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.
HS2 would have been *a lot* cheaper (as in, about 40% of the current cost) if we'd built it twenty years ago (as we should have done) although we'd probably now be arguing about how much to spend upgrading the Trent Valley line.
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."
Starmer backtracking is equally shaming and dispiriting. This country is going to suffer from our lack of action.
Exactly - even just the positive externalities of mitigation are worth more than the costs.
And we have people on here whose entire rationale is to say how wonderful the "Conservatives" are, bleating about the 'cost' and saying brainlessly that it'll be all right because Mr Sunak with his helicopter flights will do wonders for the Southern English date industry. (I exaggerate a bit, but one of us did say it was OK for the Gulf Stream to collapse because it would cool the summers a little.)
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.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
This is right, I think. When (eg) the likes of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get cheap and nasty it comes over as authentic because they are cheap and nasty individuals. Rishi Sunak really isn't. So I hope he stops this, not because I'm Labour and I fear it will work, but because I find it embarrassing to read.
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.
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.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
This is right, I think. When (eg) the likes of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get cheap and nasty it comes over as authentic because they are cheap and nasty individuals. Rishi Sunak really isn't. So I hope he stops this, not because I'm Labour and I fear it will work, but because I find it embarrassing to read.
It reminds me of Ed Miliband trying to be someone he wasn't during 2015. The electorate could smell the inauthenticity a mile away! The question is, is Rishi tous enough?
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.
Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.
The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.
We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.
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."
Starmer backtracking is equally shaming and dispiriting. This country is going to suffer from our lack of action.
Exactly - even just the positive externalities of mitigation are worth more than the costs.
And we have people on here whose entire rationale is to say how wonderful the "Conservatives" are, bleating about the 'cost' and saying brainlessly that it'll be all right because Mr Sunak with his helicopter flights will do wonders for the Southern English date industry. (I exaggerate a bit, but one of us did say it was OK for the Gulf Stream to collapse because it would cool the summers a little.)
Be nice.
Remember if the Gulf Stream stops Scotland will be so cold youll all have to move South and be civilised.
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."
For the recipient, it is rather like being threatened by a hamster. The fact that only a rabid and irrational hamster is at all credible as an object of fear only serves to discredit the strategy even more.
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
I think whoever is in next will match the EU delay, whilst boosting taxes on electric cars and (hopefully) hiking the taxes on fossil vehicle fuels to somewhere approximating where they should (ie apply inflation since 2011).
Perhaps resigning because of a "serious error of judgment" could become a practice adopted by others.
The CEO of the Post Office, for instance, Nick Read, who decided to have a bonus scheme for himself and his Board for compliance with the Horizon Inquiry when in fact the PO has not complied with its requirements, lied about the judge's approval and allowed misleading accounts to be issued.
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.
Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.
The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.
We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.
Which is why using cheap migrant labour is wrong. Its a sticking plaster to cover lack of investment, The whole of the UK whether public or private needs to upgrade its infrastructure and push for greater productivity, We could then afford to pay people a decent salary,
(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.
From what I have seen an read, the government has got into bed with some awful people to prop itself up, and has implemented some policies so progressive as to be over the top.
But
The alternative was Vox. Until recently in Europe, give people a choice of the far right or anyone else, and anyone wins. Spain has just repeated the exercise.
Yes I know that PP won more seats. But cannot form a government. And it already feels like it has topped out and will now sink back.
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."
Starmer backtracking is equally shaming and dispiriting. This country is going to suffer from our lack of action.
Exactly - even just the positive externalities of mitigation are worth more than the costs.
And we have people on here whose entire rationale is to say how wonderful the "Conservatives" are, bleating about the 'cost' and saying brainlessly that it'll be all right because Mr Sunak with his helicopter flights will do wonders for the Southern English date industry. (I exaggerate a bit, but one of us did say it was OK for the Gulf Stream to collapse because it would cool the summers a little.)
Be nice.
Remember if the Gulf Stream stops Scotland will be so cold youll all have to move South and be civilised.
We'll all regret we can't just move to the the Med* once the permanent ice sheet reaches the Thames.
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.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
Question - what are Sunak's vision and values? I think he's a genuine guy, and I liked him on a personal level when I chatted to him. But like most billionaires I don't think he has a clue how normal people live. His statements to the public are wooden and yet also over-rehearsed with a Jackanory smile.
I get the sense that he sees politics as a fun hobby, a distraction from his real career of being a billionaire. He doesn't have vision because he isn't a conviction politician, he's a hobby politician.
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.
Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.
The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.
We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.
Which is why using cheap migrant labour is wrong. Its a sticking plaster to cover lack of investment, The whole of the UK whether public or private needs to upgrade its infrastructure and push for greater productivity, We could then afford to pay people a decent salary,
Not often I agree with you Alan, but you're spot on here.
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.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
This is right, I think. When (eg) the likes of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get cheap and nasty it comes over as authentic because they are cheap and nasty individuals. Rishi Sunak really isn't. So I hope he stops this, not because I'm Labour and I fear it will work, but because I find it embarrassing to read.
It reminds me of Ed Miliband trying to be someone he wasn't during 2015. The electorate could smell the inauthenticity a mile away! The question is, is Rishi tous enough?
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."
Starmer backtracking is equally shaming and dispiriting. This country is going to suffer from our lack of action.
Exactly - even just the positive externalities of mitigation are worth more than the costs.
And we have people on here whose entire rationale is to say how wonderful the "Conservatives" are, bleating about the 'cost' and saying brainlessly that it'll be all right because Mr Sunak with his helicopter flights will do wonders for the Southern English date industry. (I exaggerate a bit, but one of us did say it was OK for the Gulf Stream to collapse because it would cool the summers a little.)
Be nice.
Remember if the Gulf Stream stops Scotland will be so cold youll all have to move South and be civilised.
We'll all regret we can't just move to the the Med* once the permanent ice sheet reaches the Thames.
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.
The obvious problem we have is the spiv class. We're investing in HS2, but everyone seems puzzled as to how the cost is 5 times higher than it is anywhere else. We build new austerity stations which cost vast sums despite using the least materials possible.
We could fix this. BuildCo Ltd - commercial infrastructure construction company owned by the government. All the spivs cut out of the loop, cost drops dramatically.
As an aside, if Sunak's willing to come out with this nonsense it does suggest a degree of desperation that may affect the timing of the next election.
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."
Starmer backtracking is equally shaming and dispiriting. This country is going to suffer from our lack of action.
Exactly - even just the positive externalities of mitigation are worth more than the costs.
And we have people on here whose entire rationale is to say how wonderful the "Conservatives" are, bleating about the 'cost' and saying brainlessly that it'll be all right because Mr Sunak with his helicopter flights will do wonders for the Southern English date industry. (I exaggerate a bit, but one of us did say it was OK for the Gulf Stream to collapse because it would cool the summers a little.)
Be nice.
Remember if the Gulf Stream stops Scotland will be so cold youll all have to move South and be civilised.
We'll all regret we can't just move to the the Med* once the permanent ice sheet reaches the Thames.
(*Brexit bonus)
If its fridge or furnace Im staying in the cool.
Ironically, the gulf stream stopping could save the Med from the furnace.
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.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
This is right, I think. When (eg) the likes of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get cheap and nasty it comes over as authentic because they are cheap and nasty individuals. Rishi Sunak really isn't. So I hope he stops this, not because I'm Labour and I fear it will work, but because I find it embarrassing to read.
Part of the question is- who is the real Rishi? Compared with most PMs, he's risen largely without trace. That's a bit of a problem for him- some of his rough edges in debate really should have been knocked off before he got to the top.
But it's also a problem is weighing the man. One version- the one I think we all want- is a kind of modernised noblesse oblige- someone who could sit back and take in the millions, but is serving his country instead. Not a politician as such, a servant of the people, paying his good fortune outwards and forwards.
Unfortunately, there's another way of joining the dots, that his success is all the justification he needs to give (so don't you dare question him) and it's down to his wonderfulness. We've seen him get chippy in debate with Truss and with Starmer.
I'd say "will the real Rishi Sunak please stand up" if it didn't invite cheap height jokes.
O/T Does anyone else find the new twitter logo a bit disturbing?
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
Glad you said that. Yes, I do a bit. That big 'X' that flashes up as you use the site. Subliminally I'm getting notes of Nuremburg and Red Square, Kitchener wants YOU, black shirts, general Fascist chic.
Perhaps resigning because of a "serious error of judgment" could become a practice adopted by others.
The CEO of the Post Office, for instance, Nick Read, who decided to have a bonus scheme for himself and his Board for compliance with the Horizon Inquiry when in fact the PO has not complied with its requirements, lied about the judge's approval and allowed misleading accounts to be issued.
"Sir Wyn Williams (the inquiry Chair) has said he will attach a Section 21 notice to all future disclosure requests. How serious do you think the threat of criminal proceedings might be, and what effect will this threat have?
As things stand, lead counsel to the Inquiry, Jason Beer KC, thinks the Post Office will have a defence on their work to date (essentially incompetence, rather than criminal intent) which the Inquiry cannot yet argue with. That could change as they delve deeper into the history."
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.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
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.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
Question - what are Sunak's vision and values? I think he's a genuine guy, and I liked him on a personal level when I chatted to him. But like most billionaires I don't think he has a clue how normal people live. His statements to the public are wooden and yet also over-rehearsed with a Jackanory smile.
I get the sense that he sees politics as a fun hobby, a distraction from his real career of being a billionaire. He doesn't have vision because he isn't a conviction politician, he's a hobby politician.
He's a helicopter PM at a time when that is increasingly crass on several fronts. Very revealing.
O/T Does anyone else find the new twitter logo a bit disturbing?
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
Glad you said that. Yes, I do a bit. That big 'X' that flashes up as you use the site. Subliminally I'm getting notes of Nuremburg and Red Square, Kitchener wants YOU, black shirts, general Fascist chic.
Absolutely the same here.
Since it's Musk, I wouldn't be surprised if there's not some cod-psychology behind the idea.
O/T Does anyone else find the new twitter logo a bit disturbing?
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
Glad you said that. Yes, I do a bit. That big 'X' that flashes up as you use the site. Subliminally I'm getting notes of Nuremburg and Red Square, Kitchener wants YOU, black shirts, general Fascist chic.
Not a twitter user, so surprised when I went in from a link.
Starship Trooper was my immediate thought, which is disturbing.
(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.
A large slice of humble pie for me for breakfast!
Have you accounted for the fact that Lab backed off in 1/3 of the recent by-elections? 1/3 of all the GE contests are not Tory/LD so that significantly depresses the calculated "average swing" to Labour.
[ETA: It may be the case that the LDs will compete against Lab enough to compensate, but it doesn't feel like it.]
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.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
This is right, I think. When (eg) the likes of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get cheap and nasty it comes over as authentic because they are cheap and nasty individuals. Rishi Sunak really isn't. So I hope he stops this, not because I'm Labour and I fear it will work, but because I find it embarrassing to read.
Part of the question is- who is the real Rishi? Compared with most PMs, he's risen largely without trace. That's a bit of a problem for him- some of his rough edges in debate really should have been knocked off before he got to the top.
But it's also a problem is weighing the man. One version- the one I think we all want- is a kind of modernised noblesse oblige- someone who could sit back and take in the millions, but is serving his country instead. Not a politician as such, a servant of the people, paying his good fortune outwards and forwards.
Unfortunately, there's another way of joining the dots, that his success is all the justification he needs to give (so don't you dare question him) and it's down to his wonderfulness. We've seen him get chippy in debate with Truss and with Starmer.
I'd say "will the real Rishi Sunak please stand up" if it didn't invite cheap height jokes.
Yes. My impression is of a good person but it's no more than that because, as you say, he has rather risen without trace.
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
I think whoever is in next will match the EU delay, whilst boosting taxes on electric cars and (hopefully) hiking the taxes on fossil vehicle fuels to somewhere approximating where they should (ie apply inflation since 2011).
I agree with your comments on matching the EU date of 2035 and higher road taxes on EV's but increasing taxes on the vast majority of cars in a cost of living crisis would be brave
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.
It gets forgotten, but a sizable chunk of Tories are actually very green, seeing it as a conservative policy as well. Saw an article on ConHome arguing against the idea net zero was hurting them too.
O/T Does anyone else find the new twitter logo a bit disturbing?
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
Glad you said that. Yes, I do a bit. That big 'X' that flashes up as you use the site. Subliminally I'm getting notes of Nuremburg and Red Square, Kitchener wants YOU, black shirts, general Fascist chic.
Not a twitter user, so surprised when I went in from a link.
Starship Trooper was my immediate thought, which is disturbing.
Interesting. For me it's shite and annoying marketing all over the media for some product launch of something useless like designer budgie-smugglers or another Ipad clone. "The Future is Orange" on posters in Belfast, that sort of thing.
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."
Switching to another plan of some kind could have worked by presenting plan a always as a temp measure and if it was policy focused. As it is they're just turning up the nastiness to cover up failure.
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 👍
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.
It gets forgotten, but a sizable chunk of Tories are actually very green, seeing it as a conservative policy as well. Saw an article on ConHome arguing against the idea net zero was hurting them too.
Sir Cimon Clarke is aiming a bit low there.
Has he forgotten that for our own needs we need aiui about 4 or 5 of the plants proposed by Landrover, and perhaps we should be exporting the things now that we are post-Brexit.
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.
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.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
This is right, I think. When (eg) the likes of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get cheap and nasty it comes over as authentic because they are cheap and nasty individuals. Rishi Sunak really isn't. So I hope he stops this, not because I'm Labour and I fear it will work, but because I find it embarrassing to read.
Part of the question is- who is the real Rishi? Compared with most PMs, he's risen largely without trace. That's a bit of a problem for him- some of his rough edges in debate really should have been knocked off before he got to the top.
But it's also a problem is weighing the man. One version- the one I think we all want- is a kind of modernised noblesse oblige- someone who could sit back and take in the millions, but is serving his country instead. Not a politician as such, a servant of the people, paying his good fortune outwards and forwards.
Unfortunately, there's another way of joining the dots, that his success is all the justification he needs to give (so don't you dare question him) and it's down to his wonderfulness. We've seen him get chippy in debate with Truss and with Starmer.
I'd say "will the real Rishi Sunak please stand up" if it didn't invite cheap height jokes.
Yes. My impression is of a good person but it's no more than that because, as you say, he has rather risen without trace.
I used to think that, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Increasingly he is telling us that he is a nasty piece of work, so why should we not believe him?
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.
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.
Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.
The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.
We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.
Agreed, but I would comment that it is a peculiarly English problem connected to austerity and the legacy of Thatcherism. The hope must be that we will somehow move on from it.
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.
This quote tells you everything that is wrong with the police.
GMP has not explained why the footage is missing but says there is currently no evidence to suggest any employees have misconducted themselves or committed a criminal offence.
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!
A very good point. Some powerful, connected and believing themselves untouchable person, told a great big whopper and has been stunned to get caught. What were they thinking?
I'd say they'll suffer the consequences but somehow I think they'll land on their feet just fine.
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.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
Question - what are Sunak's vision and values? I think he's a genuine guy, and I liked him on a personal level when I chatted to him. But like most billionaires I don't think he has a clue how normal people live. His statements to the public are wooden and yet also over-rehearsed with a Jackanory smile.
I get the sense that he sees politics as a fun hobby, a distraction from his real career of being a billionaire. He doesn't have vision because he isn't a conviction politician, he's a hobby politician.
Hobby politician or not. He has been wildly impressive when compared to the pair of plums that went before.
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.
HS2 would have been *a lot* cheaper (as in, about 40% of the current cost) if we'd built it twenty years ago (as we should have done) although we'd probably now be arguing about how much to spend upgrading the Trent Valley line.
See also refurbishing the Palace of Westminster. They don't like how much it'll cost so they keep delaying it - that'll make it cheaper, right?
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
I think whoever is in next will match the EU delay, whilst boosting taxes on electric cars and (hopefully) hiking the taxes on fossil vehicle fuels to somewhere approximating where they should (ie apply inflation since 2011).
I agree with your comments on matching the EU date of 2035 and higher road taxes on EV's but increasing taxes on the vast majority of cars in a cost of living crisis would be brave
I agree it would be brave; however a freeze in cash terms of fuel taxes since 2011 has been crazy.
What's the cumulative cost of *that* been on national debt - estimates I have seen range from £100bn to £200bn.
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.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
There tends to be more emphasis on 'structuring' things rather than building them, I would say. Perhaps this is one of the pervasive negatives of the pre-eminence of the City in recent decades.
(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.
A large slice of humble pie for me for breakfast!
Have you accounted for the fact that Lab backed off in 1/3 of the recent by-elections? 1/3 of all the GE contests are not Tory/LD so that significantly depresses the calculated "average swing" to Labour.
[ETA: It may be the case that the LDs will compete against Lab enough to compensate, but it doesn't feel like it.]
Tbh, I have decided to end my nascent career as a psephologist following my schoolboy error.
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.
This quote tells you everything that is wrong with the police.
GMP has not explained why the footage is missing but says there is currently no evidence to suggest any employees have misconducted themselves or committed a criminal offence.
"She sits with her hands to her head at 5.34am, when the police log says she underwent a medical exam. No one is seen entering the cell on the CCTV footage and she does not move from the spot the entire hour."
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.
Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.
The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.
We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.
Which is why using cheap migrant labour is wrong. Its a sticking plaster to cover lack of investment, The whole of the UK whether public or private needs to upgrade its infrastructure and push for greater productivity, We could then afford to pay people a decent salary,
Not often I agree with you Alan, but you're spot on here.
Question: where should the investment come from?
Hard choices but stop spending on crap. Most of this you wont agree with,
- theres enough private money ( eg pension funds ) floating about to fund major projects like energy or national infrastructure. Why for example domt we have a major grid to transfer water round the country ?
Allow capital investment to be written down in the year it is spent,
Build more houses. Government provides land from its excess land bank and gets private sector to build on it, This potentially will cut back on spending with private landlords who charge what they do because there is a shortage.
HMG has spent something like £165 bn in the last 15 years on foreign aid a lot of which is or questionable value, Half of this would have paid for tidal lagoons and other energy independence initiatives.
Stop spending on meaningless university degrees since this is just a ponzi scheme, soend the money on something useful like kitting out hospitals or increasing the number of doctors and dentists,
Ditch ESG as it simply adds time and cost to funding major investment. It has a nice fluffy bunny ring to it but its simply encouraging big corporates to shut more competitive suppliers out of the system,
Just some off the top of my head thoughts but this is still a comparatively wealthy country and would be more so if we had a sense of priorities,
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.
This will have no effect and may even backfire.
This is right, I think. When (eg) the likes of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get cheap and nasty it comes over as authentic because they are cheap and nasty individuals. Rishi Sunak really isn't. So I hope he stops this, not because I'm Labour and I fear it will work, but because I find it embarrassing to read.
Part of the question is- who is the real Rishi? Compared with most PMs, he's risen largely without trace. That's a bit of a problem for him- some of his rough edges in debate really should have been knocked off before he got to the top.
But it's also a problem is weighing the man. One version- the one I think we all want- is a kind of modernised noblesse oblige- someone who could sit back and take in the millions, but is serving his country instead. Not a politician as such, a servant of the people, paying his good fortune outwards and forwards.
Unfortunately, there's another way of joining the dots, that his success is all the justification he needs to give (so don't you dare question him) and it's down to his wonderfulness. We've seen him get chippy in debate with Truss and with Starmer.
I'd say "will the real Rishi Sunak please stand up" if it didn't invite cheap height jokes.
Yes. My impression is of a good person but it's no more than that because, as you say, he has rather risen without trace.
I used to think that, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Increasingly he is telling us that he is a nasty piece of work, so why should we not believe him?
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.
HS2 would have been *a lot* cheaper (as in, about 40% of the current cost) if we'd built it twenty years ago (as we should have done) although we'd probably now be arguing about how much to spend upgrading the Trent Valley line.
Ditto a new trans Pennine route. And tidal - which at current borrowing rates is now probably uneconomic.
One of the biggest political scandals of the century; SKS hires Martin Forde to carry out root & branch inquiry into the Labour Party, Forde finds party is riddled with racists & scumbags, & SKS does nothing. The racists, the scumbags, they're still there.
Now we add a whippersnapper to the PLP with antiquated views about women
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.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.
It looks like PP is on the verge of having a major internal fight, one which its leader, Alberto Feijóo, will do well to survive. Meanwhile, there are signs PSOE may get the abstentions it needs from Catalan separatists to form a government. If not, though, that poll suggests they may win a new election anyway. That said, it’s one poll, so more are needed before any pattern can be ascertained.
Tim's right, but we're all talking about it so it's had its intended effect.
We're talking about it, but it brings attention to a Tory failure. Is blaming the opposition for something when you've been in power for 13 years convincing?
One of the biggest political scandals of the century; SKS hires Martin Forde to carry out root & branch inquiry into the Labour Party, Forde finds party is riddled with racists & scumbags, & SKS does nothing. The racists, the scumbags, they're still there.
Now WE add a whippersnapper to the PLP with antiquated views about women
SKS's cess pit
"We"!!!! I thought you'd left.I am on to Caroline Lucas* as we speak to have you, a Labour Trojan Horse drummed out of the Greens.
* I can't remember who runs the Greens these days. Is it that antipodean woman + 1?
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.
What if one of the clients is now the king and the bank gets a call from the king's palace saying your other client dissed the king something rotten and he's most displeased?
We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.
Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.
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.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.
But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.
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.
Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.
The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.
We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.
Which is why using cheap migrant labour is wrong. Its a sticking plaster to cover lack of investment, The whole of the UK whether public or private needs to upgrade its infrastructure and push for greater productivity, We could then afford to pay people a decent salary,
Easy. It's BJO's first anti Keir post of the day. They will now come thick and fast for the rest of the day.
And Pete the hypocrite who didn't vote for Labour in the last 2 GEs will defend SKS no matter how bad the latest revelation
You have no idea how I voted in the last two GEs.
Without giving the game away, because my vote is my business, I viewed a Johnson landslide to be far more dangerous than a Corbyn minority. And I have, I believe been vindicated. Had the alternatives been either a Johnson or a Corbyn majority, that would have been the moment to draw a massive c*ck and b*lls over the entire ballot paper
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.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.
But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.
We're long overdue another transformational PM. Don't see anyone obvious.
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.
What if one of the clients is now the king and the bank gets a call from the king's palace saying your other client dissed the king something rotten and he's most displeased?
We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.
Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.
We are not Saudi Arabia but a constitutional not absolute monarchy
What riffraff seem to rise to the top in the BBC these days!
One minute, the BBC chairman is sorting out an £800K loan for the prime minister.
The next minute, the BBC business editor is passing on dirt from the bankers to the oligarchs about a leading opposition politician.
PS What charity was it that held the 3 July dinner at the Langham Hotel at which Simon Jack supposedly "sat next" to Alison Rose? Were any members of the royal family present? How about any Russian businessmen?
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.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.
But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.
She addressed a series of problems the UK had from the 70s and 80s. Those who followed her had the advantage of a cleaner slate, Politicians such as Blair or Cameron made the national bed we now have to lie in and on some measures they royally messed things up.
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.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.
But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.
We're long overdue another transformational PM. Don't see anyone obvious.
I'd say Johnson was. Unfortunately it was of the negative type.
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.
What if one of the clients is now the king and the bank gets a call from the king's palace saying your other client dissed the king something rotten and he's most displeased?
We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.
Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.
We are not Saudi Arabia but a constitutional not absolute monarchy
Oh? Why do you then bleat about treason every time someone talks about throwing an egg at the King on walkabout?
O/T Does anyone know how you can find out from a County Court case number, what the case is about? I assume it's too much to expect there to be an on-line database one can search?
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.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.
But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.
I have never put any thought into the phrase 'common or garden' and it looks weird when I see it written down. I hear it and say it as commonergarden. But then I am an idiot.
One of the biggest political scandals of the century; SKS hires Martin Forde to carry out root & branch inquiry into the Labour Party, Forde finds party is riddled with racists & scumbags, & SKS does nothing. The racists, the scumbags, they're still there.
Now WE add a whippersnapper to the PLP with antiquated views about women
SKS's cess pit
"We"!!!! I thought you'd left.I am on to Caroline Lucas* as we speak to have you, a Labour Trojan Horse drummed out of the Greens.
* I can't remember who runs the Greens these days. Is it that antipodean woman + 1?
My membership Card arrived yesterday with a badge a window poster and a welcome pack
Still don't know who the leader is though.
Have attended a local meeting soon after I joined was very welcoming but then again there were a number of Socialists in the room who I knew from my days in the Lab Party.
Looks like we will be targeting 2 Council wards in next years Locals 1 Tory held and 1 Lab seat both look winnable as we came a close 2nd last time.
One of the biggest political scandals of the century; SKS hires Martin Forde to carry out root & branch inquiry into the Labour Party, Forde finds party is riddled with racists & scumbags, & SKS does nothing. The racists, the scumbags, they're still there.
Now we add a whippersnapper to the PLP with antiquated views about women
SKS's cess pit
Starmer got rid of at least one racist (antisemitic) scumbag.
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.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.
But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.
Attlee and Thatcher transformed Britain, every other post war PM was mainly a manager by comparison. Albeit Wilson brought in significant social change and Blair significant constitutional change and Boris of course did Brexit
What riffraff seem to rise to the top in the BBC these days!
One minute, the BBC chairman is sorting out an £800K loan for the prime minister.
The next minute, the BBC business editor is passing on dirt from the bankers to the oligarchs about a leading opposition politician.
PS What charity was it that held the 3 July dinner at the Langham Hotel at which Simon Jack supposedly "sat next" to Alison Rose? Were any members of the royal family present? How about any Russian businessmen?
"leading opposition politician" is doing a lot of work there (unlike the subject).
Mather said some things critical of someone he considered transphobic. The Conservative-supporting Twitter account is trying to make that appear as if Mather is generally misogynistic.
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.
Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.
The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.
We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.
Which is why using cheap migrant labour is wrong. Its a sticking plaster to cover lack of investment, The whole of the UK whether public or private needs to upgrade its infrastructure and push for greater productivity, We could then afford to pay people a decent salary,
And in the meantime ?
There is no mean time. We have to start now as we are on a slow slope of deterioration, Ive written some thoughts below most of which require not pissing money up the wall and setting some national priorities.
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.
What if one of the clients is now the king and the bank gets a call from the king's palace saying your other client dissed the king something rotten and he's most displeased?
We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.
Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.
We are not Saudi Arabia but a constitutional not absolute monarchy
Oh? Why do you then bleat about treason every time someone talks about throwing an egg at the King on walkabout?
As that is an assault under UK law and battery if it hits
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 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!
You make a good point, but does anyone track current VI compared with how people voted in 2017?
I suspect that it will be impossible to get an accurate take on how individuals (as opposed to numbers) voted in 2017. It was a long time ago, the circumstances were extraordinary, millions changed their minds, there are reasons for being in denial about it more or less whoever you voted for. (And a good number who voted for Jezza were stoned at the time).
And of course the numbers are amazing. Jezza, now a Labour pariah, got within 750k votes of T May, who called the election because she couldn't fail to win a landslide.
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.
What if one of the clients is now the king and the bank gets a call from the king's palace saying your other client dissed the king something rotten and he's most displeased?
We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.
Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.
We are not Saudi Arabia but a constitutional not absolute monarchy
Oh? Why do you then bleat about treason every time someone talks about throwing an egg at the King on walkabout?
As that is an assault under UK law and battery if it hits
(a) No such thing as UK law for that purpose.
(b) The local variant is relevant.
(c) But that is not the same as treason, unless you want to claim it is, and you sure did before.
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.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.
Thatcher was an epochal Prime Minister - the start of a political era we are still in. I am not *blaming* her for Thatcherism still being the economic system. That is, as you rightly point out, the choice of the politicians who have followed.
As for "move on", I wish we would. I want to see the UK go back to capitalism.
What riffraff seem to rise to the top in the BBC these days!
One minute, the BBC chairman is sorting out an £800K loan for the prime minister.
The next minute, the BBC business editor is passing on dirt from the bankers to the oligarchs about a leading opposition politician.
PS What charity was it that held the 3 July dinner at the Langham Hotel at which Simon Jack supposedly "sat next" to Alison Rose? Were any members of the royal family present? How about any Russian businessmen?
OK someone has just filled me in on this. The dinner was held in aid of BBC Media Action. Apparently a collective noun of senior BBC presenters were present, and according to the Torygraph their "star power helped to draw in the sort of wealthy individuals who could make the night a success for the charity". So who were those ultra-rich types then?
Why's it not surprising that senior BBC figures spend their time hobnobbing with bankers while persuading the filthy rich to make donations?
Seriously what would people say if this happened in Bogota or Moscow?
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.
Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.
The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.
We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.
Which is why using cheap migrant labour is wrong. Its a sticking plaster to cover lack of investment, The whole of the UK whether public or private needs to upgrade its infrastructure and push for greater productivity, We could then afford to pay people a decent salary,
Not often I agree with you Alan, but you're spot on here.
Question: where should the investment come from?
Hard choices but stop spending on crap. Most of this you wont agree with,
- theres enough private money ( eg pension funds ) floating about to fund major projects like energy or national infrastructure. Why for example domt we have a major grid to transfer water round the country ?
Allow capital investment to be written down in the year it is spent,
Build more houses. Government provides land from its excess land bank and gets private sector to build on it, This potentially will cut back on spending with private landlords who charge what they do because there is a shortage.
HMG has spent something like £165 bn in the last 15 years on foreign aid a lot of which is or questionable value, Half of this would have paid for tidal lagoons and other energy independence initiatives.
Stop spending on meaningless university degrees since this is just a ponzi scheme, soend the money on something useful like kitting out hospitals or increasing the number of doctors and dentists,
Ditch ESG as it simply adds time and cost to funding major investment. It has a nice fluffy bunny ring to it but its simply encouraging big corporates to shut more competitive suppliers out of the system,
Just some off the top of my head thoughts but this is still a comparatively wealthy country and would be more so if we had a sense of priorities,
I actually agree with most of that. I'd keep foreign aid but other than that, I think you're spot on.
Mather said some things critical of someone he considered transphobic. The Conservative-supporting Twitter account is trying to make that appear as if Mather is generally misogynistic.
Yes, that's how it looked to me. So where's the problem? I don't see one.
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.
What if one of the clients is now the king and the bank gets a call from the king's palace saying your other client dissed the king something rotten and he's most displeased?
We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.
Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.
We are not Saudi Arabia but a constitutional not absolute monarchy
Oh? Why do you then bleat about treason every time someone talks about throwing an egg at the King on walkabout?
As that is an assault under UK law and battery if it hits
Comments
The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.
We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.
Remember if the Gulf Stream stops Scotland will be so cold youll all have to move South and be civilised.
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
The CEO of the Post Office, for instance, Nick Read, who decided to have a bonus scheme for himself and his Board for compliance with the Horizon Inquiry when in fact the PO has not complied with its requirements, lied about the judge's approval and allowed misleading accounts to be issued.
Or the Post Office's General Counsel.
This article about the lawyers' role in the inadequate compensation schemes is worth a read - https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/prof-moorhead-crass-does-not-come-close/.
But
The alternative was Vox. Until recently in Europe, give people a choice of the far right or anyone else, and anyone wins. Spain has just repeated the exercise.
Yes I know that PP won more seats. But cannot form a government. And it already feels like it has topped out and will now sink back.
(*Brexit bonus)
I get the sense that he sees politics as a fun hobby, a distraction from his real career of being a billionaire. He doesn't have vision because he isn't a conviction politician, he's a hobby politician.
Question: where should the investment come from?
We could fix this. BuildCo Ltd - commercial infrastructure construction company owned by the government. All the spivs cut out of the loop, cost drops dramatically.
But it's also a problem is weighing the man. One version- the one I think we all want- is a kind of modernised noblesse oblige- someone who could sit back and take in the millions, but is serving his country instead. Not a politician as such, a servant of the people, paying his good fortune outwards and forwards.
Unfortunately, there's another way of joining the dots, that his success is all the justification he needs to give (so don't you dare question him) and it's down to his wonderfulness. We've seen him get chippy in debate with Truss and with Starmer.
I'd say "will the real Rishi Sunak please stand up" if it didn't invite cheap height jokes.
"Sir Wyn Williams (the inquiry Chair) has said he will attach a Section 21 notice to all future disclosure requests. How serious do you think the threat of criminal proceedings might be, and what effect will this threat have?
As things stand, lead counsel to the Inquiry, Jason Beer KC, thinks the Post Office will have a defence on their work to date (essentially incompetence, rather than criminal intent) which the Inquiry cannot yet argue with. That could change as they delve deeper into the history."
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
Since it's Musk, I wouldn't be surprised if there's not some cod-psychology behind the idea.
Starship Trooper was my immediate thought, which is disturbing.
[ETA: It may be the case that the LDs will compete against Lab enough to compensate, but it doesn't feel like it.]
Has he forgotten that for our own needs we need aiui about 4 or 5 of the plants proposed by Landrover, and perhaps we should be exporting the things now that we are post-Brexit.
GMP has not explained why the footage is missing but says there is currently no evidence to suggest any employees have misconducted themselves or committed a criminal offence.
I'd say they'll suffer the consequences but somehow I think they'll land on their feet just fine.
What's the cumulative cost of *that* been on national debt - estimates I have seen range from £100bn to £200bn.
https://twitter.com/JGerrings/status/1682726370663604225
But you make a good point.
- theres enough private money ( eg pension funds ) floating about to fund major projects like energy or national infrastructure. Why for example domt we have a major grid to transfer water round the country ?
Allow capital investment to be written down in the year it is spent,
Build more houses. Government provides land from its excess land bank and gets private sector to build on it, This potentially will cut back on spending with private landlords who charge what they do because there is a shortage.
HMG has spent something like £165 bn in the last 15 years on foreign aid a lot of which is or questionable value, Half of this would have paid for tidal lagoons and other energy independence initiatives.
Stop spending on meaningless university degrees since this is just a ponzi scheme, soend the money on something useful like kitting out hospitals or increasing the number of doctors and dentists,
Ditch ESG as it simply adds time and cost to funding major investment. It has a nice fluffy bunny ring to it but its simply encouraging big corporates to shut more competitive suppliers out of the system,
Just some off the top of my head thoughts but this is still a comparatively wealthy country and would be more so if we had a sense of priorities,
Yesterday, Jamie Overton had his brother Craig Overton out caught behind.
How often has one brother taken the wicket of his sibling in first class cricket one wonders?
Together we march in lock step into our ninth decade
And tidal - which at current borrowing rates is now probably uneconomic.
Now we add a whippersnapper to the PLP with antiquated views about women
SKS's cess pit
https://twitter.com/electo_mania/status/1683958124263211010?s=46&t=rw5lNVUgmRPVyKpxfV_pPQ
It looks like PP is on the verge of having a major internal fight, one which its leader, Alberto Feijóo, will do well to survive. Meanwhile, there are signs PSOE may get the abstentions it needs from Catalan separatists to form a government. If not, though, that poll suggests they may win a new election anyway. That said, it’s one poll, so more are needed before any pattern can be ascertained.
WTAF has happened to you if you're reduced to reading this shite BJO?
* I can't remember who runs the Greens these days. Is it that antipodean woman + 1?
If not, then I'm cynical enough to seriously doubt it.
We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.
Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.
Without giving the game away, because my vote is my business, I viewed a Johnson landslide to be far more dangerous than a Corbyn minority. And I have, I believe been vindicated. Had the alternatives been either a Johnson or a Corbyn majority, that would have been the moment to draw a massive c*ck and b*lls over the entire ballot paper
Don't see anyone obvious.
One minute, the BBC chairman is sorting out an £800K loan for the prime minister.
The next minute, the BBC business editor is passing on dirt from the bankers to the oligarchs about a leading opposition politician.
PS What charity was it that held the 3 July dinner at the Langham Hotel at which Simon Jack supposedly "sat next" to Alison Rose? Were any members of the royal family present? How about any Russian businessmen?
Still don't know who the leader is though.
Have attended a local meeting soon after I joined was very welcoming but then again there were a number of Socialists in the room who I knew from my days in the Lab Party.
Looks like we will be targeting 2 Council wards in next years Locals 1 Tory held and 1 Lab seat both look winnable as we came a close 2nd last time.
Ive written some thoughts below most of which require not pissing money up the wall and setting some national priorities.
I really could drone on and on and on if you like just playing at it so far
Everywhere you look from Reeves libelling Loach to the daily U Turn to SKSs latest blatant lies
And of course the numbers are amazing. Jezza, now a Labour pariah, got within 750k votes of T May, who called the election because she couldn't fail to win a landslide.
(b) The local variant is relevant.
(c) But that is not the same as treason, unless you want to claim it is, and you sure did before.
As for "move on", I wish we would. I want to see the UK go back to capitalism.
Why's it not surprising that senior BBC figures spend their time hobnobbing with bankers while persuading the filthy rich to make donations?
Seriously what would people say if this happened in Bogota or Moscow?
Astonishing but not surprising. The GOP are a bunch of nutjobs who should be nowhere near power but sadly many continue to vote for them .