What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
Sunak is no ERG figure but yes he is more Michael Portillo moderate than Heseltine or Clarke or Cameron moderate and still from the Thatcherite wing. Indeed economically he is right of Boris
Of course Major always had a clear lead as preferred PM over Kinnock in 1992. Sunak does poll better than his party but doesn't have a clear lead over Starmer to the extent Major did over Kinnock
YET
Kinnock was treated appallingly by the right wing press, especially by the Murdoch rag, without going as far as saying (it was the Sun wot won it) it certainly played a big part.I think a lot of people on here think that the great British public are as fascinated by politics as most of us on here, when in reality they only become interested a few months away from an election, and a constant stream of negative headlines usually does the trick.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
Sunak is no ERG figure but yes he is more Michael Portillo moderate than Heseltine or Clarke or Cameron moderate and still from the Thatcherite wing. Indeed economically he is right of Boris
Wow. This is the future. The stages are fixable. If they have that bit sorted, they have a rocket.
I only wish Musk didn’t own it so I could be truly happy for them.
SpaceX wouldn't exist without Musk, and I doubt that anything similar would. The man may be an arse, but he's a genius arse.
A mad genius. The world is a better place for him, and we need more people with his sprit and attitude.
Someone should send you a dictionary with an entry for "genius" in it.
Tesla did two very important things: 1. demonstrate that an electric vehicle could be fast, and cool. 2. demonstrate that an EV could be a large family car with a meaningful range. For those two things we have a lot to be thankful. If Musk had just retired from cars at that point, spent a few years on SpaceX and then retired from that too, and never bought twitter, he’d be revered as a truly great individual.
I think there's a pretty big difference between a genius on the one hand and a capitalist who made a couple of smart moves and then covered himself in - not to put too fine a point on it - excrement.
Learn to be more critical of your heroes.
He's flawed of course, but we wouldn't be moving towards electrified transport anywhere near as fast without him. That's a big plus.
Sunak on Raab: "Well it was a tough, finely-balanced decision, but at the end of the day Dom's bullied me into keeping him on, so that's an end to the matter. Now, about those planes to Rwanda..."
Wow. This is the future. The stages are fixable. If they have that bit sorted, they have a rocket.
I only wish Musk didn’t own it so I could be truly happy for them.
SpaceX wouldn't exist without Musk, and I doubt that anything similar would. The man may be an arse, but he's a genius arse.
A mad genius. The world is a better place for him, and we need more people with his sprit and attitude.
Someone should send you a dictionary with an entry for "genius" in it.
Tesla did two very important things: 1. demonstrate that an electric vehicle could be fast, and cool. 2. demonstrate that an EV could be a large family car with a meaningful range. For those two things we have a lot to be thankful. If Musk had just retired from cars at that point, spent a few years on SpaceX and then retired from that too, and never bought twitter, he’d be revered as a truly great individual.
I think there's a pretty big difference between a genius on the one hand and a capitalist who made a couple of smart moves and then covered himself in - not to put too fine a point on it - excrement.
Learn to be more critical of your heroes.
He's flawed of course, but we wouldn't be moving towards electrified transport anywhere near as fast without him. That's a big plus.
Sorry if it wasn't clear enough, but to spell it out, it's the 'genius' label I was disputing, not the contention that he's a capitalist who has made some smart (or possibly lucky) moves.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Wow. This is the future. The stages are fixable. If they have that bit sorted, they have a rocket.
I only wish Musk didn’t own it so I could be truly happy for them.
SpaceX wouldn't exist without Musk, and I doubt that anything similar would. The man may be an arse, but he's a genius arse.
A mad genius. The world is a better place for him, and we need more people with his sprit and attitude.
Someone should send you a dictionary with an entry for "genius" in it.
Tesla did two very important things: 1. demonstrate that an electric vehicle could be fast, and cool. 2. demonstrate that an EV could be a large family car with a meaningful range. For those two things we have a lot to be thankful. If Musk had just retired from cars at that point, spent a few years on SpaceX and then retired from that too, and never bought twitter, he’d be revered as a truly great individual.
I think there's a pretty big difference between a genius on the one hand and a capitalist who made a couple of smart moves and then covered himself in - not to put too fine a point on it - excrement.
Learn to be more critical of your heroes.
He's flawed of course, but we wouldn't be moving towards electrified transport anywhere near as fast without him. That's a big plus.
Sorry if it wasn't clear enough, but to spell it out, it's the 'genius' label I was disputing, not the contention that he's a capitalist who has made some smart (or possibly lucky) moves.
Sunak on Raab: "Well it was a tough, finely-balanced decision, but at the end of the day Dom's bullied me into keeping him on, so that's an end to the matter. Now, about those planes to Rwanda..."
Wow. This is the future. The stages are fixable. If they have that bit sorted, they have a rocket.
I only wish Musk didn’t own it so I could be truly happy for them.
SpaceX wouldn't exist without Musk, and I doubt that anything similar would. The man may be an arse, but he's a genius arse.
A mad genius. The world is a better place for him, and we need more people with his sprit and attitude.
Someone should send you a dictionary with an entry for "genius" in it.
Tesla did two very important things: 1. demonstrate that an electric vehicle could be fast, and cool. 2. demonstrate that an EV could be a large family car with a meaningful range. For those two things we have a lot to be thankful. If Musk had just retired from cars at that point, spent a few years on SpaceX and then retired from that too, and never bought twitter, he’d be revered as a truly great individual.
I think there's a pretty big difference between a genius on the one hand and a capitalist who made a couple of smart moves and then covered himself in - not to put too fine a point on it - excrement.
Learn to be more critical of your heroes.
He's flawed of course, but we wouldn't be moving towards electrified transport anywhere near as fast without him. That's a big plus.
Sorry if it wasn't clear enough, but to spell it out, it's the 'genius' label I was disputing, not the contention that he's a capitalist who has made some smart (or possibly lucky) moves.
Agree he's a capitalist - a genius one.
And a complete twat too. Not unusual with geniuses.
Wow. This is the future. The stages are fixable. If they have that bit sorted, they have a rocket.
I only wish Musk didn’t own it so I could be truly happy for them.
SpaceX wouldn't exist without Musk, and I doubt that anything similar would. The man may be an arse, but he's a genius arse.
A mad genius. The world is a better place for him, and we need more people with his sprit and attitude.
Someone should send you a dictionary with an entry for "genius" in it.
Tesla did two very important things: 1. demonstrate that an electric vehicle could be fast, and cool. 2. demonstrate that an EV could be a large family car with a meaningful range. For those two things we have a lot to be thankful. If Musk had just retired from cars at that point, spent a few years on SpaceX and then retired from that too, and never bought twitter, he’d be revered as a truly great individual.
I think there's a pretty big difference between a genius on the one hand and a capitalist who made a couple of smart moves and then covered himself in - not to put too fine a point on it - excrement.
Learn to be more critical of your heroes.
He's flawed of course, but we wouldn't be moving towards electrified transport anywhere near as fast without him. That's a big plus.
Sorry if it wasn't clear enough, but to spell it out, it's the 'genius' label I was disputing, not the contention that he's a capitalist who has made some smart (or possibly lucky) moves.
Agree he's a capitalist - a genius one.
Sorry if you didn't understand anything I wrote. Maybe in future you could find a friend to help.
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The Waitrose £8.99 Spanish red I recommended the other day is even cheaper..
'Made in Italy'?
Yes
I keep getting my countries mixed up!
I hope I'm going to France on Saturday..
I think it was someone here who pointed out that the relevant Italian government department name is partly in English, such is the power of the Made In Italy brand:
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
The £249 I spent on Airpods Pro at launch has been worth every penny. Makes flying vastly less tedious.
It's possible that cheaper noise-cancelling headphones could do that too, but sadly bluetooth is a dark art, and the Airpods connect straight away every time, and are nicely integrated into iOS.
Sadly, the pressure of over-the-ear headphones tends to make my glasses hurt my ears, so Airpods Max are out.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
I concur with your second paragraph. I think Clarke and Heseltine would too, but think Sunak would disagree.
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
The £249 I spent on Airpods Pro at launch has been worth every penny. Makes flying vastly less tedious.
It's possible that cheaper noise-cancelling headphones could do that too, but sadly bluetooth is a dark art, and the Airpods connect straight away every time, and are nicely integrated into iOS.
Sadly, the pressure of over-the-ear headphones tends to make my glasses hurt my ears, so Airpods Max are out.
Airpods and their imitators are so ubiquitous now that it's difficult to believe how much they were mocked when they were first released.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The distended state is inimical to that state being run well. It involves a fat bureacracy that believes it should be opining on the issues of the day and telling politicians what to do, insufferable regulation and taxation on the productive part of the economy, and complete dysfunction in the exercise of its duties. It isn't sustainable in the long term - it will crash and burn.
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
The £249 I spent on Airpods Pro at launch has been worth every penny. Makes flying vastly less tedious.
It's possible that cheaper noise-cancelling headphones could do that too, but sadly bluetooth is a dark art, and the Airpods connect straight away every time, and are nicely integrated into iOS.
Sadly, the pressure of over-the-ear headphones tends to make my glasses hurt my ears, so Airpods Max are out.
Bluetooth is fine.
Has Apple borked it to trick you into paying (I can barely believe this) £250 for a pair of earphones?
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
Oi!
I boy stuff because it the best thing that works.
If I wanted to flaunt my wealth I’d never take off my Breitling watch or Prada footwear.
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
Are they 25% better than the Bose NC700? Because they’re 25% more expensive, and I have the Bose ones already!
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
The £249 I spent on Airpods Pro at launch has been worth every penny. Makes flying vastly less tedious.
It's possible that cheaper noise-cancelling headphones could do that too, but sadly bluetooth is a dark art, and the Airpods connect straight away every time, and are nicely integrated into iOS.
Sadly, the pressure of over-the-ear headphones tends to make my glasses hurt my ears, so Airpods Max are out.
Bluetooth is fine.
Has Apple borked it to trick you into paying (I can barely believe this) £250 for a pair of earphones?
No, bluetooth is a mess, technologically. See, for example:
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
Strong disagree.
They are great headphones, but they are also far too heavy and they don't come with any kind of carrying case.
If you travel a lot (and you want over ear headphones), you are better off sticking with the Sony's.
If you're sitting at your desk, and don't mind the extra weight, then the Airpods Max might be for you.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The distended state is inimical to that state being run well. It involves a fat bureacracy that believes it should be opining on the issues of the day and telling politicians what to do, insufferable regulation and taxation on the productive part of the economy, and complete dysfunction in the exercise of its duties. It isn't sustainable in the long term - it will crash and burn.
Sympathise. However, if a smaller state generally were culturally possible there is no possibility that we would all assume (and vote for) ever increasing expenditure on the NHS, social care, state pensions, UC, centrally funded housing budgets etc. And note that it is the big ticket items, which take up most state expenditure, which are sacrosanct.
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
Are they 25% better than the Bose NC700? Because they’re 25% more expensive, and I have the Bose ones already!
I had the previous Bose ones (Q45) for a while and I returned them after a week - just didn't like them.
Being honest it's probably personal preference - the Bose ones have a very "Bose" sound, Sony seem bass heavy but the Apple ones are allowing me to pick up bits in songs that I've previously only heard if I'm playing music on my hi-fi system.
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
Are they 25% better than the Bose NC700? Because they’re 25% more expensive, and I have the Bose ones already!
Personal opinion: the Bose, the Sony and the Apple premium noise cancelling headphones are all outstanding.
The right one for you depends on your use case: I think the Bose have by far the best microphones, and you will sound intelligible even in a busy restaurant. On the other hand, they don't fold up small, which means you're going to be using up a chunk of your hand luggage if you're traveling.
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
The £249 I spent on Airpods Pro at launch has been worth every penny. Makes flying vastly less tedious.
It's possible that cheaper noise-cancelling headphones could do that too, but sadly bluetooth is a dark art, and the Airpods connect straight away every time, and are nicely integrated into iOS.
Sadly, the pressure of over-the-ear headphones tends to make my glasses hurt my ears, so Airpods Max are out.
Bluetooth is fine.
Has Apple borked it to trick you into paying (I can barely believe this) £250 for a pair of earphones?
No, bluetooth is a mess, technologically. See, for example:
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
The £249 I spent on Airpods Pro at launch has been worth every penny. Makes flying vastly less tedious.
It's possible that cheaper noise-cancelling headphones could do that too, but sadly bluetooth is a dark art, and the Airpods connect straight away every time, and are nicely integrated into iOS.
Sadly, the pressure of over-the-ear headphones tends to make my glasses hurt my ears, so Airpods Max are out.
Bluetooth is fine.
Has Apple borked it to trick you into paying (I can barely believe this) £250 for a pair of earphones?
No, bluetooth is a mess, technologically. See, for example:
And yes, I'm well aware that Apple's gross margin is about 40%. But this is why people are willing to pay it.
I'm currently trying to snoop on by bluetooth traffic on my Android phone, with the goal of being able to open a smartlock with a Linux PC (Home Assistant).
I know Musk is a lunatic, and it seems guilty of great sins, but he's a great man. He's behind simply the most exciting thing happening on the planet - SpaceX, and there's this wonderful chaos that isn't entirely wrong.
Utterly off-topic but given the audience of this site - can I just say that the Apple Airpods Max are actually worth the insane amount of money they cost. Way, way better than the Sony XM4s I was previously using both for noise cancelling and actually playing music.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
The £249 I spent on Airpods Pro at launch has been worth every penny. Makes flying vastly less tedious.
It's possible that cheaper noise-cancelling headphones could do that too, but sadly bluetooth is a dark art, and the Airpods connect straight away every time, and are nicely integrated into iOS.
Sadly, the pressure of over-the-ear headphones tends to make my glasses hurt my ears, so Airpods Max are out.
Bluetooth is fine.
Has Apple borked it to trick you into paying (I can barely believe this) £250 for a pair of earphones?
No, bluetooth is a mess, technologically. See, for example:
And yes, I'm well aware that Apple's gross margin is about 40%. But this is why people are willing to pay it.
I'm currently trying to snoop on by bluetooth traffic on my Android phone, with the goal of being able to open a smartlock with a Linux PC (Home Assistant).
I think dithering is really the worst course. Whatever he decides, he's going to be criticised. But dithering about it just means he's going to be criticised for taking so long to decide as well.
I know Musk is a lunatic, and it seems guilty of great sins, but he's a great man. He's behind simply the most exciting thing happening on the planet - SpaceX, and there's this wonderful chaos that isn't entirely wrong.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
If you think One Nation Toryism is what you're going to get by voting Labour then I have a bridge to sell you.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Right, so let's vote for a Labour PM who will massively ramp up taxes and borrowing on top to make the State even bigger then?
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The distended state is inimical to that state being run well. It involves a fat bureacracy that believes it should be opining on the issues of the day and telling politicians what to do, insufferable regulation and taxation on the productive part of the economy, and complete dysfunction in the exercise of its duties. It isn't sustainable in the long term - it will crash and burn.
Sympathise. However, if a smaller state generally were culturally possible there is no possibility that we would all assume (and vote for) ever increasing expenditure on the NHS, social care, state pensions, UC, centrally funded housing budgets etc. And note that it is the big ticket items, which take up most state expenditure, which are sacrosanct.
I agree. We spend too much on NHS and pensions and I think that's the increasing expense of everything else.
I don't see anyone who has any real answers to that.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
If you think One Nation Toryism is what you're going to get by voting Labour then I have a bridge to sell you.
Not quite what I said, but, of the actual possibles for government, given the moral state of the Tories since 2019 (Patersongate the worst), I want an untory one.. The only possibles are: Lab; Lab/LD; Lab/LD/SNP; Lab chaotic; Tory; Tory chaotic.
I want Lab/LD out of these. I have one vote in a Con/Lab seat. Which do you?
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Right, so let's vote for a Labour PM who will massively ramp up taxes and borrowing on top to make the State even bigger then?
Got it.
Like you I can only vote from the options available; all sub optimal.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Right, so let's vote for a Labour PM who will massively ramp up taxes and borrowing on top to make the State even bigger then?
Got it.
Like you I can only vote from the options available; all sub optimal.
Once again, most people vote for what they see is the least worst option that can win the election.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
If you think One Nation Toryism is what you're going to get by voting Labour then I have a bridge to sell you.
I do hope you're right; that would be a huge disappointment to me.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The distended state is inimical to that state being run well. It involves a fat bureacracy that believes it should be opining on the issues of the day and telling politicians what to do, insufferable regulation and taxation on the productive part of the economy, and complete dysfunction in the exercise of its duties. It isn't sustainable un
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The distended state is inimical to that state being run well. It involves a fat bureacracy that believes it should be opining on the issues of the day and telling politicians what to do, insufferable regulation and taxation on the productive part of the economy, and complete dysfunction in the exercise of its duties. It isn't sustainable in the long term - it will crash and burn.
Sympathise. However, if a smaller state generally were culturally possible there is no possibility that we would all assume (and vote for) ever increasing expenditure on the NHS, social care, state pensions, UC, centrally funded housing budgets etc. And note that it is the big ticket items, which take up most state expenditure, which are sacrosanct.
They're sacrosanct until we're owned by countries who actually decided to make money and they tell us to shut up and get down the mines.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The distended state is inimical to that state being run well. It involves a fat bureacracy that believes it should be opining on the issues of the day and telling politicians what to do, insufferable regulation and taxation on the productive part of the economy, and complete dysfunction in the exercise of its duties. It isn't sustainable in the long term - it will crash and burn.
Sympathise. However, if a smaller state generally were culturally possible there is no possibility that we would all assume (and vote for) ever increasing expenditure on the NHS, social care, state pensions, UC, centrally funded housing budgets etc. And note that it is the big ticket items, which take up most state expenditure, which are sacrosanct.
I agree. We spend too much on NHS and pensions and I think that's the increasing expense of everything else.
I don't see anyone who has any real answers to that.
A truly small state would be spending maybe 100-200 billion less than we do. Try working out where this would fall and get you elected. 200 billion is the entire NHS.
Listen to R4 Today for a week. Count the number of calls for additional expenditure -often gigantic- from the taxpayer. Count the number of challenges made to this mode of thinking (Zero). Count the number of times it is suggested that some aspect of taxpayer expenditure should cease, or go on the shoulders of the individual. (Zero).
Smaller state is culturally impossible at the moment.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The distended state is inimical to that state being run well. It involves a fat bureacracy that believes it should be opining on the issues of the day and telling politicians what to do, insufferable regulation and taxation on the productive part of the economy, and complete dysfunction in the exercise of its duties. It isn't sustainable in the long term - it will crash and burn.
Sympathise. However, if a smaller state generally were culturally possible there is no possibility that we would all assume (and vote for) ever increasing expenditure on the NHS, social care, state pensions, UC, centrally funded housing budgets etc. And note that it is the big ticket items, which take up most state expenditure, which are sacrosanct.
I agree. We spend too much on NHS and pensions and I think that's the increasing expense of everything else.
I don't see anyone who has any real answers to that.
A truly small state would be spending maybe 100-200 billion less than we do. Try working out where this would fall and get you elected. 200 billion is the entire NHS.
Listen to R4 Today for a week. Count the number of calls for additional expenditure -often gigantic- from the taxpayer. Count the number of challenges made to this mode of thinking (Zero). Count the number of times it is suggested that some aspect of taxpayer expenditure should cease, or go on the shoulders of the individual. (Zero).
Smaller state is culturally impossible at the moment.
The alternative route to a smaller state is not shrinking the numerator, but in growing the denominator.
Sadly, the Tories policies have put is in the slow lane for growth, so grim austerity it is, even if that too impinges on growth.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
If you think One Nation Toryism is what you're going to get by voting Labour then I have a bridge to sell you.
Not quite what I said, but, of the actual possibles for government, given the moral state of the Tories since 2019 (Patersongate the worst), I want an untory one.. The only possibles are: Lab; Lab/LD; Lab/LD/SNP; Lab chaotic; Tory; Tory chaotic.
I want Lab/LD out of these. I have one vote in a Con/Lab seat. Which do you?
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The distended state is inimical to that state being run well. It involves a fat bureacracy that believes it should be opining on the issues of the day and telling politicians what to do, insufferable regulation and taxation on the productive part of the economy, and complete dysfunction in the exercise of its duties. It isn't sustainable in the long term - it will crash and burn.
Sympathise. However, if a smaller state generally were culturally possible there is no possibility that we would all assume (and vote for) ever increasing expenditure on the NHS, social care, state pensions, UC, centrally funded housing budgets etc. And note that it is the big ticket items, which take up most state expenditure, which are sacrosanct.
I agree. We spend too much on NHS and pensions and I think that's the increasing expense of everything else.
I don't see anyone who has any real answers to that.
A truly small state would be spending maybe 100-200 billion less than we do. Try working out where this would fall and get you elected. 200 billion is the entire NHS.
Listen to R4 Today for a week. Count the number of calls for additional expenditure -often gigantic- from the taxpayer. Count the number of challenges made to this mode of thinking (Zero). Count the number of times it is suggested that some aspect of taxpayer expenditure should cease, or go on the shoulders of the individual. (Zero).
Smaller state is culturally impossible at the moment.
It doesn't matter if its culturally impossible....the end of the line for funding things from ever more is already in sight. The end of the line for ever more taxation is already in sight.
When we cant borrow or raise more taxes how you going to fund the ever expanding state? Answer is you are not and the sooner all our politicians start telling the truth about that the more chance we have of it not ending up badly
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The distended state is inimical to that state being run well. It involves a fat bureacracy that believes it should be opining on the issues of the day and telling politicians what to do, insufferable regulation and taxation on the productive part of the economy, and complete dysfunction in the exercise of its duties. It isn't sustainable in the long term - it will crash and burn.
Sympathise. However, if a smaller state generally were culturally possible there is no possibility that we would all assume (and vote for) ever increasing expenditure on the NHS, social care, state pensions, UC, centrally funded housing budgets etc. And note that it is the big ticket items, which take up most state expenditure, which are sacrosanct.
I agree. We spend too much on NHS and pensions and I think that's the increasing expense of everything else.
I don't see anyone who has any real answers to that.
A truly small state would be spending maybe 100-200 billion less than we do. Try working out where this would fall and get you elected. 200 billion is the entire NHS.
Listen to R4 Today for a week. Count the number of calls for additional expenditure -often gigantic- from the taxpayer. Count the number of challenges made to this mode of thinking (Zero). Count the number of times it is suggested that some aspect of taxpayer expenditure should cease, or go on the shoulders of the individual. (Zero).
Smaller state is culturally impossible at the moment.
It doesn't matter if its culturally impossible....the end of the line for funding things from ever more is already in sight. The end of the line for ever more taxation is already in sight.
When we cant borrow or raise more taxes how you going to fund the ever expanding state? Answer is you are not and the sooner all our politicians start telling the truth about that the more chance we have of it not ending up badly
Absolutely. So, how much off the NHS budget; how much do you reduce the state pension; and how do you win elections. All politicians pretend you can do this by tinkering at the edges. You can't. The big spends are the basics. Can you make it add up to, say, £200bn - about 20% of state managed expenditure.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Events. Unlike Truss, Sunak tries to live in the real world. If he had the opportunity he would prefer a small state, low regulation, government to an extent the likes of Clarke and Heseltine would disagree with.
Unless there is a plan for this, with dates, figures, percentages and spreadsheets, I think this should be filed under Speculative Metaphysics.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
The distended state is inimical to that state being run well. It involves a fat bureacracy that believes it should be opining on the issues of the day and telling politicians what to do, insufferable regulation and taxation on the productive part of the economy, and complete dysfunction in the exercise of its duties. It isn't sustainable in the long term - it will crash and burn.
Sympathise. However, if a smaller state generally were culturally possible there is no possibility that we would all assume (and vote for) ever increasing expenditure on the NHS, social care, state pensions, UC, centrally funded housing budgets etc. And note that it is the big ticket items, which take up most state expenditure, which are sacrosanct.
I agree. We spend too much on NHS and pensions and I think that's the increasing expense of everything else.
I don't see anyone who has any real answers to that.
A truly small state would be spending maybe 100-200 billion less than we do. Try working out where this would fall and get you elected. 200 billion is the entire NHS.
Listen to R4 Today for a week. Count the number of calls for additional expenditure -often gigantic- from the taxpayer. Count the number of challenges made to this mode of thinking (Zero). Count the number of times it is suggested that some aspect of taxpayer expenditure should cease, or go on the shoulders of the individual. (Zero).
Smaller state is culturally impossible at the moment.
It doesn't matter if its culturally impossible....the end of the line for funding things from ever more is already in sight. The end of the line for ever more taxation is already in sight.
When we cant borrow or raise more taxes how you going to fund the ever expanding state? Answer is you are not and the sooner all our politicians start telling the truth about that the more chance we have of it not ending up badly
Absolutely. So, how much off the NHS budget; how much do you reduce the state pension; and how do you win elections. All politicians pretend you can do this by tinkering at the edges. You can't. The big spends are the basics. Can you make it add up to, say, £200bn - about 20% of state managed expenditure.
Which is why I have suggested in the past we do several things
1) set out what the state spends money on and how much it would cost to properly fund, then say this is how much we can raise in taxation....prioritise what you want fully fund then drop the rest
2) Lifetime healthcare budget with excess covered by insurance
3) Clawing back of state pension at a rate of 1£ for every 5£ of private pension over say 5K
That is for a start. As you said everyone is up in horror at all of those but we cannot as a country go on like this and its not just a uk issue it is an issue for all social democracies some are closer to hitting the buffer than others but all are heading that way.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
If you think One Nation Toryism is what you're going to get by voting Labour then I have a bridge to sell you.
No one thinks that. But neither are they "comfortable" with the thought of yet another Tory government.
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
If you think One Nation Toryism is what you're going to get by voting Labour then I have a bridge to sell you.
No one thinks that. But neither are they "comfortable" with the thought of yet another Tory government.
I don't think there is much call for "One Nation Toryism" nowadays, with a Tory party that believes that electoral success comes from turning bits of the country against each other in fraudulent "Culture Wars".
What's extraordinary to my mind is that Sunak has stuck his neck out for Nadhim Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Suella Braverman and Dominic Raab.
I mean - seriously?
You could understand Lloyd George going in to bat for Churchill and Birkenhead, who may have been arrogant and unbalanced racists but were at least brilliant in their own fields of journalism and law. Or Aberdeen trying to retain Palmerston and Russell, who may have been selfish twits but at least understood foreign affairs and domestic needs. Or Portland over Canning and Castlereagh. Or even Macmillan over Profumo. If all these people had shortcomings (to put it mildly) they at least had talent as well.
But - those four? I wouldn't fight to retain them as manager of a Costa DriveThru.
Sunak is a curious mixture of sensible decent One Nation Tory and hostage. Whether he feels to be held hostage by MPs, ministers, members or voters is unclear. But he needs a break from trying to run a country on One Nation and Hostage lines simultaneously.
I shall do him a favour by voting Labour.
He presents well, is bright and comes across as reasonable and well meaning, which is an unusual mix for someone on the right of the Tory party, but that is where he is from. Small state, distrustful of govt and hard Brexiteer, he is no One Nation Tory.
The evidence for 'Small State' Toryism is not obvious, and hasn't been for some time. On the whole Small State Toryism is not about borrowing trillions to pay for vast public expenditure as it rises out of control.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
Right, so let's vote for a Labour PM who will massively ramp up taxes and borrowing on top to make the State even bigger then?
Got it.
All fully costed and no extra taxes on ordinary taxpayers. It’s all non doms and windfall taxes, according to labour spokespersons.
Comments
I took tomorrow as annual leave so I could watch the final ever episode of Picard early.
Except tomorrow is Eid and mother insists I go to the mosque tomorrow and she’s going to throw a party for her friends tomorrow as well.
Please let there be a bank run in the next 12 hours.
Whatever happened to that Small State Truss lady? As I recall she was planning to cut taxes but not expenditure. Did it turn out well?
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1649094537380524038?t=wrNRnAE_SUlvA_PelM7tww&s=19
The Waitrose £8.99 Spanish (doh.. Italian) red I recommended the other day is even cheaper..
I keep getting my countries mixed up!
I hope I'm going to France on Saturday..
But.
There's stuff that isn't in the Ministerial Code, because good people don't need to be told not to bully underlings.
Like responding to "Don't Walk On The Grass" signs by hopping, things can be wrong without being codified.
Unless you haven't grown up from being a schoolboy.
And easily meets into TSE's buying stuff to show you have money criteria - because they are so blatant everyone knows you've spent a fortune on them.
FWIW I think there is a notional case for a smaller state, but that would now require a cultural shift of unimaginable proportions. What we are in for is a significantly larger state. The real choice being between a large state run well, and one run badly.
It is time to fly away away away
https://www.mise.gov.it/it/
It's possible that cheaper noise-cancelling headphones could do that too, but sadly bluetooth is a dark art, and the Airpods connect straight away every time, and are nicely integrated into iOS.
Sadly, the pressure of over-the-ear headphones tends to make my glasses hurt my ears, so Airpods Max are out.
Has Apple borked it to trick you into paying (I can barely believe this) £250 for a pair of earphones?
I boy stuff because it the best thing that
works.
If I wanted to flaunt my wealth I’d never take off my Breitling watch or Prada footwear.
https://www.soundguys.com/why-is-bluetooth-unreliable-55016/
And yes, I'm well aware that Apple's gross margin is about 40%. But this is why people are willing to pay it.
They are great headphones, but they are also far too heavy and they don't come with any kind of carrying case.
If you travel a lot (and you want over ear headphones), you are better off sticking with the Sony's.
If you're sitting at your desk, and don't mind the extra weight, then the Airpods Max might be for you.
Being honest it's probably personal preference - the Bose ones have a very "Bose" sound, Sony seem bass heavy but the Apple ones are allowing me to pick up bits in songs that I've previously only heard if I'm playing music on my hi-fi system.
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2023/04/20/twitter-has-started-attaching-dishonesty-warnings-to-keir-starmer-labours-tweets/
The right one for you depends on your use case: I think the Bose have by far the best microphones, and you will sound intelligible even in a busy restaurant. On the other hand, they don't fold up small, which means you're going to be using up a chunk of your hand luggage if you're traveling.
Of course, if I'm not working and listening to audio on my phone I use actual headphones through the actual headphone jack.
But I can't find the bloody log files.
You probably wouldn't want two though.
Got it.
I don't see anyone who has any real answers to that.
I want Lab/LD out of these. I have one vote in a Con/Lab seat. Which do you?
Listen to R4 Today for a week. Count the number of calls for additional expenditure -often gigantic- from the taxpayer. Count the number of challenges made to this mode of thinking (Zero). Count the number of times it is suggested that some aspect of taxpayer expenditure should cease, or go on the shoulders of the individual. (Zero).
Smaller state is culturally impossible at the moment.
Sadly, the Tories policies have put is in the slow lane for growth, so grim austerity it is, even if that too impinges on growth.
I am very comfortable voting for him.
When we cant borrow or raise more taxes how you going to fund the ever expanding state? Answer is you are not and the sooner all our politicians start telling the truth about that the more chance we have of it not ending up badly
You should be spending all day at the Mosque, without your mother having to prompt you.
1) set out what the state spends money on and how much it would cost to properly fund, then say this is how much we can raise in taxation....prioritise what you want fully fund then drop the rest
2) Lifetime healthcare budget with excess covered by insurance
3) Clawing back of state pension at a rate of 1£ for every 5£ of private pension over say 5K
That is for a start. As you said everyone is up in horror at all of those but we cannot as a country go on like this and its not just a uk issue it is an issue for all social democracies some are closer to hitting the buffer than others but all are heading that way.
But neither are they "comfortable" with the thought of yet another Tory government.
Erdogan offers free Black Sea gas to residential areas days before the May 14 vote
• Locally produced gas consumed in residential areas would be free of charge for a month to celebrate the occassion, saving 625 lira ($32.2) for each household
https://mobile.twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1649120275345096705