Just spoken to my 95 year old mother on the phone. Her opinion on the Coronation: "It wasn't as good as the last one.'
But did she see it? Few had tellys in the early 50s. Is it a bit like misremembering who you voted for.
Yes. My parents rented a TV so that they could watch it and invited friends round.
Renting was quite common up to the 70s at least. Usually because of the cost of buying and having to replace the "tube" too regularly. I remember my dad rented up to 1983. There used to be shops called Radio Rental and Granada Rental.
This “my king is bigger than your republic” stuff is deeply needy.
Yes, the British monarchy is a global phenom. Can we all get over it now.
The weird, self-reinforcing counting of tv viewers for British shenanigans (royal rituals, Olympics, Bond releases) is a PB perennial. I'm old enough to remember the usual suspects going tonto over the world falling in love with the multi-racial fairy tale of Harry and Meghan; that worked out well.
I’m sure there are equivalents in most countries, even in America. But it’s deeply dull and also quite pathetic.
There is no need to boast or nervously assert audience figures. The world loves the British monarchy, the premiership, Bond, and lots of British things.
Coronation of Charles III: nearly 9 million viewers watched the ceremony in France. 2 million more than for the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II euro.dayfr.com/local/amp/1702… #Coronation #KingCharlesIII #QueenCamilla
It also had millions of live viewers in Germany
Someone tell me that this isn’t soft power?
Despite their republic the French are deeply conflicted about the loss of their Monarchy, which was almost equally ancient.
Even more ancient, I’d say - the Merovingians were the first French royals and they predate the first Anglo-Saxon kings by at least 100 years - starting in the 5th century as against our 6/7th
And Charlemagne was THE great king of early medieval Europe
If the French had hung on to their monarchy it would now be really something. 1600 years of history and some amazing palaces. But they junked it
It’s a bit of a stretch to call the Merovingians “French Royals” as France as it exists geographically today doesn’t reflect its borders then or at substantial periods between - huge areas weren’t “France” sometimes until relatively recently - Savoie for example. So it would be fair to say a unitary English Royal family would be older and more reflective of now but then you could say that the current British Royal Family can only be counted from the act of the Union.
We have inherited traditions from the first Anglo Saxon kings of England subsumed into the current gig but if the French Royal Family still was there KTT would also be an evolution of different states, borders and traditions.
I disagree. I reckon the Merovingians were the first proper Frankish kings. Yes the borders of France have changed a lot more than England but then we are an island so ours are defined by God
Coronation of Charles III: nearly 9 million viewers watched the ceremony in France. 2 million more than for the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II euro.dayfr.com/local/amp/1702… #Coronation #KingCharlesIII #QueenCamilla
It also had millions of live viewers in Germany
Someone tell me that this isn’t soft power?
Despite their republic the French are deeply conflicted about the loss of their Monarchy, which was almost equally ancient.
Deeply conflicted, how so?
The French reversed their revolution at least twice - and they've never really been 100% happy with their constitution ever since.
I hear they have real concerns about Article 49.3 right now...
It seems a more monarchical power than anything our government has (though maybe some of the Orders in Council stuff?)
Coronation of Charles III: nearly 9 million viewers watched the ceremony in France. 2 million more than for the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II euro.dayfr.com/local/amp/1702… #Coronation #KingCharlesIII #QueenCamilla
It also had millions of live viewers in Germany
Someone tell me that this isn’t soft power?
Despite their republic the French are deeply conflicted about the loss of their Monarchy, which was almost equally ancient.
Even more ancient, I’d say - the Merovingians were the first French royals and they predate the first Anglo-Saxon kings by at least 100 years - starting in the 5th century as against our 6/7th
And Charlemagne was THE great king of early medieval Europe
If the French had hung on to their monarchy it would now be really something. 1600 years of history and some amazing palaces. But they junked it
It’s a bit of a stretch to call the Merovingians “French Royals” as France as it exists geographically today doesn’t reflect its borders then or at substantial periods between - huge areas weren’t “France” sometimes until relatively recently - Savoie for example. So it would be fair to say a unitary English Royal family would be older and more reflective of now but then you could say that the current British Royal Family can only be counted from the act of the Union.
We have inherited traditions from the first Anglo Saxon kings of England subsumed into the current gig but if the French Royal Family still was there KTT would also be an evolution of different states, borders and traditions.
I disagree. I reckon the Merovingians were the first proper Frankish kings. Yes the borders of France have changed a lot more than England but then we are an island so ours are defined by God
Just spoken to my 95 year old mother on the phone. Her opinion on the Coronation: "It wasn't as good as the last one.'
But did she see it? Few had tellys in the early 50s. Is it a bit like misremembering who you voted for.
Yes. My parents rented a TV so that they could watch it and invited friends round.
Renting was quite common up to the 70s at least. Usually because of the cost of buying and having to replace the "tube" too regularly. I remember my dad rented up to 1983. There used to be shops called Radio Rental and Granada Rental.
When I was a school (80s), I knew another kid whose family rented a TV for “big occasions, like the Olympics”. This would have been around 1988.
Back home after my trip to Skye. A significant problem of a lack of chargers on the island - I saw quite a lot of EVs driving around. But only 6 "rapid" chargers on Skye, of which 2 were broken and a third was described as "old and temperamental" by the customer service guy at Chargeplace Scotland when I had to call them.
Obvious that new EV owners don't research, but TBH should they have to? Old CPS chargers won't work properly if you try and start them using their app - you need an RFID card. But I have one of those, and the charger in Broadford still didn't like it.
Highland Council now charging 70p/kWh - in my case that's 17p per mile, if you have a lardarse Audi or BMW EV probably more like 23p per mile. And the "rapid" charger vends at only 50kW max, which is s l o w if you have a big battery.
So forget the big EV switchover. The experience new EV people are going to have on their summer holidays will scar them for life...
It is utterly dumb. Whatever ones views on the sense of the timing of the transition (and I think it is being pushed unrealistically fast which will only do more harm in the long run) the provision of charging stations should not be the factor that holds things up. It wouldn't take that much investment in the grand scheme of things. As of 1st January UK has 42,000 charging points. France has 82,000 and they are aiming to put in another 50,000 each year between now and 2030.
I wish we could get a few chargers in West Wales, and I don't mean white horses......
Well, we're just back from a rather splendid village Coronation Big Lunch street party. Gorgeous weather today in contrast with yesterday (and tomorrow apparently).
According to a 90-something who seems to have lived in the village all their life, the main road through has never been closed for a street party before - so genuinely a once-in-lifetime experience.
One amusing blemish on the whole day was the attitude of a couple of drivers on realising they couldn't get through - one even asking us if we could move all the tables to one side just to let him through (er, that'll be a no).
About 14 million saw King being Crowned, live on BBC TV. This is about half of the TV audience for the Queen's funeral last Autumn (29 million across channels and outlets). The Lionesses had an 11 million average, 17 million peak. and England v Italy 2020 had a 31m peak
Not that surprising. The respects for Elizabeth were for both the office and the holder, and Charles only has the first of those so far, which isn't worth as much as seventy years ago. At the moment, there's still a bit of a "you're not my real dad" vibe going on.
Longer term, there's a challenge for the monarchy if the monarch is always old-to-dying. That will be tricky to solve.
Retirement age of 75 => most monarchs would start in their 40s.
This “my king is bigger than your republic” stuff is deeply needy.
Yes, the British monarchy is a global phenom. Can we all get over it now.
It has clearly escaped your attention that the thread is about the alleged unpopularity of the monarchy, I am responding to that. That is the thread. The subject we are discussing. Up there. See
To be fair to Gardenwalker, the popularity or otherwise of the British monarchy in France is not going to determine whether the coronation of King Charles III will be the UK’s last.
If the world’s fascination with the British monarchy continues or even increases then yes that would have a bearing on whether we ever become republican, because we would clearly be ditching a source of soft power and a tourist draw. It would cost us
But enough. I too am bored of this discourse.The Coronation was great, Zadok was ace, the chances of our becoming a republic in the next 50 years are about 1.3%, let’s move on
This “my king is bigger than your republic” stuff is deeply needy.
Yes, the British monarchy is a global phenom. Can we all get over it now.
The weird, self-reinforcing counting of tv viewers for British shenanigans (royal rituals, Olympics, Bond releases) is a PB perennial. I'm old enough to remember the usual suspects going tonto over the world falling in love with the multi-racial fairy tale of Harry and Meghan; that worked out well.
I’m sure there are equivalents in most countries, even in America. But it’s deeply dull and also quite pathetic.
There is no need to boast or nervously assert audience figures. The world loves the British monarchy, the premiership, Bond, and lots of British things.
Would that the Tory party felt the same way.
I would love it if people stopped using viewing figures as a boast or attack. But whilst one side does, the other side will respond - I've no doubt if the figures were higher than before there'd be a post on GB news about it whilst it was ignored elsewhere.
Whilst we're at it we can stop with either the pathetic neediness to 'earn that call' early on with the US President, or point to being lower down on a call list as a sign of pathetic UK in decline. We have such a case of cultural cringe with the US (I suspect the odd fascination of US media with the royals makes us feel that cringe is not as prevalent as it is).
Back home after my trip to Skye. A significant problem of a lack of chargers on the island - I saw quite a lot of EVs driving around. But only 6 "rapid" chargers on Skye, of which 2 were broken and a third was described as "old and temperamental" by the customer service guy at Chargeplace Scotland when I had to call them.
Obvious that new EV owners don't research, but TBH should they have to? Old CPS chargers won't work properly if you try and start them using their app - you need an RFID card. But I have one of those, and the charger in Broadford still didn't like it.
Highland Council now charging 70p/kWh - in my case that's 17p per mile, if you have a lardarse Audi or BMW EV probably more like 23p per mile. And the "rapid" charger vends at only 50kW max, which is s l o w if you have a big battery.
So forget the big EV switchover. The experience new EV people are going to have on their summer holidays will scar them for life...
It is utterly dumb. Whatever ones views on the sense of the timing of the transition (and I think it is being pushed unrealistically fast which will only do more harm in the long run) the provision of charging stations should not be the factor that holds things up. It wouldn't take that much investment in the grand scheme of things. As of 1st January UK has 42,000 charging points. France has 82,000 and they are aiming to put in another 50,000 each year between now and 2030.
How fast charging is available in the sort term is almost entirely up to government. If it’s left to the market it’s going to be a serious pain for a lot of people.
We certainly have very little influence on how quickly the car industry changes; we’re too minor a player now,
Just spoken to my 95 year old mother on the phone. Her opinion on the Coronation: "It wasn't as good as the last one.'
But did she see it? Few had tellys in the early 50s. Is it a bit like misremembering who you voted for.
Yes. My parents rented a TV so that they could watch it and invited friends round.
Renting was quite common up to the 70s at least. Usually because of the cost of buying and having to replace the "tube" too regularly. I remember my dad rented up to 1983. There used to be shops called Radio Rental and Granada Rental.
When I was a school (80s), I knew another kid whose family rented a TV for “big occasions, like the Olympics”. This would have been around 1988.
you could get rental tvs with a coin slot on the top to accrue the fee.
Coronation of Charles III: nearly 9 million viewers watched the ceremony in France. 2 million more than for the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II euro.dayfr.com/local/amp/1702… #Coronation #KingCharlesIII #QueenCamilla
It also had millions of live viewers in Germany
Someone tell me that this isn’t soft power?
You sound very needy.
Eurovision final has millions of live viewers every year in Germany. If the coronation was every year the viewing figures would soon be in the low hundreds.
But it isn't so your point is irrelevant.
No it isnt. People having the telly on proves that there is a bit of interest, nothing more. People watch all kinds of crap.
It's not that difficult to understand, really. Unless people's pride has been weirdly hurt by the suggestion that the Great British Coronation is of less importance to the average German than the Eurovision song contest, which it definitely is. But why should you or Leon care?
It is irrelevant. For most a Coronation might happen only once in a lifetime. Its a national event of massive significance to the Nation as a whole. Eurovision is just about as ghastly as you could get... and worse still its every year and the week b4 is full of z listers talking about it.
Your 2nd paragraph is mostly a fair description of the coronation, but thanks to the merciful God it happens much less often.
Coronation of Charles III: nearly 9 million viewers watched the ceremony in France. 2 million more than for the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II euro.dayfr.com/local/amp/1702… #Coronation #KingCharlesIII #QueenCamilla
It also had millions of live viewers in Germany
Someone tell me that this isn’t soft power?
Despite their republic the French are deeply conflicted about the loss of their Monarchy, which was almost equally ancient.
Even more ancient, I’d say - the Merovingians were the first French royals and they predate the first Anglo-Saxon kings by at least 100 years - starting in the 5th century as against our 6/7th
And Charlemagne was THE great king of early medieval Europe
If the French had hung on to their monarchy it would now be really something. 1600 years of history and some amazing palaces. But they junked it
It’s a bit of a stretch to call the Merovingians “French Royals” as France as it exists geographically today doesn’t reflect its borders then or at substantial periods between - huge areas weren’t “France” sometimes until relatively recently - Savoie for example. So it would be fair to say a unitary English Royal family would be older and more reflective of now but then you could say that the current British Royal Family can only be counted from the act of the Union.
We have inherited traditions from the first Anglo Saxon kings of England subsumed into the current gig but if the French Royal Family still was there KTT would also be an evolution of different states, borders and traditions.
I disagree. I reckon the Merovingians were the first proper Frankish kings. Yes the borders of France have changed a lot more than England but then we are an island so ours are defined by God
I think, and I could be talking out of my arse, the Danish Royals are probably the oldest in terms of continuity in Europe and continuity of the State as it is and was. And of course we had that glorious moment when we had a joint king who I have to be very careful typing, the magisterial King C**t.
Just spoken to my 95 year old mother on the phone. Her opinion on the Coronation: "It wasn't as good as the last one.'
But did she see it? Few had tellys in the early 50s. Is it a bit like misremembering who you voted for.
Yes. My parents rented a TV so that they could watch it and invited friends round.
Renting was quite common up to the 70s at least. Usually because of the cost of buying and having to replace the "tube" too regularly. I remember my dad rented up to 1983. There used to be shops called Radio Rental and Granada Rental.
When I was a school (80s), I knew another kid whose family rented a TV for “big occasions, like the Olympics”. This would have been around 1988.
I rented a TV in 1988. I was also living in a rented flat and it was easier to let others lug tvs here and there.
This “my king is bigger than your republic” stuff is deeply needy.
Yes, the British monarchy is a global phenom. Can we all get over it now.
The weird, self-reinforcing counting of tv viewers for British shenanigans (royal rituals, Olympics, Bond releases) is a PB perennial. I'm old enough to remember the usual suspects going tonto over the world falling in love with the multi-racial fairy tale of Harry and Meghan; that worked out well.
I’m sure there are equivalents in most countries, even in America. But it’s deeply dull and also quite pathetic.
There is no need to boast or nervously assert audience figures. The world loves the British monarchy, the premiership, Bond, and lots of British things.
Would that the Tory party felt the same way.
I would love it if people stopped using viewing figures as a boast or attack. But whilst one side does, the other side will respond - I've no doubt if the figures were higher than before there'd be a post on GB news about it whilst it was ignored elsewhere.
Whilst we're at it we can stop with either the pathetic neediness to 'earn that call' early on with the US President, or point to being lower down on a call list as a sign of pathetic UK in decline. We have such a case of cultural cringe with the US (I suspect the odd fascination of US media with the royals makes us feel that cringe is not as prevalent as it is).
Quite so. And the first person to mention the Coronation viewing figures was TSE in the header, as a means of proving the decline of the monarchy. There is no neediness there. There is claim followed by response
We have had plenty of whining about the Monarchy and the Coronation. Wtf do we need another thread just for more whining by anti Monarchy loons
They are just lashing out, knowing their chance has gone.
Actually, I’m more chipper for the republican cause than ever. Serious overreach by the monarchists and their sycophants.
The attempted manufacturing of, especially, “Queen Camilla” - which, only 20% of Brits agree with, was a serious misstep by Charles.
In most people’s eyes, she’s not the queen, she’s a very naughty girl.
I think the prospects for Republicans remains low in the short term, but enough promise in the medium term to give succour. There will be several Commonwealth Realms going republican in short order which will keep the debate live, the king is not hated but not seen with deep affection, and there's always the possibility of more scandal, so there is at least potential for mainstream political sentiment to move in that direction.
I'm not sure what the 'overreach' you're talking about is - having a coronation at all?
But once again I find what appears to be the prevailing British view on Camillia to be utterly bizarre. It's often referred to as you have with 'manufacturing' and how many people don't see her as the queen. But to me it looks pretty simple - she's the wife of the King, of course she's Queen, what's manufactured about that? With a Queen Regnant there's an argument about the husband being King giving the wrong impression, but that's not the case here.
It must be largely be other royalists and genuine neutrals who get mad about it, since I presume most Republicans don't care what she's called, but I still don't get it. Yes, they are both adulterers, but the only uncommon thing about that with royals is that he did actually marry his mistress.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
Coronation of Charles III: nearly 9 million viewers watched the ceremony in France. 2 million more than for the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II euro.dayfr.com/local/amp/1702… #Coronation #KingCharlesIII #QueenCamilla
It also had millions of live viewers in Germany
Someone tell me that this isn’t soft power?
You sound very needy.
Eurovision final has millions of live viewers every year in Germany. If the coronation was every year the viewing figures would soon be in the low hundreds.
But it isn't so your point is irrelevant.
No it isnt. People having the telly on proves that there is a bit of interest, nothing more. People watch all kinds of crap.
It's not that difficult to understand, really. Unless people's pride has been weirdly hurt by the suggestion that the Great British Coronation is of less importance to the average German than the Eurovision song contest, which it definitely is. But why should you or Leon care?
It is irrelevant. For most a Coronation might happen only once in a lifetime. Its a national event of massive significance to the Nation as a whole. Eurovision is just about as ghastly as you could get... and worse still its every year and the week b4 is full of z listers talking about it.
By the way if you think the British coronation is a national event of massive significance then you are even more delusional than Leon
This “my king is bigger than your republic” stuff is deeply needy.
Yes, the British monarchy is a global phenom. Can we all get over it now.
The weird, self-reinforcing counting of tv viewers for British shenanigans (royal rituals, Olympics, Bond releases) is a PB perennial. I'm old enough to remember the usual suspects going tonto over the world falling in love with the multi-racial fairy tale of Harry and Meghan; that worked out well.
I’m sure there are equivalents in most countries, even in America. But it’s deeply dull and also quite pathetic.
There is no need to boast or nervously assert audience figures. The world loves the British monarchy, the premiership, Bond, and lots of British things.
Would that the Tory party felt the same way.
I would love it if people stopped using viewing figures as a boast or attack. But whilst one side does, the other side will respond - I've no doubt if the figures were higher than before there'd be a post on GB news about it whilst it was ignored elsewhere.
Whilst we're at it we can stop with either the pathetic neediness to 'earn that call' early on with the US President, or point to being lower down on a call list as a sign of pathetic UK in decline. We have such a case of cultural cringe with the US (I suspect the odd fascination of US media with the royals makes us feel that cringe is not as prevalent as it is).
Yes.
I did a year of schooling in the UK in 1993, in Gosport (a connection I share with some other posters on here), and in those days there was still this absurd belief in the essential…right?…of the English football team to prosper.
This was the days of the Sun’s merciless attacks on Graham Taylor, informed in part I thought by some sense of betrayal or hurt pride.
At some stage, Britain finally realised that it had no god given right over global football…and frankly, things have been better since that epiphany.
When Britain really focuses with clear-headed unsentimentality - like it did for several Olympics in a row - it can win. When it rests on past glories or bathes in self-pitying nostalgia - it loses.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
We have had plenty of whining about the Monarchy and the Coronation. Wtf do we need another thread just for more whining by anti Monarchy loons
They are just lashing out, knowing their chance has gone.
Actually, I’m more chipper for the republican cause than ever. Serious overreach by the monarchists and their sycophants.
The attempted manufacturing of, especially, “Queen Camilla” - which, only 20% of Brits agree with, was a serious misstep by Charles.
In most people’s eyes, she’s not the queen, she’s a very naughty girl.
I think the prospects for Republicans remains low in the short term, but enough promise in the medium term to give succour. There will be several Commonwealth Realms going republican in short order which will keep the debate live, the king is not hated but not seen with deep affection, and there's always the possibility of more scandal, so there is at least potential for mainstream political sentiment to move in that direction.
I'm not sure what the 'overreach' you're talking about is - having a coronation at all?
But once again I find what appears to be the prevailing British view on Camillia to be utterly bizarre. It's often referred to as you have with 'manufacturing' and how many people don't see her as the queen. But to me it looks pretty simple - she's the wife of the King, of course she's Queen, what's manufactured about that? With a Queen Regnant there's an argument about the husband being King giving the wrong impression, but that's not the case here.
It must be largely be other royalists and genuine neutrals who get mad about it, since I presume most Republicans don't care what she's called, but I still don't get it. Yes, they are both adulterers, but the only uncommon thing about that with royals is that he did actually marry his mistress.
I think a factor is that the Duke of Edinburgh was not crowned as King alongside the Queen, and took more of a background role. We're not used to a 'King and Queen' - it hasn't been that way since the reign of George.
Coronation of Charles III: nearly 9 million viewers watched the ceremony in France. 2 million more than for the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II euro.dayfr.com/local/amp/1702… #Coronation #KingCharlesIII #QueenCamilla
It also had millions of live viewers in Germany
Someone tell me that this isn’t soft power?
Despite their republic the French are deeply conflicted about the loss of their Monarchy, which was almost equally ancient.
Even more ancient, I’d say - the Merovingians were the first French royals and they predate the first Anglo-Saxon kings by at least 100 years - starting in the 5th century as against our 6/7th
And Charlemagne was THE great king of early medieval Europe
If the French had hung on to their monarchy it would now be really something. 1600 years of history and some amazing palaces. But they junked it
It’s a bit of a stretch to call the Merovingians “French Royals” as France as it exists geographically today doesn’t reflect its borders then or at substantial periods between - huge areas weren’t “France” sometimes until relatively recently - Savoie for example. So it would be fair to say a unitary English Royal family would be older and more reflective of now but then you could say that the current British Royal Family can only be counted from the act of the Union.
We have inherited traditions from the first Anglo Saxon kings of England subsumed into the current gig but if the French Royal Family still was there KTT would also be an evolution of different states, borders and traditions.
I disagree. I reckon the Merovingians were the first proper Frankish kings. Yes the borders of France have changed a lot more than England but then we are an island so ours are defined by God
I think, and I could be talking out of my arse, the Danish Royals are probably the oldest in terms of continuity in Europe and continuity of the State as it is and was. And of course we had that glorious moment when we had a joint king who I have to be very careful typing, the magisterial King C**t.
Close but not quite. Looks like early 9th century for them. So, old, but not quite as old as the Anglo-Saxons?
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He’s vulnerable on immigration, too.
Using the small boats as a distraction might fool 30p lee and be uncontroversial to the remainers and liberals, but many in the tory fold - and of course, those further to the right - see it as betrayal.
When even Fraser Nelson recognises there’s a problem, there’s a problem.
The tories need to rediscover their mojo, like they did after TM resigned. Reheated -and thoroughly discredited - cameroonism, with an absurd NF-lite media strategy just won’t cut it.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Turns out there is (or was) a group called Tories4PR on twitter. They appear to have been inactive since March 2017, right around the time the party looked like it had a near majority of public support. Coincidence?
Back home after my trip to Skye. A significant problem of a lack of chargers on the island - I saw quite a lot of EVs driving around. But only 6 "rapid" chargers on Skye, of which 2 were broken and a third was described as "old and temperamental" by the customer service guy at Chargeplace Scotland when I had to call them.
Obvious that new EV owners don't research, but TBH should they have to? Old CPS chargers won't work properly if you try and start them using their app - you need an RFID card. But I have one of those, and the charger in Broadford still didn't like it.
Highland Council now charging 70p/kWh - in my case that's 17p per mile, if you have a lardarse Audi or BMW EV probably more like 23p per mile. And the "rapid" charger vends at only 50kW max, which is s l o w if you have a big battery.
So forget the big EV switchover. The experience new EV people are going to have on their summer holidays will scar them for life...
Interesting. Just about to pick up a new petrol VW Passat. Would love to go electric but we want to be able to drive across Europe too, so we stuck with an ICE this time.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He’s vulnerable on immigration, too.
Using the small boats as a distraction might fool 30p lee and be uncontroversial to the remainders and liberals, but many in the Tory fold see it as betrayal.
When even Fraser Nelson recognises there’s a problem, there’s a problem.
There is a slow increase in discontent about broader immigration - coming from quarters as diverse as Fraser Nelson, Andrew Marr, and the Tory MP who was briefly Levelling Up minister - can’t remember his name - but a moderate not a Braverman type.
Back home after my trip to Skye. A significant problem of a lack of chargers on the island - I saw quite a lot of EVs driving around. But only 6 "rapid" chargers on Skye, of which 2 were broken and a third was described as "old and temperamental" by the customer service guy at Chargeplace Scotland when I had to call them.
Obvious that new EV owners don't research, but TBH should they have to? Old CPS chargers won't work properly if you try and start them using their app - you need an RFID card. But I have one of those, and the charger in Broadford still didn't like it.
Highland Council now charging 70p/kWh - in my case that's 17p per mile, if you have a lardarse Audi or BMW EV probably more like 23p per mile. And the "rapid" charger vends at only 50kW max, which is s l o w if you have a big battery.
So forget the big EV switchover. The experience new EV people are going to have on their summer holidays will scar them for life...
It is utterly dumb. Whatever ones views on the sense of the timing of the transition (and I think it is being pushed unrealistically fast which will only do more harm in the long run) the provision of charging stations should not be the factor that holds things up. It wouldn't take that much investment in the grand scheme of things. As of 1st January UK has 42,000 charging points. France has 82,000 and they are aiming to put in another 50,000 each year between now and 2030.
How many of those 42k don't work? I have seen various charge points installed by one network with another network doing the back office and a third party technically owning it. Which means that when one of those parties changes, the thing is owned and maintained by no-one.
Even more absurd is where the owner is clear (*cough* Shell Recharge) yet maintenance isn't done once installed so they break.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
Not a very convincing argument, given that Hunt was arguing for 15% CT before he was made COE. But if Tory MPs are feeling particularly murderous, a new 'Cabinet for Growth' might stave a revolt off. He could put Kemi in the Treasury - the jury is out (for me) on whether Kemi is actually any good or not, but she is no doubt popular within the party.
Back home after my trip to Skye. A significant problem of a lack of chargers on the island - I saw quite a lot of EVs driving around. But only 6 "rapid" chargers on Skye, of which 2 were broken and a third was described as "old and temperamental" by the customer service guy at Chargeplace Scotland when I had to call them.
Obvious that new EV owners don't research, but TBH should they have to? Old CPS chargers won't work properly if you try and start them using their app - you need an RFID card. But I have one of those, and the charger in Broadford still didn't like it.
Highland Council now charging 70p/kWh - in my case that's 17p per mile, if you have a lardarse Audi or BMW EV probably more like 23p per mile. And the "rapid" charger vends at only 50kW max, which is s l o w if you have a big battery.
So forget the big EV switchover. The experience new EV people are going to have on their summer holidays will scar them for life...
Interesting. Just about to pick up a new petrol VW Passat. Would love to go electric but we want to be able to drive across Europe too, so we stuck with an ICE this time.
Trans-continental is of course easy in a Tesla...
I can't get my head around that. Admittedly, I've not really done much research but what's the range of a Tesla and the charge time to full? Struggling to see how I could drive 500 miles a day which is what we do if we want to drive down to Italy or Spain.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He’s vulnerable on immigration, too.
Using the small boats as a distraction might fool 30p lee and be uncontroversial to the remainers and liberals, but many in the tory fold - and of course, those further to the right - see it as betrayal.
When even Fraser Nelson recognises there’s a problem, there’s a problem.
The tories need to rediscover their mojo, like they did after TM resigned. Reheated -and thoroughly discredited - cameroonism, with an absurd NF-lite media strategy just won’t cut it.
Except the revival after TM resigned was not a case simply of rediscovering their mojo. They had a core policy they were able to settle on (which May had been unable to get everyone behind) which reached beyond their core vote, aided by the particular unpopularity of Corbyn with many of the same people.
What do they have now to drive a remojoing?
I think it is true reheated Cameroonism won't cut it, but the people are not crying out for some reheated dry Tory economics either. They are saying they will vote for the party the Tories claim is even more high tax and low growth than them.
Typically when it is argued they need to do more 'conservative' things it's seemingly just a factional dispute within the party about preferred direction, rather than believing that is what the public are clamouring for.
I wasn't a republican when the Queen was still alive, though I questioned how I would feel about her descendants after she's gone.
Now I find myself not an angry republican but an entertained one. The whole thing is an absurdity, an anachronism. Queen Camilla is bad enough, but after Chuck chucks it we get King Scowl and Queen Simpleton and their "ooh aren't they cute" kids.
I have no problem with us having a Royal Family. There are all kinds of royalty across Europe in states that are now republics. Happy to keep Prince William as long as he isn't one day going to demand that I become his subject and get to sign things into law using feudal French.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
I thought it was interesting from a psephological point of view. Don't think I've seen such a big discrepancy before.
It's because LD and Lab did a deal and didn't stand against each other.
It's good politics but stinks from a democratic point of view. Lab will be making decisions about my ward but didn't even stand here. It feels like the SNP voting on matters relating to England.
As the Guardian put it "To believe that this arrangement is the result of some bizarre coincidence stretches credulity".
The Leicester City Ward results are interesting too. Readers will know that Leicester was the possibly the most contrary result of Friday, with a previous Hegemony of 53 Lab seats and a solitary Lib Dem. There were 17 losses to the Tories, 3 to Green and 2 to Lib Dem.
Obviously the purge by Labour of 18 sitting councillors deselected earlier this year for their attempt to abolish the Labour Mayor was the driving factor.
Turnout varied tremendously, being in the typical Local Election range of 20-30% in many, but in many of the wards taken by Con the turnout was well over 50%. A tremendous GOTV attempt.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He’s vulnerable on immigration, too.
Using the small boats as a distraction might fool 30p lee and be uncontroversial to the remainers and liberals, but many in the tory fold - and of course, those further to the right - see it as betrayal.
When even Fraser Nelson recognises there’s a problem, there’s a problem.
The tories need to rediscover their mojo, like they did after TM resigned. Reheated -and thoroughly discredited - cameroonism, with an absurd NF-lite media strategy just won’t cut it.
Except the revival after TM resigned was not a case simply of rediscovering their mojo. They had a core policy they were able to settle on (which May had been unable to get everyone behind) which reached beyond their core vote, aided by the particular unpopularity of Corbyn with many of the same people.
What do they have now to drive a remojoing?
I think it is true reheated Cameroonism won't cut it, but the people are not crying out for some reheated dry Tory economics either. They are saying they will vote for the party the Tories claim is even more high tax and low growth than them.
Typically when it is argued they need to do more 'conservative' things it's seemingly just a factional dispute within the party about preferred direction, rather than believing that is what the public are clamouring for.
At the moment, Keir Starmer is lecturing the Tory Party on its high tax low growth model. Keir Starmer. That's untenable.
“… I think we’ve got the highest tax burden since the Second World War. What we’ve had from the government is tax rise upon tax rise on tax rise. If they’ve proved one thing, it’s that their high-tax, low-growth economy doesn’t work. What we’ve seen over the last 13 years is an economy that hasn’t worked. It hasn’t grown at any reasonable rate. That the net cause of the cost of living crisis, the reason why people’s wages haven’t gone up cost, why their living standards haven’t gone up. People will be asking themselves after 13 years, am I any better off? And the answer to that is no. Now the question you then put to me: ‘Well, wouldn’t it be therefore sensible to raise taxes even higher’, I think the high-tax, low-growth model doesn’t work.”
Does Keir Starmer have the answers? Clearly not - doesn’t mean it isn't shameful to be in a situation where this statement makes sense.
While I'm a republican, I'm not so deluded as to think the monarchy is going away anytime soon. I think it's fair to say that Charles doesn't have the same reverence as Elizabeth had for most people though.
I would like to think that maybe we'll have a more "continental" type monarchy, if that makes sense.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Back home after my trip to Skye. A significant problem of a lack of chargers on the island - I saw quite a lot of EVs driving around. But only 6 "rapid" chargers on Skye, of which 2 were broken and a third was described as "old and temperamental" by the customer service guy at Chargeplace Scotland when I had to call them.
Obvious that new EV owners don't research, but TBH should they have to? Old CPS chargers won't work properly if you try and start them using their app - you need an RFID card. But I have one of those, and the charger in Broadford still didn't like it.
Highland Council now charging 70p/kWh - in my case that's 17p per mile, if you have a lardarse Audi or BMW EV probably more like 23p per mile. And the "rapid" charger vends at only 50kW max, which is s l o w if you have a big battery.
So forget the big EV switchover. The experience new EV people are going to have on their summer holidays will scar them for life...
Interesting. Just about to pick up a new petrol VW Passat. Would love to go electric but we want to be able to drive across Europe too, so we stuck with an ICE this time.
Trans-continental is of course easy in a Tesla...
I can't get my head around that. Admittedly, I've not really done much research but what's the range of a Tesla and the charge time to full? Struggling to see how I could drive 500 miles a day which is what we do if we want to drive down to Italy or Spain.
That's easy. We live up near Fraserburgh and have family in Basildon. Set off with the battery not even full. 30 minute charge whilst eating in Edinburgh (next to the M9), another 30 mins at Ferrybridge (A1/M62) and that gets you there. Tesla superchargers are both fastest in general circulation and very significantly the cheapest.
So that trip to Essex is a similar distance to your proposal, done with no deviation to a sensible route with stops when you need to stop. No delay, no fuss, and way cheaper than diseasal.
Back home after my trip to Skye. A significant problem of a lack of chargers on the island - I saw quite a lot of EVs driving around. But only 6 "rapid" chargers on Skye, of which 2 were broken and a third was described as "old and temperamental" by the customer service guy at Chargeplace Scotland when I had to call them.
Obvious that new EV owners don't research, but TBH should they have to? Old CPS chargers won't work properly if you try and start them using their app - you need an RFID card. But I have one of those, and the charger in Broadford still didn't like it.
Highland Council now charging 70p/kWh - in my case that's 17p per mile, if you have a lardarse Audi or BMW EV probably more like 23p per mile. And the "rapid" charger vends at only 50kW max, which is s l o w if you have a big battery.
So forget the big EV switchover. The experience new EV people are going to have on their summer holidays will scar them for life...
Interesting. Just about to pick up a new petrol VW Passat. Would love to go electric but we want to be able to drive across Europe too, so we stuck with an ICE this time.
Trans-continental is of course easy in a Tesla...
I can't get my head around that. Admittedly, I've not really done much research but what's the range of a Tesla and the charge time to full? Struggling to see how I could drive 500 miles a day which is what we do if we want to drive down to Italy or Spain.
That's easy. We live up near Fraserburgh and have family in Basildon. Set off with the battery not even full. 30 minute charge whilst eating in Edinburgh (next to the M9), another 30 mins at Ferrybridge (A1/M62) and that gets you there. Tesla superchargers are both fastest in general circulation and very significantly the cheapest.
So that trip to Essex is a similar distance to your proposal, done with no deviation to a sensible route with stops when you need to stop. No delay, no fuss, and way cheaper than diseasal.
my take on yesterday 1) great day for UK plc (No other country gets that limelight !) 2) Everyone pretending they knew all about Zadoc The Priest when last week nobody would have had a clue 3) Penny Mordant will hold her seat with a better performance than the national picture suggests ! 4) The Church of England should make a bit of capital from this once in a generation opportunity. 5) The Princess of Wales is elite at being regal!
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Just spoken to my 95 year old mother on the phone. Her opinion on the Coronation: "It wasn't as good as the last one.'
But did she see it? Few had tellys in the early 50s. Is it a bit like misremembering who you voted for.
Yes. My parents rented a TV so that they could watch it and invited friends round.
Renting was quite common up to the 70s at least. Usually because of the cost of buying and having to replace the "tube" too regularly. I remember my dad rented up to 1983. There used to be shops called Radio Rental and Granada Rental.
Indeed ,my Dad rented a 26" swanky b and w TV from Visionhire. But not till the 60s
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Dude, she couldn’t count.
Fatal for a politician.
She has a millwall personality that is totally incompatible with high office. Reaganism without Reagan, or the dollar, in a period of rapidly rising interest rates was political insanity.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Putting CT back down would royally piss off the Americans. I don't think Sunak has the balls to do it. And at the end of the day, what they think probably matters more to his perception of his own future than what the British people think. Which is the problem.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Three problems off the top of my head.
One way of getting the economy growing would be to build more stuff. But as a country, we don't want more stuff built.
Another way to grow the economy would be to import more workers... spot the flaw with that one.
And then there's the whole trade with Eu...(at this point, Romford Constabulary dragged me away from the keyboard for the sake of public order.)
Ultimately, the electorate in general (and the Conservative electorate in particular) are OK with decline, as long as it is gentle and genteel. Deep down, we'd like to be Audrey Fforbes-Hamilton. As a country, we're stuffed as long as we carry on like this, or look for something-for-nothing get rich quick gimmicks, but I don't see the easy sustainable way out.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
A case could be made she failed because she did not adequately prepare for her plan, either amongst MPs or the wider economic sphere. That seems inarguable, not least since she appeared completely shocked at any blowback and clueless what to do in response.
But a case could also probably be made that we could not do it then, but we can do it now, properly.
I think it would be a hard sell with the public - whilst people want lower taxes, they reacted poorly to the last plan because it was so clearly rushed and ill thought out, and so would probably be suspicious of a new effort from the Tories.
Especially as it would be an obvious desperation move to shore up internal position and to lower taxes ahead of an election - you might get away with that if reasonably popular, but not when like this. At the moment Starmer coudl announce the same policy as the Tories and get more support for doing so, because he's more liked (if not very liked).
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
Not a very convincing argument, given that Hunt was arguing for 15% CT before he was made COE. But if Tory MPs are feeling particularly murderous, a new 'Cabinet for Growth' might stave a revolt off. He could put Kemi in the Treasury - the jury is out (for me) on whether Kemi is actually any good or not, but she is no doubt popular within the party.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
You'll be voting Labour then?
I'm pro-growth; I'm not pro- decimated public services; I'm not pro- unfunded tax cuts; I'm not pro-tax cuts for the wealthiest.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Dude, she couldn’t count.
Fatal for a politician.
We can agree that she didn't sell her reforms, and that she fatally underestimated the forces ranged against them. That doesn’t mean that they were not valid - even vital reforms.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Dude, she couldn’t count.
Fatal for a politician.
She has a millwall personality that is totally incompatible with high office. Reaganism without Reagan, or the dollar, in a period of rapidly rising interest rates was political insanity.
Oh, also should add: “without a democratic mandate”
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
"We like to delude ourselves that sunnier countries, the ones where we go on holiday, are somehow spared the grimmer aspects of life here at home. I have generally felt more light-hearted in France, for that reason. And hoping for a dose of Paris Spring sunshine I went to see thew new film ‘One Fine Morning’, starring Lea Seydoux. Alas, a large part of it is spent in Paris care homes for the elderly and demented, who are just the same there as here. I suppose I could watch a film of Ms Seydoux building a dry stone wall, just because she was in it. But I’m not sure I really wanted to know how grim France could be. It was nice to pretend that somewhere they managed these things better."
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Three problems off the top of my head.
One way of getting the economy growing would be to build more stuff. But as a country, we don't want more stuff built.
Another way to grow the economy would be to import more workers... spot the flaw with that one.
And then there's the whole trade with Eu...(at this point, Romford Constabulary dragged me away from the keyboard for the sake of public order.)
Ultimately, the electorate in general (and the Conservative electorate in particular) are OK with decline, as long as it is gentle and genteel. Deep down, we'd like to be Audrey Fforbes-Hamilton. As a country, we're stuffed as long as we carry on like this, or look for something-for-nothing get rich quick gimmicks, but I don't see the easy sustainable way out.
Another way would be to reduce the cost of the state. Is a state that costs astronomically more than the state during Tony Blair's era essential? I didn't spot any lack of civil servants and quangos back then.
Another way would be to reduce taxes on business and investment significantly, to attract new investment.
Another way would be to encourage the exploitation of domestic hydrocarbons via the tax system.
Another way would be to encourage start up businesses by raising the VAT threshold.
Another way would be to subsidise farmers to produce food, rather than turning fields over to scrubland.
There are manifold solutions - the issue is the will to implement them.
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
That looks spectacularly shitey. "Crockery" bought in B&M bargains where the designer said "just add more flags"
While I'm a republican, I'm not so deluded as to think the monarchy is going away anytime soon. I think it's fair to say that Charles doesn't have the same reverence as Elizabeth had for most people though.
I would like to think that maybe we'll have a more "continental" type monarchy, if that makes sense.
Hopefully in the Scandinavian rather than the Spanish model.
Someone did some maths on Friday on the basis of an FT idea that the UK should add R&D and intangibles into unlimited expensing, it works out to an extra £9bn per year out of corporation tax and pushes up GDP by 0.7% per year, giving the measure almost a 2x multiplier but a £3bn tax shortfall.
He said it would be worth it as the additional annual growth will compound and if it means bending the debt rules a bit then we should do it and make it permanent. He suggested raising the headline rate to 30% would probably offset most of the near term loss and push more businesses into investing for free capital growth rather than take a 30% hit on declaring profit.
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
"You invited my husband, the President of the United States, to this shit?" "We call it quaint, and to be honest I didn't think anyone from the family would come!"
I thought it was interesting from a psephological point of view. Don't think I've seen such a big discrepancy before.
It's because LD and Lab did a deal and didn't stand against each other.
It's good politics but stinks from a democratic point of view. Lab will be making decisions about my ward but didn't even stand here. It feels like the SNP voting on matters relating to England.
As the Guardian put it "To believe that this arrangement is the result of some bizarre coincidence stretches credulity".
The Leicester City Ward results are interesting too. Readers will know that Leicester was the possibly the most contrary result of Friday, with a previous Hegemony of 53 Lab seats and a solitary Lib Dem. There were 17 losses to the Tories, 3 to Green and 2 to Lib Dem.
Obviously the purge by Labour of 18 sitting councillors deselected earlier this year for their attempt to abolish the Labour Mayor was the driving factor.
Turnout varied tremendously, being in the typical Local Election range of 20-30% in many, but in many of the wards taken by Con the turnout was well over 50%. A tremendous GOTV attempt.
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
That looks spectacularly shitey. "Crockery" bought in B&M bargains where the designer said "just add more flags"
Though that teapot is in fact exquisitely tiny and made from fine bone china.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Three problems off the top of my head.
One way of getting the economy growing would be to build more stuff. But as a country, we don't want more stuff built.
Another way to grow the economy would be to import more workers... spot the flaw with that one.
And then there's the whole trade with Eu...(at this point, Romford Constabulary dragged me away from the keyboard for the sake of public order.)
Ultimately, the electorate in general (and the Conservative electorate in particular) are OK with decline, as long as it is gentle and genteel. Deep down, we'd like to be Audrey Fforbes-Hamilton. As a country, we're stuffed as long as we carry on like this, or look for something-for-nothing get rich quick gimmicks, but I don't see the easy sustainable way out.
There isn't one. There's no way to promote productive economic activity over property speculation, or to avoid taxing businesses and earned incomes into oblivion to fund pensions, health and social care, without launching a direct assault on the interests of the grey vote.
There are too many olds, so anyone who does that simply gets rejected at the ballot box. Thus, on we go, circling the plughole.
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
Why do I feel like Rishi has never poured tea in his life?
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
Why do I feel like Rishi has never poured tea in his life?
Could it be because he's got the spout over a plate rather than a cup?
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Three problems off the top of my head.
One way of getting the economy growing would be to build more stuff. But as a country, we don't want more stuff built.
Another way to grow the economy would be to import more workers... spot the flaw with that one.
And then there's the whole trade with Eu...(at this point, Romford Constabulary dragged me away from the keyboard for the sake of public order.)
Ultimately, the electorate in general (and the Conservative electorate in particular) are OK with decline, as long as it is gentle and genteel. Deep down, we'd like to be Audrey Fforbes-Hamilton. As a country, we're stuffed as long as we carry on like this, or look for something-for-nothing get rich quick gimmicks, but I don't see the easy sustainable way out.
There isn't one. There's no way to promote productive economic activity over property speculation, or to avoid taxing businesses and earned incomes into oblivion to fund pensions, health and social care, without launching a direct assault on the interests of the grey vote.
There are too many olds, so anyone who does that simply gets rejected at the ballot box. Thus, on we go, circling the plughole.
I couldn't disagree more. We have a corpulent state, gorging itself on public money and ruining the productive part of the economy. Blaming the crinklies for having a marginally better time of it than young people is a distraction - classic divide and rule.
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
Why do I feel like Rishi has never poured tea in his life?
Could it be because he's got the spout over a plate rather than a cup?
He just cannot do the "common man" look, this is a real problem for him because he continues trying to be "an average bloke". He really should give up on it, it isn't working.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Dude, she couldn’t count.
Fatal for a politician.
We can agree that she didn't sell her reforms, and that she fatally underestimated the forces ranged against them. That doesn’t mean that they were not valid - even vital reforms.
Thing is, Truss, or at least, Truss’s ideology might have worked, had she (or someone else, similarly committed) won the leadership in 2016.
Those of us who don’t want to see the state eviscerated, can thank Theresa May. Oh, and Dominic Cummings - and vote leave - for running such a statist referendum campaign.
You need to convince the electorate of your cause. You can’t just do it by the back door, which is what Truss tried to do, last summer.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Three problems off the top of my head.
One way of getting the economy growing would be to build more stuff. But as a country, we don't want more stuff built.
Another way to grow the economy would be to import more workers... spot the flaw with that one.
And then there's the whole trade with Eu...(at this point, Romford Constabulary dragged me away from the keyboard for the sake of public order.)
Ultimately, the electorate in general (and the Conservative electorate in particular) are OK with decline, as long as it is gentle and genteel. Deep down, we'd like to be Audrey Fforbes-Hamilton. As a country, we're stuffed as long as we carry on like this, or look for something-for-nothing get rich quick gimmicks, but I don't see the easy sustainable way out.
There isn't one. There's no way to promote productive economic activity over property speculation, or to avoid taxing businesses and earned incomes into oblivion to fund pensions, health and social care, without launching a direct assault on the interests of the grey vote.
There are too many olds, so anyone who does that simply gets rejected at the ballot box. Thus, on we go, circling the plughole.
I couldn't disagree more. We have a corpulent state, gorging itself on public money and ruining the productive part of the economy. Blaming the crinklies for having a marginally better time of it than young people is a distraction - classic divide and rule.
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
Why do I feel like Rishi has never poured tea in his life?
Could it be because he's got the spout over a plate rather than a cup?
He just cannot do the "common man" look, this is a real problem for him because he continues trying to be "an average bloke". He really should give up on it, it isn't working.
Pouring a cup of tea to the First Lady is an attempt to do the common man look?
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Dude, she couldn’t count.
Fatal for a politician.
We can agree that she didn't sell her reforms, and that she fatally underestimated the forces ranged against them. That doesn’t mean that they were not valid - even vital reforms.
Thing is, Truss, or at least, Truss’s ideology might have worked, had she (or someone else, similarly committed) won the leadership in 2016 - or more realistically, 2019.
Those of us who don’t want to see the state eviscerated, can thank our lucky charms.
Eviscerate the State? Do me a favour. I'd be happy with removing its KFC charge card and telling it to jog around the block.
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
Why do I feel like Rishi has never poured tea in his life?
Probably because you don’t know him. I can assure you he will have poured tea in his life - he will have poured it to friends of mine regularly.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Dude, she couldn’t count.
Fatal for a politician.
We can agree that she didn't sell her reforms, and that she fatally underestimated the forces ranged against them. That doesn’t mean that they were not valid - even vital reforms.
Thing is, Truss, or at least, Truss’s ideology might have worked, had she (or someone else, similarly committed) won the leadership in 2016 - or more realistically, 2019.
Those of us who don’t want to see the state eviscerated, can thank our lucky charms.
Eviscerate the State? Do me a favour. I'd be happy with removing its KFC charge card and telling it to jog around the block.
Also, this is something I really don’t understand - why do/did so many of your fellow ideological travellers direct your rage onto Sunak and not Boris?
They all yell “Socialist” at Sunak, due to his 2020-22 spending splurges and tax rises, when surely the blame should mostly lie with Boris?
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Three problems off the top of my head.
One way of getting the economy growing would be to build more stuff. But as a country, we don't want more stuff built.
Another way to grow the economy would be to import more workers... spot the flaw with that one.
And then there's the whole trade with Eu...(at this point, Romford Constabulary dragged me away from the keyboard for the sake of public order.)
Ultimately, the electorate in general (and the Conservative electorate in particular) are OK with decline, as long as it is gentle and genteel. Deep down, we'd like to be Audrey Fforbes-Hamilton. As a country, we're stuffed as long as we carry on like this, or look for something-for-nothing get rich quick gimmicks, but I don't see the easy sustainable way out.
There isn't one. There's no way to promote productive economic activity over property speculation, or to avoid taxing businesses and earned incomes into oblivion to fund pensions, health and social care, without launching a direct assault on the interests of the grey vote.
There are too many olds, so anyone who does that simply gets rejected at the ballot box. Thus, on we go, circling the plughole.
I couldn't disagree more. We have a corpulent state, gorging itself on public money and ruining the productive part of the economy. Blaming the crinklies for having a marginally better time of it than young people is a distraction - classic divide and rule.
What would you cut?
I would want to drive public spending down (in real terms) to the first Blair premiership levels - as an ambition. So all departments would probably see significant cuts. Within that there are individual programmes and areas of spending that I think are riper for chopping than others, which I can be more detailed about if you're interested?
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Dude, she couldn’t count.
Fatal for a politician.
We can agree that she didn't sell her reforms, and that she fatally underestimated the forces ranged against them. That doesn’t mean that they were not valid - even vital reforms.
Thing is, Truss, or at least, Truss’s ideology might have worked, had she (or someone else, similarly committed) won the leadership in 2016 - or more realistically, 2019.
Those of us who don’t want to see the state eviscerated, can thank our lucky charms.
Eviscerate the State? Do me a favour. I'd be happy with removing its KFC charge card and telling it to jog around the block.
Also, this is something I really don’t understand - why do/did so many of your fellow ideological travellers direct your rage onto Sunak and not Boris?
They all yell “Socialist” at Sunak, due to his 2020-22 spending splurges and tax rises, when surely the blame should mostly lie with Boris?
He was not responsible for his own Chancellor. Or he changed his mind at the end. Or something.
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
Why do I feel like Rishi has never poured tea in his life?
Probably because you don’t know him. I can assure you he will have poured tea in his life - he will have poured it to friends of mine regularly.
Did he show them his using a contactless card or filling up his car with petrol too?
I thought it was interesting from a psephological point of view. Don't think I've seen such a big discrepancy before.
It's because LD and Lab did a deal and didn't stand against each other.
It's good politics but stinks from a democratic point of view. Lab will be making decisions about my ward but didn't even stand here. It feels like the SNP voting on matters relating to England.
As the Guardian put it "To believe that this arrangement is the result of some bizarre coincidence stretches credulity".
The Leicester City Ward results are interesting too. Readers will know that Leicester was the possibly the most contrary result of Friday, with a previous Hegemony of 53 Lab seats and a solitary Lib Dem. There were 17 losses to the Tories, 3 to Green and 2 to Lib Dem.
Obviously the purge by Labour of 18 sitting councillors deselected earlier this year for their attempt to abolish the Labour Mayor was the driving factor.
Turnout varied tremendously, being in the typical Local Election range of 20-30% in many, but in many of the wards taken by Con the turnout was well over 50%. A tremendous GOTV attempt.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Three problems off the top of my head.
One way of getting the economy growing would be to build more stuff. But as a country, we don't want more stuff built.
Another way to grow the economy would be to import more workers... spot the flaw with that one.
And then there's the whole trade with Eu...(at this point, Romford Constabulary dragged me away from the keyboard for the sake of public order.)
Ultimately, the electorate in general (and the Conservative electorate in particular) are OK with decline, as long as it is gentle and genteel. Deep down, we'd like to be Audrey Fforbes-Hamilton. As a country, we're stuffed as long as we carry on like this, or look for something-for-nothing get rich quick gimmicks, but I don't see the easy sustainable way out.
There isn't one. There's no way to promote productive economic activity over property speculation, or to avoid taxing businesses and earned incomes into oblivion to fund pensions, health and social care, without launching a direct assault on the interests of the grey vote.
There are too many olds, so anyone who does that simply gets rejected at the ballot box. Thus, on we go, circling the plughole.
I couldn't disagree more. We have a corpulent state, gorging itself on public money and ruining the productive part of the economy. Blaming the crinklies for having a marginally better time of it than young people is a distraction - classic divide and rule.
What would you cut?
I would want to drive public spending down (in real terms) to the first Blair premiership levels - as an ambition. So all departments would probably see significant cuts. Within that there are individual programmes and areas of spending that I think are riper for chopping than others, which I can be more detailed about if you're interested?
Specifically which areas would you cut? The biggest increases in spending since Blair has been the NHS, the state pension and public sector defined benefit pensions plus debt interest has gone up from ~£25bn to ~£100bn per year. I think the only other part of government spending that has gone up is defence and that's just barely.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Dude, she couldn’t count.
Fatal for a politician.
We can agree that she didn't sell her reforms, and that she fatally underestimated the forces ranged against them. That doesn’t mean that they were not valid - even vital reforms.
Thing is, Truss, or at least, Truss’s ideology might have worked, had she (or someone else, similarly committed) won the leadership in 2016 - or more realistically, 2019.
Those of us who don’t want to see the state eviscerated, can thank our lucky charms.
Eviscerate the State? Do me a favour. I'd be happy with removing its KFC charge card and telling it to jog around the block.
A lot of the increase in state spending (%GDP) since the Blair years is down to changing demographics (health & social care) and the pensions triple-lock. The triple-lock can't go because no party supporting that would get elected and, short of euthanasia, there's no solution to the demographic problem.
Better to face the fact that the tax take as a %GDP has to grow and tax some of the vast wealth that exists in the country.
Also, let's not try to pretend that money spent on, say, health care is sucked out of the economy. It isn't, it's recycled straight back into the economy.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Three problems off the top of my head.
One way of getting the economy growing would be to build more stuff. But as a country, we don't want more stuff built.
Another way to grow the economy would be to import more workers... spot the flaw with that one.
And then there's the whole trade with Eu...(at this point, Romford Constabulary dragged me away from the keyboard for the sake of public order.)
Ultimately, the electorate in general (and the Conservative electorate in particular) are OK with decline, as long as it is gentle and genteel. Deep down, we'd like to be Audrey Fforbes-Hamilton. As a country, we're stuffed as long as we carry on like this, or look for something-for-nothing get rich quick gimmicks, but I don't see the easy sustainable way out.
There isn't one. There's no way to promote productive economic activity over property speculation, or to avoid taxing businesses and earned incomes into oblivion to fund pensions, health and social care, without launching a direct assault on the interests of the grey vote.
There are too many olds, so anyone who does that simply gets rejected at the ballot box. Thus, on we go, circling the plughole.
I couldn't disagree more. We have a corpulent state, gorging itself on public money and ruining the productive part of the economy. Blaming the crinklies for having a marginally better time of it than young people is a distraction - classic divide and rule.
What would you cut?
I would want to drive public spending down (in real terms) to the first Blair premiership levels - as an ambition. So all departments would probably see significant cuts. Within that there are individual programmes and areas of spending that I think are riper for chopping than others, which I can be more detailed about if you're interested?
You know that every one of those cuts is actually going to depress growth?
I have decided this is my favourite coronation moment. The PM of the UK with the US First Lady having a pot of tea and sandwiches at a street party. Ridiculously small world normal.
Why do I feel like Rishi has never poured tea in his life?
Probably because you don’t know him. I can assure you he will have poured tea in his life - he will have poured it to friends of mine regularly.
Did he show them his using a contactless card or filling up his car with petrol too?
Unlikely as there weren’t contactless cards in those days and he would have been too young to drive.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Dude, she couldn’t count.
Fatal for a politician.
We can agree that she didn't sell her reforms, and that she fatally underestimated the forces ranged against them. That doesn’t mean that they were not valid - even vital reforms.
Thing is, Truss, or at least, Truss’s ideology might have worked, had she (or someone else, similarly committed) won the leadership in 2016 - or more realistically, 2019.
Those of us who don’t want to see the state eviscerated, can thank our lucky charms.
Eviscerate the State? Do me a favour. I'd be happy with removing its KFC charge card and telling it to jog around the block.
A lot of the increase in state spending (%GDP) since the Blair years is down to changing demographics (health & social care) and the pensions triple-lock. The triple-lock can't go because no party supporting that would get elected and, short of euthanasia, there's no solution to the demographic problem.
Better to face the fact that the tax take as a %GDP has to grow and tax some of the vast wealth that exists in the country.
Also, let's not try to pretend that money spent on, say, health care is sucked out of the economy. It isn't, it's recycled straight back into the economy.
Making public sector pensions self funding would be a big step forwards, all DB schemes must be funded by a tax on current DB pensions. We need to call time on paying people tens of thousands per year out of current spending to sit at home and do nothing, whatever promises were made at the time.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
He could argue that Hunt was brought in to stabilise things, and has done that*, and so now it is time for the next stage, which is a pro-growth plan done properly this time, having set the stage for it. And that that requires a new Chancellor.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
All very well, but Rishi is not terribly interested in a pro growth plan. .
Nor was Boris for his premiership until suddenly he is now claimed to have been by his acolytes and he was going to do it before his ousting. And if Lucky is right then Hunt used to be interested in it but then wasn't once appointed.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Three problems off the top of my head.
One way of getting the economy growing would be to build more stuff. But as a country, we don't want more stuff built.
Another way to grow the economy would be to import more workers... spot the flaw with that one.
And then there's the whole trade with Eu...(at this point, Romford Constabulary dragged me away from the keyboard for the sake of public order.)
Ultimately, the electorate in general (and the Conservative electorate in particular) are OK with decline, as long as it is gentle and genteel. Deep down, we'd like to be Audrey Fforbes-Hamilton. As a country, we're stuffed as long as we carry on like this, or look for something-for-nothing get rich quick gimmicks, but I don't see the easy sustainable way out.
There isn't one. There's no way to promote productive economic activity over property speculation, or to avoid taxing businesses and earned incomes into oblivion to fund pensions, health and social care, without launching a direct assault on the interests of the grey vote.
There are too many olds, so anyone who does that simply gets rejected at the ballot box. Thus, on we go, circling the plughole.
I couldn't disagree more. We have a corpulent state, gorging itself on public money and ruining the productive part of the economy. Blaming the crinklies for having a marginally better time of it than young people is a distraction - classic divide and rule.
What would you cut?
I would want to drive public spending down (in real terms) to the first Blair premiership levels - as an ambition. So all departments would probably see significant cuts. Within that there are individual programmes and areas of spending that I think are riper for chopping than others, which I can be more detailed about if you're interested?
Specifically which areas would you cut? The biggest increases in spending since Blair has been the NHS, the state pension and public sector defined benefit pensions plus debt interest has gone up from ~£25bn to ~£100bn per year. I think the only other part of government spending that has gone up is defence and that's just barely.
I would be quite comfortable with cutting the NHS. It has far more administrative staff than it seems to have any use for. I also have a personal belief that NICE pays through the nose for the NHS's drugs.
It has occurred to me that whilst unseating Rishi Sunak is a tall (hehe) order, if there's enough internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation, he might be tempted to throw Hunt under a bus.
That faction had their chance and f*cked it up royally under Truss. Did you miss that?
I have no idea how the 'point' that you're doing your best to express has anything to do with what I wrote.
Well, I may have misunderstood what meant by 'internal dissent surrounding growth and taxation' (in which case I apologise).
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
Truss failed politically. She certainly didn't fail economically, as her supply-side reforms were never enacted. To try to argue otherwise is either being stupid or assuming your readers are. You should get with the pro-growth programme, Starmer has managed it.
Dude, she couldn’t count.
Fatal for a politician.
We can agree that she didn't sell her reforms, and that she fatally underestimated the forces ranged against them. That doesn’t mean that they were not valid - even vital reforms.
Thing is, Truss, or at least, Truss’s ideology might have worked, had she (or someone else, similarly committed) won the leadership in 2016 - or more realistically, 2019.
Those of us who don’t want to see the state eviscerated, can thank our lucky charms.
Eviscerate the State? Do me a favour. I'd be happy with removing its KFC charge card and telling it to jog around the block.
I still haven't a clue what you want. Do you want to reduce the armed forces, spending on vulnerable adults and children, benefit payments in general?
I presume this is about our old favourite, the NHS? Okay then, what's the answer? We could improve public health in any number of ways if we chose but that's a whole other can of philosophical worms.
I thought it was interesting from a psephological point of view. Don't think I've seen such a big discrepancy before.
It's because LD and Lab did a deal and didn't stand against each other.
It's good politics but stinks from a democratic point of view. Lab will be making decisions about my ward but didn't even stand here. It feels like the SNP voting on matters relating to England.
As the Guardian put it "To believe that this arrangement is the result of some bizarre coincidence stretches credulity".
The Leicester City Ward results are interesting too. Readers will know that Leicester was the possibly the most contrary result of Friday, with a previous Hegemony of 53 Lab seats and a solitary Lib Dem. There were 17 losses to the Tories, 3 to Green and 2 to Lib Dem.
Obviously the purge by Labour of 18 sitting councillors deselected earlier this year for their attempt to abolish the Labour Mayor was the driving factor.
Turnout varied tremendously, being in the typical Local Election range of 20-30% in many, but in many of the wards taken by Con the turnout was well over 50%. A tremendous GOTV attempt.
Comments
There is no need to boast or nervously assert audience figures. The world loves the British monarchy, the premiership, Bond, and lots of British things.
Would that the Tory party felt the same way.
It seems a more monarchical power than anything our government has (though maybe some of the Orders in Council stuff?)
(Yes, I know what point you are making).
According to a 90-something who seems to have lived in the village all their life, the main road through has never been closed for a street party before - so genuinely a once-in-lifetime experience.
One amusing blemish on the whole day was the attitude of a couple of drivers on realising they couldn't get through - one even asking us if we could move all the tables to one side just to let him through (er, that'll be a no).
The attempted manufacturing of, especially, “Queen Camilla” - which, only 20% of Brits agree with, was a serious misstep by Charles.
In most people’s eyes, she’s not their queen, she’s a very naughty girl.
But enough. I too am bored of this discourse.The Coronation was great, Zadok was ace, the chances of our becoming a republic in the next 50 years are about 1.3%, let’s move on
Whilst we're at it we can stop with either the pathetic neediness to 'earn that call' early on with the US President, or point to being lower down on a call list as a sign of pathetic UK in decline. We have such a case of cultural cringe with the US (I suspect the odd fascination of US media with the royals makes us feel that cringe is not as prevalent as it is).
We certainly have very little influence on how quickly the car industry changes; we’re too minor a player now,
Not doubting your mother, it’s just interesting how much of our enjoyment comes from stuff like this.
I'm not sure what the 'overreach' you're talking about is - having a coronation at all?
But once again I find what appears to be the prevailing British view on Camillia to be utterly bizarre. It's often referred to as you have with 'manufacturing' and how many people don't see her as the queen. But to me it looks pretty simple - she's the wife of the King, of course she's Queen, what's manufactured about that? With a Queen Regnant there's an argument about the husband being King giving the wrong impression, but that's not the case here.
It must be largely be other royalists and genuine neutrals who get mad about it, since I presume most Republicans don't care what she's called, but I still don't get it. Yes, they are both adulterers, but the only uncommon thing about that with royals is that he did actually marry his mistress.
I did a year of schooling in the UK in 1993, in Gosport (a connection I share with some other posters on here), and in those days there was still this absurd belief in the essential…right?…of the English football team to prosper.
This was the days of the Sun’s merciless attacks on Graham Taylor, informed in part I thought by some sense of betrayal or hurt pride.
At some stage, Britain finally realised that it had no god given right over global football…and frankly, things have been better since that epiphany.
When Britain really focuses with clear-headed unsentimentality - like it did for several Olympics in a row - it can win. When it rests on past glories or bathes in self-pitying nostalgia - it loses.
Yes, there is a political read-across.
Don't think it would wash though. Too obviously a sacking and attempt to save his own skin. I thought sacking Kwarteng and essentially delegating all economic policy to Hunt might have done enough to save Truss, but it didn't.
*never mind if that is true, he could argue it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Denmark
Though of course it all depends how you define England and Denmark as the petty kingdoms coalesced
Using the small boats as a distraction might fool 30p lee and be uncontroversial to the remainers and liberals, but many in the tory fold - and of course, those further to the right - see it as betrayal.
When even Fraser Nelson recognises there’s a problem, there’s a problem.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/coffee-house-shots/id1101754136
The tories need to rediscover their mojo, like they did after TM resigned. Reheated -and thoroughly discredited - cameroonism, with an absurd NF-lite media strategy just won’t cut it.
Even more absurd is where the owner is clear (*cough* Shell Recharge) yet maintenance isn't done once installed so they break.
What do they have now to drive a remojoing?
I think it is true reheated Cameroonism won't cut it, but the people are not crying out for some reheated dry Tory economics either. They are saying they will vote for the party the Tories claim is even more high tax and low growth than them.
Typically when it is argued they need to do more 'conservative' things it's seemingly just a factional dispute within the party about preferred direction, rather than believing that is what the public are clamouring for.
Now I find myself not an angry republican but an entertained one. The whole thing is an absurdity, an anachronism. Queen Camilla is bad enough, but after Chuck chucks it we get King Scowl and Queen Simpleton and their "ooh aren't they cute" kids.
I have no problem with us having a Royal Family. There are all kinds of royalty across Europe in states that are now republics. Happy to keep Prince William as long as he isn't one day going to demand that I become his subject and get to sign things into law using feudal French.
So if he thought it would be his only option Rishi would suddenly find himself interested in such a plan. He might even be able to sell it if he can say the principle was right it was just incompetently done.
Obviously the purge by Labour of 18 sitting councillors deselected earlier this year for their attempt to abolish the Labour Mayor was the driving factor.
Turnout varied tremendously, being in the typical Local Election range of 20-30% in many, but in many of the wards taken by Con the turnout was well over 50%. A tremendous GOTV attempt.
“… I think we’ve got the highest tax burden since the Second World War. What we’ve had from the government is tax rise upon tax rise on tax rise. If they’ve proved one thing, it’s that their high-tax, low-growth economy doesn’t work. What we’ve seen over the last 13 years is an economy that hasn’t worked. It hasn’t grown at any reasonable rate. That the net cause of the cost of living crisis, the reason why people’s wages haven’t gone up cost, why their living standards haven’t gone up. People will be asking themselves after 13 years, am I any better off? And the answer to that is no. Now the question you then put to me: ‘Well, wouldn’t it be therefore sensible to raise taxes even higher’, I think the high-tax, low-growth model doesn’t work.”
Does Keir Starmer have the answers? Clearly not - doesn’t mean it isn't shameful to be in a situation where this statement makes sense.
I would like to think that maybe we'll have a more "continental" type monarchy, if that makes sense.
I assume you think there are a number of Tory MPs who feel that, despite the current national finances, we should be cutting taxes to encourage growth (the Truss plan). If my assumption is right, my earlier point still stands. Truss failed - catastrophically.
So that trip to Essex is a similar distance to your proposal, done with no deviation to a sensible route with stops when you need to stop. No delay, no fuss, and way cheaper than diseasal.
If the Brexit Party choose to stand down in alliance with the Tories, no problem there
Fatal for a politician.
She has a millwall personality that is totally incompatible with high office. Reaganism without Reagan, or the dollar, in a period of rapidly rising interest rates was political insanity.
One way of getting the economy growing would be to build more stuff. But as a country, we don't want more stuff built.
Another way to grow the economy would be to import more workers... spot the flaw with that one.
And then there's the whole trade with Eu...(at this point, Romford Constabulary dragged me away from the keyboard for the sake of public order.)
Ultimately, the electorate in general (and the Conservative electorate in particular) are OK with decline, as long as it is gentle and genteel. Deep down, we'd like to be Audrey Fforbes-Hamilton. As a country, we're stuffed as long as we carry on like this, or look for something-for-nothing get rich quick gimmicks, but I don't see the easy sustainable way out.
But a case could also probably be made that we could not do it then, but we can do it now, properly.
I think it would be a hard sell with the public - whilst people want lower taxes, they reacted poorly to the last plan because it was so clearly rushed and ill thought out, and so would probably be suspicious of a new effort from the Tories.
Especially as it would be an obvious desperation move to shore up internal position and to lower taxes ahead of an election - you might get away with that if reasonably popular, but not when like this. At the moment Starmer coudl announce the same policy as the Tories and get more support for doing so, because he's more liked (if not very liked).
I'm pro-growth; I'm not pro- decimated public services; I'm not pro- unfunded tax cuts; I'm not pro-tax cuts for the wealthiest.
Just found out that a historic pub in Lutterworth I've been to a few times was largely destroyed by fire in February.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-64653346
"We like to delude ourselves that sunnier countries, the ones where we go on holiday, are somehow spared the grimmer aspects of life here at home. I have generally felt more light-hearted in France, for that reason. And hoping for a dose of Paris Spring sunshine I went to see thew new film ‘One Fine Morning’, starring Lea Seydoux. Alas, a large part of it is spent in Paris care homes for the elderly and demented, who are just the same there as here. I suppose I could watch a film of Ms Seydoux building a dry stone wall, just because she was in it. But I’m not sure I really wanted to know how grim France could be. It was nice to pretend that somewhere they managed these things better."
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
Another way would be to reduce taxes on business and investment significantly, to attract new investment.
Another way would be to encourage the exploitation of domestic hydrocarbons via the tax system.
Another way would be to encourage start up businesses by raising the VAT threshold.
Another way would be to subsidise farmers to produce food, rather than turning fields over to scrubland.
There are manifold solutions - the issue is the will to implement them.
That was, after all, the plan of the PLP*.
*Well that's what I think, anyway.
He said it would be worth it as the additional annual growth will compound and if it means bending the debt rules a bit then we should do it and make it permanent. He suggested raising the headline rate to 30% would probably offset most of the near term loss and push more businesses into investing for free capital growth rather than take a 30% hit on declaring profit.
"We call it quaint, and to be honest I didn't think anyone from the family would come!"
If they hold on they are safe. Ditto if they beat Brentford even if they lose tonight.
West Ham don't want to lose both as then they are very exposed in the games v Leicester and Leeds.
There are too many olds, so anyone who does that simply gets rejected at the ballot box. Thus, on we go, circling the plughole.
But I think the collective reaction from most people going forward and increasingly, will be "meh"
Those of us who don’t want to see the state eviscerated, can thank Theresa May. Oh, and Dominic Cummings - and vote leave - for running such a statist referendum campaign.
You need to convince the electorate of your cause. You can’t just do it by the back door, which is what Truss tried to do, last summer.
They all yell “Socialist” at Sunak, due to his 2020-22 spending splurges and tax rises, when surely the blame should mostly lie with Boris?
Better to face the fact that the tax take as a %GDP has to grow and tax some of the vast wealth that exists in the country.
Also, let's not try to pretend that money spent on, say, health care is sucked out of the economy. It isn't, it's recycled straight back into the economy.
An awful lot of tedious BBC foreplay at the moment.
I presume this is about our old favourite, the NHS? Okay then, what's the answer? We could improve public health in any number of ways if we chose but that's a whole other can of philosophical worms.
Wa-hey! That sounds *incredibly* rude!
I can see why they didn't choose pink!