NEW: Sources close to Home Secretary suggest that she had simply asked officials for advice on how to arrange a driving awareness course.
This is understood to have included raising the possibility of a private one-to-one course (but not directing them to arrange one)...
Then she is a fucking moron.
A moron for not treating officials in her department as hostile agents?
A political moron for seeking to get out of the normal process by having a one to one, when no one has yet raised a credible reason why that would be reasonable or necessary, thus opening herself up to attacks of, at the least, a sense of entitlement to special treatment.
As its a personal issue she could have googled the answer, but if she simply asked for advice and then followed it she'll be fine.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
I know you accept it isn't black and white, but this really just doesn't work as an opinion poll as the two categories encompass too broad a range of possibilities.
How much do I disagree with person A? There is a world of difference between a technocratic democratic socialist (say) and a Nazi. A competent Nazi is in many ways more terrifying that an incompetent one.
In what sense is person B incompetent? Again, there is a huge difference between someone who bungles the odd TV appearance and dithers over a sacking or two, and one who simply can't get policies through (hence making their ideological alignment with me pretty irrelevant as they're getting none of it done).
I think about this sometimes in the context of Trump. rcs1000 once put together a list of his record as president, since even for him he could not have done solely awful things for 4 years, and I tried to think how good a job he would have to do on the things I like in order to get over how odious a personality he so very clearly is (and this was prior to his election denyng - I remain astonished how casual people still are about the last President of the United States not accepting the transfer of power, since he has been very clear if he had gotten his way he would not have transferred).
For the base of the GOP appointing the right Supreme Court Justices appears to be worth a lot, which since they then get 20-40 years to act as unaccountable politicians with enormous power, makes sense.
The (very) silly feature of the Braverman debacle is that had she attended a speeding course it would have demonstrated a commitment to equality before the law, and a break with Boris-ism. Now it just seems as though she (especially) believes she shouldn’t be treated the same as “ordinary” folk.
Braverman and Mogg are useful to Sunak as the face of National Conservatism, precisely because they are useless.
Except Braverman is popular with grassroots now, but wasn't 6 months ago. They do not appear to be associating her with failure, but blaming Rishi. If she goes, she will find a ready audience if she blames him too.
But she isn’t even that popular with the grassroots
She rates highly in ConHome league tables. By grassroots I actually meant party members.
And if says she was ousted because Sunak wouldn't let her be tougher on migration see her popularity there explode further.
Not that highly. Braverman is only 7th in the latest Conhome table on +47.3% even behind Rishi on +47.4%.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
Cruella tried to see if she could do the course in private. Maybe she was just too embarrassed about it. In my opinion, it’s not exactly the crime of the century.
Cruella should be pilloried not for this but for being a nasty human being as well as being a true believer of the calamity called Brexit.
NEW: Sources close to Home Secretary suggest that she had simply asked officials for advice on how to arrange a driving awareness course.
This is understood to have included raising the possibility of a private one-to-one course (but not directing them to arrange one)...
Then she is a fucking moron.
A moron for not treating officials in her department as hostile agents?
She is so thick she didn't even think to Google the question.
I don't think Google would help with the question of whether cabinet ministers can do speed awareness training more discreetly.
You could google 'can someone have a 121 or anonymous speed awareness course?'
Her being a Cabinet Minister would be completely irrelevant, and that she apparently thought it might not be is a sign of very poor judgement, even if she did not, it seems, then push the issue. That she thought it reasonable is a bit worrying.
I need some guidance from those in the motorhome game, as it is described a a luxury motorhome - IDK, it seems ok, but luxury? Not exactly worth tanking one's reputation over, which is the best case scenario for Murrell.
This story gets even weirder. They bought it and parked it up, a massively depreciating asset, and didn’t insure it, which explains why it never moved. So what was the plan, the idea that led to the purchase in the first place?
"Theatre show with 'all-black audience' that aims to explore race-related issues 'free from the white gaze' is accused of setting a 'dangerous precedent'
Theatre Royal Stratford East are hosting a Black Out for Tambo & Bones on July 5 UK's first black police and crime commissioner condemned the planned event"
I remember what Yes, Prime Minister said about the theatre: practically nobody goes to political plays, and half of those that go don't understand them, and half of those who understand them don't agree with them, and the seven who are left would have voted against the government anyway.
It is for publicity and thus a success, sure, but it should still be worrying that this kind of thing, no doubt imported from the states, is pretty obviously racist and yet is apparently quite the trend.
This sort of thing shows the lie of assuming progress only moves in one direction, as we appear to be going backwards on race relations.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
NEW: Sources close to Home Secretary suggest that she had simply asked officials for advice on how to arrange a driving awareness course.
This is understood to have included raising the possibility of a private one-to-one course (but not directing them to arrange one)...
Then she is a fucking moron.
A moron for not treating officials in her department as hostile agents?
She is so thick she didn't even think to Google the question.
I don't think Google would help with the question of whether cabinet ministers can do speed awareness training more discreetly.
You could google 'can someone have a 121 or anonymous speed awareness course?'
Her being a Cabinet Minister would be completely irrelevant, and that she apparently thought it might not be is a sign of very poor judgement, even if she did not, it seems, then push the issue. That she thought it reasonable is a bit worrying.
Well of course, Cabinet Ministers these days may think they are above typing their own queries into Google. Perhaps their first recourse is to their own civil servants, and then when they're told that's inappropriate the Cabinet Office, and then when the Cabinet Office tells them no, they turn to a publicly funded Special Adviser, in the hope that there isn't a code of conduct for SPADs that prevent them sorting out your brushes with the law for you.
Maybe it would have been simpler just to do what anyone else would have had to, and ask the court? But of course, she wouldn't have got any special treatment if she'd done that.
This story gets even weirder. They bought it and parked it up, a massively depreciating asset, and didn’t insure it, which explains why it never moved. So what was the plan, the idea that led to the purchase in the first place?
And whatever that reason was, when it became clear it was not being used why didn't they sell it? Why does virtually no one in the party appear to have known about it? Why was stored at the Chief Exec's mum's place in the first place?
There's no outcome from this story that does not reveal utter administrative incompetence and a lack of healthy financial scrutiny, though things are often so trivial and take so long that I always presume criminal charges are unlikely.
Been reading The Secret Barrister's latest book, which is far less polemical than his last, and it does make me wonder how the likes of DavidL ever manage to get through a week of court work without screaming in frustration.
I need some guidance from those in the motorhome game, as it is described a a luxury motorhome - IDK, it seems ok, but luxury? Not exactly worth tanking one's reputation over, which is the best case scenario for Murrell.
For most people, 100k for a caravan is luxury.
With apologies to DK Brown, I am pleased that I do not have to explain this series of events….
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
People on the left criticising what is said by a group on the right is “squealing footstamping intolerance”? So sorry for upsetting you. I’ll organise a meeting and recommend we all shut up and let our Tory overlords what to think and say. Pray tell me what we should be critical of and I’ll make sure it’s on the agenda.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Just having a bit of fun as, come on, the more viral clips and highlighted comments were pretty funny. I likened it to Momentum for a reason, since people who agree with each other talking about how much they agree with one another, in increasingly histrionic ways, is inherently amusing.
Rich people in Davos flying in to talk about how we shouldn't fly or whatever is also funny, but lacks novelty since they do it every year.
The newsworthiness of the Braverman speeding fine incident is not that she asked underlings to bend the rules. It's that someone is briefing against her in the papers. And that someone is quite likely to be associated with her nominal boss.
Re Braverman - seeking a private driving awareness course shows her own lack of awareness
She is a terrible home secretary and needs to go, but not over this though it adds to her failed reputation
However, Yvette Cooper's accusation Braverman was trying to evade a speeding offence is just as daft, as the speed awareness course is taken by many thousands and is not evasion of the offence but a legitimate option
This story gets even weirder. They bought it and parked it up, a massively depreciating asset, and didn’t insure it, which explains why it never moved. So what was the plan, the idea that led to the purchase in the first place?
I hear that motorhomes are a bit of niche for up market dogging experiences.
NEW: Sources close to Home Secretary suggest that she had simply asked officials for advice on how to arrange a driving awareness course.
This is understood to have included raising the possibility of a private one-to-one course (but not directing them to arrange one)...
Then she is a fucking moron.
A moron for not treating officials in her department as hostile agents?
She is so thick she didn't even think to Google the question.
I don't think Google would help with the question of whether cabinet ministers can do speed awareness training more discreetly.
You could google 'can someone have a 121 or anonymous speed awareness course?'
Her being a Cabinet Minister would be completely irrelevant, and that she apparently thought it might not be is a sign of very poor judgement, even if she did not, it seems, then push the issue. That she thought it reasonable is a bit worrying.
Well of course, Cabinet Ministers these days may think they are above typing their own queries into Google. Perhaps their first recourse is to their own civil servants, and then when they're told that's inappropriate the Cabinet Office, and then when the Cabinet Office tells them no, they turn to a publicly funded Special Adviser, in the hope that there isn't a code of conduct for SPADs that prevent them sorting out your brushes with the law for you.
Maybe it would have been simpler just to do what anyone else would have had to, and ask the court? But of course, she wouldn't have got any special treatment if she'd done that.
My favourite petty Rees-Mogg story was when there was a picture of him at his desk (this may have been before his very brief period as an actual Cabinet Minister, as for a long time he was simply 'attends Cabinet), being praised by another MP because he didn't have a computer as if that was a sign of efficiency.
When in actuality what it likely showed was that someone would have to have the job of printing out or showing him everything that was needed for the job, thus requiring more work than if he had just used a laptop.
I don't think we should be slaves to electronic devices, but the attempt to suggest making others work inefficiently to cater to your whims is a good idea was fun.
Sunak’s inexperience poking through here. Can’t hide his anger at all the Braverman related questions overshadowing his supposedly glorious, prime ministerial moment. He appointed her - it’s Sunak’s fault and he needs to get a grip.
I just love the sure-footedness of Sunak's handlers.
He doesn't know the details of what happened, he hasn't spoken to her about it, but "of course" he has confidence in her.
Fairly common approach by PMs.
I know it's the weekend, but they have advisers, assistants and they are running the country - if they haven't spoken or messaged about it that's by design.
Sunak’s inexperience poking through here. Can’t hide his anger at all the Braverman related questions overshadowing his supposedly glorious, prime ministerial moment. He appointed her - it’s Sunak’s fault and he needs to get a grip.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Also, you are being very snowflakey there - an event was held and people can comment negatively about that event, and you are calling people criticising it as intolerance.
It's that kind of hysteria on display by some of the speakers which is why decent points made will get lost, because they seem to be more interested in claiming oppression, which is at least a very millenial and Gen Zs thing to do, so they are getting more modern.
Sunak’s inexperience poking through here. Can’t hide his anger at all the Braverman related questions overshadowing his supposedly glorious, prime ministerial moment. He appointed her - it’s Sunak’s fault and he needs to get a grip.
The newsworthiness of the Braverman speeding fine incident is not that she asked underlings to bend the rules. It's that someone is briefing against her in the papers. And that someone is quite likely to be associated with her nominal boss.
Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
Gove is Badenoch’s Svengali. Just saying.
But you are spot on, blue on blue leaking bad revelations against each other will do nothing to help poll ratings recover.
And whatever that reason was, when it became clear it was not being used why didn't they sell it? Why does virtually no one in the party appear to have known about it? Why was stored at the Chief Exec's mum's place in the first place?
There is no version of the story where it makes sense for the SNP to have bought it, not known about it, and not used it.
There is perhaps a version of the story where it makes sense for Mr Murrell to have bought it and parked it at his Mum's house, but not connected to any SNP business.
Sunak’s inexperience poking through here. Can’t hide his anger at all the Braverman related questions overshadowing his supposedly glorious, prime ministerial moment. He appointed her - it’s Sunak’s fault and he needs to get a grip.
Being unable to conceal his irritation might be better than the polished unctiousness that is the standard political approach. As Chris notes some people find his grin heavy approach a bit much sometimes.
Sunak’s inexperience poking through here. Can’t hide his anger at all the Braverman related questions overshadowing his supposedly glorious, prime ministerial moment. He appointed her - it’s Sunak’s fault and he needs to get a grip.
Being unable to conceal his irritation might be better than the polished unctiousness that is the standard political approach. As Chris notes some people find his grin heavy approach a bit much sometimes.
He's just a bit odd. The way he makes those Twitter videos reminds me of Gordon Brown.
The newsworthiness of the Braverman speeding fine incident is not that she asked underlings to bend the rules. It's that someone is briefing against her in the papers. And that someone is quite likely to be associated with her nominal boss.
Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
Because the Home Secretary is the only person that thinks the PM has to actually deliver on his promise to stop the small boat crossings?
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
There is an allegation that she asked whether she could claim speeding fines as an expense. If that allegation is substantiated that shows sue doesn’t understand the law. The relevant law being stated in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs TC05015 [2016] UKFTT 0239 where the First Tier Tribunal restated the long standing assertion that fines for breaking the law cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do.
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
You need a Beware Of The Doug sign hung behind your desk or on office door.
I just love the sure-footedness of Sunak's handlers.
He doesn't know the details of what happened, he hasn't spoken to her about it, but "of course" he has confidence in her.
Fairly common approach by PMs.
I know it's the weekend, but they have advisers, assistants and they are running the country - if they haven't spoken or messaged about it that's by design.
I listened to Sunak's press conference from Hiroshima live early this morning and he was unimpressed that the first question was about Braverman rather than the G7 meeting 's agreement for F16 for Ukraine and further Russian sanctions
He also referred to the 18 billion deal he has completed with Japan for inward investment in the UK and I doubt the idiotic behaviour of Braverman was on his list of priorities
Once he returns to London and the immigration figures are released Braverman may well be looking at a P45, and to be fair Sunak has nothing to lose by moving her out of the cabinet as she seems to have angered many colleagues across the party with her recent speech seen as an attempt to bolster her leadership credentials ( again no awareness)
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
Talking about shitty entitled politicians and on topic.
One of Scotland’s most left-wing MPs is under fire for using parliamentary expenses to have his phone couriered from his house to Westminster.
Chris Stephens of the SNP has promised to repay the £130 he claimed to retrieve his phone, which he had left at home, to the House of Commons. Critics have said, however, that it is outrageous that taxpayers should have been asked to foot the bill for his “forgetfulness”.
Stephens, a former trade union organiser and avowed socialist, is part of the SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn’s frontbench team. He has represented Glasgow South West since 2015.
Records published by the Westminster authorities show that Stephens filed the claim for £129.88 on December 12 last year. The expense was described as “courier for MP’s mobile as was left in Glasgow and needed for debate tomorrow”.
Challenged by the Scottish Daily Mail, Stephens said it had always been his intention to pay the bill himself and that he had told his office staff this at the time.
“Basically, I left my mobile in the house and I couldn’t contact folk. I am paying it back,” he said. “I’m paying it back on the basis that I accept it was my fault, I left the phone so I’m paying it back.”
Asked why the claim had gone through on expenses, he said: ’”Well, it was to get something from A to B and my office arranged it, so it was as simple as that.”
They are worse than tories, EVRY would have done it for £2.99. The SNP is full of useless grifters.
To be serious for a second, they got so much power, years in charge of Scottish government, just about every Scottish MP too, a perfect platform to pursue independence, AND so many people donated their hard earned money to them because the people donating this money believed in Independence - it’s the betrayal, the frittering all this away by using it as a plaything, by being unprofessional at best, corrupt at worse, this has to be the worst thing of all?
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
There is an allegation that she asked whether she could claim speeding fines as an expense. If that allegation is substantiated that shows sue doesn’t understand the law. The relevant law being stated in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs TC05015 [2016] UKFTT 0239 where the First Tier Tribunal restated the long standing assertion that fines for breaking the law cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do.
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
You need a Beware Of The Doug sign hung behind your desk or on office door.
The newsworthiness of the Braverman speeding fine incident is not that she asked underlings to bend the rules. It's that someone is briefing against her in the papers. And that someone is quite likely to be associated with her nominal boss.
Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
Because the Home Secretary is the only person that thinks the PM has to actually deliver on his promise to stop the small boat crossings?
I can come up with policies to stop those crossings. Ones that are pretty hard to object to on human rights grounds either.
The newsworthiness of the Braverman speeding fine incident is not that she asked underlings to bend the rules. It's that someone is briefing against her in the papers. And that someone is quite likely to be associated with her nominal boss.
Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
Because the Home Secretary is the only person that thinks the PM has to actually deliver on his promise to stop the small boat crossings?
I can come up with policies to stop those crossings. Ones that are pretty hard to object to on human rights grounds either.
Is that the massive fine for employing illegal workers one or is there more to it than that?
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
There is an allegation that she asked whether she could claim speeding fines as an expense. If that allegation is substantiated that shows sue doesn’t understand the law. The relevant law being stated in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs TC05015 [2016] UKFTT 0239 where the First Tier Tribunal restated the long standing assertion that fines for breaking the law cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do.
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
You need a Beware Of The Doug sign hung behind your desk or on office door.
I’ll put it next to the one that says “You’re Douging your own grave”
I just love the sure-footedness of Sunak's handlers.
He doesn't know the details of what happened, he hasn't spoken to her about it, but "of course" he has confidence in her.
Fairly common approach by PMs.
I know it's the weekend, but they have advisers, assistants and they are running the country - if they haven't spoken or messaged about it that's by design.
I listened to Sunak's press conference from Hiroshima live early this morning and he was unimpressed that the first question was about Braverman rather than the G7 meeting 's agreement for F16 for Ukraine and further Russian sanctions
I am reminded of Corbyn whinging that the press wouldn't ask him questions about the things he would rather be questioned about.
Have politician's lost the art of the 'That's not the real question, the real quesiton is [what I want to talk about]'?
As for nothing to lose by moving her I have to disagree. He felt he needed her in in the first place, and she's a bigger figure now. Any movement of her will be seen as him trying to renege on the boats issue, even if personally wades in to the Channel with a trident to sink the boats himself.
The newsworthiness of the Braverman speeding fine incident is not that she asked underlings to bend the rules. It's that someone is briefing against her in the papers. And that someone is quite likely to be associated with her nominal boss.
Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
Because the Home Secretary is the only person that thinks the PM has to actually deliver on his promise to stop the small boat crossings?
I can come up with policies to stop those crossings. Ones that are pretty hard to object to on human rights grounds either.
Is that the massive fine for employing illegal workers one or is there more to it than that?
That’s part of it - plus giving 50% of the fine to the illegal worker for giving evidence. And indefinite leave to remain. Hard to argue with a policy on niceness grounds that consists of giving a work visa and 5 figure to immigrants, paid for by criminals.
i) Yay, two articles in one month, Pip: you are spoiling us! More, more.
ii) I see you get headlined as @Quincel instead of @author. Grumblegrumblegrumble...
iii) SNP under 20 seats at 5/1? Well [sucks in teeth] oookkkay, but unless the polls crater I'm not sure whether that number goes up, down or sideways, so I couldn't tell when to trade out. As to whether letting it ride to the end, well, ulp. I would be wary about it, which presumably why you are better at this than I am.
Re last thread Sunak's live press conference just now from Hiroshima ducks questions on Braverman
When he returns to London time for him to take action on the terrible Braverman who is doing him no favours
On topic
I think the SNP and in particular independence are in great peril and anything could happen
Morning Big G. It's quiet here this morning, so why don't we chat amongst ourselves.
To be honest I don't see there's all that much in this Braverman thing. She got done, as most of us do from time to time, and was embarrassed at the thought of appearing alongside the great unwashed at one of those courses with which I personally am very familiar. She tried to see if she could wriggle out of it, it didn't work: she tried to use a bit of 'fluence and that didn't work either, so she took the points and paid the fine.
It's no big deal but I think she missed a trick. If she had gone on the course she could have made a virtue of it, telling everyone what a good thing they are (which is true) and how it's helped make her a better driver, better understanding of the issues, blah blah blah. It would have been good publicity, and helped her popularity with that important voter - the oppressed motorist.
Instead she's managed to make herself look a bit sneaky, again. It's not a resigning issue, in my opinion, but it ain't a great look either. Whatever Labour may say publicly, privately they will be anxious that she remains in Office. She's a great asset to them.
On the SNP, agree absolutely. The ony question is how low do the SNP go. My guess is 20 seats. Any other offers?
She was the Attorney General and asked if she could put the fine down as expenses. Whatever 'the right stuff' is she (like so many Johnson appointees) does not have it.
I think you are conflating two stories.
William Wragg mentioned the other day that on her first day as an MP (2015) she asked if she could expense a speeding ticket incurred on parliamentary business. On one level that’s just a question for a newbie, although it demonstrates a certain attitude.
This was well before the events people are worried about (although it may be why it was leaked *now* - precisely so people would conflate the events)
The newsworthiness of the Braverman speeding fine incident is not that she asked underlings to bend the rules. It's that someone is briefing against her in the papers. And that someone is quite likely to be associated with her nominal boss.
Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
Because the Home Secretary is the only person that thinks the PM has to actually deliver on his promise to stop the small boat crossings?
So you think Sunak is annoyed because Braverman, who has not delivered on anything she's responsible for, deflects her incompetence onto her boss, and says he needs to deliver what she hasn't, and because of that Sunak is now briefing against her?
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
The factor that makes this even more important is that no ideology works well for all different scenarios. The overly ideological tend to be obsessed with the ideologies that were popular in their childhood but may have little relevance to the next decade or two.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Good to have at least one Nat Con symp on PB. You’re aware that the ‘15 minute cities’ thing that’s got you wound up is largely conspiracy theory ?
Re last thread Sunak's live press conference just now from Hiroshima ducks questions on Braverman
When he returns to London time for him to take action on the terrible Braverman who is doing him no favours
On topic
I think the SNP and in particular independence are in great peril and anything could happen
Morning Big G. It's quiet here this morning, so why don't we chat amongst ourselves.
To be honest I don't see there's all that much in this Braverman thing. She got done, as most of us do from time to time, and was embarrassed at the thought of appearing alongside the great unwashed at one of those courses with which I personally am very familiar. She tried to see if she could wriggle out of it, it didn't work: she tried to use a bit of 'fluence and that didn't work either, so she took the points and paid the fine.
It's no big deal but I think she missed a trick. If she had gone on the course she could have made a virtue of it, telling everyone what a good thing they are (which is true) and how it's helped make her a better driver, better understanding of the issues, blah blah blah. It would have been good publicity, and helped her popularity with that important voter - the oppressed motorist.
Instead she's managed to make herself look a bit sneaky, again. It's not a resigning issue, in my opinion, but it ain't a great look either. Whatever Labour may say publicly, privately they will be anxious that she remains in Office. She's a great asset to them.
On the SNP, agree absolutely. The ony question is how low do the SNP go. My guess is 20 seats. Any other offers?
She was the Attorney General and asked if she could put the fine down as expenses. Whatever 'the right stuff' is she (like so many Johnson appointees) does not have it.
I think you are conflating two stories.
William Wragg mentioned the other day that on her first day as an MP (2015) she asked if she could expense a speeding ticket incurred on parliamentary business. On one level that’s just a question for a newbie, although it demonstrates a certain attitude.
This was well before the events people are worried about (although it may be why it was leaked *now* - precisely so people would conflate the events)
Perhaps she should have just taken the course in the first-place then to help her stop racking up more offences.
The newsworthiness of the Braverman speeding fine incident is not that she asked underlings to bend the rules. It's that someone is briefing against her in the papers. And that someone is quite likely to be associated with her nominal boss.
Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
Because the Home Secretary is the only person that thinks the PM has to actually deliver on his promise to stop the small boat crossings?
So you think Sunak is annoyed because Braverman, who has not delivered on anything she's responsible for, deflects her incompetence onto her boss, and says he needs to deliver what she hasn't, and because of that Sunak is now briefing against her?
I think that Sunak is happy talking about stopping boats, but doesn’t want to get his hands dirty actually stopping them. He’d rather have a Home Sec on the same page, who he can blame for the failure - rather than one who’s enthusiastic about doing what needs to be done, with the failure on the boss for not going along with it.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
The factor that makes this even more important is that no ideology works well for all different scenarios. The overly ideological tend to be obsessed with the ideologies that were popular in their childhood but may have little relevance to the next decade or two.
Ideologies are ok if they mean you have an predisposition to particular courses of action, but can adjust if it is not appropraite for the situation. Top politicians know this very well and so happily steal good ideas from one another, without simply abandoning any sense of coherence or vision if possible, to the point they are just inconsistent centrists with no ideas.
Ones who fetishise their ideology are simply tribalists who want to believe they are tribal for intellectual reasons, or treating politics as cosplaying their (usually very skewed) interpretation of a particular figure.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Also, you are being very snowflakey there - an event was held and people can comment negatively about that event, and you are calling people criticising it as intolerance.
It's that kind of hysteria on display by some of the speakers which is why decent points made will get lost, because they seem to be more interested in claiming oppression, which is at least a very millenial and Gen Zs thing to do, so they are getting more modern.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Good to have at least one Nat Con symp on PB. You’re aware that the ‘15 minute cities’ thing that’s got you wound up is largely conspiracy theory ?
I grew up in Oxford, where the distance to actual countryside from the centre, on a bike is generally less than 30 minutes.
Perfectly possible to live 15 minutes or less from green fields *and* the centre of town.
This is one reason that Oxford is so popular as a place to live - large enough to support a range of amenities, small enough to easily get to the countryside.
The newsworthiness of the Braverman speeding fine incident is not that she asked underlings to bend the rules. It's that someone is briefing against her in the papers. And that someone is quite likely to be associated with her nominal boss.
Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
Because the Home Secretary is the only person that thinks the PM has to actually deliver on his promise to stop the small boat crossings?
So you think Sunak is annoyed because Braverman, who has not delivered on anything she's responsible for, deflects her incompetence onto her boss, and says he needs to deliver what she hasn't, and because of that Sunak is now briefing against her?
I think that Sunak is happy talking about stopping boats, but doesn’t want to get his hands dirty actually stopping them. He’d rather have a Home Sec on the same page, who he can blame for the failure - rather than one who’s enthusiastic about doing what needs to be done, with the failure on the boss for not going along with it.
Makes sense, I think. Braverman is Sunak's stooge. I hadn't thought of it that way.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
There is an allegation that she asked whether she could claim speeding fines as an expense. If that allegation is substantiated that shows sue doesn’t understand the law. The relevant law being stated in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs TC05015 [2016] UKFTT 0239 where the First Tier Tribunal restated the long standing assertion that fines for breaking the law cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do.
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
" cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do"
Whether an employer is willing to reimburse a cost or expense incurred by an employee, and whether the reimbursement attracts a tax or NI liability on the employee, are two separate legal questions. As a lawyer, you've enjoyed a good meal out with clients at least once, right ?
Calling something "an expense" is not the same as determining its tax treatment.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Good to have at least one Nat Con symp on PB. You’re aware that the ‘15 minute cities’ thing that’s got you wound up is largely conspiracy theory ?
Just ‘cos Jerry mucked it up, Our Nationalism we won’t cock-up. Don’t be stupid, don’t be dense! Come and join the NatC conference! (apols for scansion)
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Good to have at least one Nat Con symp on PB. You’re aware that the ‘15 minute cities’ thing that’s got you wound up is largely conspiracy theory ?
Just ‘cos Jerry mucked it up, Our Nationalism we won’t cock-up. Don’t be stupid, don’t be dense! Come and join the NatC conference! (apols for scansion)
A "Springtime for Hitler/The Producers" reference? ("don't be stupid, be a smarty...")
Re Braverman - seeking a private driving awareness course shows her own lack of awareness
She is a terrible home secretary and needs to go, but not over this though it adds to her failed reputation
However, Yvette Cooper's accusation Braverman was trying to evade a speeding offence is just as daft, as the speed awareness course is taken by many thousands and is not evasion of the offence but a legitimate option
At last someone joining me as a moderate voice of reason on this subject.
The reality is that Sunak doesn’t actually believe in stopping the boats.
The man is totally bankrupt ideologically and totally out of ideas.
I am struggling to understand what Sunak actually does believe in. He clearly doesn't want to sort out the housing crisis, or the leasehold problem. He doesn't appear to stand for lower taxes, or deregulation. He seems quite keen on collecting more taxes via fiscal drag, a "do nothing" policy if there ever was one.
There is no plan to fix the broken NHS, or champion improvements to the education system. He doesn't seem to have a clue what to do about the people suffering from the effects of inflation, or who can't afford their energy bills.
In fact other than allowing pharmacists to dispense certain medications, I'm struggling to think of a single headline policy you could point at and say "yep, that's Sunakism".
All the man seems to stand for is managerialism and managed decline, a "steady as she goes" approach with his hand on the tiller, blissfully unaware that HMS Great Britain is sinking faster than the Titanic.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
The factor that makes this even more important is that no ideology works well for all different scenarios. The overly ideological tend to be obsessed with the ideologies that were popular in their childhood but may have little relevance to the next decade or two.
Ideologies are ok if they mean you have an predisposition to particular courses of action, but can adjust if it is not appropraite for the situation. Top politicians know this very well and so happily steal good ideas from one another, without simply abandoning any sense of coherence or vision if possible, to the point they are just inconsistent centrists with no ideas.
Ones who fetishise their ideology are simply tribalists who want to believe they are tribal for intellectual reasons, or treating politics as cosplaying their (usually very skewed) interpretation of a particular figure.
“Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.” - Salvor Hardin/Isaac Asimov, Foundation
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Good to have at least one Nat Con symp on PB. You’re aware that the ‘15 minute cities’ thing that’s got you wound up is largely conspiracy theory ?
Just ‘cos Jerry mucked it up, Our Nationalism we won’t cock-up. Don’t be stupid, don’t be dense! Come and join the NatC conference! (apols for scansion)
Douglas Murray said nationalism Looked uncool when perceived through the prism Of Hitler and Hess, But it shouldn't depress, Though such thoughts caused the Tories to schism.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Good to have at least one Nat Con symp on PB. You’re aware that the ‘15 minute cities’ thing that’s got you wound up is largely conspiracy theory ?
Just ‘cos Jerry mucked it up, Our Nationalism we won’t cock-up. Don’t be stupid, don’t be dense! Come and join the NatC conference! (apols for scansion)
A "Springtime for Hitler/The Producers" reference? ("don't be stupid, be a smarty...")
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Good to have at least one Nat Con symp on PB. You’re aware that the ‘15 minute cities’ thing that’s got you wound up is largely conspiracy theory ?
Just ‘cos Jerry mucked it up, Our Nationalism we won’t cock-up. Don’t be stupid, don’t be dense! Come and join the NatC conference! (apols for scansion)
A "Springtime for Hitler/The Producers" reference? ("don't be stupid, be a smarty...")
Yep. The current Tory party an investment scam designed to fail? At least there’s no danger of it turning into a surprise smash hit.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
There is an allegation that she asked whether she could claim speeding fines as an expense. If that allegation is substantiated that shows sue doesn’t understand the law. The relevant law being stated in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs TC05015 [2016] UKFTT 0239 where the First Tier Tribunal restated the long standing assertion that fines for breaking the law cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do.
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
" cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do"
Whether an employer is willing to reimburse a cost or expense incurred by an employee, and whether the reimbursement attracts a tax or NI liability on the employee, are two separate legal questions. As a lawyer, you've enjoyed a good meal out with clients at least once, right ?
Calling something "an expense" is not the same as determining its tax treatment.
Not really. HMRC spends a lot of time defining what “business expenses” are so people don’t misuse it. If an employer reimburses something that was incurred for the benefit of the employee it’s a “benefit” of the employee and thus taxable. If I’d enjoyed a meal out with clients as a purely social affair why would my firm pay for it? I could take anyone out and still bill the firm. That’s a free lunch.
When, however, an employee incurs an expense on behalf of the employer that is an “expense” and is not. While technically, yes, you could label a benefit as an expense in practice that never happens and, as a lawyer, she’d know the difference between a taxable benefit and a non-taxable expense
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
The factor that makes this even more important is that no ideology works well for all different scenarios. The overly ideological tend to be obsessed with the ideologies that were popular in their childhood but may have little relevance to the next decade or two.
Yes that's a good point. I distrust ideologies if offered as 'the way'. The world is too complex to be explained by any particular idea or theory. All you should do with ideologies imo is filter for insights that are useful or interesting. Marxism, Libertarianism, Laissez Faire, (shock horror) Woke, whatever, same thing applies.
But I also distrust the often lauded 'evidence based' approach. Because you need values to frame and drive your politics. Without this even if you're a good apple you can end up in the deadend of 'whatever works' - essentially a pretence that there's some objectively verifiable best course of action that delivers optimal outcomes. Politics as a sort of bloodless science.
That's going too far the other way for me. Risks the government losing touch with the people. "Don't you worry your little heads, we know what we're doing, just let us get on with it". But still, I'd rather that sterile technocratic elitism than Boris Johnson type ghastliness. No contest in fact.
The reality is that Sunak doesn’t actually believe in stopping the boats.
The man is totally bankrupt ideologically and totally out of ideas.
I am struggling to understand what Sunak actually does believe in. He clearly doesn't want to sort out the housing crisis, or the leasehold problem. He doesn't appear to stand for lower taxes, or deregulation. He seems quite keen on collecting more taxes via fiscal drag, a "do nothing" policy if there ever was one.
There is no plan to fix the broken NHS, or champion improvements to the education system. He doesn't seem to have a clue what to do about the people suffering from the effects of inflation, or who can't afford their energy bills.
In fact other than allowing pharmacists to dispense certain medications, I'm struggling to think of a single headline policy you could point at and say "yep, that's Sunakism".
All the man seems to stand for is managerialism and managed decline, a "steady as she goes" approach with his hand on the tiller, blissfully unaware that HMS Great Britain is sinking faster than the Titanic.
Sunak believes in small state, low welfare, low taxes and the absolute right of rich people like himself to hang onto their wealth.
He's.not entirely been able to deliver this but he has tried to do some of it, a bit half heartedly.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
What comes below 'the vegetables' level?
National Conservatives, we've established that.
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
The squealing footstamping intolerance shown to a symposium of Toryish people saying Toryish things to each other tells me that the National Conservative conference couldn’t have come soon enough. By contrast, the nutjobs who meet in Davos to discuss how we should all live on insects in 15 minute cities are treated with polite silence.
Good to have at least one Nat Con symp on PB. You’re aware that the ‘15 minute cities’ thing that’s got you wound up is largely conspiracy theory ?
Just ‘cos Jerry mucked it up, Our Nationalism we won’t cock-up. Don’t be stupid, don’t be dense! Come and join the NatC conference! (apols for scansion)
A "Springtime for Hitler/The Producers" reference? ("don't be stupid, be a smarty...")
Yep. The current Tory party an investment scam designed to fail? At least there’s no danger of it turning into a surprise smash hit.
That happened in 2016, and Bialystock and Bloom The Conservative Party have been trying to deal with the consequences ever since in an equally farcical but less entertaining way.
The reality is that Sunak doesn’t actually believe in stopping the boats.
The man is totally bankrupt ideologically and totally out of ideas.
I am struggling to understand what Sunak actually does believe in. He clearly doesn't want to sort out the housing crisis, or the leasehold problem. He doesn't appear to stand for lower taxes, or deregulation. He seems quite keen on collecting more taxes via fiscal drag, a "do nothing" policy if there ever was one.
There is no plan to fix the broken NHS, or champion improvements to the education system. He doesn't seem to have a clue what to do about the people suffering from the effects of inflation, or who can't afford their energy bills.
In fact other than allowing pharmacists to dispense certain medications, I'm struggling to think of a single headline policy you could point at and say "yep, that's Sunakism".
All the man seems to stand for is managerialism and managed decline, a "steady as she goes" approach with his hand on the tiller, blissfully unaware that HMS Great Britain is sinking faster than the Titanic.
The way out of 'managed decline' is for more work / more effective work / more productive work.
And more saving and investment funded by less consumption.
With self improvement instead of self indulgence.
All of which is a bit hard and while the government can help and encourage in some things there are no magic wands.
And the underlying problem is that few people want to do any of that. Especially politicians.
Instead what we want is another handout, another subsidy, another tax cut, another pay rise and for everything to be made more comfortable and easy.
I've adapted my technique recently. Instead of doing all my comments below the line or all backstage, I've adopted a mixed approach: the serious stuff goes backstage, the stuff I don't need to remember is BTL. With that in mind I've opened up a backstage discussion on Bakhmut for you if you need to know my take on it. If you don't want to be in it there's a "leave conversation" button.
The last time a group put National on the front of it, it didn't go so well. Surely this time it will be different
National Grid ?
The National Government during WWII seemed to do a moderately good job.
The National Trust, on the other hand…
Churchill wrote in his war memoirs that this country never had such a good government as the National Government, and would probably never have such good government again. Looking back, it is remarkable how non-ideological it was. It really does seem that talent and ability to do the job were the only criteria that mattered.
The last time a group put National on the front of it, it didn't go so well. Surely this time it will be different
National Grid ?
The National Government during WWII seemed to do a moderately good job.
The National Trust, on the other hand…
Churchill wrote in his war memoirs that this country never had such a good government as the National Government, and would probably never have such good government again. Looking back, it is remarkable how non-ideological it was. It really does seem that talent and ability to do the job were the only criteria that mattered.
That’s what a common national enemy does for domestic politics.
The last time a group put National on the front of it, it didn't go so well. Surely this time it will be different
National Grid ?
The National Government during WWII seemed to do a moderately good job.
The National Trust, on the other hand…
Churchill wrote in his war memoirs that this country never had such a good government as the National Government, and would probably never have such good government again. Looking back, it is remarkable how non-ideological it was. It really does seem that talent and ability to do the job were the only criteria that mattered.
That’s what a common national enemy does for domestic politics.
Ask the Ukranians.
When facing an existential threat, one can’t be stupid and selfish.
The reality is that Sunak doesn’t actually believe in stopping the boats.
The man is totally bankrupt ideologically and totally out of ideas.
I am struggling to understand what Sunak actually does believe in. He clearly doesn't want to sort out the housing crisis, or the leasehold problem. He doesn't appear to stand for lower taxes, or deregulation. He seems quite keen on collecting more taxes via fiscal drag, a "do nothing" policy if there ever was one.
There is no plan to fix the broken NHS, or champion improvements to the education system. He doesn't seem to have a clue what to do about the people suffering from the effects of inflation, or who can't afford their energy bills.
In fact other than allowing pharmacists to dispense certain medications, I'm struggling to think of a single headline policy you could point at and say "yep, that's Sunakism".
All the man seems to stand for is managerialism and managed decline, a "steady as she goes" approach with his hand on the tiller, blissfully unaware that HMS Great Britain is sinking faster than the Titanic.
He may have some ideas, but he lacks the political support (or will) to push them. He ate up most of his capital in the part by daring to do a deal with the EU which implied the great Boris deal had some problems, and not he just wants to avoid upsetting any of the sides, which is not easy as overall the main pledges are being failed.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
The factor that makes this even more important is that no ideology works well for all different scenarios. The overly ideological tend to be obsessed with the ideologies that were popular in their childhood but may have little relevance to the next decade or two.
Yes that's a good point. I distrust ideologies if offered as 'the way'. The world is too complex to be explained by any particular idea or theory. All you should do with ideologies imo is filter for insights that are useful or interesting. Marxism, Libertarianism, Laissez Faire, (shock horror) Woke, whatever, same thing applies.
But I also distrust the often lauded 'evidence based' approach. Because you need values to frame and drive your politics. Without this even if you're a good apple you can end up in the deadend of 'whatever works' - essentially a pretence that there's some objectively verifiable best course of action that delivers optimal outcomes. Politics as a sort of bloodless science.
That's going too far the other way for me. Risks the government losing touch with the people. "Don't you worry your little heads, we know what we're doing, just let us get on with it". But still, I'd rather that sterile technocratic elitism than Boris Johnson type ghastliness. No contest in fact.
Moderation in all things. Including moderation in moderation, meaning you can be radical sometimes!
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
Aren't you in some ways there referring to pragmatism, which you could argue is an ideology in itself? To do a disservice to the philosopher, William James, I'd see it as essentially see it as experimentation guided by principle but where the proof of what is right is in practical effect.
In that sense, I think you're looking for someone competent who shares your ideology, which of course we all are.
The problem is we all probably have some kind of hierarchy of ideology between benign and demonic. It's rather crucial, in judging if you are attracted by the competent ideologue, where on that scale they are. The last thing you want is someone competently carrying out evil.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
Aren't you in some ways there referring to pragmatism, which you could argue is an ideology in itself? To do a disservice to the philosopher, William James, I'd see it as essentially see it as experimentation guided by principle but where the proof of what is right is in practical effect.
In that sense, I think you're looking for someone competent who shares your ideology, which of course we all are.
The problem is we all probably have some kind of hierarchy of ideology between benign and demonic. It's rather crucial, in judging if you are attracted by the competent ideologue, where on that scale they are. The last thing you want is someone competently carrying out evil.
Yes, men like Heydrich or Beria were very competent at doing evil.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
Aren't you in some ways there referring to pragmatism, which you could argue is an ideology in itself? To do a disservice to the philosopher, William James, I'd see it as essentially see it as experimentation guided by principle but where the proof of what is right is in practical effect.
In that sense, I think you're looking for someone competent who shares your ideology, which of course we all are.
The problem is we all probably have some kind of hierarchy of ideology between benign and demonic. It's rather crucial, in judging if you are attracted by the competent ideologue, where on that scale they are. The last thing you want is someone competently carrying out evil.
I find that the means illuminate the morals of the ends, quite well.
The last time a group put National on the front of it, it didn't go so well. Surely this time it will be different
National Grid ?
The National Government during WWII seemed to do a moderately good job.
The National Trust, on the other hand…
Churchill wrote in his war memoirs that this country never had such a good government as the National Government, and would probably never have such good government again. Looking back, it is remarkable how non-ideological it was. It really does seem that talent and ability to do the job were the only criteria that mattered.
That’s what a common national enemy does for domestic politics.
Ask the Ukranians.
When facing an existential threat, one can’t be stupid and selfish.
Stupidity and selfishness are peacetime luxuries.
Bomber Harris on the subject of the aircraft manufacturers and the “ring” they formed with the Air Ministry is worth a visit.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
The factor that makes this even more important is that no ideology works well for all different scenarios. The overly ideological tend to be obsessed with the ideologies that were popular in their childhood but may have little relevance to the next decade or two.
Yes that's a good point. I distrust ideologies if offered as 'the way'. The world is too complex to be explained by any particular idea or theory. All you should do with ideologies imo is filter for insights that are useful or interesting. Marxism, Libertarianism, Laissez Faire, (shock horror) Woke, whatever, same thing applies.
But I also distrust the often lauded 'evidence based' approach. Because you need values to frame and drive your politics. Without this even if you're a good apple you can end up in the deadend of 'whatever works' - essentially a pretence that there's some objectively verifiable best course of action that delivers optimal outcomes. Politics as a sort of bloodless science.
That's going too far the other way for me. Risks the government losing touch with the people. "Don't you worry your little heads, we know what we're doing, just let us get on with it". But still, I'd rather that sterile technocratic elitism than Boris Johnson type ghastliness. No contest in fact.
Moderation in all things. Including moderation in moderation, meaning you can be radical sometimes!
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
The factor that makes this even more important is that no ideology works well for all different scenarios. The overly ideological tend to be obsessed with the ideologies that were popular in their childhood but may have little relevance to the next decade or two.
Yes that's a good point. I distrust ideologies if offered as 'the way'. The world is too complex to be explained by any particular idea or theory. All you should do with ideologies imo is filter for insights that are useful or interesting. Marxism, Libertarianism, Laissez Faire, (shock horror) Woke, whatever, same thing applies.
But I also distrust the often lauded 'evidence based' approach. Because you need values to frame and drive your politics. Without this even if you're a good apple you can end up in the deadend of 'whatever works' - essentially a pretence that there's some objectively verifiable best course of action that delivers optimal outcomes. Politics as a sort of bloodless science.
That's going too far the other way for me. Risks the government losing touch with the people. "Don't you worry your little heads, we know what we're doing, just let us get on with it". But still, I'd rather that sterile technocratic elitism than Boris Johnson type ghastliness. No contest in fact.
Moderation in all things. Including moderation in moderation, meaning you can be radical sometimes!
The last time a group put National on the front of it, it didn't go so well. Surely this time it will be different
National Grid ?
The National Government during WWII seemed to do a moderately good job.
The National Trust, on the other hand…
Churchill wrote in his war memoirs that this country never had such a good government as the National Government, and would probably never have such good government again. Looking back, it is remarkable how non-ideological it was. It really does seem that talent and ability to do the job were the only criteria that mattered.
That’s what a common national enemy does for domestic politics.
Ask the Ukranians.
When facing an existential threat, one can’t be stupid and selfish.
Stupidity and selfishness are peacetime luxuries.
Yes, I think that's why we can't expect the same high standards of peacetime governments. Absent an existential threat, the usual stupidities and selfishness are unavoidable.
As others here have noted, Ukraine is providing a striking example illustration of the principle.
The last time a group put National on the front of it, it didn't go so well. Surely this time it will be different
National Grid ?
The National Government during WWII seemed to do a moderately good job.
The National Trust, on the other hand…
Churchill wrote in his war memoirs that this country never had such a good government as the National Government, and would probably never have such good government again. Looking back, it is remarkable how non-ideological it was. It really does seem that talent and ability to do the job were the only criteria that mattered.
That’s what a common national enemy does for domestic politics.
Ask the Ukranians.
When facing an existential threat, one can’t be stupid and selfish.
Stupidity and selfishness are peacetime luxuries.
Bomber Harris on the subject of the aircraft manufacturers and the “ring” they formed with the Air Ministry is worth a visit.
This does point to an obvious solution - Braverman resigns to 'take responsibility', then is reappointed the next week. Given it's already been established that you can take responsibility so quickly. Looking forward to how Rishi Sunak explains why Suella Braverman has to resign from her job for breaking the ministerial code, after having previously appointed her to that same job, just days after being found to have broken the ministerial code. https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1660228173307555840
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
The factor that makes this even more important is that no ideology works well for all different scenarios. The overly ideological tend to be obsessed with the ideologies that were popular in their childhood but may have little relevance to the next decade or two.
Yes that's a good point. I distrust ideologies if offered as 'the way'. The world is too complex to be explained by any particular idea or theory. All you should do with ideologies imo is filter for insights that are useful or interesting. Marxism, Libertarianism, Laissez Faire, (shock horror) Woke, whatever, same thing applies.
But I also distrust the often lauded 'evidence based' approach. Because you need values to frame and drive your politics. Without this even if you're a good apple you can end up in the deadend of 'whatever works' - essentially a pretence that there's some objectively verifiable best course of action that delivers optimal outcomes. Politics as a sort of bloodless science.
That's going too far the other way for me. Risks the government losing touch with the people. "Don't you worry your little heads, we know what we're doing, just let us get on with it". But still, I'd rather that sterile technocratic elitism than Boris Johnson type ghastliness. No contest in fact.
Moderation in all things. Including moderation in moderation, meaning you can be radical sometimes!
Comments
As its a personal issue she could have googled the answer, but if she simply asked for advice and then followed it she'll be fine.
For the base of the GOP appointing the right Supreme Court Justices appears to be worth a lot, which since they then get 20-40 years to act as unaccountable politicians with enormous power, makes sense.
The motorhome saga takes another twist… never insured… wonder why!!!
https://twitter.com/stuey_E/status/1660209546093051905
But I would suppose inedible fungi or lichens.
Cruella should be pilloried not for this but for being a nasty human being as well as being a true believer of the calamity called Brexit.
Her being a Cabinet Minister would be completely irrelevant, and that she apparently thought it might not be is a sign of very poor judgement, even if she did not, it seems, then push the issue. That she thought it reasonable is a bit worrying.
This sort of thing shows the lie of assuming progress only moves in one direction, as we appear to be going backwards on race relations.
Maybe it would have been simpler just to do what anyone else would have had to, and ask the court? But of course, she wouldn't have got any special treatment if she'd done that.
There's no outcome from this story that does not reveal utter administrative incompetence and a lack of healthy financial scrutiny, though things are often so trivial and take so long that I always presume criminal charges are unlikely.
Been reading The Secret Barrister's latest book, which is far less polemical than his last, and it does make me wonder how the likes of DavidL ever manage to get through a week of court work without screaming in frustration.
With apologies to DK Brown, I am pleased that I do not have to explain this series of events….
Rich people in Davos flying in to talk about how we shouldn't fly or whatever is also funny, but lacks novelty since they do it every year.
He doesn't know the details of what happened, he hasn't spoken to her about it, but "of course" he has confidence in her.
Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
She is a terrible home secretary and needs to go, but not over this though it adds to her failed reputation
However, Yvette Cooper's accusation Braverman was trying to evade a speeding offence is just as daft, as the speed awareness course is taken by many thousands and is not evasion of the offence but a legitimate option
When in actuality what it likely showed was that someone would have to have the job of printing out or showing him everything that was needed for the job, thus requiring more work than if he had just used a laptop.
I don't think we should be slaves to electronic devices, but the attempt to suggest making others work inefficiently to cater to your whims is a good idea was fun.
https://twitter.com/NicholasTyrone/status/1660248446161281024
I know it's the weekend, but they have advisers, assistants and they are running the country - if they haven't spoken or messaged about it that's by design.
It's that kind of hysteria on display by some of the speakers which is why decent points made will get lost, because they seem to be more interested in claiming oppression, which is at least a very millenial and Gen Zs thing to do, so they are getting more modern.
But you are spot on, blue on blue leaking bad revelations against each other will do nothing to help poll ratings recover.
There is perhaps a version of the story where it makes sense for Mr Murrell to have bought it and parked it at his Mum's house, but not connected to any SNP business.
He also referred to the 18 billion deal he has completed with Japan for inward investment in the UK and I doubt the idiotic behaviour of Braverman was on his list of priorities
Once he returns to London and the immigration figures are released Braverman may well be looking at a P45, and to be fair Sunak has nothing to lose by moving her out of the cabinet as she seems to have angered many colleagues across the party with her recent speech seen as an attempt to bolster her leadership credentials ( again no awareness)
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
Have politician's lost the art of the 'That's not the real question, the real quesiton is [what I want to talk about]'?
As for nothing to lose by moving her I have to disagree. He felt he needed her in in the first place, and she's a bigger figure now. Any movement of her will be seen as him trying to renege on the boats issue, even if personally wades in to the Channel with a trident to sink the boats himself.
William Wragg mentioned the other day that on her first day as an MP (2015) she asked if she could expense a speeding ticket incurred on parliamentary business. On one level that’s just a question for a newbie, although it demonstrates a certain attitude.
This was well before the events people are worried about (although it may be why it was leaked *now* - precisely so people would conflate the events)
You’re aware that the ‘15 minute cities’ thing that’s got you wound up is largely conspiracy theory ?
Ones who fetishise their ideology are simply tribalists who want to believe they are tribal for intellectual reasons, or treating politics as cosplaying their (usually very skewed) interpretation of a particular figure.
Perfectly possible to live 15 minutes or less from green fields *and* the centre of town.
This is one reason that Oxford is so popular as a place to live - large enough to support a range of amenities, small enough to easily get to the countryside.
British foods awaiting protected status in Japan despite Liz Truss promise
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/21/british-foods-awaiting-protected-status-in-japan-despite-liz-truss-promise
The National Trust, on the other hand…
The man is totally bankrupt ideologically and totally out of ideas.
Whether an employer is willing to reimburse a cost or expense incurred by an employee, and whether the reimbursement attracts a tax or NI liability on the employee, are two separate legal questions. As a lawyer, you've enjoyed a good meal out with clients at least once, right ?
Calling something "an expense" is not the same as determining its tax treatment.
Our Nationalism we won’t cock-up.
Don’t be stupid, don’t be dense!
Come and join the NatC conference!
(apols for scansion)
There is no plan to fix the broken NHS, or champion improvements to the education system. He doesn't seem to have a clue what to do about the people suffering from the effects of inflation, or who can't afford their energy bills.
In fact other than allowing pharmacists to dispense certain medications, I'm struggling to think of a single headline policy you could point at and say "yep, that's Sunakism".
All the man seems to stand for is managerialism and managed decline, a "steady as she goes" approach with his hand on the tiller, blissfully unaware that HMS Great Britain is sinking faster than the Titanic.
Looked uncool when perceived through the prism
Of Hitler and Hess,
But it shouldn't depress,
Though such thoughts caused the Tories to schism.
(just kiddin')
The current Tory party an investment scam designed to fail? At least there’s no danger of it turning into a surprise smash hit.
When, however, an employee incurs an expense on behalf of the employer that is an “expense” and is not. While technically, yes, you could label a benefit as an expense in
practice that never happens and, as a lawyer, she’d know the difference between a taxable benefit and a non-taxable expense
But I also distrust the often lauded 'evidence based' approach. Because you need values to frame and drive your politics. Without this even if you're a good apple you can end up in the deadend of 'whatever works' - essentially a pretence that there's some objectively verifiable best course of action that delivers optimal outcomes. Politics as a sort of bloodless science.
That's going too far the other way for me. Risks the government losing touch with the people. "Don't you worry your little heads, we know what we're doing, just let us get on with it". But still, I'd rather that sterile technocratic elitism than Boris Johnson type ghastliness. No contest in fact.
He's.not entirely been able to deliver this but he has tried to do some of it, a bit half heartedly.
And more saving and investment funded by less consumption.
With self improvement instead of self indulgence.
All of which is a bit hard and while the government can help and encourage in some things there are no magic wands.
And the underlying problem is that few people want to do any of that. Especially politicians.
Instead what we want is another handout, another subsidy, another tax cut, another pay rise and for everything to be made more comfortable and easy.
I've adapted my technique recently. Instead of doing all my comments below the line or all backstage, I've adopted a mixed approach: the serious stuff goes backstage, the stuff I don't need to remember is BTL. With that in mind I've opened up a backstage discussion on Bakhmut for you if you need to know my take on it. If you don't want to be in it there's a "leave conversation" button.
Ask the Ukranians.
Stupidity and selfishness are peacetime luxuries.
In that sense, I think you're looking for someone competent who shares your ideology, which of course we all are.
The problem is we all probably have some kind of hierarchy of ideology between benign and demonic. It's rather crucial, in judging if you are attracted by the competent ideologue, where on that scale they are. The last thing you want is someone competently carrying out evil.
As others here have noted, Ukraine is providing a striking example illustration of the principle.
Not clear what they want to do about it.
https://twitter.com/TomHCalver/status/1660211141946089472
Looking forward to how Rishi Sunak explains why Suella Braverman has to resign from her job for breaking the ministerial code, after having previously appointed her to that same job, just days after being found to have broken the ministerial code.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1660228173307555840
On the side of a bus...
The Victorians tried to photograph the soul leaving the body. BBC Scotland has managed it.
https://twitter.com/StephenCVGraham/status/1659807745321598976