It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I actually agree with @HYUFD as I think Starmer will struggle against him
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this. Sunak wasn't able to persuade his party to ignore the Siren Call of Truss last summer, which is one reason they're in the mess they are now (OK, I admit that LG probably doesn't agree with that bit).
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I think there is a 20% chance that Sunak will be PM after the next election. The big issue is that the swing voters are accepting of Sunak but not of the Tory party. So it depends which prevails. This partly depends on labour of course. The several million Tory votes he needs can be put off by a leader (Jezza perhaps) and also by the party (the twenty or so MPs who can lose it for Labour by being the people they are).
Sunak can't deliver the party. They are just tainted. SKS intends to deliver leader+ party to the disaffected Tory voters. If he does I think he will be next PM.
Scotland (barring a Tory miracle) makes little difference to next PM. There has to be one. The SNP will not enable a Tory PM. By default it will enable a Labour one.
Up from 10%, heading to 30%.....
I haven't voted Tory in the last two GEs. I like Sunak and will vote Tory at the next one because I am fearful of a Labour Majority even though I quite like Starmer. Whether I am representative of other Tory "returners" I am not sure.
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I actually agree with @HYUFD as I think Starmer will struggle against him
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this. Sunak wasn't able to persuade his party to ignore the Siren Call of Truss last summer, which is one reason they're in the mess they are now (OK, I admit that LG probably doesn't agree with that bit).
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
The difference is Sunak is optimistic and positive. whereas Starmer is all negative and doom and gloom and wholly uninspiring
I saw a good article on Covid origins this morning and it was actually in the Spectator (it had been recommended on my Google feed). It was one where they ignored the “Lab Leak!” stuff and actually homed in on the real concerns.
Which are China’s ongoing secrecy about their failure to act on live-animal markets (which were highlighted years ago as by far the biggest risk for zoonotic spillovers of viruses in general and coronaviruses in particular), and the way that the international community tiptoes around that.
China have been desperately trying to “prove” that covid came from outside of China and just happened to super-spread out from the Huanan Seafood market, brought in by a foreigner who happened to come to a fish market where there were no live animals for sale, nope, we’ve stopped that, it doesn’t happen any more, honest.
Which is why they deleted the samples taken from the market and hid any evidence about it. Coronaviruses in bats are mutating and evolving faster than ever due to them being pushed out of their historic habitats and mingling more.
People who live in the backwoods area near them get thousands of spillovers per year, with as many as 12% of them found with SARS-like antibodies between 2017-2019 due to previous spillovers that never got past them and superspread out.
And ferrying in animals who live near them and happen to provide the perfect intermediary route to allow these viruses the opportunity to mutate into a state where they can readily spillover into humans and selling them in busy live-animal markets, exposing tens of thousands of people for prolonged period to allow multiple spillovers in super-spreading conditions provide the dry tinder to allow one of those tens of thousands of sparks to catch fire into a new pandemic.
Why do they tiptoe around it? Is it fear of China’s authoritarian rulers and their reaction? Is it concern over criticizing a cultural practice? China know they need to stop these live-animal markets. We WILL have another pandemic. SARS-CoV-3. SARS-CoV-4. God knows when, but we’re getting more spillovers every year and faster mutation in the bat sources, so unless this gets stopped, it won’t be a very long time.
That’s the real story. That’s the true fear. Hats off to the Speccie for actually bringing it out.
I love how the Starmer haters think an eminent KC and former DPP is scared of debates, particularly against someone who lost to Liz Truss in the debates.
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Er...I think your statement here is wrong. A Green card is IIRC a permanent residence entitlement that *allows* the holder to apply for citizenship but does not demand it. Many people I have known have had Green cards so that they could work unhindered in US for as long as they wanted and then returned home.
The reality is that Sunak is a successful person. Labour followers generally hate successful people. They think we should all be mediocre, work in the public sector, go to work on a bus and send our children to the local school however shit it is (unless you are Diane Abbott).
These attacks on Sunak smell very strongly of the politics of envy, which is why many of us fear a Labour government and it's love of dumbing down.
I love how the Starmer haters think an eminent KC and former DPP is scared of debates, particularly against someone who lost to Liz Truss in the debates.
Comedy gold.
I assume you're inaccurately talking about me here.
Note I didn't say Sir Keir would be scared of debates - just that risking them (and they are always a risk - in his case, as "an eminent KC and former DPP" he'll be expected to wipe the floor with his opponents so he won't have anything to gain from them) would be out of character with the way he's conducted himself as LOTO thus far.
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I actually agree with @HYUFD as I think Starmer will struggle against him
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this. Sunak wasn't able to persuade his party to ignore the Siren Call of Truss last summer, which is one reason they're in the mess they are now (OK, I admit that LG probably doesn't agree with that bit).
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
The difference is Sunak is optimistic and positive. whereas Starmer is all negative and doom and gloom and wholly uninspiring
And that's the million dollar question.
By next autumn, life for Mr, Mrs, Mx, Dr etc Average will either be noticeably better or it won't.
If it is, then game on, sure. The recent improvement in Conservative standing started when Sunak had a run of policy wins- Windsor, nurses' pay, new boats plan.
If not, and some of the wins are already unraveling, then Sunak's sunny optimism is just going to annoy people.
Just having my first proper stop of the day. I’ve done just over 12 miles so far and have arrived in a beautiful town called Combourg. There’s a lovely Château here, but this is the best view I can get without paying to get in (the statue is of Chateaubriand). The other side of me is a lake
I’m rather enjoying my second beer of the day; the first lasted less than a minute - I hadn’t had a drink of anything since a coffee before leaving Dol this morning
The weather’s been unexpectedly good so far, but I don’t think it’ll last. It’s definitely getting darker and chillier; there could be rain soon..
Just having my first proper stop of the day. I’ve done just over 12 miles so far and have arrived in a beautiful town called Combourg. There’s a lovely Château here, but this is the best view I can get without paying to get in (the statue is of Chateaubriand). The other side of me is a lake
I’m rather enjoying my second beer of the day; the first lasted less than a minute - I hadn’t had a drink of anything since a coffee before leaving Dol this morning
The weather’s been unexpectedly good so far, but I don’t think it’ll last. It’s definitely getting darker and chillier; there could be rain soon..
But on to Tinténiac!
I like the statue dedicated to the Phantom Raspberry Blower of Old London Town
I love how the Starmer haters think an eminent KC and former DPP is scared of debates, particularly against someone who lost to Liz Truss in the debates.
Comedy gold.
I would just comment I for one do not hate Starmer, but many would question just how eminent he is as a KC and former DPP, who had a far from stellar reputation in that role
Of course he is not scared of debates, just Sunak will be a genuine adversary in them
Just having my first proper stop of the day. I’ve done just over 12 miles so far and have arrived in a beautiful town called Combourg. There’s a lovely Château here, but this is the best view I can get without paying to get in (the statue is of Chateaubriand). The other side of me is a lake
I’m rather enjoying my second beer of the day; the first lasted less than a minute - I hadn’t had a drink of anything since a coffee before leaving Dol this morning
The weather’s been unexpectedly good so far, but I don’t think it’ll last. It’s definitely getting darker and chillier; there could be rain soon..
But on to Tinténiac!
I like the statue dedicated to the Phantom Raspberry Blower of Old London Town
"The more tory seats are lost to others, the fewer gains Labour need for a majority.
Wrong.
People don't seem to realise that the majority is "over all other parties" and is therefore exactly the same number of seats, regardless of where they get them.
However, it *is* true to say that if they get, say, 20 seats off the SNP they need to win 20 fewer seats off the Tories to get to that majority.
I love how the Starmer haters think an eminent KC and former DPP is scared of debates, particularly against someone who lost to Liz Truss in the debates.
Comedy gold.
I assume you're inaccurately talking about me here.
Note I didn't say Sir Keir would be scared of debates - just that risking them (and they are always a risk - in his case, as "an eminent KC and former DPP" he'll be expected to wipe the floor with his opponents so he won't have anything to gain from them) would be out of character with the way he's conducted himself as LOTO thus far.
I tend to agree with you even though I quite like Starmer. The idea that because someone is a QC/KC they are automatically going to be good in political debate doesn't necessarily follow. Being able to build a good case as DPP through team leadership against criminals is quite different to political argument. Also, the idea that Sunak "lost" debates to Truss is not necessarily true. The Tory selectorate had already made up their mind who was going to win before any debate took place.
"The more tory seats are lost to others, the fewer gains Labour need for a majority.
Wrong.
People don't seem to realise that the majority is "over all other parties" and is therefore exactly the same number of seats, regardless of where they get them.
However, it *is* true to say that if they get, say, 20 seats off the SNP they need to win 20 fewer seats off the Tories to get to that majority.
One thing I would observe, though, is that in the 60s election coverage repeats, you frequently see them talking about "majority" as a shorthand for "labour majority over the tories" (or vice-versa), and quoting that number in captions etc. *Not* the number for an absolute majority.
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I actually agree with @HYUFD as I think Starmer will struggle against him
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this. Sunak wasn't able to persuade his party to ignore the Siren Call of Truss last summer, which is one reason they're in the mess they are now (OK, I admit that LG probably doesn't agree with that bit).
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
The difference is Sunak is optimistic and positive. whereas Starmer is all negative and doom and gloom and wholly uninspiring
And that's the million dollar question.
By next autumn, life for Mr, Mrs, Mx, Dr etc Average will either be noticeably better or it won't.
If it is, then game on, sure. The recent improvement in Conservative standing started when Sunak had a run of policy wins- Windsor, nurses' pay, new boats plan.
If not, and some of the wins are already unraveling, then Sunak's sunny optimism is just going to annoy people.
Surely the first part of a come back from 20% behind is just low hanging fruit - mid term don’t knows, shy Tories - Labour were never going to get 50% in an election! so there was always some low hanging fruit to pick at some point in the pollsters methodologies.
I am not sure if how they have handled NHS strikes is a huge success to be honest, not enough proper negotiation quickly enough is how it will rightly be remembered. Over promising on Boats, is certainly looking like a mistake now, Sunak already trying to row back on delivering before next election, no pun intended. And even what you call Windsor, before any deal there was chance the deal restores the assembly, but the EU friendly deal makes that certain not to happen, so creates a big issue of its own to solve now.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
It’s also these things take time to plan and execute. Remember that case in Libya - everyone was critical of Cameron until it turned out that while the government was “publicly prevaricating” the SAS was already in field executing on a mission to rescue the trapped oil workers
William Hague got massive criticism day in day out, Kay Burley in particular was going mental, but when it was all over & it was revealed he had been on the case weeks before the media knew there was a problem...did he get credit or even an apology from the media that perhaps they got it wrong & caused lots of unnecessary stress....did they bollocks.
Just having my first proper stop of the day. I’ve done just over 12 miles so far and have arrived in a beautiful town called Combourg. There’s a lovely Château here, but this is the best view I can get without paying to get in (the statue is of Chateaubriand). The other side of me is a lake
I’m rather enjoying my second beer of the day; the first lasted less than a minute - I hadn’t had a drink of anything since a coffee before leaving Dol this morning
The weather’s been unexpectedly good so far, but I don’t think it’ll last. It’s definitely getting darker and chillier; there could be rain soon..
But on to Tinténiac!
I like the statue dedicated to the Phantom Raspberry Blower of Old London Town
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I actually agree with @HYUFD as I think Starmer will struggle against him
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this. Sunak wasn't able to persuade his party to ignore the Siren Call of Truss last summer, which is one reason they're in the mess they are now (OK, I admit that LG probably doesn't agree with that bit).
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
The difference is Sunak is optimistic and positive. whereas Starmer is all negative and doom and gloom and wholly uninspiring
And that's the million dollar question.
By next autumn, life for Mr, Mrs, Mx, Dr etc Average will either be noticeably better or it won't.
If it is, then game on, sure. The recent improvement in Conservative standing started when Sunak had a run of policy wins- Windsor, nurses' pay, new boats plan.
If not, and some of the wins are already unraveling, then Sunak's sunny optimism is just going to annoy people.
Surely the first part of a come back from 20% behind is just low hanging fruit - mid term don’t knows, shy Tories - Labour were never going to get 50% in an election! so there was always some low hanging fruit to pick at some point in the pollsters methodologies.
I am not sure if how they have handled NHS strikes is a huge success to be honest, not enough proper negotiation quickly enough is how it will rightly be remembered. Over promising on Boats, is certainly looking like a mistake now, Sunak already trying to row back on delivering before next election, no pun intended. And even what you call Windsor, before any deal there was chance the deal restores the assembly, but the EU friendly deal makes that certain not to happen, so creates a big issue of its own to solve now.
Mostly agree, but the government very nearly got away with it with public sector pay, in the sense of stopping the strikes at relatively low cost. But now it's looking like things are getting worse (headteachers are set to ballot), and that's going to be hard to hide.
And both boat stopping and the Eurodeal had quite a high sizzle to sausage ratio. That's good for short term polls, but it's going to be hard to sustain until Autum '24.
Another recollection of the Libya evacuation, was people phoning in / skyping into Sky News, saying we are in the "towns" that support the oil fields, we are all alone, anybody could come and get us, nobody is telling us anything.....
And while they were doing that, the SAS units were sitting outside in the desert, neutralising anybody who went anywhere near these outposts.
I love how the Starmer haters think an eminent KC and former DPP is scared of debates, particularly against someone who lost to Liz Truss in the debates.
Comedy gold.
I assume you're inaccurately talking about me here.
Note I didn't say Sir Keir would be scared of debates - just that risking them (and they are always a risk - in his case, as "an eminent KC and former DPP" he'll be expected to wipe the floor with his opponents so he won't have anything to gain from them) would be out of character with the way he's conducted himself as LOTO thus far.
I tend to agree with you even though I quite like Starmer. The idea that because someone is a QC/KC they are automatically going to be good in political debate doesn't necessarily follow. Being able to build a good case as DPP through team leadership against criminals is quite different to political argument. Also, the idea that Sunak "lost" debates to Truss is not necessarily true. The Tory selectorate had already made up their mind who was going to win before any debate took place.
KC’s don’t “debate” - they ask questions (if they’re any good) they already know the answers to. Starmer has not developed great fleetness of foot at PMQs which he might have grown into but hasn’t. Mind you I’m not sure Sunak’s that great a debater either - he’s a much better presenter of an argument - but again the fleetness of foot is middling at best.
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
I have a strange feeling that this whole everyone is going to have an electric car idea is not going to happen. We should be seeing electric chargers being installed everywhere on a mass scale now and it is simply not happening.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
"The more tory seats are lost to others, the fewer gains Labour need for a majority.
Wrong.
People don't seem to realise that the majority is "over all other parties" and is therefore exactly the same number of seats, regardless of where they get them.
However, it *is* true to say that if they get, say, 20 seats off the SNP they need to win 20 fewer seats off the Tories to get to that majority.
One thing I would observe, though, is that in the 60s election coverage repeats, you frequently see them talking about "majority" as a shorthand for "labour majority over the tories" (or vice-versa), and quoting that number in captions etc. *Not* the number for an absolute majority.
Well with 5 or so (at worst) and 10 at an absolute maximum for the (then) Liberals and Ulster Unionists effectively part of the Conservatives that was reasonable shorthand!
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I actually agree with @HYUFD as I think Starmer will struggle against him
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this. Sunak wasn't able to persuade his party to ignore the Siren Call of Truss last summer, which is one reason they're in the mess they are now (OK, I admit that LG probably doesn't agree with that bit).
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
The difference is Sunak is optimistic and positive. whereas Starmer is all negative and doom and gloom and wholly uninspiring
And that's the million dollar question.
By next autumn, life for Mr, Mrs, Mx, Dr etc Average will either be noticeably better or it won't.
If it is, then game on, sure. The recent improvement in Conservative standing started when Sunak had a run of policy wins- Windsor, nurses' pay, new boats plan.
If not, and some of the wins are already unraveling, then Sunak's sunny optimism is just going to annoy people.
Surely the first part of a come back from 20% behind is just low hanging fruit - mid term don’t knows, shy Tories - Labour were never going to get 50% in an election! so there was always some low hanging fruit to pick at some point in the pollsters methodologies.
I am not sure if how they have handled NHS strikes is a huge success to be honest, not enough proper negotiation quickly enough is how it will rightly be remembered. Over promising on Boats, is certainly looking like a mistake now, Sunak already trying to row back on delivering before next election, no pun intended. And even what you call Windsor, before any deal there was chance the deal restores the assembly, but the EU friendly deal makes that certain not to happen, so creates a big issue of its own to solve now.
Mostly agree, but the government very nearly got away with it with public sector pay, in the sense of stopping the strikes at relatively low cost. But now it's looking like things are getting worse (headteachers are set to ballot), and that's going to be hard to hide.
And both boat stopping and the Eurodeal had quite a high sizzle to sausage ratio. That's good for short term polls, but it's going to be hard to sustain until Autum '24.
I would agree with you about big policy announcements for short term popularity, that having raised expectations is big slap in face later if you don’t deliver - experienced Tories did publicly say this the very moment Sunak made his Big Boats Boast. The main problem on boats they need to focus on is not the actual crossing, but improve the dire record on processing, creating big backlogs and expensively renting hotels, barges, out of mothballed hotels, to house the massive backlog? It’s not the crossings, the problem is the processing.
Completely disagree with you on strikes though. I would have been round the table earlier. Even if negotiations took a while or needed a-cas, I would still have been seen at table and solving asap. If there was any benefit in delaying the deal it’s surely not as big as the backlog problem it was making on waiting list.
I am beginning to think Number 10s whole strategy was to shore Sunak up from a bad locals result. It looks like it worked, only about 500 losses now not a thousand, thanks to closing the polls in April. But at what cost having to deliver in months ahead on expectations raised?
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
I have a strange feeling that this whole everyone is going to have an electric car idea is not going to happen. We should be seeing electric chargers being installed everywhere on a mass scale now and it is simply not happening.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
Perhaps synthetic fuels are the future
I fear the outcome will be that a lot of people won't be able to afford an electric car, so it won't matter if there aren't many chargers.
The lack of urgency may be that everyone is expecting better and/or standardised charging technology to come along so making a big investment now might be a waste of time.
Are commercial vehicles going to be exempt from the electric mandate? I see a big future in diesel Transits.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Er...I think your statement here is wrong. A Green card is IIRC a permanent residence entitlement that *allows* the holder to apply for citizenship but does not demand it. Many people I have known have had Green cards so that they could work unhindered in US for as long as they wanted and then returned home.
The reality is that Sunak is a successful person. Labour followers generally hate successful people. They think we should all be mediocre, work in the public sector, go to work on a bus and send our children to the local school however shit it is (unless you are Diane Abbott).
These attacks on Sunak smell very strongly of the politics of envy, which is why many of us fear a Labour government and it's love of dumbing down.
If you think you've experienced the politics of envy you should try being a well off Labour supporter on here.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I actually agree with @HYUFD as I think Starmer will struggle against him
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this. Sunak wasn't able to persuade his party to ignore the Siren Call of Truss last summer, which is one reason they're in the mess they are now (OK, I admit that LG probably doesn't agree with that bit).
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
The difference is Sunak is optimistic and positive. whereas Starmer is all negative and doom and gloom and wholly uninspiring
Sunak certainly grins more than Starmer. But is that really a plus?
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
I love how the Starmer haters think an eminent KC and former DPP is scared of debates, particularly against someone who lost to Liz Truss in the debates.
Comedy gold.
Although Starmer doesn't seem to understand how Johnsonian and post- Johnsonian political discourse works.
Starmer seems bogged down in facts and statistics whereas what Johnny Voter really wants is some top drawer name calling. And it is true Sunak hasn't honed his act to perfection yet, nonetheless "Sir Softie" demonstrates it is a decent work in progress.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Why is it hypocrtitical? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were opposed to non-dom status, he would abolish it.
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I think there is a 20% chance that Sunak will be PM after the next election. The big issue is that the swing voters are accepting of Sunak but not of the Tory party. So it depends which prevails. This partly depends on labour of course. The several million Tory votes he needs can be put off by a leader (Jezza perhaps) and also by the party (the twenty or so MPs who can lose it for Labour by being the people they are).
Sunak can't deliver the party. They are just tainted. SKS intends to deliver leader+ party to the disaffected Tory voters. If he does I think he will be next PM.
Scotland (barring a Tory miracle) makes little difference to next PM. There has to be one. The SNP will not enable a Tory PM. By default it will enable a Labour one.
Up from 10%, heading to 30%.....
I haven't voted Tory in the last two GEs. I like Sunak and will vote Tory at the next one because I am fearful of a Labour Majority even though I quite like Starmer. Whether I am representative of other Tory "returners" I am not sure.
How was your brief stay at the Right Side Of History motel?
It was nice having you. Perhaps see you again one day.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Maybe in future you should accept she is not a non dom
"But in terms of getting to a majority LAB has to be taking Tory seats"
Not entirely true. The LibDems are going to take 10+ seats from the tories, possibly 20.
The more tory seats are lost to others, the fewer gains Labour need for a majority.
And, of course, the more SNP seats go to Labour (20+ now possible), the more likely their outright majority as opposed to a coalition.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but while I'm sure the libdems will have their best election since 2010, and will make numerous gains from the Conservatives, 20+ is really pushing it.
They aren't polling any higher than 2019 (when they got 11 seats), and while I'm sure there will be more tactical voting, and that the Conservative vote share will be down, 20 gains is extremely tough:
To put it in context, number 20 on the libdem "target Tory seats" is Harrogate and Knaresborough, where they are 10,000 votes and almost 20% behind.
I can see the libdems grabbing maybe a dozen Conservative seats (but more likely 8-10), regaining Dunbartonshire East, and maybe holding one or two of their by-election victories. Which gets them to about 22-23 seats, and maybe closer to 26/27 on a *really* good day.
But I struggle to see them doing any better.
(And my record on calling libdem seat numbers is pretty good.)
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Why is it hypocrtitical? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were opposed to non-dom status, he would abolish it.
I'm sure he had good reason to be all in favour of it. Meanwhile the party of low taxation and aspiration engages in ever more stealth tax rises on middle income earners...
I suppose it solves the dilemma of how they’re going to find a barely adequate escort group for a second carrier. Sounds pretty bleak for the PoW; if they don’t have a functioning supply chain for the operational carrier, how long is the PoW going to be laid up?
Think of the immigrants they could get in there TUD
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I actually agree with @HYUFD as I think Starmer will struggle against him
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this. Sunak wasn't able to persuade his party to ignore the Siren Call of Truss last summer, which is one reason they're in the mess they are now (OK, I admit that LG probably doesn't agree with that bit).
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
The difference is Sunak is optimistic and positive. whereas Starmer is all negative and doom and gloom and wholly uninspiring
Sunak certainly grins more than Starmer. But is that really a plus?
Perhaps that's what is going to solve our biggest challenges as we look to find our place in this rapidly changing world. Grinning.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Maybe in future you should accept she is not a non dom
I accept she was a non dom for as long as she could get away with it, while the rest of us just get on with it and pay our taxes.
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
I have a strange feeling that this whole everyone is going to have an electric car idea is not going to happen. We should be seeing electric chargers being installed everywhere on a mass scale now and it is simply not happening.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
Perhaps synthetic fuels are the future
I am pretty certain that you're wrong. Let's see which of us is correct in five years' time.
"But in terms of getting to a majority LAB has to be taking Tory seats"
Not entirely true. The LibDems are going to take 10+ seats from the tories, possibly 20.
The more tory seats are lost to others, the fewer gains Labour need for a majority.
And, of course, the more SNP seats go to Labour (20+ now possible), the more likely their outright majority as opposed to a coalition.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but while I'm sure the libdems will have their best election since 2010, and will make numerous gains from the Conservatives, 20+ is really pushing it.
They aren't polling any higher than 2019 (when they got 11 seats), and while I'm sure there will be more tactical voting, and that the Conservative vote share will be down, 20 gains is extremely tough:
To put it in context, number 20 on the libdem "target Tory seats" is Harrogate and Knaresborough, where they are 10,000 votes and almost 20% behind.
I can see the libdems grabbing maybe a dozen Conservative seats (but more likely 8-10), regaining Dunbartonshire East, and maybe holding one or two of their by-election victories. Which gets them to about 22-23 seats, and maybe closer to 26/27 on a *really* good day.
But I struggle to see them doing any better.
(And my record on calling libdem seat numbers is pretty good.)
Part of the problem in assessing likely L,D seats/gains is that their support is very varied across the countries. For example, I don’t see them recovering much if at all in Wales, whereas they may well do well in the South of England.
It seems to me that the people who would always vote Tory anyway think Sunak is good.
But is there anyone who has swapped from Labour back to Tory because of him? Anyone?
Well there must be a lot of people if the opinion polls are right, because under Truss they were showing something like 50% to 20%, whereas now it's roughly 44% to 29%.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship
That's true, but simply having a green card isn't necessarily a sign of wanting to acquire that citizenship.
Phew:
As a Brit in America, I'm not sure I agree.
If you take a Green card you open yourself to a significantly more onerous taxation regime going forward, including (and this is the big kicker) capital gains taxes on all unrealized gains if you give it up.
I wouldn't recommend a Green Card to anyone who wasn't planning on becoming an American citizen.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Maybe in future you should accept she is not a non dom
I am not sure this is a winning defence for Sunak BigG. "My wife was a non-dom whilst I was HMCotE, thus saving us as a family a considerable amount of tax payable to HMRC, until it was political advantageous to me, for her to relinquish her non-dom status and pay some tax". "By the way I (Sunak) also relinquished my US Green Card when it was expedient so to do, because if I hadn't become PM I was quite prepared to leave you all in your post- Brexit mayhem and relocate to the OC and make my Brexit-free squillions."
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Maybe in future you should accept she is not a non dom
I accept she was a non dom for as long as she could get away with it, while the rest of us just get on with it and pay our taxes.
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
I have a strange feeling that this whole everyone is going to have an electric car idea is not going to happen. We should be seeing electric chargers being installed everywhere on a mass scale now and it is simply not happening.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
Perhaps synthetic fuels are the future
I am pretty certain that you're wrong. Let's see which of us is correct in five years' time.
I agree Im likely to be, I am just astonished at the lack of urgency to upgrade the electricity network and install EV chargers, I work for an electrical contractor and EV chargers are not being included on electric upgrades to Local Authority Buildings etc.We have installed a total of 9 EV chargers in the past 5 years.
When LED lights came out that was all we did, change flourescents for LEDs, nobody seems interested in EV chargers.
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I actually agree with @HYUFD as I think Starmer will struggle against him
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this. Sunak wasn't able to persuade his party to ignore the Siren Call of Truss last summer, which is one reason they're in the mess they are now (OK, I admit that LG probably doesn't agree with that bit).
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
The difference is Sunak is optimistic and positive. whereas Starmer is all negative and doom and gloom and wholly uninspiring
And that's the million dollar question.
By next autumn, life for Mr, Mrs, Mx, Dr etc Average will either be noticeably better or it won't.
If it is, then game on, sure. The recent improvement in Conservative standing started when Sunak had a run of policy wins- Windsor, nurses' pay, new boats plan.
If not, and some of the wins are already unraveling, then Sunak's sunny optimism is just going to annoy people.
The wins aren't unravelling at all. Windsor was such a comprehensive win, all the PBers telling us the negative elements would come out in time have quickly moved on. On top of this, he added the major success of CPTPP accession.
In terms of dangers, the boats policy was good, but he needs to follow it up with further immigration policy reforms to make sure the actual impact goes through. If I were him, I would replace Braverman with May to have someone who has actually delivered in this area. Then he needs to avoid stupid help the rich policies like inheritance tax reductions.
I love how the Starmer haters think an eminent KC and former DPP is scared of debates, particularly against someone who lost to Liz Truss in the debates.
Comedy gold.
I assume you're inaccurately talking about me here.
Note I didn't say Sir Keir would be scared of debates - just that risking them (and they are always a risk - in his case, as "an eminent KC and former DPP" he'll be expected to wipe the floor with his opponents so he won't have anything to gain from them) would be out of character with the way he's conducted himself as LOTO thus far.
I tend to agree with you even though I quite like Starmer. The idea that because someone is a QC/KC they are automatically going to be good in political debate doesn't necessarily follow. Being able to build a good case as DPP through team leadership against criminals is quite different to political argument. Also, the idea that Sunak "lost" debates to Truss is not necessarily true. The Tory selectorate had already made up their mind who was going to win before any debate took place.
KC’s don’t “debate” - they ask questions (if they’re any good) they already know the answers to. Starmer has not developed great fleetness of foot at PMQs which he might have grown into but hasn’t. Mind you I’m not sure Sunak’s that great a debater either - he’s a much better presenter of an argument - but again the fleetness of foot is middling at best.
It was hoped and forecast that new LotO Michael Howard QC MP would take Blair apart with his forensic questioning. That never happened either.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Maybe in future you should accept she is not a non dom
I am not sure this is a winning defence for Sunak BigG. "My wife was a non-dom whilst I was HMCotE, thus saving us as a family a considerable amount of tax payable to HMRC, until it was political advantageous to me, for her to relinquish her non-dom status and pay some tax". "By the way I (Sunak) also relinquished my US Green Card when it was expedient so to do, because if I hadn't become PM I was quite prepared to leave you all in your post- Brexit mayhem and relocate to the OC and make my Brexit-free squillions."
The non-dom situation is absolutely grounds for attack. But the Green Card attack is an insular xenophobic one. There is zero wrong with having visas to other countries or even second nationalities. The fact Remainers are using it shows what deep hypocrites they are about an internationalist outlook.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
It was in his gift to chuck her out of the PLP, and he did so. It is not in his direct gift to chuck her out of the Labour Party. I have no doubt he will be quite happy to prepare the ground for others (who can) do so.
She has again brought the Labour Party into anti- Semitic disrepute. Raab's misdemeanours are already off the front pages, "Starmer/Labour's anti-Semitism" problem is now top headline on all news bulletins. Sod those poor souls left in Khartoum.
It seems to me that the people who would always vote Tory anyway think Sunak is good.
But is there anyone who has swapped from Labour back to Tory because of him? Anyone?
Well there must be a lot of people if the opinion polls are right, because under Truss they were showing something like 50% to 20%, whereas now it's roughly 44% to 29%.
Not to underestimate the recovery, but I think the general consensus is that it's Tories who were unhappy with Johnson and Truss returning to the fold much more than than switchers from Labour to Conservative, so Dialup is probably right. I'm meeting a fair number of Tories who are comfortable with their allegiance in a way that they weren't a year ago. There is also a large group who say yes, Sunak's not so bad, but they still feel the Tories need a period of opposition so they'll vote Labour. I've not yet met anyone at all who says they were going to vote Labour and are now voting Conservative because of Sunak. He has stopped the increasing damage to the Tory hull but the ship is not yet seaworthy,
His video came right at the start of that period, so it might be slightly early to judge the full reaction to it.
Historic statement from KK, talking openly about his Alevi background, something he’s very rarely done in the past. A huge deal from a major politician, breaking a big taboo and taking ownership of his identity (which Erdoğan tries to throw in is face). https://twitter.com/Nick_Ashdown/status/1648811913243918338
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
I have a strange feeling that this whole everyone is going to have an electric car idea is not going to happen. We should be seeing electric chargers being installed everywhere on a mass scale now and it is simply not happening.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
Perhaps synthetic fuels are the future
Massively lower fuel and maintenance costs. More internal space. Better performance.
When the price of electric cars falls below that of ICE vehicles, then there will be very few purchasers of petrol vehicles.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Maybe in future you should accept she is not a non dom
I am not sure this is a winning defence for Sunak BigG. "My wife was a non-dom whilst I was HMCotE, thus saving us as a family a considerable amount of tax payable to HMRC, until it was political advantageous to me, for her to relinquish her non-dom status and pay some tax". "By the way I (Sunak) also relinquished my US Green Card when it was expedient so to do, because if I hadn't become PM I was quite prepared to leave you all in your post- Brexit mayhem and relocate to the OC and make my Brexit-free squillions."
The non-dom situation is absolutely grounds for attack. But the Green Card attack is an insular xenophobic one. There is zero wrong with having visas to other countries or even second nationalities. The fact Remainers are using it shows what deep hypocrites they are about an internationalist outlook.
A Green Card is not a visa - it is the act of becoming a permanent resident of the United States.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Maybe in future you should accept she is not a non dom
I am not sure this is a winning defence for Sunak BigG. "My wife was a non-dom whilst I was HMCotE, thus saving us as a family a considerable amount of tax payable to HMRC, until it was political advantageous to me, for her to relinquish her non-dom status and pay some tax". "By the way I (Sunak) also relinquished my US Green Card when it was expedient so to do, because if I hadn't become PM I was quite prepared to leave you all in your post- Brexit mayhem and relocate to the OC and make my Brexit-free squillions."
The non-dom situation is absolutely grounds for attack. But the Green Card attack is an insular xenophobic one. There is zero wrong with having visas to other countries or even second nationalities. The fact Remainers are using it shows what deep hypocrites they are about an internationalist outlook.
Whilst one is CotE? What's racist about calling him out? If Hunt had a Green Card to exit and make his post- Chancellor cash in the OC, I would call him out too.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
It was in his gift to chuck her out of the PLP, and he did so. It is not in his direct gift to chuck her out of the Labour Party. I have no doubt he will be quite happy to prepare the ground for others (who can) do so.
She has again brought the Labour Party into anti- Semitic disrepute. Raab's misdemeanours are already off the front pages, "Starmer/Labour's anti-Semitism" problem is now top headline on all news bulletins. Sod those poor souls left in Khartoum.
Abbott's racism has been allowed to continue by various Labour leaders for years. Their weakness in addressing it shows they are not really serious about a consistent anti-racist position.
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
I have a strange feeling that this whole everyone is going to have an electric car idea is not going to happen. We should be seeing electric chargers being installed everywhere on a mass scale now and it is simply not happening.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
Perhaps synthetic fuels are the future
I am pretty certain that you're wrong. Let's see which of us is correct in five years' time.
I agree Im likely to be, I am just astonished at the lack of urgency to upgrade the electricity network and install EV chargers, I work for an electrical contractor and EV chargers are not being included on electric upgrades to Local Authority Buildings etc.We have installed a total of 9 EV chargers in the past 5 years.
When LED lights came out that was all we did, change flourescents for LEDs, nobody seems interested in EV chargers.
You looking at this the wrong way round, I think. What the UK does about EV chargers has little or nothing to do with what cars get manufactured worldwide over the next decade. The major car manufacturers have already decided on their future, are are investing accordingly.
If we don't make provision, it's going to quite awkward for us in due course.
Are commercial vehicles going to be exempt from the electric mandate? I see a big future in diesel Transits.
Euro 7 coming in 2025 will make it very hard (expensive) to homologate diesel engined vehicles. No exemptions for commercial but there are for very low volume manufacturers.
Brake pad dust also counts towards emissions under Euro 7 which further disadvantages ICE vehicles as BEVs have regenerative braking.
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
I have a strange feeling that this whole everyone is going to have an electric car idea is not going to happen. We should be seeing electric chargers being installed everywhere on a mass scale now and it is simply not happening.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
Perhaps synthetic fuels are the future
Massively lower fuel and maintenance costs. More internal space. Better performance.
When the price of electric cars falls below that of ICE vehicles, then there will be very few purchasers of petrol vehicles.
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
I have a strange feeling that this whole everyone is going to have an electric car idea is not going to happen. We should be seeing electric chargers being installed everywhere on a mass scale now and it is simply not happening.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
Perhaps synthetic fuels are the future
One to watch on a couple of fronts. The cheapest EV right now is about double the cheapest petrol car. This matters, and it goes to the heart of an issue that touches non metro non urban voters (like FOM did) in ways the political and media elites know nothing about at all. It's about getting to work, running a one person business and long journeys to see your mum/watch Accrington Stanley play away.
So far the obvious impact of EV where I live is about Zero. I'm not sure whether the political parties have positions that make sense round here yet; or indeed whether such a thing is possible.
In 1997, the Chuckle Brothers won the 'World's Biggest Sheep' contest with their two metre ewe.
Many years ago, my daughter was delighted when she went to get a signed photo after one of their shows, and they played out the trademark gag with her as they handed it over. Nice guys.
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
I have a strange feeling that this whole everyone is going to have an electric car idea is not going to happen. We should be seeing electric chargers being installed everywhere on a mass scale now and it is simply not happening.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
Perhaps synthetic fuels are the future
Massively lower fuel and maintenance costs. More internal space. Better performance.
When the price of electric cars falls below that of ICE vehicles, then there will be very few purchasers of petrol vehicles.
If NerysHughes is right about depreciation, then second-hand electric cars should already be comparable with ICE cars. Perhaps it is not just price.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Maybe in future you should accept she is not a non dom
I am not sure this is a winning defence for Sunak BigG. "My wife was a non-dom whilst I was HMCotE, thus saving us as a family a considerable amount of tax payable to HMRC, until it was political advantageous to me, for her to relinquish her non-dom status and pay some tax". "By the way I (Sunak) also relinquished my US Green Card when it was expedient so to do, because if I hadn't become PM I was quite prepared to leave you all in your post- Brexit mayhem and relocate to the OC and make my Brexit-free squillions."
The non-dom situation is absolutely grounds for attack. But the Green Card attack is an insular xenophobic one. There is zero wrong with having visas to other countries or even second nationalities. The fact Remainers are using it shows what deep hypocrites they are about an internationalist outlook.
Whilst one is CotE? What's racist about calling him out? If Hunt had a Green Card to exit and make his post- Chancellor cash in the OC, I would call him out too.
I never said it was racist, I said it was xenophobic. If politicians have links with lther countries, there is nothing wrong with that. Politicians are completely entitled to go and live with family and friends in America, or Spain, or India, or wherever else if they leave public office. Attacks on it are attacks on ambition and global horizons.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Maybe in future you should accept she is not a non dom
I am not sure this is a winning defence for Sunak BigG. "My wife was a non-dom whilst I was HMCotE, thus saving us as a family a considerable amount of tax payable to HMRC, until it was political advantageous to me, for her to relinquish her non-dom status and pay some tax". "By the way I (Sunak) also relinquished my US Green Card when it was expedient so to do, because if I hadn't become PM I was quite prepared to leave you all in your post- Brexit mayhem and relocate to the OC and make my Brexit-free squillions."
The non-dom situation is absolutely grounds for attack. But the Green Card attack is an insular xenophobic one. There is zero wrong with having visas to other countries or even second nationalities. The fact Remainers are using it shows what deep hypocrites they are about an internationalist outlook.
A Green Card is not a visa - it is the act of becoming a permanent resident of the United States.
Visas or residency or nationality are all fine. We should welcome personal links to other countries, as long as they are not to dictatorial regimes.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
It was in his gift to chuck her out of the PLP, and he did so. It is not in his direct gift to chuck her out of the Labour Party. I have no doubt he will be quite happy to prepare the ground for others (who can) do so.
She has again brought the Labour Party into anti- Semitic disrepute. Raab's misdemeanours are already off the front pages, "Starmer/Labour's anti-Semitism" problem is now top headline on all news bulletins. Sod those poor souls left in Khartoum.
Abbott's racism has been allowed to continue by various Labour leaders for years. Their weakness in addressing it shows they are not really serious about a consistent anti-racist position.
I am not going to defend Abbott as her letter was crass, foolish and offensive. Her Whoopi Goldbergesque views could have been surmised, but now they are in the open action has been taken.
I am always minded of Johnson's carefully crafted words when dog-whistling. To the ill-educated like myself it often looked like blatant racism, to the PB faithful it was always merely satire.
It was only a few days ago that labour officials were 'reacting with glee' to their (rather pathetic) personal attacks on Sunak; I think Sunak is looking a lot slicker and more professional and is so undoing a lot of the harm that arose through Boris Johnson's divisive political style and personal attacks.
I'm a Sunak fan. And he is significantly better as an operator than either of his predecessors. His problem remains delivery. In that he created 5 priorities, insisted they are everyone's priorities when that obviously isn't true, and then screwed up delivery of them.
HY said he would do well in the debates - does being taken apart because you promised stuff you haven't delivered work for late polling surges?
I actually agree with @HYUFD as I think Starmer will struggle against him
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this. Sunak wasn't able to persuade his party to ignore the Siren Call of Truss last summer, which is one reason they're in the mess they are now (OK, I admit that LG probably doesn't agree with that bit).
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
Starmer was a back room lawyer - paperwork and tactics, not a barrister (or even one that spoke much in court). That shows in both the tactical manoeuvres and the lack of flexibility in PMQ.
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/ Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027. 90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production. So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
I have a strange feeling that this whole everyone is going to have an electric car idea is not going to happen. We should be seeing electric chargers being installed everywhere on a mass scale now and it is simply not happening.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
Perhaps synthetic fuels are the future
Massively lower fuel and maintenance costs. More internal space. Better performance.
When the price of electric cars falls below that of ICE vehicles, then there will be very few purchasers of petrol vehicles.
If NerysHughes is right about depreciation, then second-hand electric cars should already be comparable with ICE cars. Perhaps it is not just price.
Three out of the ten slowest depreciating cars in the UK are BEV - Taycan, ID.Buzz and MG4 EV (that last one fucking amazes me)
None out of the ten fastest depreciating cars in are BEV.
The position in these Sudan situations seems always the same, the the UK government politically stuck in the worst possible place.
I doubt if there is a well known general policy about these situations. Every time the government (Mitchell today, someone else under the next government) says that they are working 24/7 to do stuff for UK citizens, the BBC interviews the trapped on shaky connections, who all say the same thing - no-one has been in touch.
Government should be clearer at all times what its limits are. Palmerstonian expectations (sadly) are misplaced. Beyond those in country X for state reasons (forces, diplomats etc) it is hard to see how the duty can arise.
Only NATO or the UN would be big enough bodies to even think about real protection of all foreign nationals in failed states 10 times the size of the UK. I don't think they want the job.
I think these policies ultimately need updating due to migration and global mobility. In the olden days it could be a handful of expats working for large companies and a few other hangers on, now you have thousands of dual citizens and tens of thousands more relatives, families who have some kind of possible claim for assistance. It is a tough situation that it is quite difficult to generalise about, but it is not going to be realistic to apply a general policy of evacuation.
Time to end the idea of dual nationality, would you say?
It will come on to the agenda in the near future, I think. One paradox that I found is that the government want to reduce immigration and asylum seekers but perversely make it quite easy to become a naturalised citizen, it is a few years of law abiding living, form filling, some language tests, and then a pretty hefty fee. I mentioned before that I once had a taxi driver who just boasted about having several different citizenships - In some cases, the concept of citizenship to something that is about private advantage.
When you have a PM who held a US Green Card, meaning that he planned to become a US citizen, and whose wife is a non-dom, meaning that she has no long-term plan to stay in the UK, you can hardly blame a cab driver for similarly seeking some advantage from the system. Or do those kinds of criticisms only apply to the little people?
Clearly people will try and gain some advantage from whatever system is in place, but this means that you have to make policy accordingly. Something like citizenship should necessitate a strong degree of commitment to it. Talking to the taxi driver I was really unimpressed in this respect, but it was a brief encounter and perhaps I am judging him harshly. Obviously though the same criticism could be applied to the very wealthy, for instance those that promote 'passport collecting' as a way to a avoid tax.
Sunak and his wife have spent a decade in public service, when they could have done far more profitable things, so his commitment to the UK can hardly be doubted.
His wife has literally told HMRC that she doesn't plan to live here long term, so your absence of doubt is admirable.
She isn't a British citizen though, she is an Indian citizen. She isn't a dual national. So your comparison is wrong.
I can't work out what your point is about Rishi Sunak. He was once a permanent resident in the USA. Are you suggesting that this somehow dilutes his British citizenship?
The Green Card is a pathway to US citizenship, which Sunak held onto while he was UK Chancellor. He only gave it up when he travelled to the US as Chancellor and the US authorities advised him to return it. I'm all in favour of keeping one's options open, but I think if you're in charge of the nation's finances you shouldn't still be looking at becoming a citizen of another country and you certainly should be up front about it. Sunak's wife holds non dom status as she has told HMRC that she does not plan to live in the UK long term. Doesnt that rather suggest to you that he doesn't either? Or are they planning to transition to a long distance relationship? I find it a bit odd that you take umbrage at some poor taxi driver trying to game the system to his advantage but are totally fine with the PM doing the same while his wife avoids a hefty tax bill by claiming she plans to leave the country in a few years. I'm a bit of a Citizen of Nowhere myself but even I find this kind of behaviour a bit distasteful.
You seem to be in error over Sunak's wife's non dom status
This is her statement on the matter:
British Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty has given up her non-domiciled tax status after a public outcry.
Murty insisted that the move, which means she will now pay UK tax on all her overseas earnings, was voluntary as her non-domicile status was “entirely legal”.
In a statement, she said: “It has become clear that many do not feel it (non-dom status) is compatible with my husband’s role as Chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”
“This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to,” she added.
The decision will take effect immediately and apply to the previous tax year as well as all future ones.
She went on to say: “My decision to pay UK tax on all my worldwide income will not change the fact that India remains the country of my birth, citizenship, parents’ home and place of domicile. But I love the UK too. In my time here I have invested in British businesses and supported British causes. My daughters are British. They are growing up in the UK. I am so proud to be here.”
So she gave it up once people found out about it and it became embarrassing to her husband.
The point is you have accused her of non dom status but not acknowledged she has surrendered it
She is no longer a non dom
The point is she benefited from non dom status for years until people found out about it and the hypocrisy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own household benefiting from the status became politically toxic. I salute her sacrifice.
Why is it hypocrtitical? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were opposed to non-dom status, he would abolish it.
If you have to cut off your left hand to save the right one , you might think about it first.
His video came right at the start of that period, so it might be slightly early to judge the full reaction to it.
Historic statement from KK, talking openly about his Alevi background, something he’s very rarely done in the past. A huge deal from a major politician, breaking a big taboo and taking ownership of his identity (which Erdoğan tries to throw in is face). https://twitter.com/Nick_Ashdown/status/1648811913243918338
I hope he wins on the first ballot.
Looks like Ince has moved on pretty quickly after losing the Reading job.
Comments
Sunak's background is finance, where the numbers do the persuasion for him. Nothing wrong with thinking in numbers, it's what I instinctively do. But when it comes to persuading lay neutrals of a case, Starmer is more effective because law means he has done it more for longer.
Which are China’s ongoing secrecy about their failure to act on live-animal markets (which were highlighted years ago as by far the biggest risk for zoonotic spillovers of viruses in general and coronaviruses in particular), and the way that the international community tiptoes around that.
China have been desperately trying to “prove” that covid came from outside of China and just happened to super-spread out from the Huanan Seafood market, brought in by a foreigner who happened to come to a fish market where there were no live animals for sale, nope, we’ve stopped that, it doesn’t happen any more, honest.
Which is why they deleted the samples taken from the market and hid any evidence about it.
Coronaviruses in bats are mutating and evolving faster than ever due to them being pushed out of their historic habitats and mingling more.
People who live in the backwoods area near them get thousands of spillovers per year, with as many as 12% of them found with SARS-like antibodies between 2017-2019 due to previous spillovers that never got past them and superspread out.
And ferrying in animals who live near them and happen to provide the perfect intermediary route to allow these viruses the opportunity to mutate into a state where they can readily spillover into humans and selling them in busy live-animal markets, exposing tens of thousands of people for prolonged period to allow multiple spillovers in super-spreading conditions provide the dry tinder to allow one of those tens of thousands of sparks to catch fire into a new pandemic.
Why do they tiptoe around it? Is it fear of China’s authoritarian rulers and their reaction? Is it concern over criticizing a cultural practice? China know they need to stop these live-animal markets. We WILL have another pandemic. SARS-CoV-3. SARS-CoV-4. God knows when, but we’re getting more spillovers every year and faster mutation in the bat sources, so unless this gets stopped, it won’t be a very long time.
That’s the real story. That’s the true fear. Hats off to the Speccie for actually bringing it out.
Comedy gold.
VW Group's Canadian Cell Plant Will Have An Annual Output Of 90 GWh
https://insideevs.com/news/663774/vw-group-canadian-cell-plant-annual-output-90-gwh/
Volkswagen Group has released more details about its planned battery cell gigafactory in Canada, which will be the company's largest to date in the world and the country's largest manufacturing plant.
Set to be located in St. Thomas, Ontario and operated by the automaker's PowerCo SE battery subsidiary, the battery plant will have an annual production capacity of up to 90 GWh in the final expansion phase.
For comparison's sake, VW Group's battery gigafactory near Valencia, Spain, will have an annual output of 60 GWh when fully ramped, while the facility in Salzgitter, Germany will produce 40 GWh worth of battery cells each year.
The German automaker plans to invest up to $5.3 billion (4.8 billion euros) until 2030 in the Canadian facility that has the potential to create up to 3,000 highly skilled jobs at the factory and tens of thousands more indirect jobs in the region. The company will receive a lot more money from the Canadian federal government, though.
According to The Detroit News, Canada agreed to subsidies that may top $9.7 billion (13 billion Canadian dollars) over a decade, matching what VW would have got via the Inflation Reduction Act if it had located the plant in the US. The government will provide annual production subsidies as well as a grant toward the factory's capital cost...
Production planned from 2027.
90GWh is around 1.2m cars with 75kWh - so a decade's production of perhaps 10m, allowing for ramp up of production.
So a battery subsidy of around $1,000 per car, which isn't ridiculous in order to get serious production up and running.
The reality is that Sunak is a successful person. Labour followers generally hate successful people. They think we should all be mediocre, work in the public sector, go to work on a bus and send our children to the local school however shit it is (unless you are Diane Abbott).
These attacks on Sunak smell very strongly of the politics of envy, which is why many of us fear a Labour government and it's love of dumbing down.
Note I didn't say Sir Keir would be scared of debates - just that risking them (and they are always a risk - in his case, as "an eminent KC and former DPP" he'll be expected to wipe the floor with his opponents so he won't have anything to gain from them) would be out of character with the way he's conducted himself as LOTO thus far.
By next autumn, life for Mr, Mrs, Mx, Dr etc Average will either be noticeably better or it won't.
If it is, then game on, sure. The recent improvement in Conservative standing started when Sunak had a run of policy wins- Windsor, nurses' pay, new boats plan.
If not, and some of the wins are already unraveling, then Sunak's sunny optimism is just going to annoy people.
I’m rather enjoying my second beer of the day; the first lasted less than a minute - I hadn’t had a drink of anything since a coffee before leaving Dol this morning
The weather’s been unexpectedly good so far, but I don’t think it’ll last. It’s definitely getting darker and chillier; there could be rain soon..
But on to Tinténiac!
Of course he is not scared of debates, just Sunak will be a genuine adversary in them
However, it *is* true to say that if they get, say, 20 seats off the SNP they need to win 20 fewer seats off the Tories to get to that majority.
In 1997, the Chuckle Brothers won the 'World's Biggest Sheep' contest with their two metre ewe.
I am not sure if how they have handled NHS strikes is a huge success to be honest, not enough proper negotiation quickly enough is how it will rightly be remembered. Over promising on Boats, is certainly looking like a mistake now, Sunak already trying to row back on delivering before next election, no pun intended. And even what you call Windsor, before any deal there was chance the deal restores the assembly, but the EU friendly deal makes that certain not to happen, so creates a big issue of its own to solve now.
My heart sank when I saw this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBEyLZZBbfE
Comedy classic
And both boat stopping and the Eurodeal had quite a high sizzle to sausage ratio. That's good for short term polls, but it's going to be hard to sustain until Autum '24.
And while they were doing that, the SAS units were sitting outside in the desert, neutralising anybody who went anywhere near these outposts.
The depreciation in value of electric vehicles is accelerating all the time
Perhaps synthetic fuels are the future
Completely disagree with you on strikes though. I would have been round the table earlier. Even if negotiations took a while or needed a-cas, I would still have been seen at table and solving asap. If there was any benefit in delaying the deal it’s surely not as big as the backlog problem it was making on waiting list.
I am beginning to think Number 10s whole strategy was to shore Sunak up from a bad locals result. It looks like it worked, only about 500 losses now not a thousand, thanks to closing the polls in April. But at what cost having to deliver in months ahead on expectations raised?
The lack of urgency may be that everyone is expecting better and/or standardised charging technology to come along so making a big investment now might be a waste of time.
Are commercial vehicles going to be exempt from the electric mandate? I see a big future in diesel Transits.
She is no longer a non dom
Starmer seems bogged down in facts and statistics whereas what Johnny Voter really wants is some top drawer name calling. And it is true Sunak hasn't honed his act to perfection yet, nonetheless "Sir Softie" demonstrates it is a decent work in progress.
Sure, they don't have the volatility and high risk/high reward excitement of virtual currencies. But people will always need luncheons.
It was nice having you. Perhaps see you again one day.
They aren't polling any higher than 2019 (when they got 11 seats), and while I'm sure there will be more tactical voting, and that the Conservative vote share will be down, 20 gains is extremely tough:
To put it in context, number 20 on the libdem "target Tory seats" is Harrogate and Knaresborough, where they are 10,000 votes and almost 20% behind.
I can see the libdems grabbing maybe a dozen Conservative seats (but more likely 8-10), regaining Dunbartonshire East, and maybe holding one or two of their by-election victories. Which gets them to about 22-23 seats, and maybe closer to 26/27 on a *really* good day.
But I struggle to see them doing any better.
(And my record on calling libdem seat numbers is pretty good.)
Let's see which of us is correct in five years' time.
But is there anyone who has swapped from Labour back to Tory because of him? Anyone?
As a Brit in America, I'm not sure I agree.
If you take a Green card you open yourself to a significantly more onerous taxation regime going forward, including (and this is the big kicker) capital gains taxes on all unrealized gains if you give it up.
I wouldn't recommend a Green Card to anyone who wasn't planning on becoming an American citizen.
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
The correct term is citizen of nowhere.
When LED lights came out that was all we did, change flourescents for LEDs, nobody seems interested in EV chargers.
In terms of dangers, the boats policy was good, but he needs to follow it up with further immigration policy reforms to make sure the actual impact goes through. If I were him, I would replace Braverman with May to have someone who has actually delivered in this area. Then he needs to avoid stupid help the rich policies like inheritance tax reductions.
She has again brought the Labour Party into anti- Semitic disrepute. Raab's misdemeanours are already off the front pages, "Starmer/Labour's anti-Semitism" problem is now top headline on all news bulletins. Sod those poor souls left in Khartoum.
Presidential election
Kılıçdaroğlu (CHP-S&D): 49%
Erdoğan (AKP~NI): 42%
İnce (MP-*): 6% (-1)
Oğan (*): 2%
+/- vs. 7-11 April 2023
Fieldwork: 19-22 April 2023
Sample size: 3,920
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1650449545682198528
His video came right at the start of that period, so it might be slightly early to judge the full reaction to it.
Historic statement from KK, talking openly about his Alevi background, something he’s very rarely done in the past. A huge deal from a major politician, breaking a big taboo and taking ownership of his identity (which Erdoğan tries to throw in is face).
https://twitter.com/Nick_Ashdown/status/1648811913243918338
I hope he wins on the first ballot.
More internal space.
Better performance.
When the price of electric cars falls below that of ICE vehicles, then there will be very few purchasers of petrol vehicles.
What the UK does about EV chargers has little or nothing to do with what cars get manufactured worldwide over the next decade. The major car manufacturers have already decided on their future, are are investing accordingly.
If we don't make provision, it's going to quite awkward for us in due course.
Brake pad dust also counts towards emissions under Euro 7 which further disadvantages ICE vehicles as BEVs have regenerative braking.
https://twitter.com/culturaltutor/status/1650333346965192705
So far the obvious impact of EV where I live is about Zero. I'm not sure whether the political parties have positions that make sense round here yet; or indeed whether such a thing is possible.
Nice guys.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
I am always minded of Johnson's carefully crafted words when dog-whistling. To the ill-educated like myself it often looked like blatant racism, to the PB faithful it was always merely satire.
Food price inflation, March 2023:
Hungary 44.8%
Slovakia 28.2%
Lithuania 27.6%
Latvia 24.1%
Poland 24.0%
Czech Republic 23.5%
Romania 21.6%
Germany 21.2%
Bulgaria 21.0%
Sweden 19.7%
Portugal 19.6%
EU (overall) 19.2% ⬅️
UK 19.1%⬅️
Netherlands 17.8%
Spain 16.5%
France 15.9%
Italy 13.2%
Source: TradingEconomics
6:41 AM · Apr 24, 2023
None out of the ten fastest depreciating cars in are BEV.