Thanks to everyone who posted about the Post Office scandal yesterday. The comments were so interesting I spent about two hours reading through all of them last night, sometimes more than once.
This is the video of this morning's evidence at the inquiry.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
Do you mean as when Heath as ex-PM went to China? Didn't QEII say to him at a reception just before his trip something on the lines of: "As you are an ex-Prime Minister, if anything happens to you it won't matter very much."?
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
Not sure about Canada but being poor here has become increasingly shit.
Low end Jobs are pretty shit with ever reducing benefits. Was talking to a guy who's worked for Morrisons for 15 years. The slow erosion of relative pay (no extras for holidays, no pay for breaks etc), working conditions and declining staffing levels has made the basic jobs unpleasant.
Not just the low paid.
It dawned on me recently that there could be an entire generation who cannot retire because they have rents to pay because they were unable to get on the housing ladder.
I’ve been calling that out for a while.
U.K. pensions are largely based around having free (or nearly free) accommodation on retirement.
A friend of my father has downsized his big house for a bungalow and used the proceeds to give his 3 kids deposits.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right ...
Is this the new "Enoch was right"?
More to the point, is it prima facie grounds for committal to a psychiatric facility? (You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.)
Harlan Crow Sure Isn’t Paying for Your Kid’s School
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/harlan-crow-school-payments-insult-injury.html ...So that—right there—is the problem. It’s not that Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo aren’t free to pick who their friends are. It’s that they happened to be in charge of spending a ton of money to use the courts to restructure democracy, and they deliberately picked the friends who would help them do it. The problem is that everyone seems to have acceded to an arrangement in which those millionaire donors get to give stuff to their “friends,” and that this ought to be a secret, because otherwise it would compromise their privacy. If you are a Justice, you have to disclose this kind of stuff. If that bothers you—if you are so committed to living a private life beyond the reach of disclosure—you can go be a urologist or something.
Which is why the real answer to why you don’t get to have rich friends like Harlan Crow is not that Harlan Crow wouldn’t like you if he knew you. He probably would. It’s just that Harlan Crow doesn’t want or need to know you. His claim that he met Justice Thomas and found himself “sympatico” has less to do with the nature of private friendship than with the nature of public power. And the way power currently works in this country is that you get to buy it. If you don’t see the straight line between Citizens United, Leonard Leo, Shelby County, and the concerted effort to take power from regular you and give it to Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo, you are not seeing the plan clearly.
There’s also something specifically infuriating about the way defenders of the deep spiritual kinship between Harlan Crow and Clarence and Ginni Thomas root their argument in the fact that paying for an at-risk youth’s private school tuition is a noble act—“charity” even. The problem with that is: This is a conservative legal movement that is racing to subvert voting, public education, the administrative state, and (at present) the possibility of student loan forgiveness. So Harlan Crow’s replacement of an entire New Deal safety net with an ad hoc charitable benefits system administered by himself and directed only at the offspring of personal friends is specifically infuriating...
...The lesson we are learning from the new scandals at the high court go way beyond “ethics” reform. This is no longer an ethics problem. This is a democracy reform problem and it signals first and foremost an effort to deform democracy to serve the Harlan Crows and the Leonard Leos of the world. It also signals a view of democracy in which they will determine whose private life is private and who are the “gossips” (you may still know them as “journalists”...
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right ...
Is this the new "Enoch was right"?
More to the point, is it prima facie grounds for committal to a psychiatric facility? (You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.)
That poll mentions assisted dying. Surely that and euthanasia are not the same thing.
There are huge concerns in Canada at the moment that the basic safeties that one would expect with assisted dying (of which I am in favour with such protections) are not in place. The recent changes being proposed mean it is possible for those who are mentally ill to qualify for assisted dying. Many Canadian doctors who otherwise support and take part in assisted dying are extremely unhappy about it. They believe it has, in effect, become a form of euthanasia.
Edited to correct as the assisted dying for mentally ill has not yet been introduced but is being promoted by the Government. The 2021 rule changes meant someone who is not terminally ill can have assisted dying.
If assisted dying exists, it should be like how abortion was trailed, safe, legal, and rare.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right ...
Is this the new "Enoch was right"?
More to the point, is it prima facie grounds for committal to a psychiatric facility? (You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.)
No idea, are you pining for some company?
You don't know whether what you just said is grounds for committal to a psychiatric institution?
Vladimir Putin’s army tried to sign men up for the war in Ukraine at a propaganda festival headlined by a Scots piper and sponsored by the Scottish cultural centre in Moscow.
Jimi McRae performed in Samara, a city about 600 miles southeast of the capital, on a stage emblazoned with the letter Z, the symbol associated with Putin’s “special military operation”. Independent journalists said army recruiters targeted people watching him at the closing “gala” concert at the event, which was billed as an “anti-fascist song festival”.
SNP and Conservative politicians have condemned the decision by McRae, from Galashiels, to take part in the event alongside performers and organisers who repeatedly referred to the war in Ukraine as an operation against Nazis.
I wrote an article Saturday, and it seems to be well-liked. As you may know I do post-match debriefs: discussions backstage on the article, added info, etc. If you or anybody else wants to join it you can do so by telling me and I'll add you. Three of you have already joined and they now have access to the ins-and-outs of the article and why the hell I did such a silly thing in a five-day spurt.
I will also be online in that backstage area between 7pm and 8pm BST on Tuesday March 9th to answer any questions. Please restrain your excitement. IRL I would bring cake, but alas we cannot do that online...
So: if you want access to either the backstage area, or the online Q&A sesh, or both, then please let me know and I'll add you.
PS @GIN1138 , you were ambiguous in your reply: if you want to join, just say
Not sure about Canada but being poor here has become increasingly shit.
Low end Jobs are pretty shit with ever reducing benefits. Was talking to a guy who's worked for Morrisons for 15 years. The slow erosion of relative pay (no extras for holidays, no pay for breaks etc), working conditions and declining staffing levels has made the basic jobs unpleasant.
Not just the low paid.
It dawned on me recently that there could be an entire generation who cannot retire because they have rents to pay because they were unable to get on the housing ladder.
I’ve been calling that out for a while.
U.K. pensions are largely based around having free (or nearly free) accommodation on retirement.
A friend of my father has downsized his big house for a bungalow and used the proceeds to give his 3 kids deposits.
It shouldn't have to come to that.
No, but we should welcome the efficient use of the housing stock.
Large house + no dependents = massive council tax hike.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
I wrote an article Saturday, and it seems to be well-liked. As you may know I do post-match debriefs: discussions backstage on the article, added info, etc. If you or anybody else wants to join it you can do so by telling me and I'll add you. Three of you have already joined and they now have access to the ins-and-outs of the article and why the hell I did such a silly thing in a five-day spurt.
I will also be online in that backstage area between 7pm and 8pm BST on Tuesday March 9th to answer any questions. Please restrain your excitement. IRL I would bring cake, but alas we cannot do that online...
So: if you want access to either the backstage area, or the online Q&A sesh, or both, then please let me know and I'll add you.
PS @GIN1138 , you were ambiguous in your reply: if you want to join, just say
There may be no cake, but I suspect RCS can arrange for some cookies to be served to visitors
ETA: I missed the article originally, just looking... Please pop me in the discussion, but unfortunately I can't make this evening.
Not sure about Canada but being poor here has become increasingly shit.
Low end Jobs are pretty shit with ever reducing benefits. Was talking to a guy who's worked for Morrisons for 15 years. The slow erosion of relative pay (no extras for holidays, no pay for breaks etc), working conditions and declining staffing levels has made the basic jobs unpleasant.
Not just the low paid.
It dawned on me recently that there could be an entire generation who cannot retire because they have rents to pay because they were unable to get on the housing ladder.
I used to pay that one person's wealth didn't cause another person's poverty. The nature of economic growth meant an expanding pie meant more to go round, even if unequal slices.
But in the last ten years I have realised that is not always true. Because some things (housing near big cities, quality higher education, healthcare) are not easily to increase the supply of, that means that competition for these things gets more fierce. In an increasingly unequal society, the super rich will bid up the price more and more, pushing the upper middle class out to the next tier, who bid the price up above the middle class and so on. The poor have been left excluded and that is now extending to the lower middle class too. We need more redistribution.
Of course, the other part of this is that redistribution is easier with more rich people and fewer poor people. That has implications for immigration.
It is quite trivial to increase the supply of housing. We have chosen not to.
Increasing the supply of higher education is perfectly possible.
Likewise healthcare.
That is simply not true because to maintain the quality of housing, it needs to be equally convenient in job access, pleasantness of area and in physical space. The job access means commutable to an economic hub, and the more people you pack in, the worse traffic congestion is and the commutable distance shortens, squeezing more people out. Also, to build more in the urban area and squeezing around existing homes, means smaller abodes and higher population density neighbourhoods, which is strongly correlated with lower happiness.
Increasing the supply of higher education can certainly be done, but very hard to do at a similar quality, as we saw in the expansion in the 2000s. Very easy to create more Boltons and Lutons, but hard to develop more Cambridges and LSEs. Especially so when the top universities now give most of their growth to foreign students.
Healthcare is also difficult because only so many people have the intelligence to be doctors, and inequality elsewhere means many would-be doctors go into other more lucrative professions. Expansion means a lot more pay, which pushes up healthcare costs, or decreases quality if you try to limit that.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
Can't see Sunak doing anything other than hanging on till October 2024 at least, or very possibly January 2025.
...
There is not one iota of a chance that it will be January 2025. @TSE has already dealt with this emphatically.
It will be before October 27th 2024 when the clocks go back.
17th months and counting until Labour win a landslide.
Agreed absolutely no chance of Jan 2025.
Also unlikely/no chance Nov or Dec 2024 but I really wouldn't rule out Thur 31 Oct 2024.
October 2024 is big favourite with May (alignment with local elections) or early June (if local elections ok for CON) a smaller possibility.
It was December last time. So what makes December impossible?
I have pointed out lots of times, the Tory’s do more than poll better in spring months this parliament, they poll very well in them. I’m of opinion the best general election result for Sunak’s outgoing government can be achieved next spring. Summer 2024 of more boat arrivals will leave their support in a much worse place.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
I wrote an article Saturday, and it seems to be well-liked. As you may know I do post-match debriefs: discussions backstage on the article, added info, etc. If you or anybody else wants to join it you can do so by telling me and I'll add you. Three of you have already joined and they now have access to the ins-and-outs of the article and why the hell I did such a silly thing in a five-day spurt.
I will also be online in that backstage area between 7pm and 8pm BST on Tuesday March 9th to answer any questions. Please restrain your excitement. IRL I would bring cake, but alas we cannot do that online...
So: if you want access to either the backstage area, or the online Q&A sesh, or both, then please let me know and I'll add you.
PS @GIN1138 , you were ambiguous in your reply: if you want to join, just say
There may be no cake, but I suspect RCS can arrange for some cookies to be served to visitors
ETA: I missed the article originally, just looking... Please pop me in the discussion, but unfortunately I can't make this evening.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
It's not anti-royalism, my position is pro democracy.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
It's not anti-royalism, my position is pro democracy.
Yep, if KCIII continues to intervene in the political process like he used to, as in this case and in the legislative process, then we might as well cancel the monarchy and go for a much cheaper elective presidency.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
But on this Lucky is right, and you are wrong.
Let’s paint a true history here. By refusing Windfall tax Truss made an unpopular mistake, rightly unpopular, a budget deemed to benefit the most wealthy was unpopular too, rightly so. And the promise to buck the energy market all the way up to the general election, at huge cost to GDP was economically daft and rightly called out by the markets, but not many of us called it out on PB.
But if you wish to throw the lazy ignorant claim Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy leading to emergency tax rises to pay for it, the facts Lucky and I will post will utterly humiliate you.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
It's not anti-royalism, my position is pro democracy.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
Boris's gripe appears to be that the King personally leaked his views on the Rwanda deportations to The Times, though I'm inclined to believe that as much as I believe that the late Queen leaked her view that Brexit would be brilliant to The Sun.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
It's not anti-royalism, my position is pro democracy.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
But on this Lucky is right, and you are wrong.
Let’s paint a true history here. By refusing Windfall tax Truss made an unpopular mistake, rightly unpopular, a budget deemed to benefit the most wealthy was unpopular too, rightly so. And the promise to buck the energy market all the way up to the general election, at huge cost to GDP was economically daft and rightly called out by the markets, but not many of us called it out on PB.
But if you wish to throw the lazy ignorant claim Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy leading to emergency tax rises to pay for it ...
It's a pretty lazy logical fallacy to set up some silly straw man like this, and conclude that it justifies anyone in subscribing to such a bizarre idea as "Truss was right".
The total capitalization of London-listed equities fell from a high of $4.3 trillion in 2007 to about $3 trillion in 2023, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over the same period, the value of US stocks more than doubled to $43 trillion.
If there is any one single factor in the fall off in UK total market capitalisation it is that the regulatory rules and requirements around listing in London (not only on the Stock Market but what you have to do as a company, the various legal requirements you have to make etc) make it totally unattractive. We have a poisonous combination of regulators who gold-plate the regulations to the nth degree and what is effectively a New Labour (still) mindset of seeing corporates not as entities to generate profits but to bring about 'desired' outcomes such as in ESG, diversity etc.
If there was one EU rule that heavily influenced things also it was MiFid2 - and in an entirely negative way when the UK (again) gold-plated the rules making research coverage of UK smaller cap companies unattractive.
What it is not down to is Brexit.
Long thread on why Budweiser are finding it so difficult to back down from their little controversy in the US.
TL:DR - parent company AB InBev, based in the EU, is all over the ESG, DEI and Garn stuff, and investors expect them to stick to it even as their stock crashes.
AB InBev's share price doesn't seem to have been 'crashed':
In any case they have nothing to apologize for. Those hounding them otoh - an ugly spectacle.
Those hounding them are the usual suspects, the woke left angrily demanding no apology.
The right-wingers are simply buying a different beer.
That is not what I've read. Maybe a case of the Two Twitters.
There’s a bit of that, but the company have basically now got themselves into a no-win situation.
There’s several different group coming for them:
1. The far-left agitators, demanding no apology with menaces. 2. Right-wing media, asking for an apology and promoting the boycott. 3. Customers who are buying different beer in large numbers. 4. Transgender groups, upset that the company chose as their transgender promotor someone who is not transgender, but a cross-dresser doing the equivalent of blackface. 5. Other transgender groups, praising the company for using the aforementioned individual. 6. Feminist groups, complaining that the aforementioned individual isn’t really a woman either, and that they should be spending their money with woman influencers.
Meanwhile, three executives have been replaced, as has the marketing agency used, more senior brand oversight has been promised, they are giving away free beer to distributors, and have promised a big marketing campaign for summer.
That poll mentions assisted dying. Surely that and euthanasia are not the same thing.
There are huge concerns in Canada at the moment that the basic safeties that one would expect with assisted dying (of which I am in favour with such protections) are not in place. The recent changes being proposed mean it is possible for those who are mentally ill to qualify for assisted dying. Many Canadian doctors who otherwise support and take part in assisted dying are extremely unhappy about it. They believe it has, in effect, become a form of euthanasia.
Edited to correct as the assisted dying for mentally ill has not yet been introduced but is being promoted by the Government. The 2021 rule changes meant someone who is not terminally ill can have assisted dying.
If assisted dying exists, it should be like how abortion was trailed, safe, legal, and rare.
Not sure about Canada but being poor here has become increasingly shit.
Low end Jobs are pretty shit with ever reducing benefits. Was talking to a guy who's worked for Morrisons for 15 years. The slow erosion of relative pay (no extras for holidays, no pay for breaks etc), working conditions and declining staffing levels has made the basic jobs unpleasant.
Not just the low paid.
It dawned on me recently that there could be an entire generation who cannot retire because they have rents to pay because they were unable to get on the housing ladder.
I used to pay that one person's wealth didn't cause another person's poverty. The nature of economic growth meant an expanding pie meant more to go round, even if unequal slices.
But in the last ten years I have realised that is not always true. Because some things (housing near big cities, quality higher education, healthcare) are not easily to increase the supply of, that means that competition for these things gets more fierce. In an increasingly unequal society, the super rich will bid up the price more and more, pushing the upper middle class out to the next tier, who bid the price up above the middle class and so on. The poor have been left excluded and that is now extending to the lower middle class too. We need more redistribution.
Of course, the other part of this is that redistribution is easier with more rich people and fewer poor people. That has implications for immigration.
It is quite trivial to increase the supply of housing. We have chosen not to.
Increasing the supply of higher education is perfectly possible.
Likewise healthcare.
That is simply not true because to maintain the quality of housing, it needs to be equally convenient in job access, pleasantness of area and in physical space. The job access means commutable to an economic hub, and the more people you pack in, the worse traffic congestion is and the commutable distance shortens, squeezing more people out. Also, to build more in the urban area and squeezing around existing homes, means smaller abodes and higher population density neighbourhoods, which is strongly correlated with lower happiness.
Increasing the supply of higher education can certainly be done, but very hard to do at a similar quality, as we saw in the expansion in the 2000s. Very easy to create more Boltons and Lutons, but hard to develop more Cambridges and LSEs. Especially so when the top universities now give most of their growth to foreign students.
Healthcare is also difficult because only so many people have the intelligence to be doctors, and inequality elsewhere means many would-be doctors go into other more lucrative professions. Expansion means a lot more pay, which pushes up healthcare costs, or decreases quality if you try to limit that.
Higher speed transport increases the effective catchment pool for commuting. Hence the talk of the “Golden half hour” and the “Golden hour”
Imagine, for instance that I constructed a 500mph train service between London and some part of Scotland. This would make said part of Scotland part of the suburbs of London.
This is an extreme case, but illustrative.
Higher education quality is a function of regulation and enforcement, mostly.
Having experienced private and state education for myself and my daughters, what private education does is to maximise (or attempt to) academic result from the same human material. Even with the selecting-for-those-who-want-to-be-their issue, this leads to the following with utter certainty.
We could increase the number of people educated to Oxbridge level (say) by a factor of 3 without exhausting the human potential in the general population. The same goes for the next level down of universities
We could, then, train 3x as many doctors from the U.K. population, without any diminution in quality.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
It's not anti-royalism, my position is pro democracy.
You're not anti-royal? That's a joke, isn't it?
No joke.
Well, I'd have more respect for you if you acknowledged you were anti-royal. There's no shame in that. But frankly I don't think you're being honest in denying it, because you make it very obvious. I don't say whether it's right or wrong, but it's obvious.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
It's not anti-royalism, my position is pro democracy.
You're not anti-royal? That's a joke, isn't it?
No joke.
Well, I'd have more respect for you if you acknowledged you were anti-royal. There's no shame in that. But frankly I don't think you're being honest in denying it, because you make it very obvious. I don't say whether it's right or wrong, but it's obvious.
I am sure he isn't too worried. Let's face it no-one can have any less respect for you @Chris
That poll mentions assisted dying. Surely that and euthanasia are not the same thing.
There are huge concerns in Canada at the moment that the basic safeties that one would expect with assisted dying (of which I am in favour with such protections) are not in place. The recent changes being proposed mean it is possible for those who are mentally ill to qualify for assisted dying. Many Canadian doctors who otherwise support and take part in assisted dying are extremely unhappy about it. They believe it has, in effect, become a form of euthanasia.
Edited to correct as the assisted dying for mentally ill has not yet been introduced but is being promoted by the Government. The 2021 rule changes meant someone who is not terminally ill can have assisted dying.
If assisted dying exists, it should be like how abortion was trailed, safe, legal, and rare.
And not what abortion has become, on-demand and with few safeguards.
The total capitalization of London-listed equities fell from a high of $4.3 trillion in 2007 to about $3 trillion in 2023, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over the same period, the value of US stocks more than doubled to $43 trillion.
Someone will make a lot of money out of the transition to 'green' energy. Probably the Chinese and the US (especially Tesla).
"Like past technology shifts, it is a transformation, not merely a substitution. As RethinkX notes, this is not a brown caterpillar to a green caterpillar, but rather a caterpillar to a butterfly, which means different economics, geographies, winners, and energy carriers. Just like past technology shifts, the falling costs of the new render the old obsolete."
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
It's not anti-royalism, my position is pro democracy.
You're not anti-royal? That's a joke, isn't it?
No joke.
Well, I'd have more respect for you if you acknowledged you were anti-royal. There's no shame in that. But frankly I don't think you're being honest in denying it, because you make it very obvious. I don't say whether it's right or wrong, but it's obvious.
I am sure he isn't too worried. Let's face it no-one can have any less respect for you @Chris
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
It's not anti-royalism, my position is pro democracy.
You're not anti-royal? That's a joke, isn't it?
No joke.
Well, I'd have more respect for you if you acknowledged you were anti-royal. There's no shame in that. But frankly I don't think you're being honest in denying it, because you make it very obvious. I don't say whether it's right or wrong, but it's obvious.
I am sure he isn't too worried. Let's face it no-one can have any less respect for you @Chris
I expected no less of you.
I'll take that as a compliment. If you had said you had expected more of me, I would have found it harder to respond.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
He wasn't king at the time of course (I've just twigged), so we've all wasted a lot of typing on a misapprehension.
And of course, expressing an opinion privately is nothing whatsoever like refusing to give royal assent. I very much doubt that the monarch has that power anyway these days - or has had it for several generations (or perhaps centuries).
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
He wasn't king at the time of course (I've just twigged), so we've all wasted a lot of typing on a misapprehension.
It’s a difficult transition, but I think (hope!) that Charles understands his role is now to be politically impartial. He’s had longer than anyone to prepare for the role, which can be a good or bad thing.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
That the king allegedly expressed an opinion privately on a political matter?
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
It's not anti-royalism, my position is pro democracy.
You're not anti-royal? That's a joke, isn't it?
No joke.
Well, I'd have more respect for you if you acknowledged you were anti-royal. There's no shame in that. But frankly I don't think you're being honest in denying it, because you make it very obvious. I don't say whether it's right or wrong, but it's obvious.
I am sure he isn't too worried. Let's face it no-one can have any less respect for you @Chris
I expected no less of you.
I'll take that as a compliment. If you had said you had expected more of me, I would have found it harder to respond.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
That poll mentions assisted dying. Surely that and euthanasia are not the same thing.
There are huge concerns in Canada at the moment that the basic safeties that one would expect with assisted dying (of which I am in favour with such protections) are not in place. The recent changes being proposed mean it is possible for those who are mentally ill to qualify for assisted dying. Many Canadian doctors who otherwise support and take part in assisted dying are extremely unhappy about it. They believe it has, in effect, become a form of euthanasia.
Edited to correct as the assisted dying for mentally ill has not yet been introduced but is being promoted by the Government. The 2021 rule changes meant someone who is not terminally ill can have assisted dying.
If assisted dying exists, it should be like how abortion was trailed, safe, legal, and rare.
Which eventually led it to become pretty much on demand up to certain age limits (the doctors' consent issue is a joke) and then to people saying it should be allowed up to the point of birth. I'm not sure that is a comforting analogy (although I get you said how it was trailed not how it is now).
Just made it to 400 miles on day 17 so I’m celebrating with a beer
A bit over four miles to go today
When you have walked another hundred you will be able to say:
Da d-da da, da d-da da, da d-da da, da d-da da Da-da-da dun-diddle un-diddle un-diddle a da da Da d-da da, da d-da da, da d-da da, da d-da da Da-da-da dun-diddle un-diddle un-diddle a da da
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
He wasn't king at the time of course (I've just twigged), so we've all wasted a lot of typing on a misapprehension.
And of course, expressing an opinion privately is nothing whatsoever like refusing to give royal assent. I very much doubt that the monarch has that power anyway these days - or has had it for several generations (or perhaps centuries).
I’ve heard it said that the late Queen commented on a number of policies to various PMs in her weekly chats. The general line seemed to be that she had an eye for spotting the really bad ideas.
That poll mentions assisted dying. Surely that and euthanasia are not the same thing.
There are huge concerns in Canada at the moment that the basic safeties that one would expect with assisted dying (of which I am in favour with such protections) are not in place. The recent changes being proposed mean it is possible for those who are mentally ill to qualify for assisted dying. Many Canadian doctors who otherwise support and take part in assisted dying are extremely unhappy about it. They believe it has, in effect, become a form of euthanasia.
Edited to correct as the assisted dying for mentally ill has not yet been introduced but is being promoted by the Government. The 2021 rule changes meant someone who is not terminally ill can have assisted dying.
If assisted dying exists, it should be like how abortion was trailed, safe, legal, and rare.
Which eventually led it to become pretty much on demand up to certain age limits (the doctors' consent issue is a joke) and then to people saying it should be allowed up to the point of birth. I'm not sure that is a comforting analogy (although I get you said how it was trailed not how it is now).
Nothing ever ends up being like it was trailed does it.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
He wasn't king at the time of course (I've just twigged), so we've all wasted a lot of typing on a misapprehension.
And of course, expressing an opinion privately is nothing whatsoever like refusing to give royal assent. I very much doubt that the monarch has that power anyway these days - or has had it for several generations (or perhaps centuries).
No, he just gets the legislation bits changed in advance. See the Guardian, Slab attacks on SNP, etc. ad libitum in recent years.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
He wasn't king at the time of course (I've just twigged), so we've all wasted a lot of typing on a misapprehension.
And of course, expressing an opinion privately is nothing whatsoever like refusing to give royal assent. I very much doubt that the monarch has that power anyway these days - or has had it for several generations (or perhaps centuries).
I’ve heard it said that the late Queen commented on a number of policies to various PMs in her weekly chats. The general line seemed to be that she had an eye for spotting the really bad ideas.
I wonder whether she ever said "Now Mr. Cameron. This in-out referendum idea. Is it really wise?"
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
He wasn't king at the time of course (I've just twigged), so we've all wasted a lot of typing on a misapprehension.
And of course, expressing an opinion privately is nothing whatsoever like refusing to give royal assent. I very much doubt that the monarch has that power anyway these days - or has had it for several generations (or perhaps centuries).
I’ve heard it said that the late Queen commented on a number of policies to various PMs in her weekly chats. The general line seemed to be that she had an eye for spotting the really bad ideas.
Imagine being the PM in recent years, and having someone with 60+ years experience of government and world affairs, with whom you could bounce ideas in total confidence on a regular basis.
Invaluable advice, from an irreplaceable individual.
The total capitalization of London-listed equities fell from a high of $4.3 trillion in 2007 to about $3 trillion in 2023, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over the same period, the value of US stocks more than doubled to $43 trillion.
If there is any one single factor in the fall off in UK total market capitalisation it is that the regulatory rules and requirements around listing in London (not only on the Stock Market but what you have to do as a company, the various legal requirements you have to make etc) make it totally unattractive. We have a poisonous combination of regulators who gold-plate the regulations to the nth degree and what is effectively a New Labour (still) mindset of seeing corporates not as entities to generate profits but to bring about 'desired' outcomes such as in ESG, diversity etc.
If there was one EU rule that heavily influenced things also it was MiFid2 - and in an entirely negative way when the UK (again) gold-plated the rules making research coverage of UK smaller cap companies unattractive.
What it is not down to is Brexit.
Long thread on why Budweiser are finding it so difficult to back down from their little controversy in the US.
TL:DR - parent company AB InBev, based in the EU, is all over the ESG, DEI and Garn stuff, and investors expect them to stick to it even as their stock crashes.
AB InBev's share price doesn't seem to have been 'crashed':
In any case they have nothing to apologize for. Those hounding them otoh - an ugly spectacle.
Those hounding them are the usual suspects, the woke left angrily demanding no apology.
The right-wingers are simply buying a different beer.
That is not what I've read. Maybe a case of the Two Twitters.
There’s a bit of that, but the company have basically now got themselves into a no-win situation.
There’s several different group coming for them:
1. The far-left agitators, demanding no apology with menaces. 2. Right-wing media, asking for an apology and promoting the boycott. 3. Customers who are buying different beer in large numbers. 4. Transgender groups, upset that the company chose as their transgender promotor someone who is not transgender, but a cross-dresser doing the equivalent of blackface. 5. Other transgender groups, praising the company for using the aforementioned individual. 6. Feminist groups, complaining that the aforementioned individual isn’t really a woman either, and that they should be spending their money with woman influencers.
Meanwhile, three executives have been replaced, as has the marketing agency used, more senior brand oversight has been promised, they are giving away free beer to distributors, and have promised a big marketing campaign for summer.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
He wasn't king at the time of course (I've just twigged), so we've all wasted a lot of typing on a misapprehension.
And of course, expressing an opinion privately is nothing whatsoever like refusing to give royal assent. I very much doubt that the monarch has that power anyway these days - or has had it for several generations (or perhaps centuries).
No, he just gets the legislation bits changed in advance. See the Guardian, Slab attacks on SNP, etc. ad libitum in recent years.
I must confess, I do enjoy taking the piss out of nationalism, and let's face it, the biggest nationalism joke at the moment is the Scottish variety. I recognise it is somewhat dark humour because there isn't really much to joke about a philosophy that is based on who you are not, and by extension the dislike or hatred of "the others". I could, if you prefer (as I am half English) use the term "Scotch" because according to one very bitter poster on here that is what all English people refer to folk that are north of that somewhat artificial border.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
I'm unsurprised you've swallowed this particular pill, given you swallowed and regurgitated all Russia's dribblings over the MH17 shootdown.
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
The total capitalization of London-listed equities fell from a high of $4.3 trillion in 2007 to about $3 trillion in 2023, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over the same period, the value of US stocks more than doubled to $43 trillion.
If there is any one single factor in the fall off in UK total market capitalisation it is that the regulatory rules and requirements around listing in London (not only on the Stock Market but what you have to do as a company, the various legal requirements you have to make etc) make it totally unattractive. We have a poisonous combination of regulators who gold-plate the regulations to the nth degree and what is effectively a New Labour (still) mindset of seeing corporates not as entities to generate profits but to bring about 'desired' outcomes such as in ESG, diversity etc.
If there was one EU rule that heavily influenced things also it was MiFid2 - and in an entirely negative way when the UK (again) gold-plated the rules making research coverage of UK smaller cap companies unattractive.
What it is not down to is Brexit.
Long thread on why Budweiser are finding it so difficult to back down from their little controversy in the US.
TL:DR - parent company AB InBev, based in the EU, is all over the ESG, DEI and Garn stuff, and investors expect them to stick to it even as their stock crashes.
AB InBev's share price doesn't seem to have been 'crashed':
In any case they have nothing to apologize for. Those hounding them otoh - an ugly spectacle.
Those hounding them are the usual suspects, the woke left angrily demanding no apology.
The right-wingers are simply buying a different beer.
That is not what I've read. Maybe a case of the Two Twitters.
There’s a bit of that, but the company have basically now got themselves into a no-win situation.
There’s several different group coming for them:
1. The far-left agitators, demanding no apology with menaces. 2. Right-wing media, asking for an apology and promoting the boycott. 3. Customers who are buying different beer in large numbers. 4. Transgender groups, upset that the company chose as their transgender promotor someone who is not transgender, but a cross-dresser doing the equivalent of blackface. 5. Other transgender groups, praising the company for using the aforementioned individual. 6. Feminist groups, complaining that the aforementioned individual isn’t really a woman either, and that they should be spending their money with woman influencers.
Meanwhile, three executives have been replaced, as has the marketing agency used, more senior brand oversight has been promised, they are giving away free beer to distributors, and have promised a big marketing campaign for summer.
Also, their product is shit.
But popular sh!t - the #1 selling beer in the US.
It wasn’t just that influencer though, probably worse was the interview with the (former) marketing manager, unearthed after the scandal broke, where she described the brand’s image as ‘too fratty’ and promising to make it ‘more diverse’.
The closest equivalent in politics is probably Hillary Clinton and the ‘basket of deplorables’.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
But on this Lucky is right, and you are wrong.
Let’s paint a true history here. By refusing Windfall tax Truss made an unpopular mistake, rightly unpopular, a budget deemed to benefit the most wealthy was unpopular too, rightly so. And the promise to buck the energy market all the way up to the general election, at huge cost to GDP was economically daft and rightly called out by the markets, but not many of us called it out on PB.
But if you wish to throw the lazy ignorant claim Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy leading to emergency tax rises to pay for it ...
It's a pretty lazy logical fallacy to set up some silly straw man like this, and conclude that it justifies anyone in subscribing to such a bizarre idea as "Truss was right".
Not very clear what you are saying is it?
I’m very clear in what I’m saying, and my laughter in the direction of bondegezou for coming up with such ignorant rubbish that Truss mini budget cost UK £XXXb
The total capitalization of London-listed equities fell from a high of $4.3 trillion in 2007 to about $3 trillion in 2023, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over the same period, the value of US stocks more than doubled to $43 trillion.
If there is any one single factor in the fall off in UK total market capitalisation it is that the regulatory rules and requirements around listing in London (not only on the Stock Market but what you have to do as a company, the various legal requirements you have to make etc) make it totally unattractive. We have a poisonous combination of regulators who gold-plate the regulations to the nth degree and what is effectively a New Labour (still) mindset of seeing corporates not as entities to generate profits but to bring about 'desired' outcomes such as in ESG, diversity etc.
If there was one EU rule that heavily influenced things also it was MiFid2 - and in an entirely negative way when the UK (again) gold-plated the rules making research coverage of UK smaller cap companies unattractive.
What it is not down to is Brexit.
Long thread on why Budweiser are finding it so difficult to back down from their little controversy in the US.
TL:DR - parent company AB InBev, based in the EU, is all over the ESG, DEI and Garn stuff, and investors expect them to stick to it even as their stock crashes.
AB InBev's share price doesn't seem to have been 'crashed':
In any case they have nothing to apologize for. Those hounding them otoh - an ugly spectacle.
Those hounding them are the usual suspects, the woke left angrily demanding no apology.
The right-wingers are simply buying a different beer.
That is not what I've read. Maybe a case of the Two Twitters.
There’s a bit of that, but the company have basically now got themselves into a no-win situation.
There’s several different group coming for them:
1. The far-left agitators, demanding no apology with menaces. 2. Right-wing media, asking for an apology and promoting the boycott. 3. Customers who are buying different beer in large numbers. 4. Transgender groups, upset that the company chose as their transgender promotor someone who is not transgender, but a cross-dresser doing the equivalent of blackface. 5. Other transgender groups, praising the company for using the aforementioned individual. 6. Feminist groups, complaining that the aforementioned individual isn’t really a woman either, and that they should be spending their money with woman influencers.
Meanwhile, three executives have been replaced, as has the marketing agency used, more senior brand oversight has been promised, they are giving away free beer to distributors, and have promised a big marketing campaign for summer.
Also, their product is shit.
But popular sh!t - the #1 selling beer in the US.
It wasn’t just that influencer though, probably worse was the interview with the (former) marketing manager, unearthed after the scandal broke, where she described the brand’s image as ‘too fratty’ and promising to make it ‘more diverse’.
The closest equivalent in politics is probably Hillary Clinton and the ‘basket of deplorables’.
You mean they were right?
The insurrection shows Trump and his supporters are a basket of deplorables. .
The total capitalization of London-listed equities fell from a high of $4.3 trillion in 2007 to about $3 trillion in 2023, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over the same period, the value of US stocks more than doubled to $43 trillion.
If there is any one single factor in the fall off in UK total market capitalisation it is that the regulatory rules and requirements around listing in London (not only on the Stock Market but what you have to do as a company, the various legal requirements you have to make etc) make it totally unattractive. We have a poisonous combination of regulators who gold-plate the regulations to the nth degree and what is effectively a New Labour (still) mindset of seeing corporates not as entities to generate profits but to bring about 'desired' outcomes such as in ESG, diversity etc.
If there was one EU rule that heavily influenced things also it was MiFid2 - and in an entirely negative way when the UK (again) gold-plated the rules making research coverage of UK smaller cap companies unattractive.
What it is not down to is Brexit.
Long thread on why Budweiser are finding it so difficult to back down from their little controversy in the US.
TL:DR - parent company AB InBev, based in the EU, is all over the ESG, DEI and Garn stuff, and investors expect them to stick to it even as their stock crashes.
AB InBev's share price doesn't seem to have been 'crashed':
In any case they have nothing to apologize for. Those hounding them otoh - an ugly spectacle.
Those hounding them are the usual suspects, the woke left angrily demanding no apology.
The right-wingers are simply buying a different beer.
That is not what I've read. Maybe a case of the Two Twitters.
There’s a bit of that, but the company have basically now got themselves into a no-win situation.
There’s several different group coming for them:
1. The far-left agitators, demanding no apology with menaces. 2. Right-wing media, asking for an apology and promoting the boycott. 3. Customers who are buying different beer in large numbers. 4. Transgender groups, upset that the company chose as their transgender promotor someone who is not transgender, but a cross-dresser doing the equivalent of blackface. 5. Other transgender groups, praising the company for using the aforementioned individual. 6. Feminist groups, complaining that the aforementioned individual isn’t really a woman either, and that they should be spending their money with woman influencers.
Meanwhile, three executives have been replaced, as has the marketing agency used, more senior brand oversight has been promised, they are giving away free beer to distributors, and have promised a big marketing campaign for summer.
Also, their product is shit.
But popular sh!t - the #1 selling beer in the US.
It wasn’t just that influencer though, probably worse was the interview with the (former) marketing manager, unearthed after the scandal broke, where she described the brand’s image as ‘too fratty’ and promising to make it ‘more diverse’.
The closest equivalent in politics is probably Hillary Clinton and the ‘basket of deplorables’.
You mean they were right?
The insurrection shows Trump and his supporters are a basket of deplorables. .
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
I'm unsurprised you've swallowed this particular pill, given you swallowed and regurgitated all Russia's dribblings over the MH17 shootdown.
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
Do you think he is aware that most U.K. universities have some really fun stuff in the Biology departments?
There have been efforts to cut down the amount of weapons grade nuclear material in the Universities, to be fair.
I got to look into a lead windowed “cell” on a trolley at Harwell, when I was about 10. We were doing a tour and the bloke pushing the trolley said we should take a look. Plutonium.
We got to look over the railings into a small swimming pool nuclear reactor - that lovely blue glow…
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
But on this Lucky is right, and you are wrong.
Let’s paint a true history here. By refusing Windfall tax Truss made an unpopular mistake, rightly unpopular, a budget deemed to benefit the most wealthy was unpopular too, rightly so. And the promise to buck the energy market all the way up to the general election, at huge cost to GDP was economically daft and rightly called out by the markets, but not many of us called it out on PB.
But if you wish to throw the lazy ignorant claim Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy leading to emergency tax rises to pay for it ...
It's a pretty lazy logical fallacy to set up some silly straw man like this, and conclude that it justifies anyone in subscribing to such a bizarre idea as "Truss was right".
Not very clear what you are saying is it?
I’m very clear in what I’m saying, and my laughter in the direction of bondegezou for coming up with such ignorant rubbish that Truss mini budget cost UK £XXXb
There were several events that occurred in quick succession, the most important IMHO being that the Fed hiked rates 75bps and the BoE again didn’t match them, which led to a lot of money heading for the higher returns available on the USD.
The total capitalization of London-listed equities fell from a high of $4.3 trillion in 2007 to about $3 trillion in 2023, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over the same period, the value of US stocks more than doubled to $43 trillion.
If there is any one single factor in the fall off in UK total market capitalisation it is that the regulatory rules and requirements around listing in London (not only on the Stock Market but what you have to do as a company, the various legal requirements you have to make etc) make it totally unattractive. We have a poisonous combination of regulators who gold-plate the regulations to the nth degree and what is effectively a New Labour (still) mindset of seeing corporates not as entities to generate profits but to bring about 'desired' outcomes such as in ESG, diversity etc.
If there was one EU rule that heavily influenced things also it was MiFid2 - and in an entirely negative way when the UK (again) gold-plated the rules making research coverage of UK smaller cap companies unattractive.
What it is not down to is Brexit.
Long thread on why Budweiser are finding it so difficult to back down from their little controversy in the US.
TL:DR - parent company AB InBev, based in the EU, is all over the ESG, DEI and Garn stuff, and investors expect them to stick to it even as their stock crashes.
AB InBev's share price doesn't seem to have been 'crashed':
In any case they have nothing to apologize for. Those hounding them otoh - an ugly spectacle.
Those hounding them are the usual suspects, the woke left angrily demanding no apology.
The right-wingers are simply buying a different beer.
That is not what I've read. Maybe a case of the Two Twitters.
There’s a bit of that, but the company have basically now got themselves into a no-win situation.
There’s several different group coming for them:
1. The far-left agitators, demanding no apology with menaces. 2. Right-wing media, asking for an apology and promoting the boycott. 3. Customers who are buying different beer in large numbers. 4. Transgender groups, upset that the company chose as their transgender promotor someone who is not transgender, but a cross-dresser doing the equivalent of blackface. 5. Other transgender groups, praising the company for using the aforementioned individual. 6. Feminist groups, complaining that the aforementioned individual isn’t really a woman either, and that they should be spending their money with woman influencers.
Meanwhile, three executives have been replaced, as has the marketing agency used, more senior brand oversight has been promised, they are giving away free beer to distributors, and have promised a big marketing campaign for summer.
From that account, it sounds like they have lessons to learn, need to become Bud, wiser
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
He wasn't king at the time of course (I've just twigged), so we've all wasted a lot of typing on a misapprehension.
And of course, expressing an opinion privately is nothing whatsoever like refusing to give royal assent. I very much doubt that the monarch has that power anyway these days - or has had it for several generations (or perhaps centuries).
I’ve heard it said that the late Queen commented on a number of policies to various PMs in her weekly chats. The general line seemed to be that she had an eye for spotting the really bad ideas.
I wonder whether she ever said "Now Mr. Cameron. This in-out referendum idea. Is it really wise?"
If the story about asking someone to express the case for Remain is true, she got to the heart of the failure of the Remain campaign.
The pitch was terrible. I agree with the Steve Jobs theory - if you can’t state the case for something in a couple of sentences, then you need to fix that.
The total capitalization of London-listed equities fell from a high of $4.3 trillion in 2007 to about $3 trillion in 2023, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over the same period, the value of US stocks more than doubled to $43 trillion.
If there is any one single factor in the fall off in UK total market capitalisation it is that the regulatory rules and requirements around listing in London (not only on the Stock Market but what you have to do as a company, the various legal requirements you have to make etc) make it totally unattractive. We have a poisonous combination of regulators who gold-plate the regulations to the nth degree and what is effectively a New Labour (still) mindset of seeing corporates not as entities to generate profits but to bring about 'desired' outcomes such as in ESG, diversity etc.
If there was one EU rule that heavily influenced things also it was MiFid2 - and in an entirely negative way when the UK (again) gold-plated the rules making research coverage of UK smaller cap companies unattractive.
What it is not down to is Brexit.
Long thread on why Budweiser are finding it so difficult to back down from their little controversy in the US.
TL:DR - parent company AB InBev, based in the EU, is all over the ESG, DEI and Garn stuff, and investors expect them to stick to it even as their stock crashes.
AB InBev's share price doesn't seem to have been 'crashed':
In any case they have nothing to apologize for. Those hounding them otoh - an ugly spectacle.
Those hounding them are the usual suspects, the woke left angrily demanding no apology.
The right-wingers are simply buying a different beer.
That is not what I've read. Maybe a case of the Two Twitters.
There’s a bit of that, but the company have basically now got themselves into a no-win situation.
There’s several different group coming for them:
1. The far-left agitators, demanding no apology with menaces. 2. Right-wing media, asking for an apology and promoting the boycott. 3. Customers who are buying different beer in large numbers. 4. Transgender groups, upset that the company chose as their transgender promotor someone who is not transgender, but a cross-dresser doing the equivalent of blackface. 5. Other transgender groups, praising the company for using the aforementioned individual. 6. Feminist groups, complaining that the aforementioned individual isn’t really a woman either, and that they should be spending their money with woman influencers.
Meanwhile, three executives have been replaced, as has the marketing agency used, more senior brand oversight has been promised, they are giving away free beer to distributors, and have promised a big marketing campaign for summer.
From that account, it sounds like they have lessons to learn, need to become Bud, wiser
They could have nipped it in the Bud in a couple of days, with a quick apology, but they thought they were weiser to try and tough it out - leading to almost every campaign group in the US now having an opinion on the subject.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
But on this Lucky is right, and you are wrong.
Let’s paint a true history here. By refusing Windfall tax Truss made an unpopular mistake, rightly unpopular, a budget deemed to benefit the most wealthy was unpopular too, rightly so. And the promise to buck the energy market all the way up to the general election, at huge cost to GDP was economically daft and rightly called out by the markets, but not many of us called it out on PB.
But if you wish to throw the lazy ignorant claim Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy leading to emergency tax rises to pay for it ...
It's a pretty lazy logical fallacy to set up some silly straw man like this, and conclude that it justifies anyone in subscribing to such a bizarre idea as "Truss was right".
Not very clear what you are saying is it?
I’m very clear in what I’m saying, and my laughter in the direction of bondegezou for coming up with such ignorant rubbish that Truss mini budget cost UK £XXXb
I'm just saying it's a straw man argument because no one else in this thread had said anything about "Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy" until you did. Look up "straw man" online if you still need help understanding.
The total capitalization of London-listed equities fell from a high of $4.3 trillion in 2007 to about $3 trillion in 2023, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over the same period, the value of US stocks more than doubled to $43 trillion.
If there is any one single factor in the fall off in UK total market capitalisation it is that the regulatory rules and requirements around listing in London (not only on the Stock Market but what you have to do as a company, the various legal requirements you have to make etc) make it totally unattractive. We have a poisonous combination of regulators who gold-plate the regulations to the nth degree and what is effectively a New Labour (still) mindset of seeing corporates not as entities to generate profits but to bring about 'desired' outcomes such as in ESG, diversity etc.
If there was one EU rule that heavily influenced things also it was MiFid2 - and in an entirely negative way when the UK (again) gold-plated the rules making research coverage of UK smaller cap companies unattractive.
What it is not down to is Brexit.
Long thread on why Budweiser are finding it so difficult to back down from their little controversy in the US.
TL:DR - parent company AB InBev, based in the EU, is all over the ESG, DEI and Garn stuff, and investors expect them to stick to it even as their stock crashes.
AB InBev's share price doesn't seem to have been 'crashed':
In any case they have nothing to apologize for. Those hounding them otoh - an ugly spectacle.
Those hounding them are the usual suspects, the woke left angrily demanding no apology.
The right-wingers are simply buying a different beer.
That is not what I've read. Maybe a case of the Two Twitters.
There’s a bit of that, but the company have basically now got themselves into a no-win situation.
There’s several different group coming for them:
1. The far-left agitators, demanding no apology with menaces. 2. Right-wing media, asking for an apology and promoting the boycott. 3. Customers who are buying different beer in large numbers. 4. Transgender groups, upset that the company chose as their transgender promotor someone who is not transgender, but a cross-dresser doing the equivalent of blackface. 5. Other transgender groups, praising the company for using the aforementioned individual. 6. Feminist groups, complaining that the aforementioned individual isn’t really a woman either, and that they should be spending their money with woman influencers.
Meanwhile, three executives have been replaced, as has the marketing agency used, more senior brand oversight has been promised, they are giving away free beer to distributors, and have promised a big marketing campaign for summer.
Also, their product is shit.
That last is the most important point. Who, in their right mind, would drink Bud Light?
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
But on this Lucky is right, and you are wrong.
Let’s paint a true history here. By refusing Windfall tax Truss made an unpopular mistake, rightly unpopular, a budget deemed to benefit the most wealthy was unpopular too, rightly so. And the promise to buck the energy market all the way up to the general election, at huge cost to GDP was economically daft and rightly called out by the markets, but not many of us called it out on PB.
But if you wish to throw the lazy ignorant claim Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy leading to emergency tax rises to pay for it ...
It's a pretty lazy logical fallacy to set up some silly straw man like this, and conclude that it justifies anyone in subscribing to such a bizarre idea as "Truss was right".
Not very clear what you are saying is it?
I’m very clear in what I’m saying, and my laughter in the direction of bondegezou for coming up with such ignorant rubbish that Truss mini budget cost UK £XXXb
There were several events that occurred in quick succession, the most important IMHO being that the Fed hiked rates 75bps and the BoE again didn’t match them, which led to a lot of money heading for the higher returns available on the USD.
Absolutely. That explains run on the pound all over UK news for a week, plunging Tory ratings down, without UK news pointing out same impact on other currencies identical struggle after what US done.
But the other important aspect was how higher rates smoked out weaknesses in the financial sector. UK pensions came under pressure. In recent months banks have folded.
I expect others have commented on the R+W poll already (I've been mostly offline for a couple of days), but the sample date of Sunday almost certainly reflects good news stories for the LibDems (local election breakthroughs in many areas) and Tories (Sunak and Mordaunt performing well at the coronation). I suspect an average lead of 15 points is more likely in the next few polls.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
I'm unsurprised you've swallowed this particular pill, given you swallowed and regurgitated all Russia's dribblings over the MH17 shootdown.
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
Do you think he is aware that most U.K. universities have some really fun stuff in the Biology departments?…
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
He wasn't king at the time of course (I've just twigged), so we've all wasted a lot of typing on a misapprehension.
And of course, expressing an opinion privately is nothing whatsoever like refusing to give royal assent. I very much doubt that the monarch has that power anyway these days - or has had it for several generations (or perhaps centuries).
I’ve heard it said that the late Queen commented on a number of policies to various PMs in her weekly chats. The general line seemed to be that she had an eye for spotting the really bad ideas.
Did it correlate closely with the PM having blond hair perhaps?
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
But on this Lucky is right, and you are wrong.
Let’s paint a true history here. By refusing Windfall tax Truss made an unpopular mistake, rightly unpopular, a budget deemed to benefit the most wealthy was unpopular too, rightly so. And the promise to buck the energy market all the way up to the general election, at huge cost to GDP was economically daft and rightly called out by the markets, but not many of us called it out on PB.
But if you wish to throw the lazy ignorant claim Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy leading to emergency tax rises to pay for it ...
It's a pretty lazy logical fallacy to set up some silly straw man like this, and conclude that it justifies anyone in subscribing to such a bizarre idea as "Truss was right".
Not very clear what you are saying is it?
I’m very clear in what I’m saying, and my laughter in the direction of bondegezou for coming up with such ignorant rubbish that Truss mini budget cost UK £XXXb
I'm just saying it's a straw man argument because no one else in this thread had said anything about "Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy" until you did. Look up "straw man" online if you still need help understanding.
Mine was a Straw Horse actually, because you are clearly running scared of what is hiding inside.
Good article on new voter registration patterns in the US, which some might enjoy diving into.
A Generational Cliff https://split-ticket.org/2023/05/08/a-generational-cliff/ Split Ticket has devoted significant coverage to the partisanship of young voters. Whether through analyzing individual-level data in voter files or by aggregating and examining exit poll estimates from the last four decades, the story we find remains consistent: young voters are extremely Democratic, and more importantly, ahistorically so.
This analysis can be extended to the state and county levels as well. Many states allow voters to register with a party, which reveals deeper insight into the partisanship of individual communities. 2020 data aggregated by TargetSmart for these states allows us to map and examine the partisan registration of young voters and compare them to the registration of all members of the 2020 electorate. In most areas, this gives us an idea of how much more Democratic young voters are than the overall electorate.
This article is not meant to forecast an emerging Democratic majority. Just because young voters currently lean significantly more Democratic than their elders does not mean that they will continue to do so for their entire voting lives...
More powerful if the Tories weren't a coalition of chaos all by themselves!
Hush now, let them believe it. There's a delicious sense of complacency creeping over the Tory press at the moment which is almost as helpful as the panic they sometimes indulge in.
I thought they were going to go into the next election fighting the last battle and bang on about getting Brexit done and Starmer working for Corbyn, but I actually they're going to try to fight the last but one (coalition of chaos) and last but two ("there is no money") battles.
https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1655954771533082629 Allen, TX shooter: Posts identification cards, guns, body armor, a speeding ticket with his name, hours of video of him at shooting ranges at his apartment, photos of his tattoos seen on the shooter's body, a map of the mall 3 weeks before he shot it up, and a final message Elon:
https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1655954771533082629 Allen, TX shooter: Posts identification cards, guns, body armor, a speeding ticket with his name, hours of video of him at shooting ranges at his apartment, photos of his tattoos seen on the shooter's body, a map of the mall 3 weeks before he shot it up, and a final message Elon:
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
I'm unsurprised you've swallowed this particular pill, given you swallowed and regurgitated all Russia's dribblings over the MH17 shootdown.
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
I haven't said anything isn't vital, or that most countries don't have them, or spoken about any of the other rubbish you've spouted. I have merely stated that the facts show that there are (were) US bioweapons labs in Ukraine, for good or ill. So Bondezgo's attempted piss take is rather stupid.
https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1655954771533082629 Allen, TX shooter: Posts identification cards, guns, body armor, a speeding ticket with his name, hours of video of him at shooting ranges at his apartment, photos of his tattoos seen on the shooter's body, a map of the mall 3 weeks before he shot it up, and a final message Elon:
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
But on this Lucky is right, and you are wrong.
Let’s paint a true history here. By refusing Windfall tax Truss made an unpopular mistake, rightly unpopular, a budget deemed to benefit the most wealthy was unpopular too, rightly so. And the promise to buck the energy market all the way up to the general election, at huge cost to GDP was economically daft and rightly called out by the markets, but not many of us called it out on PB.
But if you wish to throw the lazy ignorant claim Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy leading to emergency tax rises to pay for it ...
It's a pretty lazy logical fallacy to set up some silly straw man like this, and conclude that it justifies anyone in subscribing to such a bizarre idea as "Truss was right".
Not very clear what you are saying is it?
I’m very clear in what I’m saying, and my laughter in the direction of bondegezou for coming up with such ignorant rubbish that Truss mini budget cost UK £XXXb
I'm just saying it's a straw man argument because no one else in this thread had said anything about "Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy" until you did. Look up "straw man" online if you still need help understanding.
Mine was a Straw Horse actually, because you are clearly running scared of what is hiding inside.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
I'm unsurprised you've swallowed this particular pill, given you swallowed and regurgitated all Russia's dribblings over the MH17 shootdown.
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
I haven't said anything isn't vital, or that most countries don't have them, or spoken about any of the other rubbish you've spouted. I have merely stated that the facts show that there are (were) US bioweapons labs in Ukraine, for good or ill. So Bondezgo's attempted piss take is rather stupid.
If you say that there were bio labs in Ukraine, as there are bio labs in most countries, and the Americans fund a lot of bio labs all over the world, then there’s no controversy.
I expect others have commented on the R+W poll already (I've been mostly offline for a couple of days), but the sample date of Sunday almost certainly reflects good news stories for the LibDems (local election breakthroughs in many areas) and Tories (Sunak and Mordaunt performing well at the coronation). I suspect an average lead of 15 points is more likely in the next few polls.
Well done by the way for the latest step on your political comeback. Next stop but one Downing Street.
I think I may now wind down chance of Greens beating Labour MPs in Bristols after what happened in Brighton.
I’ve been offline too. Went to the Coronation. It was history in the making, having anointing Kings for thousands of years, and this time I was part of it. It was brilliant.
Once you are 100% soaked it’s scientifically impossible to get any wetter, but you can get to feel lot colder, so when we got back we had hot bath together, but instead of sensibly going to bed I was so pumped up I watched it all on television, BBC and Sky. Sky was a million times better, in UHD and commentary. And then I was still watching the alarm I set went off Sunday because we had people coming to party in the flat and I had to go into kitchen and make stuff. And after all the drinking and dancing and days with no sleep I could hardly wake up yesterday, I was proper trashed.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
But on this Lucky is right, and you are wrong.
Let’s paint a true history here. By refusing Windfall tax Truss made an unpopular mistake, rightly unpopular, a budget deemed to benefit the most wealthy was unpopular too, rightly so. And the promise to buck the energy market all the way up to the general election, at huge cost to GDP was economically daft and rightly called out by the markets, but not many of us called it out on PB.
But if you wish to throw the lazy ignorant claim Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy leading to emergency tax rises to pay for it ...
It's a pretty lazy logical fallacy to set up some silly straw man like this, and conclude that it justifies anyone in subscribing to such a bizarre idea as "Truss was right".
Not very clear what you are saying is it?
I’m very clear in what I’m saying, and my laughter in the direction of bondegezou for coming up with such ignorant rubbish that Truss mini budget cost UK £XXXb
I'm just saying it's a straw man argument because no one else in this thread had said anything about "Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy" until you did. Look up "straw man" online if you still need help understanding.
Mine was a Straw Horse actually, because you are clearly running scared of what is hiding inside.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
I'm unsurprised you've swallowed this particular pill, given you swallowed and regurgitated all Russia's dribblings over the MH17 shootdown.
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
I haven't said anything isn't vital, or that most countries don't have them, or spoken about any of the other rubbish you've spouted. I have merely stated that the facts show that there are (were) US bioweapons labs in Ukraine, for good or ill. So Bondezgo's attempted piss take is rather stupid.
If you say that there were bio labs in Ukraine, as there are bio labs in most countries, and the Americans fund a lot of bio labs all over the world, then there’s no controversy.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
I'm unsurprised you've swallowed this particular pill, given you swallowed and regurgitated all Russia's dribblings over the MH17 shootdown.
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
I haven't said anything isn't vital, or that most countries don't have them, or spoken about any of the other rubbish you've spouted. I have merely stated that the facts show that there are (were) US bioweapons labs in Ukraine, for good or ill. So Bondezgo's attempted piss take is rather stupid.
If you say that there were bio labs in Ukraine, as there are bio labs in most countries, and the Americans fund a lot of bio labs all over the world, then there’s no controversy.
It’s not specifically a Ukraine issue.
I think there's a fairly basic misunderstanding going on anyway. A bio research lab is not the same as a bioweapons research lab. He is using the terms interchangeably. The research in these and many other labs is into plant and animal diseases for the purposes of public health and agriculture.
Russia has quite cleverly seized on this apparent ambiguity to conflate the two, hence now we get right wing conspiracy theorists in the US and elsewhere just casually appending the word "weapons" to bio.
More powerful if the Tories weren't a coalition of chaos all by themselves!
Hush now, let them believe it. There's a delicious sense of complacency creeping over the Tory press at the moment which is almost as helpful as the panic they sometimes indulge in.
I thought they were going to go into the next election fighting the last battle and bang on about getting Brexit done and Starmer working for Corbyn, but I actually they're going to try to fight the last but one (coalition of chaos) and last but two ("there is no money") battles.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
I'm unsurprised you've swallowed this particular pill, given you swallowed and regurgitated all Russia's dribblings over the MH17 shootdown.
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
I haven't said anything isn't vital, or that most countries don't have them, or spoken about any of the other rubbish you've spouted. I have merely stated that the facts show that there are (were) US bioweapons labs in Ukraine, for good or ill. So Bondezgo's attempted piss take is rather stupid.
If you say that there were bio labs in Ukraine, as there are bio labs in most countries, and the Americans fund a lot of bio labs all over the world, then there’s no controversy.
It’s not specifically a Ukraine issue.
Bio Lab != Bio Weapons Lab
Is the main thing here.
Indeed. It's a bit like the German cultural confusion between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, one big reason they are now burning loads of coal instead.
More powerful if the Tories weren't a coalition of chaos all by themselves!
Hush now, let them believe it. There's a delicious sense of complacency creeping over the Tory press at the moment which is almost as helpful as the panic they sometimes indulge in.
I thought they were going to go into the next election fighting the last battle and bang on about getting Brexit done and Starmer working for Corbyn, but I actually they're going to try to fight the last but one (coalition of chaos) and last but two ("there is no money") battles.
You forgotten 2017?
I didn't say fighting the last election, I said the last battle. Both 2017 and 2019 were the same battle (Brexit).
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
I'm unsurprised you've swallowed this particular pill, given you swallowed and regurgitated all Russia's dribblings over the MH17 shootdown.
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
I haven't said anything isn't vital, or that most countries don't have them, or spoken about any of the other rubbish you've spouted. I have merely stated that the facts show that there are (were) US bioweapons labs in Ukraine, for good or ill. So Bondezgo's attempted piss take is rather stupid.
If you say that there were bio labs in Ukraine, as there are bio labs in most countries, and the Americans fund a lot of bio labs all over the world, then there’s no controversy.
It’s not specifically a Ukraine issue.
There isn't 'no' controversy - there is a huge controversy over the US rightly banning GOF research in its own territory on safety grounds, and then choosing to continue that research covertly in foreign countries, without public knowledge and democratic accountability in those host countries, added to which, it chose to do so in countries like China, which was a deeply unsuitable partner for this sort of research, to put it mildly.
However, none of that is pertinent to this conversation, which is that a PBer tried to make a funny out of the very concept that there were US biolabs in Ukraine, when the presence of US biolabs in Ukraine is an admitted fact.
Actually, Taiwan ought to be supported, like Ukraine.
Who is paying for this trip ? Taiwan ? The UK taxpayer ? Liz Truss personally (Hah, right...) ?
Is it part of government strategy ?
If we think it's a good idea, why isn't Cleverly or Goldsmith doing this ?
The situation with defending Taiwan from mainland Chinese aggression is complicated by the legal situation, where Taiwan is legally recognised as part of China.
An ex-PM might play a useful role in adjusting the diplomatic parameters one bit at a time.
Not just a former PM either, but also a former foreign secretary and a former trade secretary. She’s well known to the Taiwanese and the Chinese.
There’s no chance this isn’t sanctioned by the foreign office, sending someone who’s just far enough removed from the current government to be able to say what a serving minister can’t.
Yes, it is possible that she's being used by the FO in some sort of kite-flying exercise, but why chose Britain's shortest serving PM, who was humiliatingly ejected from office after almost bringing about economic collapse? Truss is so discredited that her pontificating on behalf of Taiwan can only give a kind of validation to the Chinese. There must be some serious 19D chess going on here.
There’s no chess being played here. This is Truss, playing tiddlywinks, against herself.
Truss is/was actually right, but we're still JOLLY CROSS with her D'YOU HEAR???
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
Truss was not right. How can you believe that?
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Given that the existence of the labs has been acknowledged by the US, that the US sponsorship of them has been acknowledged by the US, that their housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons is has been acknowledged by the US, it would be interesting to know what part of the statement above you're struggling to believe.
I'm unsurprised you've swallowed this particular pill, given you swallowed and regurgitated all Russia's dribblings over the MH17 shootdown.
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
I haven't said anything isn't vital, or that most countries don't have them, or spoken about any of the other rubbish you've spouted. I have merely stated that the facts show that there are (were) US bioweapons labs in Ukraine, for good or ill. So Bondezgo's attempted piss take is rather stupid.
If you say that there were bio labs in Ukraine, as there are bio labs in most countries, and the Americans fund a lot of bio labs all over the world, then there’s no controversy.
It’s not specifically a Ukraine issue.
There isn't 'no' controversy - there is a huge controversy over the US rightly banning GOF research in its own territory on safety grounds, and then choosing to continue that research covertly in foreign countries, without public knowledge and democratic accountability in those host countries, added to which, it chose to do so in countries like China, which was a deeply unsuitable partner for this sort of research, to put it mildly.
However, none of that is pertinent to this conversation, which is that a PBer tried to make a funny out of the very concept that there were US biolabs in Ukraine, when the presence of US biolabs in Ukraine is an admitted fact.
No, this is what they posted: it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine.
Comments
This is the video of this morning's evidence at the inquiry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDrHHqNvjC8
King Charles and the Holy Hand grenade of Antioch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwc0EwbU7g0
Sunak is/was actually shit, but no doubt he has his very clever reasons, good work Sunak.
PB dim bulb standard consensus.
It shouldn't have to come to that.
More to the point, is it prima facie grounds for committal to a psychiatric facility? (You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/harlan-crow-school-payments-insult-injury.html
...So that—right there—is the problem. It’s not that Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo aren’t free to pick who their friends are. It’s that they happened to be in charge of spending a ton of money to use the courts to restructure democracy, and they deliberately picked the friends who would help them do it. The problem is that everyone seems to have acceded to an arrangement in which those millionaire donors get to give stuff to their “friends,” and that this ought to be a secret, because otherwise it would compromise their privacy. If you are a Justice, you have to disclose this kind of stuff. If that bothers you—if you are so committed to living a private life beyond the reach of disclosure—you can go be a urologist or something.
Which is why the real answer to why you don’t get to have rich friends like Harlan Crow is not that Harlan Crow wouldn’t like you if he knew you. He probably would. It’s just that Harlan Crow doesn’t want or need to know you. His claim that he met Justice Thomas and found himself “sympatico” has less to do with the nature of private friendship than with the nature of public power. And the way power currently works in this country is that you get to buy it. If you don’t see the straight line between Citizens United, Leonard Leo, Shelby County, and the concerted effort to take power from regular you and give it to Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo, you are not seeing the plan clearly.
There’s also something specifically infuriating about the way defenders of the deep spiritual kinship between Harlan Crow and Clarence and Ginni Thomas root their argument in the fact that paying for an at-risk youth’s private school tuition is a noble act—“charity” even. The problem with that is: This is a conservative legal movement that is racing to subvert voting, public education, the administrative state, and (at present) the possibility of student loan forgiveness. So Harlan Crow’s replacement of an entire New Deal safety net with an ad hoc charitable benefits system administered by himself and directed only at the offspring of personal friends is specifically infuriating...
...The lesson we are learning from the new scandals at the high court go way beyond “ethics” reform. This is no longer an ethics problem. This is a democracy reform problem and it signals first and foremost an effort to deform democracy to serve the Harlan Crows and the Leonard Leos of the world. It also signals a view of democracy in which they will determine whose private life is private and who are the “gossips” (you may still know them as “journalists”...
Oh, it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Fair enough.
Boris Johnson “squared up” to the future King after Charles privately branded the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme “appalling”, a key aide to the former prime minister has revealed.
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s director of communications in Downing Street, said the pair had a “showdown” at last year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kigali, after the King’s views on the Rwanda policy were reported in The Times.
“They did have a bit of a showdown,” Harri told LBC, “for the reason that the man who is now King criticised what was an extremely popular [and] a very central government policy on the eve of the two of them going to the very place of the heart of the story: Rwanda.”
“It wasn’t a fight. But Boris rightly challenged the unelected royal at the time. What was it for him to sort of go calling a key government policy ‘appalling’?”
Harri said Charles appeared to deny making the remarks, leading Johnson to suggest that if the report was untrue, Buckingham Palace could have denied it — something it chose not to do.
“Prince Charles was busted,” Harri told the Daily Mail. “He had obviously expressed some criticism and though he tried to play it down, Boris pointed out the obvious, [saying]: ‘If you didn’t say it, we both know your people could ring the newspapers and kill the story. The fact they haven’t done that says it all’.”
The revelation is to appear in a new podcast about Harri’s time in Downing Street, called Unprecedented, which is due to be released on Thursday. It will also cover the prime minister’s views on the partygate investigator Sue Gray, who Harri says was dubbed “Psycho Sue” and Johnson perceived as biased against him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-clashed-with-charles-over-rwanda-deportation-plan-former-aide-claims-wbth3h6rz
Vladimir Putin’s army tried to sign men up for the war in Ukraine at a propaganda festival headlined by a Scots piper and sponsored by the Scottish cultural centre in Moscow.
Jimi McRae performed in Samara, a city about 600 miles southeast of the capital, on a stage emblazoned with the letter Z, the symbol associated with Putin’s “special military operation”. Independent journalists said army recruiters targeted people watching him at the closing “gala” concert at the event, which was billed as an “anti-fascist song festival”.
SNP and Conservative politicians have condemned the decision by McRae, from Galashiels, to take part in the event alongside performers and organisers who repeatedly referred to the war in Ukraine as an operation against Nazis.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pipers-gig-a-recruiting-ground-for-putins-army-gfhhjz5kp
And if 4 in a ~24 hour period seems like a lot (it should), there are actually an average of *316* people shot every day. Horrific.
8 children and teenagers are shot by “unintentional family fire” in the US *every day*...
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1655900361935187973
I wrote an article Saturday, and it seems to be well-liked. As you may know I do post-match debriefs: discussions backstage on the article, added info, etc. If you or anybody else wants to join it you can do so by telling me and I'll add you. Three of you have already joined and they now have access to the ins-and-outs of the article and why the hell I did such a silly thing in a five-day spurt.
I will also be online in that backstage area between 7pm and 8pm BST on Tuesday March 9th to answer any questions. Please restrain your excitement. IRL I would bring cake, but alas we cannot do that online...
So: if you want access to either the backstage area, or the online Q&A sesh, or both, then please let me know and I'll add you.
PS @GIN1138 , you were ambiguous in your reply: if you want to join, just say
Large house + no dependents = massive council tax hike.
ETA: I missed the article originally, just looking... Please pop me in the discussion, but unfortunately I can't make this evening.
Increasing the supply of higher education can certainly be done, but very hard to do at a similar quality, as we saw in the expansion in the 2000s. Very easy to create more Boltons and Lutons, but hard to develop more Cambridges and LSEs. Especially so when the top universities now give most of their growth to foreign students.
Healthcare is also difficult because only so many people have the intelligence to be doctors, and inequality elsewhere means many would-be doctors go into other more lucrative professions. Expansion means a lot more pay, which pushes up healthcare costs, or decreases quality if you try to limit that.
The monarch is meant to be above politics, this is a short step from refusing give royal assent.
I have pointed out lots of times, the Tory’s do more than poll better in spring months this parliament, they poll very well in them. I’m of opinion the best general election result for Sunak’s outgoing government can be achieved next spring. Summer 2024 of more boat arrivals will leave their support in a much worse place.
How likely or unlikely do you think it is that any migrants will ever be deported to Rwanda under government plans?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/04/03/8ab11/2
I've added you to the discussion. Hope you find it interesting and informative
It seems a little ungenerous that anyone who publicly favours us with as many political opinions as you do, should want to prevent anyone from expressing their political opinions privately.
But anti-royalism seems to be your hobby horse, and perhaps it's too much to expect that you should be rational when you're riding it.
Let’s paint a true history here. By refusing Windfall tax Truss made an unpopular mistake, rightly unpopular, a budget deemed to benefit the most wealthy was unpopular too, rightly so. And the promise to buck the energy market all the way up to the general election, at huge cost to GDP was economically daft and rightly called out by the markets, but not many of us called it out on PB.
But if you wish to throw the lazy ignorant claim Truss budget wiped £30B off the economy leading to emergency tax rises to pay for it, the facts Lucky and I will post will utterly humiliate you.
There’s several different group coming for them:
1. The far-left agitators, demanding no apology with menaces.
2. Right-wing media, asking for an apology and promoting the boycott.
3. Customers who are buying different beer in large numbers.
4. Transgender groups, upset that the company chose as their transgender promotor someone who is not transgender, but a cross-dresser doing the equivalent of blackface.
5. Other transgender groups, praising the company for using the aforementioned individual.
6. Feminist groups, complaining that the aforementioned individual isn’t really a woman either, and that they should be spending their money with woman influencers.
Meanwhile, three executives have been replaced, as has the marketing agency used, more senior brand oversight has been promised, they are giving away free beer to distributors, and have promised a big marketing campaign for summer.
Imagine, for instance that I constructed a 500mph train service between London and some part of Scotland. This would make said part of Scotland part of the suburbs of London.
This is an extreme case, but illustrative.
Higher education quality is a function of regulation and enforcement, mostly.
Having experienced private and state education for myself and my daughters, what private education does is to maximise (or attempt to) academic result from the same human material. Even with the selecting-for-those-who-want-to-be-their issue, this leads to the following with utter certainty.
We could increase the number of people educated to Oxbridge level (say) by a factor of 3 without exhausting the human potential in the general population. The same goes for the next level down of universities
We could, then, train 3x as many doctors from the U.K. population, without any diminution in quality.
Probably the Chinese and the US (especially Tesla).
"Like past technology shifts, it is a transformation, not merely a substitution. As RethinkX notes, this is not a brown caterpillar to a green caterpillar, but rather a caterpillar to a butterfly, which means different economics, geographies, winners, and energy carriers. Just like past technology shifts, the falling costs of the new render the old obsolete."
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/05/07/the-energy-revolution-in-5-charts/
A bit over four miles to go today
I was happy with myself for averaging 20k steps per day on holiday last week.
Da d-da da, da d-da da, da d-da da, da d-da da
Da-da-da dun-diddle un-diddle un-diddle a da da
Da d-da da, da d-da da, da d-da da, da d-da da
Da-da-da dun-diddle un-diddle un-diddle a da da
(so long as you also walk 500 more of course!)
The only pair of shoes I have with me are holding up well!
I’m up to 911k steps now; 53,593 per day
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/andrew-bridgen-mp-expected-to-join-laurence-fox-s-reclaim-party/ar-AA1aWFtr?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=151d95b0e9b0464999746f065928a6fa&ei=11
Invaluable advice, from an irreplaceable individual.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/rishi-sunak-unexpected-winner-last-weeks-local-elections/
I did a million steps in, checks phone, the last three and a half months!
Yes, Ukraine has biological research labs. Most countries do; especially if they've got a heavy agricultural base, as Ukraine does. Yes, larger countries often invest in the facilities of smaller countries, often because cooperation in this area is vital for world food production.
None of this is unusual or unsurprising.
Where your argument becomes hilarious is the line: "housing of chemical and biological materials that could be used for weapons". If you are researching potential new zoonotic diseases, housing samples is rather vital.
It wasn’t just that influencer though, probably worse was the interview with the (former) marketing manager, unearthed after the scandal broke, where she described the brand’s image as ‘too fratty’ and promising to make it ‘more diverse’.
The closest equivalent in politics is probably Hillary Clinton and the ‘basket of deplorables’.
I’m very clear in what I’m saying, and my laughter in the direction of bondegezou for coming up with such ignorant rubbish that Truss mini budget cost UK £XXXb
The insurrection shows Trump and his supporters are a basket of deplorables. .
There have been efforts to cut down the amount of weapons grade nuclear material in the Universities, to be fair.
I got to look into a lead windowed “cell” on a trolley at Harwell, when I was about 10. We were doing a tour and the bloke pushing the trolley said we should take a look. Plutonium.
We got to look over the railings into a small swimming pool nuclear reactor - that lovely blue glow…
The pitch was terrible. I agree with the Steve Jobs theory - if you can’t state the case for something in a couple of sentences, then you need to fix that.
But the other important aspect was how higher rates smoked out weaknesses in the financial sector. UK pensions came under pressure. In recent months banks have folded.
Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_bioweapons_conspiracy_theory
A Generational Cliff
https://split-ticket.org/2023/05/08/a-generational-cliff/
Split Ticket has devoted significant coverage to the partisanship of young voters. Whether through analyzing individual-level data in voter files or by aggregating and examining exit poll estimates from the last four decades, the story we find remains consistent: young voters are extremely Democratic, and more importantly, ahistorically so.
This analysis can be extended to the state and county levels as well. Many states allow voters to register with a party, which reveals deeper insight into the partisanship of individual communities. 2020 data aggregated by TargetSmart for these states allows us to map and examine the partisan registration of young voters and compare them to the registration of all members of the 2020 electorate. In most areas, this gives us an idea of how much more Democratic young voters are than the overall electorate.
This article is not meant to forecast an emerging Democratic majority. Just because young voters currently lean significantly more Democratic than their elders does not mean that they will continue to do so for their entire voting lives...
I thought they were going to go into the next election fighting the last battle and bang on about getting Brexit done and Starmer working for Corbyn, but I actually they're going to try to fight the last but one (coalition of chaos) and last but two ("there is no money") battles.
https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1655954771533082629
Allen, TX shooter:
Posts identification cards, guns, body armor, a speeding ticket with his name, hours of video of him at shooting ranges at his apartment, photos of his tattoos seen on the shooter's body, a map of the mall 3 weeks before he shot it up, and a final message
Elon:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1655952021604945925
How do we know that was actually his social media account?
Seems very odd that he would have a Russian social media account when he doesn’t speak Russian.
[confused face]
It’s not specifically a Ukraine issue.
I think I may now wind down chance of Greens beating Labour MPs in Bristols after what happened in Brighton.
I’ve been offline too. Went to the Coronation. It was history in the making, having anointing Kings for thousands of years, and this time I was part of it. It was brilliant.
Once you are 100% soaked it’s scientifically impossible to get any wetter, but you can get to feel lot colder, so when we got back we had hot bath together, but instead of sensibly going to bed I was so pumped up I watched it all on television, BBC and Sky. Sky was a million times better, in UHD and commentary. And then I was still watching the alarm I set went off Sunday because we had people coming to party in the flat and I had to go into kitchen and make stuff. And after all the drinking and dancing and days with no sleep I could hardly wake up yesterday, I was proper trashed.
Fabulous! Best weekend ever. 🥳
Is the main thing here.
Russia has quite cleverly seized on this apparent ambiguity to conflate the two, hence now we get right wing conspiracy theorists in the US and elsewhere just casually appending the word "weapons" to bio.
However, none of that is pertinent to this conversation, which is that a PBer tried to make a funny out of the very concept that there were US biolabs in Ukraine, when the presence of US biolabs in Ukraine is an admitted fact.
it’s the PBer who believes in US bioweapon labs in Ukraine.