The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
Can Farage spin this moment of renewed relevance into a political revival? Does he even want to? What's his motive in all this?
No, and no, is my guess
But a hefty win in a libel court and a pleasing victory over the Woke Remoaners: Yes
Not sure of the basis for Libel. The report suggested members of the public perceived him as a liar and a racist and a grifter. It didn't claim he was.
That can still constitute libel. Did you think it was unactionable to say "Others say Mr X is a liar"? I strongly doubt he'll sue, though. Generally it's sensible not to. If he did he'd have to be super-confident of victory on proper advice and they'd settle.
What's his motive? I guess he wants somewhere to bank, as most of us do, but more than that? Reform UK will be totally irrelevant in the next election IMO. So it isn't that. As I've said before, perhaps he's got snow on his boots. He wouldn't be the only far right figure in western Europe about whom that has been suggested. And he seems to have damaged the City a bit. Even a year and a half into the war the City still handles an awful lot of Russian-in-origin money. Who knows what the next chapter in that story will be? Perhaps this is an early chapter.
Even without any Russian considerations, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's not batting for someone else to some extent or at least being used. He'd be brave to take on the BBC single-handed.
If Britain weren't so full of royalist lickspittles, the fact that the royal family's bankers took exception to him disrespecting the then Prince of Wales for receiving a million euros in cash in a suitcase handed to him by a Qatari prince wouldn't be allowed to plummet down the memory hole.
And the left would make the following extremely obvious point: the City, not wanting to handle dirty people's money - talk about taking the f***ing piss!
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
No, you’re not. She Ratner’d the Coutts brand. It may not ever recover. It’s a modest but not insignificant percentage of the entire bank that is NatWest
She has to go, and Coutts needs to rethink whether it can be a private bank or a pioneer of Woke capitalism that refuses right wing clients. It cannot be both
Coutts is genuinely shit. And has been for a long time.
If you want a proper private UK bank, there is Hoare's. And that is about it. (RBS used to have Adam & Co, but they closed it down, and transferred its clients - like me - to Coutts. Bastards.)
What about Rothschilds?
I know one bank that, as a result of a few dissatisfied customers/employees lost so much of their private banking business, that they had to close the U.K. private banking business as no longer viable.
I didn't know they offered private banking services.
As I am now US tax resident, I can't change UK banks as no one will have me. Sniff.
Rothschilds took the private banking business of the bank I mentioned. Basically, the key guys took their clients with them.
Has the House of Commons voted on approving the new constituency boundaries, or is that still to come?
They don't get to vote. The system is set up so they can't block it or amend it. The Government has 4 months to implement it unless they pass primary legislation changing the whole law.
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
Climate change is a world problem and as such requires worldwide cooperation which if the recent G20 meeting is to go by is simply not there
Ensuring our climate measures are affordable and sensible is not going to cause the catastrophe you suggest as we are not able to stop it ourselves
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
No, you’re not. She Ratner’d the Coutts brand. It may not ever recover. It’s a modest but not insignificant percentage of the entire bank that is NatWest
She has to go, and Coutts needs to rethink whether it can be a private bank or a pioneer of Woke capitalism that refuses right wing clients. It cannot be both
Coutts is genuinely shit. And has been for a long time.
If you want a proper private UK bank, there is Hoare's. And that is about it. (RBS used to have Adam & Co, but they closed it down, and transferred its clients - like me - to Coutts. Bastards.)
Hoare's of course connected to Charles, late of this Parish
You don't think it might be the Inflation Election??
Not as much as the cost of going green on the ordinary voter
I am not sure over the course of the next 18 months this is as big an issue as you suggest. Maybe more has been read from Uxbridge than was necessary.
That said after Uxbridge I am expecting much, much closer polls for the next couple of months. You are right Rishi played a blinder on Thursday and the hapless Starmer lost big, but does this issue have legs?
Sunak played a blinder and only lost 2 out of 3 safe seats.
Somerton and Frome and Selby and Ainsty results have been lost in the smog of Uxbridge.
BigG has forgotten however that ULEZ is a specifically health related, rather than a green issue. If Labour and the Mayor in particular could get their messaging out of the blocks it wouldn't take much to suggest that Sunak is defending the asphyxiation of babies and children through automotive pollution for political gain.
Why then is Starmer demanding change in the policy from Khan
And of course ULEZ is a health issue but it has given the conservatives the opportunity to raise the speed and cost of climate change measures which is now being openly discussed
It's a Tory policy. Trotskyism in action. Permanent revolution against the traitors in the Party.
It was brought in for Central London and that is absolutely correct
The error Khan made was to mandate it for outer London without proper discussion and panicking Starmer into demanding a change
Of course Uxbridge will have a large workforce at Heathrow and to suggest that even some should pay £12.50 a day to go to work it was terrible politics
Khan did not make a mistake. He arranged for the ULEZ expansion to come into force way before the mayoral election so that it would not be a big problem when the vote took place as the vast majority of the electorate would realise they were not affected. Obviously, the by-election did not suit that timetable but it is not something that Khan could have predicted. It turns out to have taken place at the time of maximum opportunity for the Tories to make it into an issue. But it will now produce diminishing returns. It seems that both the Tories and Labour have not fully understood this.
As an outsider to me it looks like one of those issues which, sure, will cause some level of stink at implementation, but not anything particularly long lasting once the challenges are concluded. It just doesn't look like it would have legs, once people are used to it.
Yep, the by-election came at precisely the right time for the Tories which made it absolutely the wrong time for Labour. But Labour fought an awful, defensive campaign that basically allowed the Tories to frame the entire narrative. It was a very poor effort. It was also ridiculous to allow it to become the weekend story. Hopefully a few lessons have ben learned. But I have my doubts.
I think Labour drew the wrong message from their feeble campaign in Uxbridge. 893 Green votes could have got them over the line. Instead the Green vote went up.
Labour needs to campaign with a positive message, like clean air, mitigated by a scrappage scheme for old diesels.
If there is one lesson I'd like Labour to learn from Pedro Sanchez in Spain (there are many but let's restrict it to one), it is to campaign without fear. Don't allow the right to dictate the narrative, stand up for what you believe in, defend it to the hilt. But Labour is so damaged by past experience it just cannot think straight on this.
Except Sanchez still lost, even if he did better than expected.
The PP won most seats not his PSOE
The following two things are both true.
* PSOE overperformed their polls and fought on the ground of their own choosing, minimising the damage * PSOE lost and will probably not provide the next PM
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
No, you’re not. She Ratner’d the Coutts brand. It may not ever recover. It’s a modest but not insignificant percentage of the entire bank that is NatWest
She has to go, and Coutts needs to rethink whether it can be a private bank or a pioneer of Woke capitalism that refuses right wing clients. It cannot be both
Coutts is genuinely shit. And has been for a long time.
If you want a proper private UK bank, there is Hoare's. And that is about it. (RBS used to have Adam & Co, but they closed it down, and transferred its clients - like me - to Coutts. Bastards.)
What about Rothschilds?
I know one bank that, as a result of a few dissatisfied customers/employees lost so much of their private banking business, that they had to close the U.K. private banking business as no longer viable.
I didn't know they offered private banking services.
As I am now US tax resident, I can't change UK banks as no one will have me. Sniff.
What took Tim so long to notice? Tory politicians have been shamefully attacking lawyers for doing their jobs for some time now. Sunak follows that ignoble tradition.
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
Can Farage spin this moment of renewed relevance into a political revival? Does he even want to? What's his motive in all this?
No, and no, is my guess
But a hefty win in a libel court and a pleasing victory over the Woke Remoaners: Yes
Not sure of the basis for Libel. The report suggested members of the public perceived him as a liar and a racist and a grifter. It didn't claim he was.
That can still constitute libel. Did you think it was unactionable to say "Others say Mr X is a liar"? I strongly doubt he'll sue, though. Generally it's sensible not to. If he did he'd have to be super-confident of victory on proper advice and they'd settle.
What's his motive? I guess he wants somewhere to bank, as most of us do, but more than that? Reform UK will be totally irrelevant in the next election IMO. So it isn't that. As I've said before, perhaps he's got snow on his boots. He wouldn't be the only far right figure in western Europe about whom that has been suggested. And he seems to have damaged the City a bit. Even a year and a half into the war the City still handles an awful lot of Russian-in-origin money. Who knows what the next chapter in that story will be? Perhaps this is an early chapter.
Even without any Russian considerations, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's not batting for someone else to some extent or at least being used. He'd be brave to take on the BBC single-handed.
If Britain weren't so full of royalist lickspittles, the fact that the royal family's bankers took exception to him disrespecting the then Prince of Wales for receiving a million euros in cash in a suitcase handed to him by a Qatari prince wouldn't be allowed to plummet down the memory hole.
And the left would make the following extremely obvious point: the City, not wanting to handle dirty people's money - talk about taking the f***ing piss!
No one in banking gives a crap about a spat between two clients. Professionals stay out of that. Blank face with a smile. Oh, and collect your fee.
Farage isn’t going after the BBC - the BBC, via the apology tweet, has given him the game, set and match. He’ll definitely be able to afford a Coutts account after they settle.
The article directly accuses a named legal adviser of asking for £10K to invent a false story. Best watch the video to get a handle on this accusation.
What took Tim so long to notice? Tory politicians have been shamefully attacking lawyers for doing their jobs for some time now. Sunak follows that ignoble tradition.
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
No, you’re not. She Ratner’d the Coutts brand. It may not ever recover. It’s a modest but not insignificant percentage of the entire bank that is NatWest
She has to go, and Coutts needs to rethink whether it can be a private bank or a pioneer of Woke capitalism that refuses right wing clients. It cannot be both
Coutts is genuinely shit. And has been for a long time.
If you want a proper private UK bank, there is Hoare's. And that is about it. (RBS used to have Adam & Co, but they closed it down, and transferred its clients - like me - to Coutts. Bastards.)
The reviews on the App Store for the Coutts app are quite something.
Client confidentiality is the essence of all banking, not just private banking.
Not if you try to claim Universal Credit it isn't. It's a privilege of the well off.
In New York up until the 1960s, inspectors would visit the homes of those on public assistance and check their houses for extravagance, even going so far as the contents of their larders to see that they had no expensive cuts of meat.
The "most liveable cities index" obviously doesn't take cost of living into account, by putting places like Zurich and Geneva in the top 5. Talk about being out of touch.
A contender for the most ludicrous defence of Coutts from Will Hutton:
It’s obvious the Tory leadership, keen to appease Farage, is going to lean on NatWest to sack Alison Rose over the Coutts affair. She has done a great job and is a superb CEO. Besides her decency and integrity Farage is a pygmy. A bad day for UK business if the mob gets her.
Client confidentiality is the essence of all banking, not just private banking.
Not if you try to claim Universal Credit it isn't. It's a privilege of the well off.
What kind of info do they divulge about claimants and to whom?
And under what legal authority?
If they are legally obliged to divulge the information, then that is not a breach of client confidentiality. Because one of the exceptions to the duty of confidentiality is a court order or other legal obligation.
Comprehensively losing a public relations dispute with Nigel Farage has to be regarded as one of the biggest own-goals of all time. What were they thinking?
"The chief executive of NatWest, Dame Alison Rose, is facing pressure from the government to resign. Downing Street and Chancellor Jeremy Hunt have "significant concerns" over her conduct, BBC News has been told."
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
We might as well invade Russia now and get it over with. There's plenty of space in Siberia for everyone.
Unless someone invents an easy way to make carbonate quickly, we need to prepared for the inevitable.
Comprehensively losing a public relations dispute with Nigel Farage has to be regarded as one of the biggest own-goals of all time. What were they thinking?
"The chief executive of NatWest, Dame Alison Rose, is facing pressure from the government to resign. Downing Street and Chancellor Jeremy Hunt have "significant concerns" over her conduct, BBC News has been told."
What they were thinking may have been "It's best if we don't upset the king."
I'm suggesting it wasn't "Let's not be transphobic". That idea though probably goes down a treat with those (and they exist) who believe the 2007-08 GFC resulted from US banks being forced to give higher credit ratings to non-white clients than they would have preferred.
On the other thread ... as I keep pointing out to @MikeSmithson and which he routinely ignores, you cannot, or should not, take GE2019 as the benchmark. It was a unique election to 'Get Brexit Done'.
Go back to June 2017 which was the last proper General Election and it resulted in a hung parliament. Then see how those who voted Conservative in 2017 are now saying they will vote.
That's the real litmus.
In many ways, December 2019 was not a General Election, at least not a true or accurate one. Punters be warned!
So many have slagged you off but who's laughing now?
(One reason for more lesbians on some women's teams may be a simple one: Women prefer taller men, so a woman basketball player who is, for example, 6'4", may find it difficult to find a man she doesn't look down on -- figuratively and actually.)
What kind of info do they divulge about claimants and to whom?
The DWP has a system to query the accounts databases of all UK banks, which gives them details of any and all accounts you hold, including current and historical balances. They do this because if there's a sharp fall in any of your balances in the period before a UC claim they term that 'deprivation of capital' and can use it to reject the claim.
I've had this confirmed to me in the past by an acquaintance who worked at the DWP. They cannot, as far as he was aware, actually see details of transactions without a court order. Although if a transaction is big enough it may be flagged to HMRC, and thus DWP would in theory be able to track it.
On topic this is a QTWAIN. The Lab leads have NOT impacted upon or clouded Sunak's judgment.
His judgment has been deeply flawed for a lot longer than Lab have held a lead.
It's just that many here have refused to see it prior to him becoming PM as they disliked Boris and Truss more.
But simply not being Boris doesn't make Sunak of sound judgment, any more than not being Trump makes RDS someone anyone liberally minded should welcome.
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
The UK has done it's bit and then some to tackle climate change.
Wars, famine, refugees etc will happen because central, Southern and Eastern Europe (not UK, France and Scandinavia), the US, China, India etc have not.
As for climate alarmism there was a good prog with some prof saying how previous cataclysmic climate change/feedback loops had occurred at six degrees of warming and we were below two (and this latter, as @BartholomewRoberts rightly points out, from from 100-odd years ago).
Hence if and when we start approaching six then we should worry but we don't seem to be there quite yet.
Not sure FPT why I was tagged in this post, never saw it at time as I wasn't online at the time, but that's not me you're thinking of. I would never diminish anthropomorphic climate change.
As far as I'm concerned climate change absolutely is happening and is happening fast, and is happening because of man.
I also happen to think the UK acting alone is like pissing into the Atlantic and expecting the water level to change. The UK has done what it can and is doing what it can, and should be pleased with it's contribution.
The problem is others aren't doing the same. They won't start doing what we've already done by us hurting ourselves. They'll copy our example if our example doesn't hurt and is successful.
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
What a ludicrous comment. The UK has done far more than many with respect to climate change and nothing we can do can materially change the overall picture. But of course you know this. Any chance to bash the UK and ignore the failings of others, in this case the blessed EU! Guilt tripping ordinary people does not work as the by-election last week showed.
Glad to see the resignation of the Nat west boss over the Farage scandal. Why banks ever got in their head they were the moral judges of people and wanted only those with the 'correct' political views is worrying
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
Climate change is a world problem and as such requires worldwide cooperation which if the recent G20 meeting is to go by is simply not there
Ensuring our climate measures are affordable and sensible is not going to cause the catastrophe you suggest as we are not able to stop it ourselves
The Skidmore review makes it clear that we are not on track for Net Zero by 2050, but also that far from being a cost, it is a net economic benefit:
"Yet his review also makes it clear that net zero offers huge economic potential for the UK. Rather than being a cost, as Skidmore’s rightwing colleagues would argue, the review shows in detail how pursuing net zero can bring: green jobs, economic growth to regions in need of levelling-up, health and wellbeing benefits as well as fulfilling the UK’s international climate obligations."
Probably an effective way of drawing attention to the Mail story.
Sunak has maybe concluded that he doesn't have much to lose. Unfortunately he seems to have decided that that means he may as well go into the gutter, rather than deciding that he may as well lose with dignity, and/or he may as well try and achieve some worthwhile (if maybe unpopular with some) stuff in what will probably be his last year or so in office.
On the other thread ... as I keep pointing out to @MikeSmithson and which he routinely ignores, you cannot, or should not, take GE2019 as the benchmark. It was a unique election to 'Get Brexit Done'.
Go back to June 2017 which was the last proper General Election and it resulted in a hung parliament. Then see how those who voted Conservative in 2017 are now saying they will vote.
That's the real litmus.
In many ways, December 2019 was not a General Election, at least not a true or accurate one. Punters be warned!
They already are warned about the poll rubbish and other loony Labour supporting drivel you post on the site.
What took Tim so long to notice? Tory politicians have been shamefully attacking lawyers for doing their jobs for some time now. Sunak follows that ignoble tradition.
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
What a ludicrous comment. The UK has done far more than many with respect to climate change and nothing we can do can materially change the overall picture. But of course you know this. Any chance to bash the UK and ignore the failings of others, in this case the blessed EU! Guilt tripping ordinary people does not work as the by-election last week showed.
We'll all wish we'd done more, sooner, if this comes to pass:
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
Climate change is a world problem and as such requires worldwide cooperation which if the recent G20 meeting is to go by is simply not there
Ensuring our climate measures are affordable and sensible is not going to cause the catastrophe you suggest as we are not able to stop it ourselves
The Skidmore review makes it clear that we are not on track for Net Zero by 2050, but also that far from being a cost, it is a net economic benefit:
"Yet his review also makes it clear that net zero offers huge economic potential for the UK. Rather than being a cost, as Skidmore’s rightwing colleagues would argue, the review shows in detail how pursuing net zero can bring: green jobs, economic growth to regions in need of levelling-up, health and wellbeing benefits as well as fulfilling the UK’s international climate obligations."
What took Tim so long to notice? Tory politicians have been shamefully attacking lawyers for doing their jobs for some time now. Sunak follows that ignoble tradition.
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
What a ludicrous comment. The UK has done far more than many with respect to climate change and nothing we can do can materially change the overall picture. But of course you know this. Any chance to bash the UK and ignore the failings of others, in this case the blessed EU! Guilt tripping ordinary people does not work as the by-election last week showed.
We'll all wish we'd done more, sooner, if this comes to pass:
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
What a ludicrous comment. The UK has done far more than many with respect to climate change and nothing we can do can materially change the overall picture. But of course you know this. Any chance to bash the UK and ignore the failings of others, in this case the blessed EU! Guilt tripping ordinary people does not work as the by-election last week showed.
We'll all wish we'd done more, sooner, if this comes to pass:
I saw a Horizon programme around 25 years ago predicting that because of the reduction in ocean salinity from dilution by the melting of the Polar ice caps the escalator would stop. The programme suggested this could happen in about 25 years. So bang on target. But the Tory election strategists have decided going big on ULEZ will save Iain Duncan Smith's outer London seat.
What took Tim so long to notice? Tory politicians have been shamefully attacking lawyers for doing their jobs for some time now. Sunak follows that ignoble tradition.
The "most liveable cities index" obviously doesn't take cost of living into account, by putting places like Zurich and Geneva in the top 5. Talk about being out of touch.
Or little factors like nightlife, weather, freedom, decent food or any of the other things that make a city more than a big collection of buildings. They give the impression of being designed by a well-off, rather crusty middle-aged couple who just want a quiet life - rather like a senior Economist journalist and partner I imagine.
You'll probably never get two people who value the exact same things in a city, and even if they do, what people value changes a lot over time, so indices like these are much too subjective to be worth anything.
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
Climate change is a world problem and as such requires worldwide cooperation which if the recent G20 meeting is to go by is simply not there
Ensuring our climate measures are affordable and sensible is not going to cause the catastrophe you suggest as we are not able to stop it ourselves
The Skidmore review makes it clear that we are not on track for Net Zero by 2050, but also that far from being a cost, it is a net economic benefit:
"Yet his review also makes it clear that net zero offers huge economic potential for the UK. Rather than being a cost, as Skidmore’s rightwing colleagues would argue, the review shows in detail how pursuing net zero can bring: green jobs, economic growth to regions in need of levelling-up, health and wellbeing benefits as well as fulfilling the UK’s international climate obligations."
The majority of Tory voters who plan to switch to Labour in the next election think that Rishi Sunak has not done enough on climate change, according to polling that comes as the Conservatives consider rowing back on green policies.
Clean energy industry figures said the results showed that the idea that environmental policies are unpopular was “totally unfounded”.
Polling of 3,000 adults by Opinium found that, for voters who voted Tory in 2019 and planned to vote Labour next year, 57 per cent felt the prime minister had “not gone far enough” on tackling climate change. Only 9 per cent thought he had gone too far, 25 per cent thought he had it about right and 10 per cent did not know.
“This polling is a ‘wake up and smell the coffee’ moment for the siren voices arguing that watering down the government’s green growth agenda will be a vote winner — it clearly won’t,” said Alok Sharma, the Tory MP who chaired the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow two years ago.
Since the Conservatives narrowly held on in the Uxbridge by-election after campaigning against the expansion of London’s clean air zone, some Tories have argued for the government to drop “unpopular, expensive green policies”. Energy efficiency deadlines for landlords and the 2030 ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars have been floated as policies that could be changed.
However, the latest polling showed that more than two thirds of switching voters think that Sunak has not done enough to increase the use of renewable energy in the UK. The prime minister promised to end an effective ban on onshore wind power to stave off a Tory rebellion last year, but has failed to lift the block.....
.....The polling also suggested that several policies to support renewable energy are as popular or more so than Sunak’s five pledges.
Ending illegal immigration by small boats is supported by 68 per cent of all voters. By comparison, 77 per cent back increased investment in renewables to make the UK a net electricity exporter by 2030. The figure rises to 84 per cent among Tory voters.
Several Tory MPs have urged Sunak not to backtrack on green policies. Sir Simon Clarke pointed to Jaguar Land Rover’s investment last week in an electric vehicle battery plant as a reason not to water down the 2030 car ban. “Delaying the target risks losing UK jobs and industry overseas,” he said.
Rishi Sunak is sticking with a 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel car sales for fear of an industry backlash that would threaten green investment in Britain.
What took Tim so long to notice? Tory politicians have been shamefully attacking lawyers for doing their jobs for some time now. Sunak follows that ignoble tradition.
The shocking thing is I don't think anybody is shocked by this.
Unconscious with her hands cuffed behind her back, a woman is carried into a police cell.
She is forced face-down onto a thin mattress. Police officers take off her jeans, cut off her knickers, pull a pair of oversized custody shorts over her legs, then remove her top and bra before leaving her alone and topless. All of this is captured on CCTV.
The woman in the footage is Zayna Iman, 38, who alleges that she was drugged and sexually assaulted while being held in custody by Greater Manchester Police.
"Instead of providing an unconscious female with medical attention they thought, 'I know let's take her clothes off instead and leave her there'," says Zayna, sounding incredulous. "It's just something that the police do for their own perverse kicks."
Police broke into her home in the early hours of 5 February 2021, and arrested her after she knocked the glasses off a female officer's face. They were following up a welfare callout over a woman high on cocaine. Over the next 40 hours or so, Zayna - who has waived her right to anonymity - would be taken to and held at a police station.
From that period, there are three hours of missing footage which GMP have so far failed to supply.
Zayna's allegation is supported by her medical records which show evidence of sexual injuries. She has also shared her concerns with former GMP chief superintendent, Martin Harding, who has seen the available footage and the glaring inconsistencies with the custody log, and says her claims are credible.
Rishi Sunak is sticking with a 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel car sales for fear of an industry backlash that would threaten green investment in Britain.
"Make me chaste, but not yet" is human nature, but not an admirable bit of it. I almost prefer "stuff the future, I'm alright now." At least that's honest.
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
What a ludicrous comment. The UK has done far more than many with respect to climate change and nothing we can do can materially change the overall picture. But of course you know this. Any chance to bash the UK and ignore the failings of others, in this case the blessed EU! Guilt tripping ordinary people does not work as the by-election last week showed.
We'll all wish we'd done more, sooner, if this comes to pass:
I saw a Horizon programme around 25 years ago predicting that because of the reduction in ocean salinity from dilution by the melting of the Polar ice caps the escalator would stop. The programme suggested this could happen in about 25 years. So bang on target. But the Tory election strategists have decided going big on ULEZ will save Iain Duncan Smith's outer London seat.
Of course it's unlikely to happen by 2025 - "could" in a headline usually a giveaway. The last paragraph:
'Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, at the University of Potsdam, Germany, said: “There is still large uncertainty where the Amoc tipping point is, but the new study adds to the evidence that it is much closer than we thought. A single study provides limited evidence, but when multiple approaches have led to similar conclusions this must be taken very seriously, especially when we’re talking about a risk that we really want to rule out with 99.9% certainty. Now we can’t even rule out crossing the tipping point in the next decade or two.”'
"Collapse Of Gulf Stream In Next 20 Years Can't Be Ruled Out"
would be a more accurate headline, and should be worrying enough.
Glad to see the resignation of the Nat west boss over the Farage scandal. Why banks ever got in their head they were the moral judges of people and wanted only those with the 'correct' political views is worrying
We were told this was down to "activist staff", but it was actually the CEO!
Some here are on PB are completely blinded by their mistrust of younger people. In my career so far, the biggest errors and failures have all come from older, senior colleagues who have become lazy and/or arrogant.
It's good that we're now starting the debate on Net Zero we should have had before May shoved it through in the dying days of her government. It was always an outrage that the most expensive piece of legislation the UK government ever proposed was passed without serious debate or opposition.
I'm coming to the view that we should have a referendum on it after the election, once we've had a thorough and informed debate.
The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.
And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.
Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.
Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050
However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035
Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment
It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic
And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.
What a ludicrous comment. The UK has done far more than many with respect to climate change and nothing we can do can materially change the overall picture. But of course you know this. Any chance to bash the UK and ignore the failings of others, in this case the blessed EU! Guilt tripping ordinary people does not work as the by-election last week showed.
We'll all wish we'd done more, sooner, if this comes to pass:
I saw a Horizon programme around 25 years ago predicting that because of the reduction in ocean salinity from dilution by the melting of the Polar ice caps the escalator would stop. The programme suggested this could happen in about 25 years. So bang on target. But the Tory election strategists have decided going big on ULEZ will save Iain Duncan Smith's outer London seat.
Of course it's unlikely to happen by 2025 - "could" in a headline usually a giveaway. The last paragraph:
'Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, at the University of Potsdam, Germany, said: “There is still large uncertainty where the Amoc tipping point is, but the new study adds to the evidence that it is much closer than we thought. A single study provides limited evidence, but when multiple approaches have led to similar conclusions this must be taken very seriously, especially when we’re talking about a risk that we really want to rule out with 99.9% certainty. Now we can’t even rule out crossing the tipping point in the next decade or two.”'
"Collapse Of Gulf Stream In Next 20 Years Can't Be Ruled Out"
would be a more accurate headline, and should be worrying enough.
We’d have the weather of Norway, and life in Norway would become…difficult.
Glad to see the resignation of the Nat west boss over the Farage scandal. Why banks ever got in their head they were the moral judges of people and wanted only those with the 'correct' political views is worrying
We were told this was down to "activist staff", but it was actually the CEO!
Some here are on PB are completely blinded by their mistrust of younger people. In my career so far, the biggest errors and failures have all come from older, senior colleagues who have become lazy and/or arrogant.
Particularly true in finance. Two companies I worked for (Equitable Life and Halifax) went bust because of arrogant hubris from the board.
It's funny how the only people who take Tim Montgomerie seriously are political opponents of the Conservatives, the gallery he loves playing to since they're the only ones who listen to him.
He's attacked every single Tory leader since IDS. The fact he rated him tells you everything you need to know.
FWIW, I think this ill-advised and will be about as effective as the "Rishi Sunak doesn't.." posters Starmer tried to pull.
I don't like the Labour Party, nor do I share its values, but sticking it in the same sentence as criminal gangs is appalling.
I'm not sure what the focus groups and polling shows on this but it's pretty repellent stuff and since it's not subtle, measured nor sincere it won't work for either of them.
Morning all! Now that the tabloid media has its CEO scalp, perhaps they could target their fire on other CEOs. Or is upsetting nice Mr Nigel the only thing people should be hounded out of their jobs for. How about Water Company CEOs? P&O?
Morning all! Now that the tabloid media has its CEO scalp, perhaps they could target their fire on other CEOs. Or is upsetting nice Mr Nigel the only thing people should be hounded out of their jobs for. How about Water Company CEOs? P&O?
It's a pity that the government don't also go after bank CEOs who fail to pass on interest rate increases to savers.
Glad to see the resignation of the Nat west boss over the Farage scandal. Why banks ever got in their head they were the moral judges of people and wanted only those with the 'correct' political views is worrying
We were told this was down to "activist staff", but it was actually the CEO!
Some here are on PB are completely blinded by their mistrust of younger people. In my career so far, the biggest errors and failures have all come from older, senior colleagues who have become lazy and/or arrogant.
I’m guessing you are referring to my comments - the CEO is staff, an employee, and clearly didn’t approve of Farage (and we can all understand why) so the actions she seems to have taken could be considered “activist”. I never said this situation was by younger people.
Activist staff however are a thing, I have direct experience of the effects, but I have never said they are young or old and have never said old and senior people can’t fuck up as well.
Morning all! Now that the tabloid media has its CEO scalp, perhaps they could target their fire on other CEOs. Or is upsetting nice Mr Nigel the only thing people should be hounded out of their jobs for. How about Water Company CEOs? P&O?
If you want the chief who’s done the most widespread and possibly irreversible damage, Spielman of OFSTED would be a good one.
She is set to leave in a few months but it would be good to make sure she never works again so we have no more mad disasters wished on us.
Glad to see the resignation of the Nat west boss over the Farage scandal. Why banks ever got in their head they were the moral judges of people and wanted only those with the 'correct' political views is worrying
It’s for legal reasons that political customers are a problem for banks.
And the new rules where reasons have to be provided means that banks are going to have to create reasons that aren’t we think you are a fraudster if they have to provide reasons for a bank being closed because it’s Illegal to accidentally tip off a criminal that you are being investigated (and not providing a reason when everyone else gets told would now be tipping them off). Heck it’s the not tipping off criminals bit is why you don’t tell anyone anything.
But she had to go - because discussing a customer is a gross misconduct offence - and the fact the chairman didn’t point this out immediately means he should be going to…
It's funny how the only people who take Tim Montgomerie seriously are political opponents of the Conservatives, the gallery he loves playing to since they're the only ones who listen to him.
He's attacked every single Tory leader since IDS. The fact he rated him tells you everything you need to know.
FWIW, I think this ill-advised and will be about as effective as the "Rishi Sunak doesn't.." posters Starmer tried to pull.
I don't like the Labour Party, nor do I share its values, but sticking it in the same sentence as criminal gangs is appalling.
I'm not sure what the focus groups and polling shows on this but it's pretty repellent stuff and since it's not subtle, measured nor sincere it won't work for either of them.
I hope you're right, but isn't the Anglosphere experience that unsubtle, unmeasured, repellent stuff actually works remarkably well?
(Doesn't mean that much until the party leaderships shake out.)
Sounds like the polling companies are scrambling to save their reputations or improve their methodologies?
What if... they are making the same mistake in the UK, over-sampling right of centre voters or inflating their support through their modelling?
The average swing in the three recent by-elections was 19.8%. Apply that to the 2019 vote shares and you get Con 23.8% Lab 52%. Which would leave the Tories in wipe-out territory.
(At this point I narrowly manage to resist doing a 'Keegan'.)
It's good that we're now starting the debate on Net Zero we should have had before May shoved it through in the dying days of her government. It was always an outrage that the most expensive piece of legislation the UK government ever proposed was passed without serious debate or opposition.
I'm coming to the view that we should have a referendum on it after the election, once we've had a thorough and informed debate.
Yes, if there's one thing we've learned, it's that referendums are characterised by thorough and informed debate. Excellent idea 👍
It's funny how the only people who take Tim Montgomerie seriously are political opponents of the Conservatives, the gallery he loves playing to since they're the only ones who listen to him.
He's attacked every single Tory leader since IDS. The fact he rated him tells you everything you need to know.
Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?
I am not turning my back
Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK
Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.
I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK
None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost
"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.
The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.
The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.
Morning all! Now that the tabloid media has its CEO scalp, perhaps they could target their fire on other CEOs. Or is upsetting nice Mr Nigel the only thing people should be hounded out of their jobs for. How about Water Company CEOs? P&O?
It's a pity that the government don't also go after bank CEOs who fail to pass on interest rate increases to savers.
(Doesn't mean that much until the party leaderships shake out.)
Sounds like the polling companies are scrambling to save their reputations or improve their methodologies?
What if... they are making the same mistake in the UK, over-sampling right of centre voters or inflating their support through their modelling?
The average swing in the three recent by-elections was 19.8%. Apply that to the 2019 vote shares and you get Con 23.8% Lab 52%. Which would leave the Tories in wipe-out territory.
(At this point I narrowly manage to resist doing a 'Keegan'.)
I've no idea. They are clearly a mess and Feijoo may lose the leadership as a result. He's a decent man - ondee most Spanish politicians seem better than those in the UK. However he didn't quite deal the deal.
Morning all! Now that the tabloid media has its CEO scalp, perhaps they could target their fire on other CEOs. Or is upsetting nice Mr Nigel the only thing people should be hounded out of their jobs for. How about Water Company CEOs? P&O?
It's a pity that the government don't also go after bank CEOs who fail to pass on interest rate increases to savers.
Whatever happened to your free market principles?
Free markets are currently proving very expensive.
(In any case banks, like supermarket petrol stations, are an oligopoly not a free market.)
(Doesn't mean that much until the party leaderships shake out.)
Sounds like the polling companies are scrambling to save their reputations or improve their methodologies?
What if... they are making the same mistake in the UK, over-sampling right of centre voters or inflating their support through their modelling?
The average swing in the three recent by-elections was 19.8%. Apply that to the 2019 vote shares and you get Con 23.8% Lab 52%. Which would leave the Tories in wipe-out territory.
(At this point I narrowly manage to resist doing a 'Keegan'.)
I've no idea. They are clearly a mess and Feijoo may lose the leadership as a result. He's a decent man - ondee most Spanish politicians seem better than those in the UK. However he didn't quite deal the deal.
Just to fess-up - I cocked up the average swing calc - too early for me to do maths. The actual average swing Con - Lab was 13.4% - bang in line with current polls.
FWIW, I think this ill-advised and will be about as effective as the "Rishi Sunak doesn't.." posters Starmer tried to pull.
I don't like the Labour Party, nor do I share its values, but sticking it in the same sentence as criminal gangs is appalling.
I'm not sure what the focus groups and polling shows on this but it's pretty repellent stuff and since it's not subtle, measured nor sincere it won't work for either of them.
I hope you're right, but isn't the Anglosphere experience that unsubtle, unmeasured, repellent stuff actually works remarkably well?
I'm not sure. This isn't him and comes across as desperation.
What people want is for Sunak to take the fight to Labour in a way that's genuine for him and reflects his values and vision.
Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?
I am not turning my back
Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK
Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.
I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK
None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost
"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.
The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.
The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.
I would have said the key problem with 'investment' as a political word is that Brown used it passim ad nauseam when he actually meant 'current spending.' A very different concept which needs a different funding model. His sleight of hand left us with far too much unfunded debt.
And unfortunately discredited both genuine investment and current spending as concepts.
I don't know if this is accurate, but something the opposition could play with: If David Cameron hadn't "cut the green crap" from 2013 onwards, then over the past year…
💷UK energy bills would have been £9.8bn lower 🚢UK net gas imports would have been 23% lower ❤️🔥UK gas demand overall would have been 9% lower
I don't know if this is accurate, but something the opposition could play with: If David Cameron hadn't "cut the green crap" from 2013 onwards, then over the past year…
💷UK energy bills would have been £9.8bn lower 🚢UK net gas imports would have been 23% lower ❤️🔥UK gas demand overall would have been 9% lower
Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?
I am not turning my back
Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK
Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.
I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK
None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost
"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.
The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.
The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.
That is in a lot of ways the lesson of austerity. Not spending and cutting essential projects just increases the cost in the future. For instance, spending money now to adapt to climate change should be obvious.
FWIW, I think this ill-advised and will be about as effective as the "Rishi Sunak doesn't.." posters Starmer tried to pull.
I don't like the Labour Party, nor do I share its values, but sticking it in the same sentence as criminal gangs is appalling.
I'm not sure what the focus groups and polling shows on this but it's pretty repellent stuff and since it's not subtle, measured nor sincere it won't work for either of them.
I hope you're right, but isn't the Anglosphere experience that unsubtle, unmeasured, repellent stuff actually works remarkably well?
I'm not sure. This isn't him and comes across as desperation.
What people want is for Sunak to take the fight to Labour in a way that's genuine for him and reflects his values and vision.
"Plan A was to look competent, managerial, the steady-handed former chancellor steering the ship of state out of turbulent waters. That hasn’t worked. Plan B is increasingly deranged attacks on Labour as allies of eco-fanaticism and, in the case of immigration policy, accomplices to the criminal gangs that smuggle migrants across the Channel.
The problem is that Sunak’s personal brand has already been shaped around plan A. The shiny image is now tarnished, but activating plan B will only contaminate it further with inauthenticity and the whiff of desperation."
Comments
What's his motive? I guess he wants somewhere to bank, as most of us do, but more than that? Reform UK will be totally irrelevant in the next election IMO. So it isn't that. As I've said before, perhaps he's got snow on his boots. He wouldn't be the only far right figure in western Europe about whom that has been suggested. And he seems to have damaged the City a bit. Even a year and a half into the war the City still handles an awful lot of Russian-in-origin money. Who knows what the next chapter in that story will be? Perhaps this is an early chapter.
Even without any Russian considerations, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's not batting for someone else to some extent or at least being used. He'd be brave to take on the BBC single-handed.
If Britain weren't so full of royalist lickspittles, the fact that the royal family's bankers took exception to him disrespecting the then Prince of Wales for receiving a million euros in cash in a suitcase handed to him by a Qatari prince wouldn't be allowed to plummet down the memory hole.
And the left would make the following extremely obvious point: the City, not wanting to handle dirty people's money - talk about taking the f***ing piss!
I wonder whether this person who "received a Damehood for services to Financial Services in His Majesty King Charles III’s New Year’s Honours List" handled any members of the royal family's accounts personally?
Ensuring our climate measures are affordable and sensible is not going to cause the catastrophe you suggest as we are not able to stop it ourselves
* PSOE overperformed their polls and fought on the ground of their own choosing, minimising the damage
* PSOE lost and will probably not provide the next PM
You tell me what to do with that...
See here - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/10/11/enemies-within/
Farage isn’t going after the BBC - the BBC, via the apology tweet, has given him the game, set and match. He’ll definitely be able to afford a Coutts account after they settle.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12333013/Immigration-law-firms-LIE-authorities-win-asylum.html
The article directly accuses a named legal adviser of asking for £10K to invent a false story. Best watch the video to get a handle on this accusation.
I was under the impression that removing Parliamentary approval for th Not if you try to claim Universal Credit it isn't.
It's a privilege of the well off.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/07/25/these-are-the-most-liveable-cities-in-europe
It’s obvious the Tory leadership, keen to appease Farage, is going to lean on NatWest to sack Alison Rose over the Coutts affair. She has done a great job and is a superb CEO. Besides her decency and integrity Farage is a pygmy. A bad day for UK business if the mob gets her.
https://twitter.com/williamnhutton/status/1683952852501245953
If they are legally obliged to divulge the information, then that is not a breach of client confidentiality. Because one of the exceptions to the duty of confidentiality is a court order or other legal obligation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66308627
"The chief executive of NatWest, Dame Alison Rose, is facing pressure from the government to resign. Downing Street and Chancellor Jeremy Hunt have "significant concerns" over her conduct, BBC News has been told."
Unless someone invents an easy way to make carbonate quickly, we need to prepared for the inevitable.
I'm suggesting it wasn't "Let's not be transphobic". That idea though probably goes down a treat with those (and they exist) who believe the 2007-08 GFC resulted from US banks being forced to give higher credit ratings to non-white clients than they would have preferred.
(One reason for more lesbians on some women's teams may be a simple one: Women prefer taller men, so a woman basketball player who is, for example, 6'4", may find it difficult to find a man she doesn't look down on -- figuratively and actually.)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/gulf-stream-could-collapse-as-early-as-2025-study-suggests
I've had this confirmed to me in the past by an acquaintance who worked at the DWP. They cannot, as far as he was aware, actually see details of transactions without a court order. Although if a transaction is big enough it may be flagged to HMRC, and thus DWP would in theory be able to track it.
https://news.sky.com/story/natwest-boss-steps-down-with-immediate-effect-over-nigel-farage-bank-account-leak-12927506
His judgment has been deeply flawed for a lot longer than Lab have held a lead.
It's just that many here have refused to see it prior to him becoming PM as they disliked Boris and Truss more.
But simply not being Boris doesn't make Sunak of sound judgment, any more than not being Trump makes RDS someone anyone liberally minded should welcome.
Wars, famine, refugees etc will happen because central, Southern and Eastern Europe (not UK, France and Scandinavia), the US, China, India etc have not.
Oh well, I guess only poor people live there so it doesn’t matter.
As far as I'm concerned climate change absolutely is happening and is happening fast, and is happening because of man.
I also happen to think the UK acting alone is like pissing into the Atlantic and expecting the water level to change. The UK has done what it can and is doing what it can, and should be pleased with it's contribution.
The problem is others aren't doing the same. They won't start doing what we've already done by us hurting ourselves. They'll copy our example if our example doesn't hurt and is successful.
"Yet his review also makes it clear that net zero offers huge economic potential for the UK. Rather than being a cost, as Skidmore’s rightwing colleagues would argue, the review shows in detail how pursuing net zero can bring: green jobs, economic growth to regions in need of levelling-up, health and wellbeing benefits as well as fulfilling the UK’s international climate obligations."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/12/why-net-zero-tsar-review-is-a-damning-indictment-of-tory-government-chris-skidmore?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Starmer backtracking is equally shaming and dispiriting. This country is going to suffer from our lack of action.
Sunak has maybe concluded that he doesn't have much to lose. Unfortunately he seems to have decided that that means he may as well go into the gutter, rather than deciding that he may as well lose with dignity, and/or he may as well try and achieve some worthwhile (if maybe unpopular with some) stuff in what will probably be his last year or so in office.
Disappointing from Sunak.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/gulf-stream-could-collapse-as-early-as-2025-study-suggests
My daughter is a lawyer and I can tell you from first hand experience that she and her colleagues are far, far worse than journalists.
On the one hand Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. On the other Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin.
You'll probably never get two people who value the exact same things in a city, and even if they do, what people value changes a lot over time, so indices like these are much too subjective to be worth anything.
The majority of Tory voters who plan to switch to Labour in the next election think that Rishi Sunak has not done enough on climate change, according to polling that comes as the Conservatives consider rowing back on green policies.
Clean energy industry figures said the results showed that the idea that environmental policies are unpopular was “totally unfounded”.
Polling of 3,000 adults by Opinium found that, for voters who voted Tory in 2019 and planned to vote Labour next year, 57 per cent felt the prime minister had “not gone far enough” on tackling climate change. Only 9 per cent thought he had gone too far, 25 per cent thought he had it about right and 10 per cent did not know.
“This polling is a ‘wake up and smell the coffee’ moment for the siren voices arguing that watering down the government’s green growth agenda will be a vote winner — it clearly won’t,” said Alok Sharma, the Tory MP who chaired the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow two years ago.
Since the Conservatives narrowly held on in the Uxbridge by-election after campaigning against the expansion of London’s clean air zone, some Tories have argued for the government to drop “unpopular, expensive green policies”. Energy efficiency deadlines for landlords and the 2030 ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars have been floated as policies that could be changed.
However, the latest polling showed that more than two thirds of switching voters think that Sunak has not done enough to increase the use of renewable energy in the UK. The prime minister promised to end an effective ban on onshore wind power to stave off a Tory rebellion last year, but has failed to lift the block.....
.....The polling also suggested that several policies to support renewable energy are as popular or more so than Sunak’s five pledges.
Ending illegal immigration by small boats is supported by 68 per cent of all voters. By comparison, 77 per cent back increased investment in renewables to make the UK a net electricity exporter by 2030. The figure rises to 84 per cent among Tory voters.
Several Tory MPs have urged Sunak not to backtrack on green policies. Sir Simon Clarke pointed to Jaguar Land Rover’s investment last week in an electric vehicle battery plant as a reason not to water down the 2030 car ban. “Delaying the target risks losing UK jobs and industry overseas,” he said.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-switching-to-labour-say-rishi-sunak-isn-t-green-enough-9ffmc6c8z
Rishi Sunak is sticking with a 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel car sales for fear of an industry backlash that would threaten green investment in Britain.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunak-sticking-to-2030-ban-on-sales-of-new-petrol-cars-cjsf37kjt
First post election poll (or first poll of the December 2023 campaign) shows PP down, PSOE up and in the lead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election
(Doesn't mean that much until the party leaderships shake out.)
Tottenham Hotspur owner Joe Lewis has been charged with "orchestrating a brazen insider trader scheme", US attorney Damian Williams has said.
Mr Williams used a video announcement to accuse the British billionaire of using inside information to "shower gifts on his friends and lovers".
Mr Lewis "has been indicted and will face justice" in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), Mr Williams said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66274633
Unconscious with her hands cuffed behind her back, a woman is carried into a police cell.
She is forced face-down onto a thin mattress. Police officers take off her jeans, cut off her knickers, pull a pair of oversized custody shorts over her legs, then remove her top and bra before leaving her alone and topless. All of this is captured on CCTV.
The woman in the footage is Zayna Iman, 38, who alleges that she was drugged and sexually assaulted while being held in custody by Greater Manchester Police.
"Instead of providing an unconscious female with medical attention they thought, 'I know let's take her clothes off instead and leave her there'," says Zayna, sounding incredulous. "It's just something that the police do for their own perverse kicks."
Police broke into her home in the early hours of 5 February 2021, and arrested her after she knocked the glasses off a female officer's face. They were following up a welfare callout over a woman high on cocaine. Over the next 40 hours or so, Zayna - who has waived her right to anonymity - would be taken to and held at a police station.
From that period, there are three hours of missing footage which GMP have so far failed to supply.
Zayna's allegation is supported by her medical records which show evidence of sexual injuries. She has also shared her concerns with former GMP chief superintendent, Martin Harding, who has seen the available footage and the glaring inconsistencies with the custody log, and says her claims are credible.
https://news.sky.com/story/stripped-and-left-topless-in-a-cell-i-was-drugged-and-sexually-assaulted-by-greater-manchester-police-12924141
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w
"We predict with high confidence the tipping to happen as soon as mid-century (2025–2095 is a 95% confidence range)."
'Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, at the University of Potsdam, Germany, said: “There is still large uncertainty where the Amoc tipping point is, but the new study adds to the evidence that it is much closer than we thought. A single study provides limited evidence, but when multiple approaches have led to similar conclusions this must be taken very seriously, especially when we’re talking about a risk that we really want to rule out with 99.9% certainty. Now we can’t even rule out crossing the tipping point in the next decade or two.”'
"Collapse Of Gulf Stream In Next 20 Years Can't Be Ruled Out"
would be a more accurate headline, and should be worrying enough.
Some here are on PB are completely blinded by their mistrust of younger people. In my career so far, the biggest errors and failures have all come from older, senior colleagues who have become lazy and/or arrogant.
I'm coming to the view that we should have a referendum on it after the election, once we've had a thorough and informed debate.
He's attacked every single Tory leader since IDS. The fact he rated him tells you everything you need to know.
Peck knows better of course - he doesn't want to hear it so it's bullsh*t and warrants a few sarcastic quotation marks.
I don't like the Labour Party, nor do I share its values, but sticking it in the same sentence as criminal gangs is appalling.
I'm not sure what the focus groups and polling shows on this but it's pretty repellent stuff and since it's not subtle, measured nor sincere it won't work for either of them.
Activist staff however are a thing, I have direct experience of the effects, but I have never said they are young or old and have never said old and senior people can’t fuck up as well.
She is set to leave in a few months but it would be good to make sure she never works again so we have no more mad disasters wished on us.
https://twitter.com/NickMillerMusic/status/1683945413513211910
And the new rules where reasons have to be provided means that banks are going to have to create reasons that aren’t we think you are a fraudster if they have to provide reasons for a bank being closed because it’s Illegal to accidentally tip off a criminal that you are being investigated (and not providing a reason when everyone else gets told would now be tipping them off). Heck it’s the not tipping off criminals bit is why you don’t tell anyone anything.
But she had to go - because discussing a customer is a gross misconduct offence - and the fact the chairman didn’t point this out immediately means he should be going to…
The average swing in the three recent by-elections was 19.8%. Apply that to the 2019 vote shares and you get Con 23.8% Lab 52%. Which would leave the Tories in wipe-out territory.
(At this point I narrowly manage to resist doing a 'Keegan'.)
The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.
The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.
(In any case banks, like supermarket petrol stations, are an oligopoly not a free market.)
A large slice of humble pie for me for breakfast!
What people want is for Sunak to take the fight to Labour in a way that's genuine for him and reflects his values and vision.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
And unfortunately discredited both genuine investment and current spending as concepts.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/26/rishi-sunak-hope-legacy-govern-already-lost
"Plan A was to look competent, managerial, the steady-handed former chancellor steering the ship of state out of turbulent waters. That hasn’t worked. Plan B is increasingly deranged attacks on Labour as allies of eco-fanaticism and, in the case of immigration policy, accomplices to the criminal gangs that smuggle migrants across the Channel.
The problem is that Sunak’s personal brand has already been shaped around plan A. The shiny image is now tarnished, but activating plan B will only contaminate it further with inauthenticity and the whiff of desperation."