer. A predicament known as Camp Stupid.
But I didn’t say that. I implied Rishi is good, with a range of skills, but unlike you I don’t think yah boo shouty partisan politics at PMQs is actually a strong suit of his, it’s clearly his weakest facet.
I don't think Sunak's "of course they told me not to appoint Braverman" deflection will work. The question will keep coming back, someone will leak, and he will be forced to accept that he appointed her above the heads of the civil service.
The thing is I'd almost expect, or indeed, want, the civil service to question every ministerial decision, to be a bucket of cold water on the fires of their enthusiasm. It should be a key part of their role to act as a reality check.
So you'd expect that it would be part of the normal course of things for ministers to make decisions that went against concerns raised by civil servants. How many decisions are there that are so simple that there are no concerns to be raised about them?
You don't want civil servants to be simply yes men, and nor do you want ministers who are too scared by risks that they fail to act.
I really dislike the implications of that question from Starmer, and it unhelpfully politicises the civil service.
Implications? The machinery of government is entitled to raise security concerns about someone fired for a double breach of the ministerial code, one of which was a serious security screw up.
A Tory MP is now on Politics Live stating very explicitly that the PM does everything correctly, so if she was appointed there cannot have been a concern raised by Simon Case. This is a serious hostage to fortune - it isn't party political for senior civil servants to state the proposed minister (a) broke the code or (b) was highlighted as a security risk.
The implication is that ministers shouldn't ever do anything that the civil service express doubts about, which then leads to ministers wanting to appoint toady yes men to the civil service. It would be terribly bad.
No, it's not. Rather the implication is that ministers should acknowledge when they have chosen to ignore advice, particularly on security matters.
Sunak: "I just addressed the issue with the home secretary."
[He didn't answer the question]
If the Braverman resignation had happened at any time other than the Truss defenestration, there is absolutely no way she would have been back in government, let alone at the head of the Home Office, within a matter of days,
Yep, if Sunak had been PM last week:
1. Would he have fired her? 2. Would he rehire her within a week?
Having been reappointed I don’t see how Braverman is dismissed again for the same error. I think that she will be there for a while unless she does something stu..
At some point, some Republican somewhere is going to decide they don't want the albatross of abortion around their necks. They can run just fine on gas prices and crime and what have you. It'll start in a blue state but then will spread like wildfire.
I don't think Sunak's "of course they told me not to appoint Braverman" deflection will work. The question will keep coming back, someone will leak, and he will be forced to accept that he appointed her above the heads of the civil service.
The thing is I'd almost expect, or indeed, want, the civil service to question every ministerial decision, to be a bucket of cold water on the fires of their enthusiasm. It should be a key part of their role to act as a reality check.
So you'd expect that it would be part of the normal course of things for ministers to make decisions that went against concerns raised by civil servants. How many decisions are there that are so simple that there are no concerns to be raised about them?
You don't want civil servants to be simply yes men, and nor do you want ministers who are too scared by risks that they fail to act.
I really dislike the implications of that question from Starmer, and it unhelpfully politicises the civil service.
Implications? The machinery of government is entitled to raise security concerns about someone fired for a double breach of the ministerial code, one of which was a serious security screw up.
A Tory MP is now on Politics Live stating very explicitly that the PM does everything correctly, so if she was appointed there cannot have been a concern raised by Simon Case. This is a serious hostage to fortune - it isn't party political for senior civil servants to state the proposed minister (a) broke the code or (b) was highlighted as a security risk.
The implication is that ministers shouldn't ever do anything that the civil service express doubts about, which then leads to ministers wanting to appoint toady yes men to the civil service. It would be terribly bad.
No, it's not. Rather the implication is that ministers should acknowledge when they have chosen to ignore advice, particularly on security matters.
Sunak: "I just addressed the issue with the home secretary."
[He didn't answer the question]
If the Braverman resignation had happened at any time other than the Truss defenestration, there is absolutely no way she would have been back in government, let alone at the head of the Home Office, within a matter of days,
UPDATED
The PM's official spokesman said he "didn't recognise" claims Simon Case was "livid" about Suella Braverman's job. But he refused to say what amount of angry he was, or deny that he had raised concerns with the Prime Minister. https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1585245838498009089
This might blow over, and equally it might fester for quite some time. But either way it was a piss poor, unnecessary appointment.
I don't think Sunak's "of course they told me not to appoint Braverman" deflection will work. The question will keep coming back, someone will leak, and he will be forced to accept that he appointed her above the heads of the civil service.
The thing is I'd almost expect, or indeed, want, the civil service to question every ministerial decision, to be a bucket of cold water on the fires of their enthusiasm. It should be a key part of their role to act as a reality check.
So you'd expect that it would be part of the normal course of things for ministers to make decisions that went against concerns raised by civil servants. How many decisions are there that are so simple that there are no concerns to be raised about them?
You don't want civil servants to be simply yes men, and nor do you want ministers who are too scared by risks that they fail to act.
I really dislike the implications of that question from Starmer, and it unhelpfully politicises the civil service.
Implications? The machinery of government is entitled to raise security concerns about someone fired for a double breach of the ministerial code, one of which was a serious security screw up.
A Tory MP is now on Politics Live stating very explicitly that the PM does everything correctly, so if she was appointed there cannot have been a concern raised by Simon Case. This is a serious hostage to fortune - it isn't party political for senior civil servants to state the proposed minister (a) broke the code or (b) was highlighted as a security risk.
The implication is that ministers shouldn't ever do anything that the civil service express doubts about, which then leads to ministers wanting to appoint toady yes men to the civil service. It would be terribly bad.
No, it's not. Rather the implication is that ministers should acknowledge when they have chosen to ignore advice, particularly on security matters.
Sunak: "I just addressed the issue with the home secretary."
[He didn't answer the question]
If the Braverman resignation had happened at any time other than the Truss defenestration, there is absolutely no way she would have been back in government, let alone at the head of the Home Office, within a matter of days,
Yep, if Sunak had been PM last week:
1. Would he have fired her? 2. Would he rehire her within a week?
Those are better questions than whether the civil service advised against the appointment.
American house prices are forecast to have a significant fall next year. Hopefully the same, but to an even greater extent, happens in this country too.
And don't bother responding bemoaning "negative equity". Negative equity is something every investor is supposed to potentially face in a rational market as prices go up or down in response to market conditions not ratchet only ever one way, and housing should primarily be somewhere to live not "equity" anyway.
How far would you like to see house prices fall, and what equity would that leave your with in your house, as a percentage?
Ideally I would like to see house price to income ratios returned to a 3x level they were at, at the turn of the century. So at least a 50% to 60% fall in house prices would be ideal, though if wages go up then that could be mitigated against.
I don't just care about myself, I think you'll find a lot of people have zero equity in their home and are paying rent to an "investor" instead. If everyone had no equity in their home, then that wouldn't be a problem, a home is somewhere to live, an expense, not supposed to be equity. Someone paying rent doesn't get equity for doing so - and if investors in homes get burnt, then that's something that can happen to investors in any market.
The histrionics over negative equity is beyond a joke, that is ratchetting rent from younger generations to the well off by putting housing ever further out of their reach. Imagine if any other market worked that way. If stock prices only ever rose and never fell, would that be healthy?
At the end of 1999 the FTSE 100 was 6930 and the average house price in England was £75k Today the FTSE 100 is 6996 and according to the ONS the average house price reached £292k in July.
In 23 years the FTSE has gone up by less than 1%, while house prices have more than tripled. Is that healthy?
FTSE is surely good value ?
The lack of growth is quite amazing, yes.
If you have a population growing faster than house building, the only surprise is that people are surprised by increasing prices.
Are there great swathes of the country where there's no building at all going on ?
Certainly not in Southern Hampshire, its been a building site for 10 years and will continue to be one for another 10
In east Berkshire where I grew up the house building is absolutely massive. Where I live now in Buckinghamshire there is quite a lot of building in villages but it is dwarfed by the huge new estates popping up around towns like Aylesbury.
When I was a kid growing up in the 1980s and 1990s I only remember the occasional small new development. House building just seemed to explode in the mid-noughties. There is no doubt in my mind that was driven by the massive increase in immigration.
I'll still make my point again that it is far better to find locations to build new communities designed in a sympathetic manner rather than destroying existing ones by making them far larger than was ever intended.
Organic growth of communities is EVUL, remember.
The joke is that NIMBYism is driven by the GiantEstateOfExecutiveShitboxes crap. If someone said they wanted to build another street of houses in the local vernacular on the edge of the village, you’d get much less resistance.
I don't buy that. I see no evidence of people demanding it be made easier to build streets at the edge of their village, build it elsewhere seems to be the demand made instead.
It doesn't matter much if its the local vernacular, or executive, or anything else, people will still object because it "ruins their view/is too crowded/has no services/roads are congested/affects my house price/newts live there" or whatever other crap they want to come up with.
In the villages I know, a number of people have built a house on an acre of garden they didn’t really want anymore. From what they said, resistance to that was pretty low.
The Fuck Ugly boxes that are so tiny you feel cramped looking at them are what people expect development to look like. Because that’s what they get….
As was explained the previous time Cooper tried this stunt - so she shouldn’t have been surprised to get the same answer again- matters for the Ministerial code reside with the PM and Cabinet Office. She should have asked a smarter question.
It's hardly a 'stunt' as you put it – it is a reasonable inquiry into why the government has reappointed a home secretary who was sacked for a security breach less than 160 hours ago.
I don't think Sunak's "of course they told me not to appoint Braverman" deflection will work. The question will keep coming back, someone will leak, and he will be forced to accept that he appointed her above the heads of the civil service.
The thing is I'd almost expect, or indeed, want, the civil service to question every ministerial decision, to be a bucket of cold water on the fires of their enthusiasm. It should be a key part of their role to act as a reality check.
So you'd expect that it would be part of the normal course of things for ministers to make decisions that went against concerns raised by civil servants. How many decisions are there that are so simple that there are no concerns to be raised about them?
You don't want civil servants to be simply yes men, and nor do you want ministers who are too scared by risks that they fail to act.
I really dislike the implications of that question from Starmer, and it unhelpfully politicises the civil service.
Implications? The machinery of government is entitled to raise security concerns about someone fired for a double breach of the ministerial code, one of which was a serious security screw up.
A Tory MP is now on Politics Live stating very explicitly that the PM does everything correctly, so if she was appointed there cannot have been a concern raised by Simon Case. This is a serious hostage to fortune - it isn't party political for senior civil servants to state the proposed minister (a) broke the code or (b) was highlighted as a security risk.
The implication is that ministers shouldn't ever do anything that the civil service express doubts about, which then leads to ministers wanting to appoint toady yes men to the civil service. It would be terribly bad.
No, it's not. Rather the implication is that ministers should acknowledge when they have chosen to ignore advice, particularly on security matters.
Sunak: "I just addressed the issue with the home secretary."
[He didn't answer the question]
If the Braverman resignation had happened at any time other than the Truss defenestration, there is absolutely no way she would have been back in government, let alone at the head of the Home Office, within a matter of days,
Yep, if Sunak had been PM last week:
1. Would he have fired her? 2. Would he rehire her within a week?
No commitment to Triple Lock given by Number 10. So that's one of the 104 options on the table.
Not really. Admittedly, I've never understood PB's obsession with the triple lock but if it is reduced to a double lock, the part to go would be the link to wages, which will save no money while it is inflation that is highest.
Doesn’t change the fundamentals. Tory party still in a hole. Still Keir Starmer’s election to lose. But that was a massacre. Rishi Sunak was ready for Keir Starmer on every question. Labour MPs will be concerned.
I don't think Sunak's "of course they told me not to appoint Braverman" deflection will work. The question will keep coming back, someone will leak, and he will be forced to accept that he appointed her above the heads of the civil service.
The thing is I'd almost expect, or indeed, want, the civil service to question every ministerial decision, to be a bucket of cold water on the fires of their enthusiasm. It should be a key part of their role to act as a reality check.
So you'd expect that it would be part of the normal course of things for ministers to make decisions that went against concerns raised by civil servants. How many decisions are there that are so simple that there are no concerns to be raised about them?
You don't want civil servants to be simply yes men, and nor do you want ministers who are too scared by risks that they fail to act.
I really dislike the implications of that question from Starmer, and it unhelpfully politicises the civil service.
Implications? The machinery of government is entitled to raise security concerns about someone fired for a double breach of the ministerial code, one of which was a serious security screw up.
A Tory MP is now on Politics Live stating very explicitly that the PM does everything correctly, so if she was appointed there cannot have been a concern raised by Simon Case. This is a serious hostage to fortune - it isn't party political for senior civil servants to state the proposed minister (a) broke the code or (b) was highlighted as a security risk.
The implication is that ministers shouldn't ever do anything that the civil service express doubts about, which then leads to ministers wanting to appoint toady yes men to the civil service. It would be terribly bad.
No, it's not. Rather the implication is that ministers should acknowledge when they have chosen to ignore advice, particularly on security matters.
Sunak: "I just addressed the issue with the home secretary."
[He didn't answer the question]
If the Braverman resignation had happened at any time other than the Truss defenestration, there is absolutely no way she would have been back in government, let alone at the head of the Home Office, within a matter of days,
The truth is, Braverman didn’t too much against either security or ministerial code to warrant losing job. A ticking off sure, but resignation or sacking, no.
However, her crime was against the government and Primeminister - orchestrating opposition to the governments and PMs policy by slipping things to factional friends on back benches via non official phones. And that was a sacking matter - similar to Starmer dispatching Sam Tarry.
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
The problem Sunaks got with that one is it doesn’t win trust as promised yesterday, voters will stop listening if a party changes policy on weekly basis, or just won’t answer straight questions.
To be honest, each time they played clip on news, it sound sound like he was saying “restore Truss” 🙂
I gather that there is a byelection already under way in Chester. Normally PB would have been the first with the news. Was it? Or am I the only one to have missed the announcement?
On the delay to the 17th - my guess is that the government wants to bake in the new lower debt interest rate assumptions and potentially a new significantly lower energy price assumption.
The original £70bn will be lower than half that figure by the time the new numbers are out. Substantially lower. My finger in the air number is £10bn in spending cuts, £10bn in tax rises and £5-7bn in additional borrowing per year for two or three years which closes as growth picks back up.
I think the triple lock and benefits go up by CPI. Income tax goes up by 1p in all brackets and the most controversial - NI now payable by all people on all income types. The second measure pays for the uprating of benefits and state pension benefits, the first closes half of the fiscal gap.
£10bn in cuts is more difficult to predict, I'd guess at local authority subsidies and unnamed "efficiency savings" of which there are still billions to cut. I'd also look out for a new "bonfire of quangos" narrative. The who public administration body is due a 50-60% chop, it would save £2-3bn and no one would notice.
That - but also there is tons of politics involved in cutting departmental budgets, and the new ministers need time themselves to get into their briefs. Sunak’s approach to leadership means that he can’t simply impose a settlement and will want to negotiate and agree it with his colleagues. Even the revised date doesn’t leave tons of time.
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
I would be flabbergasted if he did that . The only demographic that the Tories aren’t underwater with are the over 65s . I think theres more chance of an alien landing in Trafalgar Square than the Tories annoying their core voters .
As was explained the previous time Cooper tried this stunt - so she shouldn’t have been surprised to get the same answer again- matters for the Ministerial code reside with the PM and Cabinet Office. She should have asked a smarter question.
It's hardly a 'stunt' as you put it – it is a reasonable inquiry into why the government has reappointed a home secretary who was sacked for a security breach less than 160 hours ago.
But she wasn’t sacked for a security breach. She was ticked off for minor security breach, sacked for plotting with backbenchers against government policy.
Just being honest and sticking the facts, I’m right aren’t I?
I gather that there is a byelection already under way in Chester. Normally PB would have been the first with the news. Was it? Or am I the only one to have missed the announcement?
Must have been missed in everything else that was going on - the announcement was last Friday.
Liz Truss's planned programme of supply-side reforms has been cancelled
No10 spokesman: "There are no plans for the supply-side reforms as we previously discussed. That's not to say there won't be elements that the chancellor may or may not wish to come forward with."
I gather that there is a byelection already under way in Chester. Normally PB would have been the first with the news. Was it? Or am I the only one to have missed the announcement?
Labour MP found guilty of sexual misconduct, whip withdrawn, stood down Edot - tories struggling to find local candidate, seat being carved up in boundary review
On the delay to the 17th - my guess is that the government wants to bake in the new lower debt interest rate assumptions and potentially a new significantly lower energy price assumption.
The original £70bn will be lower than half that figure by the time the new numbers are out. Substantially lower. My finger in the air number is £10bn in spending cuts, £10bn in tax rises and £5-7bn in additional borrowing per year for two or three years which closes as growth picks back up.
I think the triple lock and benefits go up by CPI. Income tax goes up by 1p in all brackets and the most controversial - NI now payable by all people on all income types. The second measure pays for the uprating of benefits and state pension benefits, the first closes half of the fiscal gap.
£10bn in cuts is more difficult to predict, I'd guess at local authority subsidies and unnamed "efficiency savings" of which there are still billions to cut. I'd also look out for a new "bonfire of quangos" narrative. The who public administration body is due a 50-60% chop, it would save £2-3bn and no one would notice.
That - but also there is tons of politics involved in cutting departmental budgets, and the new ministers need time themselves to get into their briefs. Sunak’s approach to leadership means that he can’t simply impose a settlement and will want to negotiate and agree it with his colleagues. Even the revised date doesn’t leave tons of time.
"the new ministers need time themselves to get into their briefs"
On the delay to the 17th - my guess is that the government wants to bake in the new lower debt interest rate assumptions and potentially a new significantly lower energy price assumption.
The original £70bn will be lower than half that figure by the time the new numbers are out. Substantially lower. My finger in the air number is £10bn in spending cuts, £10bn in tax rises and £5-7bn in additional borrowing per year for two or three years which closes as growth picks back up.
I think the triple lock and benefits go up by CPI. Income tax goes up by 1p in all brackets and the most controversial - NI now payable by all people on all income types. The second measure pays for the uprating of benefits and state pension benefits, the first closes half of the fiscal gap.
£10bn in cuts is more difficult to predict, I'd guess at local authority subsidies and unnamed "efficiency savings" of which there are still billions to cut. I'd also look out for a new "bonfire of quangos" narrative. The who public administration body is due a 50-60% chop, it would save £2-3bn and no one would notice.
John Redwood has claimed that the Bank's bond sell off will cost the Treasury £10bn this year, because they are selling them at a loss. Refusing to sell them until the price has risen would therefore result in an instant £10bn saving. Thoughts?
I don't think Sunak's "of course they told me not to appoint Braverman" deflection will work. The question will keep coming back, someone will leak, and he will be forced to accept that he appointed her above the heads of the civil service.
The thing is I'd almost expect, or indeed, want, the civil service to question every ministerial decision, to be a bucket of cold water on the fires of their enthusiasm. It should be a key part of their role to act as a reality check.
So you'd expect that it would be part of the normal course of things for ministers to make decisions that went against concerns raised by civil servants. How many decisions are there that are so simple that there are no concerns to be raised about them?
You don't want civil servants to be simply yes men, and nor do you want ministers who are too scared by risks that they fail to act.
I really dislike the implications of that question from Starmer, and it unhelpfully politicises the civil service.
Implications? The machinery of government is entitled to raise security concerns about someone fired for a double breach of the ministerial code, one of which was a serious security screw up.
A Tory MP is now on Politics Live stating very explicitly that the PM does everything correctly, so if she was appointed there cannot have been a concern raised by Simon Case. This is a serious hostage to fortune - it isn't party political for senior civil servants to state the proposed minister (a) broke the code or (b) was highlighted as a security risk.
The implication is that ministers shouldn't ever do anything that the civil service express doubts about, which then leads to ministers wanting to appoint toady yes men to the civil service. It would be terribly bad.
No, it's not. Rather the implication is that ministers should acknowledge when they have chosen to ignore advice, particularly on security matters.
Sunak: "I just addressed the issue with the home secretary."
[He didn't answer the question]
If the Braverman resignation had happened at any time other than the Truss defenestration, there is absolutely no way she would have been back in government, let alone at the head of the Home Office, within a matter of days,
The truth is, Braverman didn’t too much against either security or ministerial code to warrant losing job. A ticking off sure, but resignation or sacking, no.
However, her crime was against the government and Primeminister - orchestrating opposition to the governments and PMs policy by slipping things to factional friends on back benches via non official phones. And that was a sacking matter - similar to Starmer dispatching Sam Tarry.
I gather that there is a byelection already under way in Chester. Normally PB would have been the first with the news. Was it? Or am I the only one to have missed the announcement?
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
I've had a long think about this and IMO the government should keep the triple lock. There are millions of older people with very low fixed incomes facing a huge rise in costs and have no means of increasing their incomes. Handing them a real term income cut is inhumane and will push millions of people into misery.
However, this needs to be funded by bringing all forms of income under NI and all ages. A pensioner couple with the basic state pension see £2000 increase with no additional tax, a figure that makes a real difference to their life quality, a pensioner couple with ~£40k in income see no change in income and pensioner couples with higher income than that pay more tax, a couple on £60k income in retirement would pay ~£2.5k per year more in tax. A sum they could absolutely afford.
Day 1 of the new regime, and we are mired in Tory Sleaze.
Some things never change.
I did say that Rishi Rich needed to appoint an authoritarian as Home Sec, but I was thinking more of Priti making a comeback.
Though PP had her own issues with ministerial standards.
There must be someone on the Conservative benches who is able to be authoritarian from a position of unimpeachable morality?
Mustn't there?
I would have said the hard man of Brexit, but he seems to have gone a bit soft, by all accounts
(in all seriousness, he actually might be a good HS, better than most recent ones, anyway)
If you mean Steve Baker than I agree, he's actually impressed on the upside. Seems a bright guy even though I agree with him on almost nothing
Yep, Baker. He has a brain and also some empathy. I disagree with him on much, but I can see he has some qualities.
I agree . If Sunak wanted to keep the right onside he could have given him the job of HS.
Indeed. Sunak is weak, weak, weak – he could simply have said to Cowardman, "I'm afraid Home Sec will be out of reach on this occasion as Simon Case has counselled against the appointment. However, I have a wonderful new opportunity for you as Secretary of State for Administrative Affairs."
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
I would be flabbergasted if he did that . The only demographic that the Tories aren’t underwater with are the over 65s . I think theres more chance of an alien landing in Trafalgar Square than the Tories annoying their core voters .
Yes, but there are folk on PB who seriously believe that the alien is indeed more likely than chopping the TL.
Just logged in to wonder at the news about the fracking ban being reimposed.
Hope our friends the LuckyMan and BartyBoy enjoyed and will continue to enjoy that one.
As in a number oif other things, the SNP (and Slab and SLD and SGs) have been excoriated by the Tories and libertarian free marketers, in Scotland and rUK, for years. Now England* is falling into place ...
*strictly speaking, on licensing etc. UK-wide. So not illogical of Mr Ross et all to vote last week for what was in effect, but not de jure, an English fracking ban. It was planning and health that allowed the SG to veto fracking, after commissioning a report (Slab and SLD an d SGs didn't even wait for that as I recall)>
Sunak 6/10 - Did OK, but struggled with baggage and unnecessary own goals like Braverman. Starmer 8/10 - Confident and hit the open goals before him.
Hopefully Sunak will improve with practice, but he needs to sharpen up and avoid unnecessary pitfalls like reappointing someone who has only just been sacked.
Starmer the better of the two today, but Sunak certainly could have done worse.
This is by far the most useful judgment on here, the rest is just football chanting
Starmer is under-rated - at least from the perspective of improving Labour's fortunes - I've always said so.
Must have just been you and me then. Most people said he was boring. I have always rated him. Tories that have underrated him have been dumb.
Yes. We agree. Starmer is overall a bad thing from the Tories POV.
His weakness, of course, is much of the electorate don't like him. To be honest he isn't much my cup of tea either - I think it's his tone and earnestness that is so off-putting.
I'd much rather have a pint with Sunak. By orders of magnitude.
Don't know what that says.
I think back to my oft used theme that since Blair the election winners have been who you would prefer to go for a pint with (and 1992 might have been very close)
I gather that there is a byelection already under way in Chester. Normally PB would have been the first with the news. Was it? Or am I the only one to have missed the announcement?
Labour MP found guilty of sexual misconduct, whip withdrawn, stood down Edot - tories struggling to find local candidate, seat being carved up in boundary review
Was a Tory seat 2010-2015. And pre 97 (Gyles Brandreth no less). Now nearly 10k majority.
"LGBT football fans who attend the World Cup in Qatar should show "a little bit of flex and compromise", Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has said. Speaking to LBC on Wednesday, he told fans travelling from England and Wales to be "respectful of the host nation", where same-sex activity is illegal. He added that "there should be flex and compromise at both ends" during the tournament, which starts in November. Labour called Mr Cleverly's remarks "shockingly tone-deaf"."
No commitment to Triple Lock given by Number 10. So that's one of the 104 options on the table.
Not really. Admittedly, I've never understood PB's obsession with the triple lock but if it is reduced to a double lock, the part to go would be the link to wages, which will save no money while it is inflation that is highest.
Now would be a perfect time to drop it then, as nobody would notice for a year or two.
What I really struggle to understand is why they had to put Braverman back at the Home Office? Surely they could have found another post that wouldn’t have created quite such a stink? Unless, as some have suggested, creating the stink really was the entire point.
My Denver flight touched down in Heathrow at 12.34 and I was turning the key of my Camden flat at 13.53. Less than 80 minutes - via smooth passport control, immediate baggage delivery, a waiting Elizabeth Line train, and plenty of cabs to drive through Regents Park (in soft autumn sun)
Sunak 6/10 - Did OK, but struggled with baggage and unnecessary own goals like Braverman. Starmer 8/10 - Confident and hit the open goals before him.
Hopefully Sunak will improve with practice, but he needs to sharpen up and avoid unnecessary pitfalls like reappointing someone who has only just been sacked.
Starmer the better of the two today, but Sunak certainly could have done worse.
This is by far the most useful judgment on here, the rest is just football chanting
Starmer is under-rated - at least from the perspective of improving Labour's fortunes - I've always said so.
Must have just been you and me then. Most people said he was boring. I have always rated him. Tories that have underrated him have been dumb.
Yes. We agree. Starmer is overall a bad thing from the Tories POV.
His weakness, of course, is much of the electorate don't like him. To be honest he isn't much my cup of tea either - I think it's his tone and earnestness that is so off-putting.
I'd much rather have a pint with Sunak. By orders of magnitude.
Don't know what that says.
I think back to my oft used theme that since Blair the election winners have been who you would prefer to go for a pint with (and 1992 might have been very close)
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
I've had a long think about this and IMO the government should keep the triple lock. There are millions of older people with very low fixed incomes facing a huge rise in costs and have no means of increasing their incomes. Handing them a real term income cut is inhumane and will push millions of people into misery.
However, this needs to be funded by bringing all forms of income under NI and all ages. A pensioner couple with the basic state pension see £2000 increase with no additional tax, a figure that makes a real difference to their life quality, a pensioner couple with ~£40k in income see no change in income and pensioner couples with higher income than that pay more tax, a couple on £60k income in retirement would pay ~£2.5k per year more in tax. A sum they could absolutely afford.
Er, a hint of slipping into anti-oldie mode there. There is plenty of other income that isn't taxed under NI, which is the wider and real problem of NI versus other taxes, and of course that to which your solution actually pertains.
"LGBT football fans who attend the World Cup in Qatar should show "a little bit of flex and compromise", Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has said. Speaking to LBC on Wednesday, he told fans travelling from England and Wales to be "respectful of the host nation", where same-sex activity is illegal. He added that "there should be flex and compromise at both ends" during the tournament, which starts in November. Labour called Mr Cleverly's remarks "shockingly tone-deaf"."
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
I've had a long think about this and IMO the government should keep the triple lock. There are millions of older people with very low fixed incomes facing a huge rise in costs and have no means of increasing their incomes. Handing them a real term income cut is inhumane and will push millions of people into misery.
[snip]
You're confusing two separate things here. The government could ditch the triple lock as a long-term commitment (and should do so, because of its long-term ratchet effect). But that wouldn't have to mean that pensions, along with other benefits, can't be upgraded by inflation this year, and perhaps next year, given the extreme pressures you rightly identify.
Done like that, I think the political hit would be manageable.
"LGBT football fans who attend the World Cup in Qatar should show "a little bit of flex and compromise", Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has said. Speaking to LBC on Wednesday, he told fans travelling from England and Wales to be "respectful of the host nation", where same-sex activity is illegal. He added that "there should be flex and compromise at both ends" during the tournament, which starts in November. Labour called Mr Cleverly's remarks "shockingly tone-deaf"."
I gather that there is a byelection already under way in Chester. Normally PB would have been the first with the news. Was it? Or am I the only one to have missed the announcement?
We need a couple of byelections in Notts, but we aren't going to get any.
PCC banned from driving for 5 speeding offences in a period of months in 2021. Not standing down from her position.
And the Deputy Council Leader of my district convicted for multiple offences, and other things not charged. The most egregious was lying to the police to try and get a neighbour he was in a dispute done for a fictional offence he invented - coming at him with a carving knife.
Observed by a police car driving at 60-70mph down the local High Street in his Range Rover Evoque, which remarkably only has 200m between a right angle bend and a traffic island. Then reversed into a police car on a filling station forecourt. All after a night out at the Bingo (very Notts).
Fines, compensation and costs of £2600, a community order and 200 hours unpaid work.
Reduced to a Councillor, but not standing down. The Elections next May will be interesting.
As was explained the previous time Cooper tried this stunt - so she shouldn’t have been surprised to get the same answer again- matters for the Ministerial code reside with the PM and Cabinet Office. She should have asked a smarter question.
It's hardly a 'stunt' as you put it – it is a reasonable inquiry into why the government has reappointed a home secretary who was sacked for a security breach less than 160 hours ago.
But she wasn’t sacked for a security breach. She was ticked off for minor security breach, sacked for plotting with backbenchers against government policy.
Just being honest and sticking the facts, I’m right aren’t I?
Isn't the 'minor security breach' her side of the story.
The other side of the story suggests that this is simply the first time she's been caught, but that she's been sharing info with the same person for some time. It was also suggested that she lied about the details/timing when asked.
The three appointments that bother me are Braverman, Coffey at Environment (why?) and Raab as Justice Minister. He was notably useless in the role before.
I gather that there is a byelection already under way in Chester. Normally PB would have been the first with the news. Was it? Or am I the only one to have missed the announcement?
Labour MP found guilty of sexual misconduct, whip withdrawn, stood down Edot - tories struggling to find local candidate, seat being carved up in boundary review
Was a Tory seat 2010-2015. And pre 97 (Gyles Brandreth no less). Now nearly 10k majority.
Yes solidly Tory until 97 since when mainly Labour except the coalition years. Trending away from the Tories
"LGBT football fans who attend the World Cup in Qatar should show "a little bit of flex and compromise", Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has said. Speaking to LBC on Wednesday, he told fans travelling from England and Wales to be "respectful of the host nation", where same-sex activity is illegal. He added that "there should be flex and compromise at both ends" during the tournament, which starts in November. Labour called Mr Cleverly's remarks "shockingly tone-deaf"."
The reality is, the World Cup is happening there. Perhaps England and Wales should be boycotting it, but they are not, and it's in his interests that no British citizen ends up in trouble out there.
The sensible tweak to the triple lock would be to retain it but to build in some sort of 3/5 year average to avoid yo-yo situations where they get a big inflationary increase in one year and then a big earnings related increase the next when one catches up with the other.
"LGBT football fans who attend the World Cup in Qatar should show "a little bit of flex and compromise", Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has said. Speaking to LBC on Wednesday, he told fans travelling from England and Wales to be "respectful of the host nation", where same-sex activity is illegal. He added that "there should be flex and compromise at both ends" during the tournament, which starts in November. Labour called Mr Cleverly's remarks "shockingly tone-deaf"."
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
I've had a long think about this and IMO the government should keep the triple lock. There are millions of older people with very low fixed incomes facing a huge rise in costs and have no means of increasing their incomes. Handing them a real term income cut is inhumane and will push millions of people into misery.
However, this needs to be funded by bringing all forms of income under NI and all ages. A pensioner couple with the basic state pension see £2000 increase with no additional tax, a figure that makes a real difference to their life quality, a pensioner couple with ~£40k in income see no change in income and pensioner couples with higher income than that pay more tax, a couple on £60k income in retirement would pay ~£2.5k per year more in tax. A sum they could absolutely afford.
Er, a hint of slipping into anti-oldie mode there. There is plenty of other income that isn't taxed under NI, which is the wider and real problem of NI versus other taxes, and of course that to which your solution actually pertains.
It's because I am? I think rich old selfish graspers with fabulous pensions and assets are ripe for taxes. But you'll hopefully have noticed I said all income types so that includes dividend income, rental income and plenty of other types as well as pension income.
I gather that there is a byelection already under way in Chester. Normally PB would have been the first with the news. Was it? Or am I the only one to have missed the announcement?
Labour MP found guilty of sexual misconduct, whip withdrawn, stood down Edot - tories struggling to find local candidate, seat being carved up in boundary review
Was a Tory seat 2010-2015. And pre 97 (Gyles Brandreth no less). Now nearly 10k majority.
Gyles Brandreth came out with the excellent quote (although I see it is far from original) - 'The electors (or people) have spoken. The bastards'.
TSE it is really sad that in everything you have written on here since Brexit, you have shown your worst Remoaner tendencies. Have you become a LibDem? You certainly sound like one now. A bit like those lefties who cannot bring themselves to congratulate the Conservatives for electing the first PM from an ethnic minority because for the bitter left he is the wrong kind of member of an ethnic minority. Let's see how the land lies once the Tories push through the boundary changes ahead of the next election.
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
You are young, young man, as I was once. (I think. So long ago I don't remember). You are also foolish in that probably your most valuable financial asset by at least an OOM is or would be a state pension at current levels kicking in at let's say 70 and growing throughout by the triple lock. The lump sum equivalent is in the high 6 figures. It's not the oldies being robbed, it is older you.
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
I've had a long think about this and IMO the government should keep the triple lock. There are millions of older people with very low fixed incomes facing a huge rise in costs and have no means of increasing their incomes. Handing them a real term income cut is inhumane and will push millions of people into misery.
[snip]
You're confusing two separate things here. The government could ditch the triple lock as a long-term commitment (and should do so, because of its long-term ratchet effect). But that wouldn't have to mean that pensions, along with other benefits, can't be upgraded by inflation this year, and perhaps next year, given the extreme pressures you rightly identify.
Done like that, I think the political hit would be manageable.
Yes over the long term it needs a better solution, I'm talking in the immediate future where this year's 11% rise needs to be funded. NI on all income and all ages makes the triple lock and benefits uprating self funding as it is a huge tax rise but falls on not many people with broad shoulders. The government needs to weigh up whether it values fairness and fiscal responsibility over hitting its own voters - landlords, high income pensioners and personal service scammers.
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
You are young, young man, as I was once. (I think. So long ago I don't remember). You are also foolish in that probably your most valuable financial asset by at least an OOM is or would be a state pension at current levels kicking in at let's say 70 and growing throughout by the triple lock. The lump sum equivalent is in the high 6 figures. It's not the oldies being robbed, it is older you.
"LGBT football fans who attend the World Cup in Qatar should show "a little bit of flex and compromise", Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has said. Speaking to LBC on Wednesday, he told fans travelling from England and Wales to be "respectful of the host nation", where same-sex activity is illegal. He added that "there should be flex and compromise at both ends" during the tournament, which starts in November. Labour called Mr Cleverly's remarks "shockingly tone-deaf"."
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
You are young, young man, as I was once. (I think. So long ago I don't remember). You are also foolish in that probably your most valuable financial asset by at least an OOM is or would be a state pension at current levels kicking in at let's say 70 and growing throughout by the triple lock. The lump sum equivalent is in the high 6 figures. It's not the oldies being robbed, it is older you.
Sssh, they haven't noticed that.
My retirement position in 40 years' time will be far more dependent on the robust financial health of the country than whether the state pension goes up by RPI or CPI.
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
I've had a long think about this and IMO the government should keep the triple lock. There are millions of older people with very low fixed incomes facing a huge rise in costs and have no means of increasing their incomes. Handing them a real term income cut is inhumane and will push millions of people into misery.
However, this needs to be funded by bringing all forms of income under NI and all ages. A pensioner couple with the basic state pension see £2000 increase with no additional tax, a figure that makes a real difference to their life quality, a pensioner couple with ~£40k in income see no change in income and pensioner couples with higher income than that pay more tax, a couple on £60k income in retirement would pay ~£2.5k per year more in tax. A sum they could absolutely afford.
Er, a hint of slipping into anti-oldie mode there. There is plenty of other income that isn't taxed under NI, which is the wider and real problem of NI versus other taxes, and of course that to which your solution actually pertains.
It's because I am? I think rich old selfish graspers with fabulous pensions and assets are ripe for taxes. But you'll hopefully have noticed I said all income types so that includes dividend income, rental income and plenty of other types as well as pension income.
Yes, but don't confound former departmental secretaries in Whitehall for cleaners in a DSS office in Hartlepool ...
in that case you might as well merge IT and NI anyway. But until one merges NI, the perceived element of reciprocity is going to prevail. However, one consequence of extending NI to OAPs is that it will be seen as unfair gfiven the much touted reciprocity (vide all government stuff for decades). And anotther is that the politically powerful will get no benefit for paying NI and demand that NI and the state pension in its current, accrued form are abolished completely except for a means tested form - that is, the poor old rely completely on what is currently called pension support. Just a thought!
One other thing comes to mind - HMRC doesn't have the resources to cope with proper taxing of dividend, rental and saving interest income (currently a total of up to £4K tax free per person per year, more or less). With inflation and interest rates, this is going to become a real loss to the exchequer.
Although I am highly sceptical about the prospects for shale gas in the UK, I think an outright ban is a foolish decision.
If people wish to spend their own money drilling exploratory wells (and it can be done without impacting local communities too much), then they should be free to do so.
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
I've had a long think about this and IMO the government should keep the triple lock. There are millions of older people with very low fixed incomes facing a huge rise in costs and have no means of increasing their incomes. Handing them a real term income cut is inhumane and will push millions of people into misery.
[snip]
You're confusing two separate things here. The government could ditch the triple lock as a long-term commitment (and should do so, because of its long-term ratchet effect). But that wouldn't have to mean that pensions, along with other benefits, can't be upgraded by inflation this year, and perhaps next year, given the extreme pressures you rightly identify.
Done like that, I think the political hit would be manageable.
Yes over the long term it needs a better solution, I'm talking in the immediate future where this year's 11% rise needs to be funded. NI on all income and all ages makes the triple lock and benefits uprating self funding as it is a huge tax rise but falls on not many people with broad shoulders. The government needs to weigh up whether it values fairness and fiscal responsibility over hitting its own voters - landlords, high income pensioners and personal service scammers.
I have argued this one with hyufd numerous times (He wants to restrict it to earnings and keep NI as is). The state pension is too low for those at the bottom so the triple lock is an appropriate way to rectify that gradually. For those for whom the state pension is just bunce the tax system should be used to reclaim much of the extra income. Merging NI into Income Tax seems obvious and a simplification.
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
You are young, young man, as I was once. (I think. So long ago I don't remember). You are also foolish in that probably your most valuable financial asset by at least an OOM is or would be a state pension at current levels kicking in at let's say 70 and growing throughout by the triple lock. The lump sum equivalent is in the high 6 figures. It's not the oldies being robbed, it is older you.
Sssh, they haven't noticed that.
My retirement position in 40 years' time will be far more dependent on the robust financial health of the country than whether the state pension goes up by RPI or CPI.
On the subject of Bravermann, it appears she wilfully broke the rules by using her personal email address to send confidential documents to people who should not receive them.
I therefore find putting her in charge of - you know - law and order to be an incomprehensible decision
Although I am highly sceptical about the prospects for shale gas in the UK, I think an outright ban is a foolish decision.
If people wish to spend their own money drilling exploratory wells (and it can be done without impacting local communities too much), then they should be free to do so.
Agree. As far as I can see there is little evidence for shale gas in the UK and there are clearly local issues when anyone wants to have a go, but why should there be an actual ban?
"LGBT football fans who attend the World Cup in Qatar should show "a little bit of flex and compromise", Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has said. Speaking to LBC on Wednesday, he told fans travelling from England and Wales to be "respectful of the host nation", where same-sex activity is illegal. He added that "there should be flex and compromise at both ends" during the tournament, which starts in November. Labour called Mr Cleverly's remarks "shockingly tone-deaf"."
Rishi Sunak considering dumping the pensions triple lock
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
You are young, young man, as I was once. (I think. So long ago I don't remember). You are also foolish in that probably your most valuable financial asset by at least an OOM is or would be a state pension at current levels kicking in at let's say 70 and growing throughout by the triple lock. The lump sum equivalent is in the high 6 figures. It's not the oldies being robbed, it is older you.
Sssh, they haven't noticed that.
My retirement position in 40 years' time will be far more dependent on the robust financial health of the country than whether the state pension goes up by RPI or CPI.
Good for you, but you are not necessarily in the majority.
Also, I'd diversify. Exposure to the robust financial health of the USA might not harm your prospects.
And RPI vs CPI is not the question anyway. It's already CPI and I think always was, and nobody ever switched from that to RPI.
On the subject of Bravermann, it appears she wilfully broke the rules by using her personal email address to send confidential documents to people who should not receive them.
I therefore find putting her in charge of - you know - law and order to be an incomprehensible decision
Talking of breaking the rules, the looming Standards Committee enquiry into certain statements made by Boris is going to be a very interesting test for Sunak. Objectively speaking, there surely can be no better outcome for him than Boris being sanctioned, a recall election being held, and Boris losing it (or flouncing out). At the same time, he needs to be very careful to conceal his glee at the prospect. It's a tricky one for him.
Comments
https://twitter.com/patdennis/status/1585066053230809090
Abortion should be between women and doctors... "and local political leaders".
Give me the guy with the stroke.
There must be someone on the Conservative benches who is able to be authoritarian from a position of unimpeachable morality?
Mustn't there?
Where is Braverman? She's run off.
Cowardman would be a more apt name.
. .
Sunak appears to have been noticeably evasive on this point.
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1585226888720646144
Starmer: "Have officials raised concerns about his decision to appoint [Suella Braverman]?"
Sunak: "I just addressed the issue with the home secretary."
[He didn't answer the question]
If the Braverman resignation had happened at any time other than the Truss defenestration, there is absolutely no way she would have been back in government, let alone at the head of the Home Office, within a matter of days,
So that's one of the 104 options on the table.
You don’t pay proper attention do you?
1. Would he have fired her?
2. Would he rehire her within a week?
Never mind.
The PM's official spokesman said he "didn't recognise" claims Simon Case was "livid" about Suella Braverman's job. But he refused to say what amount of angry he was, or deny that he had raised concerns with the Prime Minister.
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1585245838498009089
This might blow over, and equally it might fester for quite some time.
But either way it was a piss poor, unnecessary appointment.
Familiar surroundings as Rishi Sunak and his family lived in the No10 flat when he was Chancellor.
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1585245744759738369
The Fuck Ugly boxes that are so tiny you feel cramped looking at them are what people expect development to look like. Because that’s what they get….
Where you been grazing?
But not that bit".
(in all seriousness, he actually might be a good HS, better than most recent ones, anyway)
The SNP appears to have adapted to a more serious, fact-based approach which is probably the right way to challenge Sunak.
(Just one week after Liz Truss committed to keeping it!)
Excellent news
However, her crime was against the government and Primeminister - orchestrating opposition to the governments and PMs policy by slipping things to factional friends on back benches via non official phones. And that was a sacking matter - similar to Starmer dispatching Sam Tarry.
Whether that's what anyone wants is another matter.
To be honest, each time they played clip on news, it sound sound like he was saying “restore Truss” 🙂
Oh! Maybe not, then
TMay would however be a candidate, on the authoritarian but unimpeachable criteria (not a fan myself).
Just being honest and sticking the facts, I’m right aren’t I?
Understand this is broadly correct...
NB - importantly this is not a £35bn/ £45bn a year gap that needs to be filled
It's over a longer timeframe - and comes after reversal of entire mini budget
So that's a MUCH smaller hole that needed filling just a few days ago
https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1585237706648735745
iirc the talk was of a £70bn black hole…
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/three-hundreds-of-chiltern--14
Liz Truss's planned programme of supply-side reforms has been cancelled
No10 spokesman: "There are no plans for the supply-side reforms as we previously discussed. That's not to say there won't be elements that the chancellor may or may not wish to come forward with."
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1585245348376637440
Edot - tories struggling to find local candidate, seat being carved up in boundary review
Well it made me chuckle, anyway.
However, this needs to be funded by bringing all forms of income under NI and all ages. A pensioner couple with the basic state pension see £2000 increase with no additional tax, a figure that makes a real difference to their life quality, a pensioner couple with ~£40k in income see no change in income and pensioner couples with higher income than that pay more tax, a couple on £60k income in retirement would pay ~£2.5k per year more in tax. A sum they could absolutely afford.
Hope our friends the LuckyMan and BartyBoy enjoyed and will continue to enjoy that one.
https://www.whatcar.com/news/every-what-car-car-of-the-year-winner-since-1978
*strictly speaking, on licensing etc. UK-wide. So not illogical of Mr Ross et all to vote last week for what was in effect, but not de jure, an English fracking ban. It was planning and health that allowed the SG to veto fracking, after commissioning a report (Slab and SLD an d SGs didn't even wait for that as I recall)>
Now nearly 10k majority.
"LGBT football fans who attend the World Cup in Qatar should show "a little bit of flex and compromise", Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has said. Speaking to LBC on Wednesday, he told fans travelling from England and Wales to be "respectful of the host nation", where same-sex activity is illegal. He added that "there should be flex and compromise at both ends" during the tournament, which starts in November. Labour called Mr Cleverly's remarks "shockingly tone-deaf"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63401193
My Denver flight touched down in Heathrow at 12.34 and I was turning the key of my Camden flat at 13.53. Less than 80 minutes - via smooth passport control, immediate baggage delivery, a waiting Elizabeth Line train, and plenty of cabs to drive through Regents Park (in soft autumn sun)
If you were new to London, you would be impressed
It's bad enough having the World Cup in Qatar without people using it as a political football (as it were).
Done like that, I think the political hit would be manageable.
PCC banned from driving for 5 speeding offences in a period of months in 2021. Not standing down from her position.
And the Deputy Council Leader of my district convicted for multiple offences, and other things not charged. The most egregious was lying to the police to try and get a neighbour he was in a dispute done for a fictional offence he invented - coming at him with a carving knife.
Observed by a police car driving at 60-70mph down the local High Street in his Range Rover Evoque, which remarkably only has 200m between a right angle bend and a traffic island. Then reversed into a police car on a filling station forecourt. All after a night out at the Bingo (very Notts).
Fines, compensation and costs of £2600, a community order and 200 hours unpaid work.
Reduced to a Councillor, but not standing down. The Elections next May will be interesting.
The other side of the story suggests that this is simply the first time she's been caught, but that she's been sharing info with the same person for some time. It was also suggested that she lied about the details/timing when asked.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-foreign-travel-advice
The reality is, the World Cup is happening there. Perhaps England and Wales should be boycotting it, but they are not, and it's in his interests that no British citizen ends up in trouble out there.
He comes from a pretty socially conservative community.
Do we have any evidence Sunak isn’t homophobic?
Which saloon bar are you drinking in?
in that case you might as well merge IT and NI anyway. But until one merges NI, the perceived element of reciprocity is going to prevail. However, one consequence of extending NI to OAPs is that it will be seen as unfair gfiven the much touted reciprocity (vide all government stuff for decades). And anotther is that the politically powerful will get no benefit for paying NI and demand that NI and the state pension in its current, accrued form are abolished completely except for a means tested form - that is, the poor old rely completely on what is currently called pension support. Just a thought!
One other thing comes to mind - HMRC doesn't have the resources to cope with proper taxing of dividend, rental and saving interest income (currently a total of up to £4K tax free per person per year, more or less). With inflation and interest rates, this is going to become a real loss to the exchequer.
If people wish to spend their own money drilling exploratory wells (and it can be done without impacting local communities too much), then they should be free to do so.
I therefore find putting her in charge of - you know - law and order to be an incomprehensible decision
That’s not factually untrue, is it?
You’ve extrapolated my comment into something different. You’re better than that kind of intellectually dishonest smearing, @Malmesbury
The point is, we don’t have any evidence that he isn’t homophobic. People just seem to assume that it’s not an issue. But it might well be.
We’ll see.
Also, I'd diversify. Exposure to the robust financial health of the USA might not harm your prospects.
And RPI vs CPI is not the question anyway. It's already CPI and I think always was, and nobody ever switched from that to RPI.