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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Overall, ULEZ expansion isn't that unpopular; in outer London as a whole, the current polling is 50:50.
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
Her interview with Farage consisted of where do you keep your money, under the bed? And then how much money you got....come on, how much, tell us.
How much does she get paid for this absolute twattery...while Sky News pushed a load of very good well informed journalists out the door.
She gets paid to do this by Sky. Who are competing for relevance vs tabloid twattery at GBeebies and Talk Tory. Neither of those channels have many actual viewers, but their clipped and packaged YouTube content is huge.
So Hurley Burley has to ask those kind of questions to create clickbait material for Sky. Its crap journalism, but sadly this is what tabloid media has done to us.
"Many MPs or their families have been turned down by banks because of “politically exposed persons” (PEP) rules, the policing minister, Chris Philp, has said"
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Agreed - remember that I am not a Labour voter and a critic of Starmer. Quite how they have managed to get painted into this corner I don't know. But when Tories keep insisting its all Starmer, we do have to point out the painting is being done at the direction of Grant Shapps.
Yes, but the painting out was done at the direction of Robert Jenrick.
Her interview with Farage consisted of where do you keep your money, under the bed? And then how much money you got....come on, how much, tell us.
How much does she get paid for this absolute twattery...while Sky News pushed a load of very good well informed journalists out the door.
She gets paid to do this by Sky. Who are competing for relevance vs tabloid twattery at GBeebies and Talk Tory. Neither of those channels have many actual viewers, but their clipped and packaged YouTube content is huge.
So Hurley Burley has to ask those kind of questions to create clickbait material for Sky. Its crap journalism, but sadly this is what tabloid media has done to us.
I actually watched the GB News interview with him on YouTube and in comparison it was actually a grown up (albeit soft ball) interview asking relevant questions about the case. Not show us urrrrrrrrrrrr money, come on, is it under your bed....
Talk TV, that is even worse than GB News or Sky....I think even reading the Sun website is more informative on serious matters. I have no idea what Murdoch was thinking there.
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
Point 1: ironically, Rose almost certainly did not break client confidentiality because she got the details wrong (allegedly). It is most unlikely anyone at her exalted level would know the ins and outs of any particular customer accounts.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
Point 1: ironically, Rose almost certainly did not break client confidentiality because she got the details wrong (allegedly). It is most unlikely anyone at her exalted level would know the ins and outs of any particular customer accounts.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
Interestingly, by law she shouldn't have any idea about Farage's account balance, as Coutts is supposed to be a separate entity.
Shows that the BBC business editor is also a moron that a) doesn't question that, b) doesn't think well seems like it could break GDPR*, c) the source can only be about 3-4 people and so running this story is going to drop my source right in it.
* especially as we all just had the Huw Edwards stuff about what is "in the public interest" vs "what the public is interested in".
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Overall, ULEZ expansion isn't that unpopular; in outer London as a whole, the current polling is 50:50.
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
ULEZ just comes across as greenwashed taxation and isnt taking people with them,
I watched some Labour activist trying to explain it only affected 1 in 10 people. Unfortunately that 1 in 10 is most likely someone who has bought a fourth hand Fiesta for a couple of grand and cant afford to upgrade. Khan would have had more success if he had targeted drivers of 4 litre Range Rovers or BMW diesels. This is just yet another exercise in kicking the poor.
It's worth remembering that NatWest's results are due out shortly. The Board will have had in mind (I hope) that you cannot have a CEO who does not understand what you can and cannot say to a journalist while in possession of confidential and price-sensitive information. If she opened her mouth about Farage without thinking how could the Board trust her not to open her mouth about other much more sensitive information.
Im still scratching my head as to how the Coutts Board have side stepped all the crap since they in essence created the problem
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
Point 1: ironically, Rose almost certainly did not break client confidentiality because she got the details wrong (allegedly). It is most unlikely anyone at her exalted level would know the ins and outs of any particular customer accounts.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
I don't know if you've ever dealt with very senior people professionally? I have, a lot, though being no more than upper-mid-ranking myself, and the more you do, the more you realise that conformity, ego, upward management and luck are far more important in reaching the top of hierarchies than intelligence, good judgement or competence.
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
Point 1: ironically, Rose almost certainly did not break client confidentiality because she got the details wrong (allegedly). It is most unlikely anyone at her exalted level would know the ins and outs of any particular customer accounts.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
I don't know if you've ever dealt with very senior people professionally? I have, a lot, though being no more than upper-mid-ranking myself, and the more you do, the more you realise that conformity, ego, upward management and luck are far more important in reaching the top of hierarchies than intelligence, good judgement or competence.
It does seem to be a serious cultural issue across public and private sector that failing upwards / pick the candidate that will conform is so prevalent. At best it leads to stagnation / managed decline, it at worst it leads to the likes of the MET police run by a incompetent moron or the fact journalists who made absolute fools of themselves during COVID are still in prominent positions of influence.
Is this a British thing, a Western thing, a general thing? I know for instance that it is that a lot of Japan's problem is put down to the fact you always pick the old bloke who has been a company man for senior management, hence silly things like fax machines etc still being in place as that is what they have always used.
Is this true in emerging markets? Or are they more dynamic / cut throat?
She’s reached a point where you can only fail upward.
That’s one of the defining characteristics of New Upper Ten Thousand Membership
The lady who led Rotherham Social Services got a better job in Australia, in child protection. More money. When it was suggested that she not be given a reference*, by the government, there was a push back at the “disgusting suggestion”.
*not just the legally required statement of dates worked. But one of those fulsome letters about how wonderful she was at her job.
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
Point 1: ironically, Rose almost certainly did not break client confidentiality because she got the details wrong (allegedly). It is most unlikely anyone at her exalted level would know the ins and outs of any particular customer accounts.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
I don't know if you've ever dealt with very senior people professionally? I have, a lot, though being no more than upper-mid-ranking myself, and the more you do, the more you realise that conformity, ego, upward management and luck are far more important in reaching the top of hierarchies than intelligence, good judgement or competence.
As with much in life, Sturgeon's Law applies.
The difficult trick is to have systems, and a culture which preferentially rewards and retains the 5%.
It's worth remembering that NatWest's results are due out shortly. The Board will have had in mind (I hope) that you cannot have a CEO who does not understand what you can and cannot say to a journalist while in possession of confidential and price-sensitive information. If she opened her mouth about Farage without thinking how could the Board trust her not to open her mouth about other much more sensitive information.
Im still scratching my head as to how the Coutts Board have side stepped all the crap since they in essence created the problem
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
Point 1: ironically, Rose almost certainly did not break client confidentiality because she got the details wrong (allegedly). It is most unlikely anyone at her exalted level would know the ins and outs of any particular customer accounts.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
I don't know if you've ever dealt with very senior people professionally? I have, a lot, though being no more than upper-mid-ranking myself, and the more you do, the more you realise that conformity, ego, upward management and luck are far more important in reaching the top of hierarchies than intelligence, good judgement or competence.
It does seem to be a serious cultural issue across public and private sector that failing upwards / pick the candidate that will conform is so prevalent. At best it leads to stagnation / managed decline, it at worst it leads to the likes of the MET police run by a incompetent moron or the fact journalists who made absolute fools of themselves during COVID are still in prominent positions of influence.
Is this a British thing, a Western thing, a general thing? I know for instance that it is that a lot of Japan's problem is put down to the fact you always pick the old bloke who has been a company man for senior management, hence silly things like fax machines etc still being in place as that is what they have always used.
Is this true in emerging markets? Or are they more dynamic / cut throat?
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
Point 1: ironically, Rose almost certainly did not break client confidentiality because she got the details wrong (allegedly). It is most unlikely anyone at her exalted level would know the ins and outs of any particular customer accounts.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
I don't know if you've ever dealt with very senior people professionally? I have, a lot, though being no more than upper-mid-ranking myself, and the more you do, the more you realise that conformity, ego, upward management and luck are far more important in reaching the top of hierarchies than intelligence, good judgement or competence.
It does seem to be a serious cultural issue across public and private sector that failing upwards / pick the candidate that will conform is so prevalent. At best it leads to stagnation / managed decline, it at worst it leads to the likes of the MET police run by a incompetent moron or the fact journalists who made absolute fools of themselves during COVID are still in prominent positions of influence.
Is this a British thing, a Western thing, a general thing? I know for instance that it is that a lot of Japan's problem is put down to the fact you always pick the old bloke who has been a company man for senior management, hence silly things like fax machines etc still being in place as that is what they have always used.
Is this true in emerging markets? Or are they more dynamic / cut throat?
When I was twelve, my school put on a Greek play by Aristophanes. The most memorable lines, that I still recall decades later, went:
"If you want to be comfy, just roll with the ship, Don't stand like a fool with a stiff upper lip, But learn from Theramanes, the shrewd politician, To move with the times and improve your position".
So I think conformity rising in hierarchies is pretty much universal, and I was lucky to get that lesson fairly early!
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Overall, ULEZ expansion isn't that unpopular; in outer London as a whole, the current polling is 50:50.
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
ULEZ just comes across as greenwashed taxation and isnt taking people with them,
I watched some Labour activist trying to explain it only affected 1 in 10 people. Unfortunately that 1 in 10 is most likely someone who has bought a fourth hand Fiesta for a couple of grand and cant afford to upgrade. Khan would have had more success if he had targeted drivers of 4 litre Range Rovers or BMW diesels. This is just yet another exercise in kicking the poor.
It's taking most Londoners with it, and a 50-50 split in the outer zone;
Remember also that some people have got the wrong end of the stick on things like how many cars are affected, what the scrappage scheme looks like and so on. Not their fault but it needs saying In part because of FUD from Khan's opponents. And in part because Khan is a wet blanket.
The reason we're talking about this is because Uxbridge was a by election at the exact moment and in the exact place where this was all most difficult.
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
Point 1: ironically, Rose almost certainly did not break client confidentiality because she got the details wrong (allegedly). It is most unlikely anyone at her exalted level would know the ins and outs of any particular customer accounts.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
I don't know if you've ever dealt with very senior people professionally? I have, a lot, though being no more than upper-mid-ranking myself, and the more you do, the more you realise that conformity, ego, upward management and luck are far more important in reaching the top of hierarchies than intelligence, good judgement or competence.
That's a depressing thought. I don't spend enough time among such people to form a clear judgment.
Lab Party Membership dropped a further 40k according to the numbers reported at NEC yesterday compared to those from 6 months ago.(now stand at just under 400k including those in arrears who have likely already left but counted till 6 months overdue (as has always been the case)
Now down 170k compared to under Corbyn but fall seems to be slowing.
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Overall, ULEZ expansion isn't that unpopular; in outer London as a whole, the current polling is 50:50.
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
ULEZ just comes across as greenwashed taxation and isnt taking people with them,
I watched some Labour activist trying to explain it only affected 1 in 10 people. Unfortunately that 1 in 10 is most likely someone who has bought a fourth hand Fiesta for a couple of grand and cant afford to upgrade. Khan would have had more success if he had targeted drivers of 4 litre Range Rovers or BMW diesels. This is just yet another exercise in kicking the poor.
This is the problem. I'm faced with replacing my 10 year old Mondeo 3-5 years earlier than planned, and had made no financial provision for it right now. I don't have enough spare cash currently to upgrade, and I don't want to buy an old petrol jalope for roughly whatever I can get rid of the diesel for. I expect there are a lot like me, and this demographic will be disproportionately in the Con/Lab vote switching group.
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Overall, ULEZ expansion isn't that unpopular; in outer London as a whole, the current polling is 50:50.
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
ULEZ just comes across as greenwashed taxation and isnt taking people with them,
I watched some Labour activist trying to explain it only affected 1 in 10 people. Unfortunately that 1 in 10 is most likely someone who has bought a fourth hand Fiesta for a couple of grand and cant afford to upgrade. Khan would have had more success if he had targeted drivers of 4 litre Range Rovers or BMW diesels. This is just yet another exercise in kicking the poor.
The net result of car taxation on London is that if you are rich enough you pay nothing.
This is regressive. Fix it. There are a number of schemes around the world that could do this. Pick one. Implement.
If you actually target highest pollution vehicles with a finely calibrated system, you could go deeper into getting polluters off the road, faster.
Even after about 2050, when it will be 99% EV, you will need congestion charging.
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
Point 1: ironically, Rose almost certainly did not break client confidentiality because she got the details wrong (allegedly). It is most unlikely anyone at her exalted level would know the ins and outs of any particular customer accounts.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
I don't know if you've ever dealt with very senior people professionally? I have, a lot, though being no more than upper-mid-ranking myself, and the more you do, the more you realise that conformity, ego, upward management and luck are far more important in reaching the top of hierarchies than intelligence, good judgement or competence.
That's a depressing thought. I don't spend enough time among such people to form a clear judgment.
Like the blind squirrel finding the nut, one of the few things Classic Dom was right about was the crapness of the senior civil service deriving from terrible internal recruitment practices which are essentially designed to reward and promote conformity at the expense of expertise and contextual understanding (leading to directors and DGs who breeze unaccountably from one dept to another every six months or so, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. The ultimate goal is to get a senior HMRC position, retire and then earn a fortune as a tax consultant (should not be allowed btw).
A lot of these people went to private schools, of course, whose primary role is to instil confidence disproportionate to ability.
Excellent detail here about the @UKLabour position from @maitlis. Consensus position: 👉No to self ID 👉There's a difference between sex & gender 👉Sex is what you are born with gender is how you identify 👉Does a woman have a penis? If talking about sex obviously not Hallelujah!
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
I don't see how any bank boss can possibly survive discussing a client's confidential details with a journalist - or anyone else for that matter. I don't blame the journalist, of course you are going to report what a CEO told you, but the Dame Alison? She has not got a leg to stand on. Or am I missing something here?
Agreed. She has to go because she unjustifiably broke client confidentiality, and the whole world knows it now. As you say, not a leg to stand on.
Point 1: ironically, Rose almost certainly did not break client confidentiality because she got the details wrong (allegedly). It is most unlikely anyone at her exalted level would know the ins and outs of any particular customer accounts.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
I don't know if you've ever dealt with very senior people professionally? I have, a lot, though being no more than upper-mid-ranking myself, and the more you do, the more you realise that conformity, ego, upward management and luck are far more important in reaching the top of hierarchies than intelligence, good judgement or competence.
In the military it's any two out of luck, social capital and self-confidence. All three ideally.
"Brains are bullshit." As my first CO used to say.
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Overall, ULEZ expansion isn't that unpopular; in outer London as a whole, the current polling is 50:50.
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
ULEZ just comes across as greenwashed taxation and isnt taking people with them,
I watched some Labour activist trying to explain it only affected 1 in 10 people. Unfortunately that 1 in 10 is most likely someone who has bought a fourth hand Fiesta for a couple of grand and cant afford to upgrade. Khan would have had more success if he had targeted drivers of 4 litre Range Rovers or BMW diesels. This is just yet another exercise in kicking the poor.
It's taking most Londoners with it, and a 50-50 split in the outer zone;
Remember also that some people have got the wrong end of the stick on things like how many cars are affected, what the scrappage scheme looks like and so on. Not their fault but it needs saying In part because of FUD from Khan's opponents. And in part because Khan is a wet blanket.
The reason we're talking about this is because Uxbridge was a by election at the exact moment and in the exact place where this was all most difficult.
Id be more interested in seeing the 50-50 split broken down by who drives cars. A lot of Londoners dont own one so it costs them nothing, the tax is falling on a limited number of people and most on those who cant afford it. If as I have read the Underground is just as bad at polluting as cars then would it be a 50-50 split if TfL hiked their prices by say £5 a day ? I suspect not.
So all Khan has done is penalise a bunch of people with little ability to hit back in order to keep his core voters happy. The only big question is has he pushed it too far ?
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."
Don't try and drop the gleeful left-wing self-congratulatory propaganda on me.
Sunak is great and is doing a good job. I just think this is the wrong play, that's all.
O/T Does anyone else find the new twitter logo a bit disturbing?
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
Everything is pseudo-fascist these days to the point where nothing is, except those who actually are (like Putin and Xi) to which the same loudmouths wouldn't dream of ascribing the label.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Overall, ULEZ expansion isn't that unpopular; in outer London as a whole, the current polling is 50:50.
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
ULEZ just comes across as greenwashed taxation and isnt taking people with them,
I watched some Labour activist trying to explain it only affected 1 in 10 people. Unfortunately that 1 in 10 is most likely someone who has bought a fourth hand Fiesta for a couple of grand and cant afford to upgrade. Khan would have had more success if he had targeted drivers of 4 litre Range Rovers or BMW diesels. This is just yet another exercise in kicking the poor.
This is the problem. I'm faced with replacing my 10 year old Mondeo 3-5 years earlier than planned, and had made no financial provision for it right now. I don't have enough spare cash currently to upgrade, and I don't want to buy an old petrol jalope for roughly whatever I can get rid of the diesel for. I expect there are a lot like me, and this demographic will be disproportionately in the Con/Lab vote switching group.
Yes, your demographic - not especially poor, but not yet ready to replace a diesel with plenty of life left in it - is hit the hardest by ULEZ. The poor folk with fourth hand Fiestas will be OK, given that it will probably still be ULEZ compliant and, if it isn't, won't cost much to replace and may well qualify for help with scrappage. The very poor folk who don't have a car at all will of course be beneficiaries.
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."
Don't try and drop the gleeful left-wing self-congratulatory propaganda on me.
Sunak is great and is doing a good job. I just think this is the wrong play, that's all.
The dodgy little shit is 23 points behind in the polls. What would not doing a good job look like?
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.
Yes there is in England and Scotland.
Different legislation. Different terminology. For instance, 'assault and battery' (your wording) doesn't exist in Scotland, and neither does GBH.
Assault is illegal in Scotland, as is aggravated assault and reckless injury
But not UK law, which is what you said.
You want to be taken seriously: present accurate evidence. Not something made up on the spot to suit your views.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Isn't the state pension almost impossible to live off anyway?
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Rob the pensioners so you can have tax cuts? A truly Victorian policy.
Pensions were introduced because not everyone can save for retirement
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."
Don't try and drop the gleeful left-wing self-congratulatory propaganda on me.
Sunak is great and is doing a good job. I just think this is the wrong play, that's all.
The dodgy little shit is 23 points behind in the polls. What would not doing a good job look like?
Promising to tax your children's school != "Doing a good job";
O/T Does anyone else find the new twitter logo a bit disturbing?
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
Everything is pseudo-fascist these days to the point where nothing is, except those who actually are (like Putin and Xi) to which the same loudmouths wouldn't dream of ascribing the label.
Musk seems to look fairly favourably on both of them, and the platform is certainly a willing host for Putin's propaganda - so your point isn't really a rebuttal. Putin could certainly be described as a fascist. Xi is arguably a different type of authoritarian, though no better.
You'd think someone earning that much would be good enough not to f*** things up. It's almost as if these salaries aren't actually justified by ability.
You'd think someone earning that much would be good enough not to f*** things up. It's almost as if these salaries aren't actually justified by ability.
You work in academia, surely you've noticed this before?
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
That'll be a whole load more bureaucracy to determine who is or isn't entitled to income support for an overall outcome that will look little different to what we have now.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
That is probably the silliest assertion I have seen in a long while, over a 50year career at minimum wage which many will be on all their lives the value of their pension pot will buy an annuity south of 5k. I have worked all my life and not on min wage and I certainly would not be able to afford to live on my private pension. I doubt most in the bottom 70% could.
O/T Does anyone else find the new twitter logo a bit disturbing?
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
Everything is pseudo-fascist these days to the point where nothing is, except those who actually are (like Putin and Xi) to which the same loudmouths wouldn't dream of ascribing the label.
Musk seems to look fairly favourably on both of them, and the platform is certainly a willing host for Putin's propaganda - so your point isn't really a rebuttal. Putin could certainly be described as a fascist. Xi is arguably a different type of authoritarian, though no better.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Rob the pensioners so you can have tax cuts? A truly Victorian policy.
Pensions were introduced because not everyone can save for retirement
And marketed as a return for decades of NI payments. Still are, of course.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
That'll be a whole load more bureaucracy to determine who is or isn't entitled to income support for an overall outcome that will look little different to what we have now.
You could put the DfE in charge of it. That would make it six times as expensive and end with older people dying of starvation.
nteresting listening to Ken Clarke R4 this morning. He couldn’t understand why Blair was in the Labour Party. He also said that "if anyone else had won the election they would have repealed Thatcher’s legislation, but Blair was a Thatcherite. He’s in charge of Labour again now".
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
So it will be a test for Sunak whether he tries to exploit that feeling, as a short-term localised antidote to the continuing and widespread unpopularity of the Tories.
If Sunak is hoping to survive by pandering to climate change denialism in the London commuter belt, I think he has lost the plot.
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Overall, ULEZ expansion isn't that unpopular; in outer London as a whole, the current polling is 50:50.
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
ULEZ just comes across as greenwashed taxation and isnt taking people with them,
I watched some Labour activist trying to explain it only affected 1 in 10 people. Unfortunately that 1 in 10 is most likely someone who has bought a fourth hand Fiesta for a couple of grand and cant afford to upgrade. Khan would have had more success if he had targeted drivers of 4 litre Range Rovers or BMW diesels. This is just yet another exercise in kicking the poor.
It's taking most Londoners with it, and a 50-50 split in the outer zone;
Remember also that some people have got the wrong end of the stick on things like how many cars are affected, what the scrappage scheme looks like and so on. Not their fault but it needs saying In part because of FUD from Khan's opponents. And in part because Khan is a wet blanket.
The reason we're talking about this is because Uxbridge was a by election at the exact moment and in the exact place where this was all most difficult.
Id be more interested in seeing the 50-50 split broken down by who drives cars. A lot of Londoners dont own one so it costs them nothing, the tax is falling on a limited number of people and most on those who cant afford it. If as I have read the Underground is just as bad at polluting as cars then would it be a 50-50 split if TfL hiked their prices by say £5 a day ? I suspect not.
So all Khan has done is penalise a bunch of people with little ability to hit back in order to keep his core voters happy. The only big question is has he pushed it too far ?
Khan? It's was this Government / Grant Shapps who insisted on the ULEZ - it was implement it across all of Greater London or we cut TfL founding
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
By increasing the retirement age (it's 67 now and will be 68 soon?) they are doing this, albeit slowly. My headcanon says things will even out about 2040, but it is going to be skewed until then
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."
Don't try and drop the gleeful left-wing self-congratulatory propaganda on me.
Sunak is great and is doing a good job. I just think this is the wrong play, that's all.
The dodgy little shit is 23 points behind in the polls. What would not doing a good job look like?
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
That is probably the silliest assertion I have seen in a long while...
Very stiff competition for that honour here, as usual.
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Overall, ULEZ expansion isn't that unpopular; in outer London as a whole, the current polling is 50:50.
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
ULEZ just comes across as greenwashed taxation and isnt taking people with them,
I watched some Labour activist trying to explain it only affected 1 in 10 people. Unfortunately that 1 in 10 is most likely someone who has bought a fourth hand Fiesta for a couple of grand and cant afford to upgrade. Khan would have had more success if he had targeted drivers of 4 litre Range Rovers or BMW diesels. This is just yet another exercise in kicking the poor.
It's taking most Londoners with it, and a 50-50 split in the outer zone;
Remember also that some people have got the wrong end of the stick on things like how many cars are affected, what the scrappage scheme looks like and so on. Not their fault but it needs saying In part because of FUD from Khan's opponents. And in part because Khan is a wet blanket.
The reason we're talking about this is because Uxbridge was a by election at the exact moment and in the exact place where this was all most difficult.
Id be more interested in seeing the 50-50 split broken down by who drives cars. A lot of Londoners dont own one so it costs them nothing, the tax is falling on a limited number of people and most on those who cant afford it. If as I have read the Underground is just as bad at polluting as cars then would it be a 50-50 split if TfL hiked their prices by say £5 a day ? I suspect not.
So all Khan has done is penalise a bunch of people with little ability to hit back in order to keep his core voters happy. The only big question is has he pushed it too far ?
Khan? It's was this Government / Grant Shapps who insisted on the ULEZ - it was implement it across all of Greater London or we cut TfL founding
Khan has chosen to implement the system the way he has. Hes not hitting big engine vehicles driven by Shapps mates, but cars driven by people who cant afford to upgrade. He's the mayor the buck stops with him.
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."
Don't try and drop the gleeful left-wing self-congratulatory propaganda on me.
Sunak is great and is doing a good job. I just think this is the wrong play, that's all.
The dodgy little shit is 23 points behind in the polls. What would not doing a good job look like?
They need to pivot up the productivity ladder. This means an institutional change - previously, private companies were…. encouraged… not to automate. Lots of cheap jobs was the policy.
O/T Does anyone else find the new twitter logo a bit disturbing?
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
Everything is pseudo-fascist these days to the point where nothing is, except those who actually are (like Putin and Xi) to which the same loudmouths wouldn't dream of ascribing the label.
Musk seems to look fairly favourably on both of them, and the platform is certainly a willing host for Putin's propaganda - so your point isn't really a rebuttal. Putin could certainly be described as a fascist. Xi is arguably a different type of authoritarian, though no better.
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
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."
Don't try and drop the gleeful left-wing self-congratulatory propaganda on me.
Sunak is great and is doing a good job. I just think this is the wrong play, that's all.
The dodgy little shit is 23 points behind in the polls. What would not doing a good job look like?
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
It's sort of being phased out with the age increases. And the lock to inflation will surely go at some point too. What won't happen is a drop in nominal terms, certainly not for those of us in our early 40s.
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
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
By increasing the retirement age (it's 67 now and will be 68 soon?) they are doing this, albeit slowly. My headcanon says things will even out about 2040, but it is going to be skewed until then
I seem to recall some small discussion of this policy in France.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Isn't the state pension almost impossible to live off anyway?
IIRC, the state pension was introduced by Lloyd George with the enthusiastic support of Winston Churchill, back in the good old days when they were both members of the last Liberal Government.
But back to today's gloomy reality.... How much would one need to save up during a lifetime of work, in order to have enough for a "decent pension"?
How much would one need to put aside each year in order to have enough to fund such a pension?
And what happens to those who are not earning enough to do this?
Short snappy Tory answer.... Get a better job.... Become a rip-off investment banker like me. Yah!
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Rob the pensioners so you can have tax cuts? A truly Victorian policy.
Pensions were introduced because not everyone can save for retirement
At some point we have to grasp the fact that we need to pay for an aging population. Not just through pensions, but NHS etc. as well. On the latter, personally I feel this can be achieved most cost effectively through good public health and primary care - and hopefully scientific advancement particularly for dementia and Alzheimer's.
I'm 43 and personally comfortable with the fact that I'll be working till I'm at least 70, inshallah. The thought that I'm still less than halfway through my working life is kind of cheering. But then I quite enjoy my work. Being useful and active makes you healthier and earns you money, on the whole (there are definitely some jobs where this isn't appropriate of course).
I don't want to my generation to burden my kids, and their kids.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Isn't the state pension almost impossible to live off anyway?
IIRC, the state pension was introduced by Lloyd George with the enthusiastic support of Winston Churchill, back in the good old days when they were both members of the last Liberal Government.
But back to today's gloomy reality.... How much would one need to save up during a lifetime of work, in order to have enough for a "decent pension"?
How much would one need to put aside each year in order to have enough to fund such a pension?
And what happens to those who are not earning enough to do this?
Short snappy Tory answer.... Get a better job.... Become a rip-off investment banker like me. Yah!
A brief reminder of why pensions were introduced for those who DID manage to become rip-off investment bankers...
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
By increasing the retirement age (it's 67 now and will be 68 soon?) they are doing this, albeit slowly. My headcanon says things will even out about 2040, but it is going to be skewed until then
I seem to recall some small discussion of this policy in France.
We've done the heavy lifting in terms of increasing retirement age.
IIRC we started addressing this one back when John Major was PM, and so now our expenditure on pensions is comparatively very low.
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."
Don't try and drop the gleeful left-wing self-congratulatory propaganda on me.
Sunak is great and is doing a good job. I just think this is the wrong play, that's all.
The dodgy little shit is 23 points behind in the polls. What would not doing a good job look like?
nteresting listening to Ken Clarke R4 this morning. He couldn’t understand why Blair was in the Labour Party. He also said that "if anyone else had won the election they would have repealed Thatcher’s legislation, but Blair was a Thatcherite. He’s in charge of Labour again now".
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.
Overall, ULEZ expansion isn't that unpopular; in outer London as a whole, the current polling is 50:50.
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
ULEZ just comes across as greenwashed taxation and isnt taking people with them,
I watched some Labour activist trying to explain it only affected 1 in 10 people. Unfortunately that 1 in 10 is most likely someone who has bought a fourth hand Fiesta for a couple of grand and cant afford to upgrade. Khan would have had more success if he had targeted drivers of 4 litre Range Rovers or BMW diesels. This is just yet another exercise in kicking the poor.
This is the problem. I'm faced with replacing my 10 year old Mondeo 3-5 years earlier than planned, and had made no financial provision for it right now. I don't have enough spare cash currently to upgrade, and I don't want to buy an old petrol jalope for roughly whatever I can get rid of the diesel for. I expect there are a lot like me, and this demographic will be disproportionately in the Con/Lab vote switching group.
Yes, your demographic - not especially poor, but not yet ready to replace a diesel with plenty of life left in it - is hit the hardest by ULEZ. The poor folk with fourth hand Fiestas will be OK, given that it will probably still be ULEZ compliant and, if it isn't, won't cost much to replace and may well qualify for help with scrappage. The very poor folk who don't have a car at all will of course be beneficiaries.
Exactly, and they will be mostly working, making ends meet but not much spare (I'm in a better position long term, just bad timing) - and a lot will be driving old Transit diesels for work. Classic WWC or lower paid middle class families. Swing voters.
nteresting listening to Ken Clarke R4 this morning. He couldn’t understand why Blair was in the Labour Party. He also said that "if anyone else had won the election they would have repealed Thatcher’s legislation, but Blair was a Thatcherite. He’s in charge of Labour again now".
Ken Clarke would be a LD now
He said Clegg was 'basically a Tory' IIRC.
He probably would be LD now, though that's the Tories leaving him, not the other way round.
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.
Yes there is in England and Scotland.
Different legislation. Different terminology. For instance, 'assault and battery' (your wording) doesn't exist in Scotland, and neither does GBH.
Assault is illegal in Scotland, as is aggravated assault and reckless injury
But not UK law, which is what you said.
You want to be taken seriously: present accurate evidence. Not something made up on the spot to suit your views.
The point is throwing an egg at someone would be assault under the law of England or Scotland
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Isn't the state pension almost impossible to live off anyway?
IIRC, the state pension was introduced by Lloyd George with the enthusiastic support of Winston Churchill, back in the good old days when they were both members of the last Liberal Government.
But back to today's gloomy reality.... How much would one need to save up during a lifetime of work, in order to have enough for a "decent pension"?
How much would one need to put aside each year in order to have enough to fund such a pension?
And what happens to those who are not earning enough to do this?
Short snappy Tory answer.... Get a better job.... Become a rip-off investment banker like me. Yah!
A brief reminder of why pensions were introduced for those who DID manage to become rip-off investment bankers...
Given the coincident crises with housing and food, won't be long before we have cries to bring back the workhouse and the casual ward.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
By increasing the retirement age (it's 67 now and will be 68 soon?) they are doing this, albeit slowly. My headcanon says things will even out about 2040, but it is going to be skewed until then
I seem to recall some small discussion of this policy in France.
We've done the heavy lifting in terms of increasing retirement age.
IIRC we started addressing this one back when John Major was PM, and so now our expenditure on pensions is comparatively very low.
No need to flap.
Indeed. Hence the frank exchange of views, bordering on direct, in France.
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
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.
Yes there is in England and Scotland.
Different legislation. Different terminology. For instance, 'assault and battery' (your wording) doesn't exist in Scotland, and neither does GBH.
Assault is illegal in Scotland, as is aggravated assault and reckless injury
But not UK law, which is what you said.
You want to be taken seriously: present accurate evidence. Not something made up on the spot to suit your views.
The point is throwing an egg at someone would be assault under the law of England or Scotland
The point is that it is not an offence under "UK law" which is what you were talking about. The related offences in the different jurisdictions are quite different in their range and burden.
And - to sum up - neither gives special reference to whether the eggee is a Royal or not. So you are invoking a different law when it comes to 'treason', which makes a nonsense of your entire argument.
She’s reached a point where you can only fail upward.
That’s one of the defining characteristics of New Upper Ten Thousand Membership
The lady who led Rotherham Social Services got a better job in Australia, in child protection. More money. When it was suggested that she not be given a reference*, by the government, there was a push back at the “disgusting suggestion”.
*not just the legally required statement of dates worked. But one of those fulsome letters about how wonderful she was at her job.
The push for equality and diversity has shown that there are women and ethnic minorities who are every bit as incompetent and corrupt as their male, pale, and stale counterparts.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Isn't the state pension almost impossible to live off anyway?
IIRC, the state pension was introduced by Lloyd George with the enthusiastic support of Winston Churchill, back in the good old days when they were both members of the last Liberal Government.
But back to today's gloomy reality.... How much would one need to save up during a lifetime of work, in order to have enough for a "decent pension"?
How much would one need to put aside each year in order to have enough to fund such a pension?
And what happens to those who are not earning enough to do this?
Short snappy Tory answer.... Get a better job.... Become a rip-off investment banker like me. Yah!
check out the table for not including state pension. Take it away and you need a pension pot of about 340k to get 12.8k a year and a good portion of the country will amass well short of that
nteresting listening to Ken Clarke R4 this morning. He couldn’t understand why Blair was in the Labour Party. He also said that "if anyone else had won the election they would have repealed Thatcher’s legislation, but Blair was a Thatcherite. He’s in charge of Labour again now".
The established economic settlement is Thatcherite. The last time a party proposed moving on from Thatcherism to something more left wing they suffered their worst result since 1935.
I know how passionately you support that policy platform. Your challenge is getting sufficient voters also enthusiastic enough to vote for it. Yerman had a go and got demolished.
Parties win elections by selling hope for the future. If you can find a left leader with the charisma of Blair to offer people a dynamic vision for what your kind of politics would do for them, you could win. Until then, you lose. And when the choice is a centre left or centre right government, its only the people at the extremes of left and right who say "who cares, its all the same".
Keir Starmer has finally answered the impossible question: this morning he told Radio 5 Live’s Nicky Campbell a woman is “an adult female“. Having spent two years or so claiming “99.9%” of women don’t have a penis, he has now brushed up on his biology and come up with a definition. He also insisted Labour now don’t support trans self-identification – something he previously insisted he was committed to – and said he “disagreed” with Scottish Labour on their continued support of the policy. The highlight of the interview came when Nicky Campbell told Sir Keir he’d always “struggled” with the “penis question”. Not anymore…
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
By increasing the retirement age (it's 67 now and will be 68 soon?) they are doing this, albeit slowly. My headcanon says things will even out about 2040, but it is going to be skewed until then
nteresting listening to Ken Clarke R4 this morning. He couldn’t understand why Blair was in the Labour Party. He also said that "if anyone else had won the election they would have repealed Thatcher’s legislation, but Blair was a Thatcherite. He’s in charge of Labour again now".
Ken Clarke would be a LD now
Ken Clarke is a Tory. The only reason you want to paint him as a Liberal is because whatever you and yours are, it isn't Conservative.
O/T Does anyone else find the new twitter logo a bit disturbing?
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
Everything is pseudo-fascist these days to the point where nothing is, except those who actually are (like Putin and Xi) to which the same loudmouths wouldn't dream of ascribing the label.
Musk seems to look fairly favourably on both of them, and the platform is certainly a willing host for Putin's propaganda - so your point isn't really a rebuttal. Putin could certainly be described as a fascist. Xi is arguably a different type of authoritarian, though no better.
A former trainee psychologist writes, on the former-Twitter's X logo, that it is all straight lines and angles; there are no curves. This makes it seem hard, even harsh, and objective rather than soft and fluffy and sociable. Elon Musk is taking the social out of social media.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
It's sort of being phased out with the age increases.
No, because age increases have not remotely kept pace with increases in life expectancy over recent decades. It's not being phased out in this way - just prevented from becoming completely unaffordable.
nteresting listening to Ken Clarke R4 this morning. He couldn’t understand why Blair was in the Labour Party. He also said that "if anyone else had won the election they would have repealed Thatcher’s legislation, but Blair was a Thatcherite. He’s in charge of Labour again now".
Ken Clarke would be a LD now
Ken Clarke is a Tory. The only reason you want to paint him as a Liberal is because whatever you and yours are, it isn't Conservative.
I commented yesterday that Labour have been able to colonize the centre ground (much to @bigjohnowls annoyance) because the Tory party have become UKIP in all but name...
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Rob the pensioners so you can have tax cuts? A truly Victorian policy.
Pensions were introduced because not everyone can save for retirement
Poors house and Children up chimneys and my bingo line is complete
WRT Spain, I don't see how it advantages PSOE to cling on to government, with the backing of some pretty unpleasant people, when, despite doing better than expected, the results show quite a big swing against the left.
If Ted Heath, or Gordon Brown had managed to cobble together a coalition in 1974 or 2010, they'd have been at the mercy of any MP with a grudge, and would have finished up going down to a bad defeat.
O/T Does anyone else find the new twitter logo a bit disturbing?
Pseudo-fascist symbolism imo.
Everything is pseudo-fascist these days to the point where nothing is, except those who actually are (like Putin and Xi) to which the same loudmouths wouldn't dream of ascribing the label.
Musk seems to look fairly favourably on both of them, and the platform is certainly a willing host for Putin's propaganda - so your point isn't really a rebuttal. Putin could certainly be described as a fascist. Xi is arguably a different type of authoritarian, though no better.
A former trainee psychologist writes, on the former-Twitter's X logo, that it is all straight lines and angles; there are no curves. This makes it seem hard, even harsh, and objective rather than soft and fluffy and sociable. Elon Musk is taking the social out of social media.
He's also picked a brandname (X) that is a trademark owned by Microsoft and Meta who between them have registered it for every area Musk wishes to extend Twitter into....
They need to pivot up the productivity ladder. This means an institutional change - previously, private companies were…. encouraged… not to automate. Lots of cheap jobs was the policy.
Sure. Just as in other Asian countries as they developed their economies. Point is that fluctuating labour market supply isn't really a long term determinant of productive capital investment.
nteresting listening to Ken Clarke R4 this morning. He couldn’t understand why Blair was in the Labour Party. He also said that "if anyone else had won the election they would have repealed Thatcher’s legislation, but Blair was a Thatcherite. He’s in charge of Labour again now".
Two obvious points arise. One; if you are Blair (or any sub for him) and have stellar ambition to be PM, there are only two parties you can join, and they are both open to anything within the current Overton window (ignore rhetoric) and also open to the window being adjusted. So you take your pick according to the options at the time.
Two: terms like 'left' and 'right' on their own are no use at all in describing the state of play in UK politics, except as a disguise.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Isn't the state pension almost impossible to live off anyway?
IIRC, the state pension was introduced by Lloyd George with the enthusiastic support of Winston Churchill, back in the good old days when they were both members of the last Liberal Government.
But back to today's gloomy reality.... How much would one need to save up during a lifetime of work, in order to have enough for a "decent pension"?
How much would one need to put aside each year in order to have enough to fund such a pension?
And what happens to those who are not earning enough to do this?
Short snappy Tory answer.... Get a better job.... Become a rip-off investment banker like me. Yah!
A brief reminder of why pensions were introduced for those who DID manage to become rip-off investment bankers...
Back in the day, you were only expected to live for a couple of years after starting to receive the retirement pension, if you even lived long enough to claim it.
Labour once used to be a proud ally of LGBTQ people.
That is no longer true and it will be up to whoever replaces Keir Starmer to rebuild relationships with the LGBTQ community, because he can never be trusted on this, as so much else, ever again.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
That is probably the silliest assertion I have seen in a long while, over a 50year career at minimum wage which many will be on all their lives the value of their pension pot will buy an annuity south of 5k. I have worked all my life and not on min wage and I certainly would not be able to afford to live on my private pension. I doubt most in the bottom 70% could.
The rule of thumb is you can take 4-5% out of your pension pot capital value. So for an income of £20k you would need a pot of £800k to £1m. My private pension pot as a well paid private sector employee will be at best half that. I spotted the gap 20 years ago and had been saving an additional 10% of my income into an ISA, which in fact was performing better than my pension fund (tellingly) and would have been about enough to bridge the gap by 65. Unfortunately the ex-Mrs PJH has taken that and I'm back to square 1. But I would say that based on my experience at current prices starting now you need to save at least £10k a year for it to grow into a big enough pot over 40 years for a modestly comfortable lifestyle in retirement. And that assumes you own your own home outright by then.
You'd think someone earning that much would be good enough not to f*** things up. It's almost as if these salaries aren't actually justified by ability.
Comments
Unfortunately for whatshisface, there is a narrow belt of places where costs probably do outweigh the benefits and it is rational to dislike the scheme. And Uxbridge is slab bang in its middle.
Also unfortunately, the road network basically dictates that the zone boundary is either N/S Circular or the edge of Greater London/M25. Carving out Zone 6 would be popular but doesn't work. As for stuffing the mouths of complainants with gold (usual MO, I know), there's been a bit of a cockup on the good front.
So the options are status quo (which will... you know... kill people) or what's planned. But it is a time when someone on Team Sadiq needs to be a bit more bombastic.
So Hurley Burley has to ask those kind of questions to create clickbait material for Sky. Its crap journalism, but sadly this is what tabloid media has done to us.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp
Talk TV, that is even worse than GB News or Sky....I think even reading the Sun website is more informative on serious matters. I have no idea what Murdoch was thinking there.
Point 2: unlikely. Doing stuff directly for the Royal Family gets you a gong ending VO for Victorian Order, and hers isn't.
What this whole affair does show is there are some deeply stupid people commanding high salaries at banks and also at the BBC. I am alarmed and slightly envious.
Shows that the BBC business editor is also a moron that a) doesn't question that, b) doesn't think well seems like it could break GDPR*, c) the source can only be about 3-4 people and so running this story is going to drop my source right in it.
* especially as we all just had the Huw Edwards stuff about what is "in the public interest" vs "what the public is interested in".
I watched some Labour activist trying to explain it only affected 1 in 10 people. Unfortunately that 1 in 10 is most likely someone who has bought a fourth hand Fiesta for a couple of grand and cant afford to upgrade. Khan would have had more success if he had targeted drivers of 4 litre Range Rovers or BMW diesels. This is just yet another exercise in kicking the poor.
Is this a British thing, a Western thing, a general thing? I know for instance that it is that a lot of Japan's problem is put down to the fact you always pick the old bloke who has been a company man for senior management, hence silly things like fax machines etc still being in place as that is what they have always used.
Is this true in emerging markets? Or are they more dynamic / cut throat?
The lady who led Rotherham Social Services got a better job in Australia, in child protection. More money. When it was suggested that she not be given a reference*, by the government, there was a push back at the “disgusting suggestion”.
*not just the legally required statement of dates worked. But one of those fulsome letters about how wonderful she was at her job.
The difficult trick is to have systems, and a culture which preferentially rewards and retains the 5%.
"If you want to be comfy, just roll with the ship,
Don't stand like a fool with a stiff upper lip,
But learn from Theramanes, the shrewd politician,
To move with the times and improve your position".
So I think conformity rising in hierarchies is pretty much universal, and I was lucky to get that lesson fairly early!
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/
Remember also that some people have got the wrong end of the stick on things like how many cars are affected, what the scrappage scheme looks like and so on. Not their fault but it needs saying In part because of FUD from Khan's opponents. And in part because Khan is a wet blanket.
The reason we're talking about this is because Uxbridge was a by election at the exact moment and in the exact place where this was all most difficult.
Now down 170k compared to under Corbyn but fall seems to be slowing.
This is regressive. Fix it. There are a number of schemes around the world that could do this. Pick one. Implement.
If you actually target highest pollution vehicles with a finely calibrated system, you could go deeper into getting polluters off the road, faster.
Even after about 2050, when it will be 99% EV, you will need congestion charging.
A lot of these people went to private schools, of course, whose primary role is to instil confidence disproportionate to ability.
Consensus position:
👉No to self ID
👉There's a difference between sex & gender
👉Sex is what you are born with gender is how you identify
👉Does a woman have a penis? If talking about sex obviously not
Hallelujah!
https://twitter.com/cathydevine56/status/1684131954805944321?s=20
Good. Just leaves the SNP, Greens & LibDems semi-detatched from the population....
"Brains are bullshit." As my first CO used to say.
So all Khan has done is penalise a bunch of people with little ability to hit back in order to keep his core voters happy. The only big question is has he pushed it too far ?
Sunak is great and is doing a good job. I just think this is the wrong play, that's all.
Village Whatsapp group in meltdown.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
You want to be taken seriously: present accurate evidence. Not something made up on the spot to suit your views.
Pensions were introduced because not everyone can save for retirement
Putin could certainly be described as a fascist. Xi is arguably a different type of authoritarian, though no better.
But I'll go with, sounds quite a tail.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/X11.svg/480px-X11.svg.png
If Sunak is hoping to survive by pandering to climate change denialism in the London commuter belt, I think he has lost the plot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/25/china-economy-youth-unemployment-labor/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am9BqZ6eA5c
They need to pivot up the productivity ladder. This means an institutional change - previously, private companies were…. encouraged… not to automate. Lots of cheap jobs was the policy.
I also saw a young lad the other day that had a similar logo on the back of a T-shirt. It said "Experian" on it but their logo is very different.
I wonder if the Trade Mark lawyers will be on the case soon?
It was a salted peanut.
But back to today's gloomy reality.... How much would one need to save up during a lifetime of work, in order to have enough for a "decent pension"?
How much would one need to put aside each year in order to have enough to fund such a pension?
And what happens to those who are not earning enough to do this?
Short snappy Tory answer.... Get a better job.... Become a rip-off investment banker like me. Yah!
I'm 43 and personally comfortable with the fact that I'll be working till I'm at least 70, inshallah. The thought that I'm still less than halfway through my working life is kind of cheering. But then I quite enjoy my work. Being useful and active makes you healthier and earns you money, on the whole (there are definitely some jobs where this isn't appropriate of course).
I don't want to my generation to burden my kids, and their kids.
IIRC we started addressing this one back when John Major was PM, and so now our expenditure on pensions is comparatively very low.
No need to flap.
Good track that btw.
He probably would be LD now, though that's the Tories leaving him, not the other way round.
https://spitalfieldslife.com/2013/10/12/at-the-workhouse-on-cleveland-st/
And - to sum up - neither gives special reference to whether the eggee is a Royal or not. So you are invoking a different law when it comes to 'treason', which makes a nonsense of your entire argument.
check out the table for not including state pension. Take it away and you need a pension pot of about 340k to get 12.8k a year and a good portion of the country will amass well short of that
I know how passionately you support that policy platform. Your challenge is getting sufficient voters also enthusiastic enough to vote for it. Yerman had a go and got demolished.
Parties win elections by selling hope for the future. If you can find a left leader with the charisma of Blair to offer people a dynamic vision for what your kind of politics would do for them, you could win. Until then, you lose. And when the choice is a centre left or centre right government, its only the people at the extremes of left and right who say "who cares, its all the same".
https://order-order.com/2023/07/26/starmer-finally-defines-woman-backtracks-on-trans-self-identification/
SLAB are in a right old pickle....."right side of history" (sic) or "onside with voters" - as Starmer belatedly is....
https://www.computer-dictionary-online.org/definitions-x/x-window-system.html
A former trainee psychologist writes, on the former-Twitter's X logo, that it is all straight lines and angles; there are no curves. This makes it seem hard, even harsh, and objective rather than soft and fluffy and sociable. Elon Musk is taking the social out of social media.
EDIT Hawks over Wales as well.
If Ted Heath, or Gordon Brown had managed to cobble together a coalition in 1974 or 2010, they'd have been at the mercy of any MP with a grudge, and would have finished up going down to a bad defeat.
https://twitter.com/darrenpjones/status/1684096910863265792?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA
The whole thread is worth reading.
Just as in other Asian countries as they developed their economies.
Point is that fluctuating labour market supply isn't really a long term determinant of productive capital investment.
Two: terms like 'left' and 'right' on their own are no use at all in describing the state of play in UK politics, except as a disguise.
New thread
Labour once used to be a proud ally of LGBTQ people.
That is no longer true and it will be up to whoever replaces Keir Starmer to rebuild relationships with the LGBTQ community, because he can never be trusted on this, as so much else, ever again.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1684145818620633089?s=20