She has a point. Is it right to deprive someone of their entire livelihood on the basis of hearsay and anonymous allegations - made to the media not the police?
I suppose you could argue that Brand has the money to fight libel actions but it still doesn’t seem quite right
Maybe key word is 'suspends'?
@Cyclefree probably knows way more than us about this kind of corporate thing, but if there is some kind of allegation of a v serious nature in a workplace are people not sometimes 'suspended' pending an investigation?
Quite often, they are.
Tiger Woods lost zillions in sponsorships for behaviour which wasn’t on the level of Brands - cheating on his wife with various er… professionals, mainly.
And amateurs! Like the next door neighbour's daughter.
Yup.
So Brand has nothing to whine about. If you are in the entertainment business, your image can affect others. So it matters. “But it’s legal” doesn’t work for that.
Hang on. I get all this if Brand is found guilty of what he is being accused of. But Leon is right. At the moment he is being cancelled based on (very credible) accusations.
Suspending YouTube income if held for him to be repaid if he was shown not to be guilty seems okay. But scrubbing content from Channel 4 seems way out of line. And should we not give individuals the choice as to whether they want to spend money and time at his shows?
I think the man is a money-grabbing turd these days, but I think we play into the hands of those stoking a culture war by reacting this way.
ETA: just to be clear, I suspect the allegations are probably true and then most/all of these things should happen. But there needs to be a sequence to this stuff imo
Commercial telly is simple. If it isn't going to make money then they won't show it. If their judgement is that people won't want him broadcast then off he goes.
As for YuToob, it has a stack of policies and is already very good at suspending people and channels for no particular reason.
I'm not saying that I support taking away his voice, at least not at this point. But its difficult to force people to watch someone they no longer want to watch. Though surely if he has been "cancelled" by C4 and YuToob, he will be welcomed on GBeebies and given his own "Common Sense" show.
But it’s difficult to force people to watch… Unless I have misunderstood, no one is being forced to watch stuff - in the C4 case they’re being forced not to.
I do think Sir Norfolk Passmore makes a good point that the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ line doesn’t quite apply here. But I also think we cancel people, even moral turds, far too easily. At this stage of proceedings, if people still want to watch him on C4, I think they should be allowed to do so.
The fate of Brand, like others before him, is best thought of in the terms of living through a cultural revolution; a moment of total and complete reputation destruction of a figure associated with the old regime. It provides entertainment and moral direction for the masses. His legal fate is of minimal consequence, this is primarily an episode in the culture war.
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have 4 - glass goes in with the rest of the recycling.
Quite common from what I have seen.
It's startling how much local authorities vary in their approach. I had no idea any were as minimalist as Richmond but we have Fairliered's testimony.
Here in Redbridge we just have a wheelie bin and a recycling box.
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have 4 - glass goes in with the rest of the recycling.
I have 3
- Card and Paper - Other mixed recycling - Rubbish
No food caddy. I do have a compost bin in my garden I put my compost into instead.
Could pay for a garden bin, but don't bother. Composting it myself seems more sensible than paying the Council to do so.
Only issue with the compost is that its an underground one I dug and installed into my garden, I read that's a good idea as it attracts worms and improves the health of your garden . . . but my bin has been flooded for the last couple of weeks. The garden being waterlogged was an issue when we moved in, in December, which is part of the reason I dug a hole and installed the underground compost bin and I thought it might be an issue again in winter, but I wasn't expecting the garden to be waterlogged again already by the start of Autumn.
Been a very wet year it seems.
Not sure if any of the site's gardening fans have a suggestion.
She has a point. Is it right to deprive someone of their entire livelihood on the basis of hearsay and anonymous allegations - made to the media not the police?
I suppose you could argue that Brand has the money to fight libel actions but it still doesn’t seem quite right
Maybe key word is 'suspends'?
@Cyclefree probably knows way more than us about this kind of corporate thing, but if there is some kind of allegation of a v serious nature in a workplace are people not sometimes 'suspended' pending an investigation?
Quite often, they are.
Tiger Woods lost zillions in sponsorships for behaviour which wasn’t on the level of Brands - cheating on his wife with various er… professionals, mainly.
And amateurs! Like the next door neighbour's daughter.
Yup.
So Brand has nothing to whine about. If you are in the entertainment business, your image can affect others. So it matters. “But it’s legal” doesn’t work for that.
Hang on. I get all this if Brand is found guilty of what he is being accused of. But Leon is right. At the moment he is being cancelled based on (very credible) accusations.
Suspending YouTube income if held for him to be repaid if he was shown not to be guilty seems okay. But scrubbing content from Channel 4 seems way out of line. And should we not give individuals the choice as to whether they want to spend money and time at his shows?
I think the man is a money-grabbing turd these days, but I think we play into the hands of those stoking a culture war by reacting this way.
ETA: just to be clear, I suspect the allegations are probably true and then most/all of these things should happen. But there needs to be a sequence to this stuff imo
Commercial telly is simple. If it isn't going to make money then they won't show it. If their judgement is that people won't want him broadcast then off he goes.
As for YuToob, it has a stack of policies and is already very good at suspending people and channels for no particular reason.
I'm not saying that I support taking away his voice, at least not at this point. But its difficult to force people to watch someone they no longer want to watch. Though surely if he has been "cancelled" by C4 and YuToob, he will be welcomed on GBeebies and given his own "Common Sense" show.
But it’s difficult to force people to watch… Unless I have misunderstood, no one is being forced to watch stuff - in the C4 case they’re being forced not to.
I do think Sir Norfolk Passmore makes a good point that the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ line doesn’t quite apply here. But I also think we cancel people, even moral turds, far too easily. At this stage of proceedings, if people still want to watch him on C4, I think they should be allowed to do so.
Jim"ll Fix It on the iPlayer too? He was never convicted either.
Broadcasters can make decisions about what from their archives they make available, on what terms they want (subject to the Charter for Beeb) and how it reflects on them.
The copyright isn't Brand's as he presumably contracted it away for cash. The right to access the whole C4 archive for free isn't something we have ever enjoyed.
But there is obviously a good reason why Saville was never convicted, being dead.
There’s another reason why the parallel doesn’t work - to watch Saville with kids at this point would be horrendous given what we know about him. I also think it would be appropriate to cancel Tate, because much of what he talks about is closely linked to the reasons why he was arrested. But Brand’s comedy (or his conspiracy nonsense on YouTube) has nothing to do with whether he is a rapist or not.
Of course C4 is free to make this decision. But I think at this stage it is a poor, and damaging, decision.
Firstly, if you're playing your flawed version of "innocent until proven guilty" the fact Savile is dead makes no difference. It doesn't matter why the allegations were never tested in court - they weren't and he wasn't proven guilty in the sense of that phrase. I mean he was guilty - there is lots of credible evidence against him that many people chose to accept. As many do with Brand.
Secondly, by your argument, just put a warning before Jim'll Fix It saying "not suitable for children" as with other material. But that's not the point - the BBC don't show it (and nor do other broadcasters who may have rights to content) because people would think less of them if they did and it would damage their (for want of a better word) brand. The Channel 4 decision is wholly understandable, and it's their decision.
Thirdly, a huge amount of Brand's content is, in fact, about his libertine reputation and sexual experimentation. Responses to it are rather radically affected by the very strong likelihood he wasn't playing a part on stage, and indeed was toning it down, just as one cannot now look at Savile interacting with a child or speaking about his enigmatic persona without overlaying what you (with very good reason) believe about him.
I see getting rid of "green crap" is tonight's Sunak desperation bid.
Sunak takes aim at his second foot...
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl · Jul 26 The TL;DR Red Wall voters have high thread perception which shapes their attitudes to a huge range of issues, on climate change the threat of climate change -makes them among the most likely to support climate action and transition.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Why this animus against the Commonwealth? It's a voluntary club. Don't be a member if you don't want to. But interesting that Francophone nations have chosen to join it. I wonder why?
It's all about taking back control from their unelected rulers.
Just imagine if the EU sacked a UK Prime Minister in the way the Queen, via her Governor-General did with Gough Whitlam in Australia, something King Charles endorsed.
The Queen was perfectly correct in the Dismissal, in the same way that she would be correct to dismiss a PM in similar circumstances. This is one of those cases where the Westminster System worked correctly.
Why this animus against the Commonwealth? It's a voluntary club. Don't be a member if you don't want to. But interesting that Francophone nations have chosen to join it. I wonder why?
It's all about taking back control from their unelected rulers.
Just imagine if the EU sacked a UK Prime Minister in the way the Queen, via her Governor-General did with Gough Whitlam in Australia, something King Charles endorsed.
It's a family affair.
Don't forget Uncle Dickie was lined up to become titular Prime Minister when Wilson was due to be felled in a coup d'etat.
Democracy in action.
Our democracy has made an ass of itself. Cameron, Truss, Boris!, Lizaster, Dishi. But we have an elected system. When a party makes an ass of itself we can remove it.
What is democratic about the monarchy? Whilst the Queen dedicated her life to serving the country, she was imposed. And had she been awful we would have been stuck with her, decade after decade.
I recognise the Take Back Control rationale. And yet so many of the people who champion the principles of democracy and accountability are also wedded to the monarchy.
But if you elect a government committed to abolishing the monarchy, it will be abolished (and it would be much easier than leaving the EU), so that argument isn’t really valid.
Yes, voters could have voted for the republican Corbyn to be PM in 2017 and 2019 rather than the monarchist Tories but they didn't, now even Starmer backs keeping the monarchy.
Foot was a republican too in 1983 but was also trounced. Indeed Labour has had its heaviest defeats since WW2 under republican leaders
Ms Truss came a cropper too, though I think her republicanism was from before she became totally bonkers.
A republican was the last person to shake the Queen's hand?
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
Why this animus against the Commonwealth? It's a voluntary club. Don't be a member if you don't want to. But interesting that Francophone nations have chosen to join it. I wonder why?
It's all about taking back control from their unelected rulers.
Just imagine if the EU sacked a UK Prime Minister in the way the Queen, via her Governor-General did with Gough Whitlam in Australia, something King Charles endorsed.
It's a family affair.
Don't forget Uncle Dickie was lined up to become titular Prime Minister when Wilson was due to be felled in a coup d'etat.
Democracy in action.
Our democracy has made an ass of itself. Cameron, Truss, Boris!, Lizaster, Dishi. But we have an elected system. When a party makes an ass of itself we can remove it.
What is democratic about the monarchy? Whilst the Queen dedicated her life to serving the country, she was imposed. And had she been awful we would have been stuck with her, decade after decade.
I recognise the Take Back Control rationale. And yet so many of the people who champion the principles of democracy and accountability are also wedded to the monarchy.
Putin and Trump and Mugabe were elected Presidents, the Queen wasn't.
Having an elected President doesn't automatically make a great free democracy, indeed most of the dictators in the world today are in republics. Constitutional monarchies like the UK, New Zealand, Norway and Japan and the Netherlands and Canada however are amongst the most free and prosperous nations on earth
Most democracies in the world today are republics.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
She has a point. Is it right to deprive someone of their entire livelihood on the basis of hearsay and anonymous allegations - made to the media not the police?
I suppose you could argue that Brand has the money to fight libel actions but it still doesn’t seem quite right
Maybe key word is 'suspends'?
@Cyclefree probably knows way more than us about this kind of corporate thing, but if there is some kind of allegation of a v serious nature in a workplace are people not sometimes 'suspended' pending an investigation?
Quite often, they are.
Tiger Woods lost zillions in sponsorships for behaviour which wasn’t on the level of Brands - cheating on his wife with various er… professionals, mainly.
And amateurs! Like the next door neighbour's daughter.
Yup.
So Brand has nothing to whine about. If you are in the entertainment business, your image can affect others. So it matters. “But it’s legal” doesn’t work for that.
Hang on. I get all this if Brand is found guilty of what he is being accused of. But Leon is right. At the moment he is being cancelled based on (very credible) accusations.
Suspending YouTube income if held for him to be repaid if he was shown not to be guilty seems okay. But scrubbing content from Channel 4 seems way out of line. And should we not give individuals the choice as to whether they want to spend money and time at his shows?
I think the man is a money-grabbing turd these days, but I think we play into the hands of those stoking a culture war by reacting this way.
ETA: just to be clear, I suspect the allegations are probably true and then most/all of these things should happen. But there needs to be a sequence to this stuff imo
Commercial telly is simple. If it isn't going to make money then they won't show it. If their judgement is that people won't want him broadcast then off he goes.
As for YuToob, it has a stack of policies and is already very good at suspending people and channels for no particular reason.
I'm not saying that I support taking away his voice, at least not at this point. But its difficult to force people to watch someone they no longer want to watch. Though surely if he has been "cancelled" by C4 and YuToob, he will be welcomed on GBeebies and given his own "Common Sense" show.
But it’s difficult to force people to watch… Unless I have misunderstood, no one is being forced to watch stuff - in the C4 case they’re being forced not to.
I do think Sir Norfolk Passmore makes a good point that the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ line doesn’t quite apply here. But I also think we cancel people, even moral turds, far too easily. At this stage of proceedings, if people still want to watch him on C4, I think they should be allowed to do so.
Jim"ll Fix It on the iPlayer too? He was never convicted either.
Broadcasters can make decisions about what from their archives they make available, on what terms they want (subject to the Charter for Beeb) and how it reflects on them.
The copyright isn't Brand's as he presumably contracted it away for cash. The right to access the whole C4 archive for free isn't something we have ever enjoyed.
But there is obviously a good reason why Saville was never convicted, being dead.
There’s another reason why the parallel doesn’t work - to watch Saville with kids at this point would be horrendous given what we know about him. I also think it would be appropriate to cancel Tate, because much of what he talks about is closely linked to the reasons why he was arrested. But Brand’s comedy (or his conspiracy nonsense on YouTube) has nothing to do with whether he is a rapist or not.
Of course C4 is free to make this decision. But I think at this stage it is a poor, and damaging, decision.
Firstly, if you're playing your flawed version of "innocent until proven guilty" the fact Savile is dead makes no difference. It doesn't matter why the allegations were never tested in court - they weren't and he wasn't proven guilty in the sense of that phrase. I mean he was guilty - there is lots of credible evidence against him that many people chose to accept. As many do with Brand.
Secondly, by your argument, just put a warning before Jim'll Fix It saying "not suitable for children" as with other material. But that's not the point - the BBC don't show it (and nor do other broadcasters who may have rights to content) because people would think less of them if they did and it would damage their (for want of a better word) brand. The Channel 4 decision is wholly understandable, and it's their decision.
Thirdly, a huge amount of Brand's content is, in fact, about his libertine reputation and sexual experimentation. Responses to it are rather radically affected by the very strong likelihood he wasn't playing a part on stage, and indeed was toning it down, just as one cannot now look at Savile interacting with a child or speaking about his enigmatic persona without overlaying what you (with very good reason) believe about him.
Bed is calling but I just wanted to acknowledge your third point which I hadn’t realised - if his comedy is all about having sex as you say then I can see why it might need to be removed from C4 and others. I only know of his YouTube nonsense, and then only because an acquaintance kept sending it to me.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have 4 - glass goes in with the rest of the recycling.
Quite common from what I have seen.
It's startling how much local authorities vary in their approach. I had no idea any were as minimalist as Richmond but we have Fairliered's testimony.
Here in Redbridge we just have a wheelie bin and a recycling box.
A bin and a box- luxury!
Havering still runs on good old fashioned bin bags. Maybe the council are taking backhanders from foxes. Orange for paper/tins/plastic bottles, your own bags for everything else. And now the tetra pack bins have vanished from the local supermarket car parks.
In other news, haven't heard anything either way about Aklu Plaza. Bottom line is that it's always a shame when a business fails, even if it's not one you use personally. And there are already lots of empty shops around Romford Market, it will be a more than a shame if there's another one.
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have 4 - glass goes in with the rest of the recycling.
I have 3
- Card and Paper - Other mixed recycling - Rubbish
No food caddy. I do have a compost bin in my garden I put my compost into instead.
Could pay for a garden bin, but don't bother. Composting it myself seems more sensible than paying the Council to do so.
Only issue with the compost is that its an underground one I dug and installed into my garden, I read that's a good idea as it attracts worms and improves the health of your garden . . . but my bin has been flooded for the last couple of weeks. The garden being waterlogged was an issue when we moved in, in December, which is part of the reason I dug a hole and installed the underground compost bin and I thought it might be an issue again in winter, but I wasn't expecting the garden to be waterlogged again already by the start of Autumn.
Been a very wet year it seems.
Not sure if any of the site's gardening fans have a suggestion.
Weekly food caddy Fortnightly general waste Other fortnightly garden waste (annual fee), paper and card boxes, recycling (plastics and glass).
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have four bins. Garden and food waste - collected two weekly. Paper and card - collected three weekly. Metal, plastic and glass - collected three weekly. General waste - collected three weekly.
No extra charges levied. Compostable food caddy bags provided FOC. Our local authority is proud of its recycling figures, and rightly so!
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
I see getting rid of "green crap" is tonight's Sunak desperation bid.
It feels like a 'core vote' policy shift, except I think a lot of traditional Tories are very much in favour of decarbonisation and looking after the planet, so I'm not sure how big the 'core' he's after is.
And politically it's all too distant. No one is sat around worried about not being able to buy a brand new petrol car on 7 years' time. For anyone financially struggling you can add another 5-10 years' onto that for the age of car purchased, and that feels an age away.
Perhaps Sunak is just a bit crap at this politics business.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
He doesn't care. It is desperate bid to claw something back against a 20 point Lab lead by pandering to the ageing tory vote who can't understand why it is not 1953 anymore.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
There may be exceptions but the local elections in May mainly saw Tory controlled councils losing control to Nimby LDs and Independents and Greens in southern England because the Tory councils Local Plans were seen as building too many new flats and houses and not protecting the greenbelt enough
If Sunak does his big cutting the green crap speech this week it’ll be sensibly timed. Friday would be best: that will be the coolest day of the week and probably of the month. People won’t be feeling very climate changy.
Come next week we should be back into low to mid 20s by day again and we look on course to beat the record for warmest ever September in the Central England Temperature series. Possibly also beating June into warmest month of the year.
Later next week is also when a Cape Verde disturbance modelled to develop into a major hurricane looks on course to hit the Caribbean. The GFS model has it hitting the lesser Antilles, then Haiti, Cuba and finally the Bahamas.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
If he's against in favour of flatbuilding then fair enough.
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have four bins. Garden and food waste - collected two weekly. Paper and card - collected three weekly. Metal, plastic and glass - collected three weekly. General waste - collected three weekly.
No extra charges levied. Compostable food caddy bags provided FOC. Our local authority is proud of its recycling figures, and rightly so!
Apart from the basic merits of reuse and recycling of materials, it's the shortage of holes in the ground that makes recycling so sensible. There aren't nearly as many old quarries as there used to be - they have all been infilled, it sometimes seems. Indeed I believe that at least one major complex in the Home Counties makes more money from filling in the hole than in selling the rock it quarries to make the hole. This doesn't change whatever one thinks of net zero.
The former being one of the finest education establishments in Europe of course.
Notably since WW2 most winning Labour leaders have read law eg Attlee, Blair and we assume Starmer. Wilson was the exception who read PPE. Brown read history but did not win a general election
By contrast Tory PM election winners who went to university most commonly read PPE ie Heath and Cameron or classics ie Macmillan and Boris. Thatcher read chemistry (plus did a law conversion), May read Geography and Eden read Oriental languages. Home read history but like Brown did not win an election, Truss and Sunak also read PPE of course
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
He doesn't care. It is desperate bid to claw something back against a 20 point Lab lead by pandering to the ageing tory vote who can't understand why it is not 1953 anymore.
He doesn't even care about the red wall, as others have demonstrated.
He's targeting a core, reactionary group of older voters (unkindly known as gammons/karens by the yoof) in order to drive turnout and avoid a catastrophic Tory defeat.
The former being one of the finest education establishments in Europe of course.
Notably since WW2 most winning Labour leaders have read law eg Attlee, Blair and we assume Starmer. Wilson was the exception who read PPE. Brown read history but did not win a general election
By contrast Tory election winners who went to university most commonly read PPE ie Heath and Cameron or classics ie Macmillan and Boris. Thatcher read chemistry (plus did a law conversion), May read Geography and Eden read Oriental languages. Home read history but like Brown did not win an election, Truss and Sunak also read PPE of course
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
There may be exceptions but the local elections in May mainly saw Tory controlled councils losing control to Nimby LDs and Independents and Greens in southern England because the Tory councils Local Plans were seen as building too many new flats and houses and not protecting the greenbelt enough
The Tory Nimbys on Harborough council lost control in May with the LDs now the second largest group.
She has a point. Is it right to deprive someone of their entire livelihood on the basis of hearsay and anonymous allegations - made to the media not the police?
I suppose you could argue that Brand has the money to fight libel actions but it still doesn’t seem quite right
Following the universal rule that social media is getting worse in the 2020s, YouTube has become even more capricious and arbitrary over the past year or two. I posted the other day how many military enthusiasts and historians have set up their own platform (armchairhistory.tv?) to bypass YouTubes habit of demonetizing those with violent content, in the same way as the film/media crowd set up Nebula to get around fair use violations. The future for Brand and his cohort is to set up their own hosting website, a GBNews/YouTube hybrid where they can pontificate to their heart's content.
Weirdly, because you spend most of your time on Twitter and I live on YouTube, this might be the only time ever where I am ahead of the curve zeitgeist. Does the Knappers Gazette need a YouTube correspondent?
There are two problems here:
(1) Google monetizes better than anyone else, because they know everything about you.
(2) Google has a financial incentive to demonetize videos. Because you are still seeing adverts (at a rate of x per hour viewed), even if the creators aren't being rewarded for it.
It seems like the correct answer here is to allow advertisers to choose not to avoid controversial videos. Because competition to be shown alongside a video of a Bully XL ripping a human being to bits is going to be lower than for a Taylor Swift video, revenues would be more modest for those who produced controversial content. But it would also avoid people being "cut off at the knees".
I would suggest this is one of these times when Competition Authorities need to encourage behaviour change.
Which Competition Authorities would and could? Only the US and EU competition authorities have enough clout to make a difference?
The former being one of the finest education establishments in Europe of course.
Notably since WW2 most winning Labour leaders have read law eg Attlee, Blair and we assume Starmer. Wilson was the exception who read PPE. Brown read history but did not win a general election
By contrast Tory PM election winners who went to university most commonly read PPE ie Heath and Cameron or classics ie Macmillan and Boris. Thatcher read chemistry (plus did a law conversion), May read Geography and Eden read Oriental languages. Home read history but like Brown did not win an election, Truss and Sunak also read PPE of course
John Smith - who would have won - read history and law.
Ramsey McDonald studied botany and agriculture at Birbeck but failed to take the exams (wikipedia tells me - I didn;t know this one).
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
There may be exceptions but the local elections in May mainly saw Tory controlled councils losing control to Nimby LDs and Independents and Greens in southern England because the Tory councils Local Plans were seen as building too many new flats and houses and not protecting the greenbelt enough
The Tory Nimbys on Harborough council lost control in May with the LDs now the second largest group.
As I said there may be exceptions but here in Epping Forest the LDs fought hard on a Nimby agenda against Tory development plans at district level and on Epping Town council with Nimby Independents and that was the usual pattern.
See also Oxfordshire and Surrey where the LDs were relentless in their Focus leaflets in attacking Tory councils plans for new flats and new housing and the Tories lost control of most of their councils and see also Uttlesford where Independents/Residents have control on a Nimby platform
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
He doesn't care. It is desperate bid to claw something back against a 20 point Lab lead by pandering to the ageing tory vote who can't understand why it is not 1953 anymore.
He doesn't even care about the red wall, as others have demonstrated.
He's targeting a core, reactionary group of older voters (unkindly known as gammons/karens by the yoof) in order to drive turnout and avoid a catastrophic Tory defeat.
Yep.
This is die in the last ditch stuff.
In a sense it tonight's announcement is fantastic for Starmer.
It says that they know they have lost and it is about how very badly they lose now.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
He doesn't care. It is desperate bid to claw something back against a 20 point Lab lead by pandering to the ageing tory vote who can't understand why it is not 1953 anymore.
He doesn't even care about the red wall, as others have demonstrated.
He's targeting a core, reactionary group of older voters (unkindly known as gammons/karens by the yoof) in order to drive turnout and avoid a catastrophic Tory defeat.
Yep.
This is die in the last ditch stuff.
In a sense it tonight's announcement is fantastic for Starmer.
It says that they know they have lost and it is about how very badly they lose now.
It'll be interesting if Mr Sunak ditches his helicopter. I doubt now he will.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
There may be exceptions but the local elections in May mainly saw Tory controlled councils losing control to Nimby LDs and Independents and Greens in southern England because the Tory councils Local Plans were seen as building too many new flats and houses and not protecting the greenbelt enough
I was in Brentwood today - the High Street is a curiousity. One end seems to be struggling, the other seems to be doing quite well. Shades of Epping with a decent M&S and plenty of eatieries, charity shops and hairdressers but perhaps Brentwood needs a few more of Epping's quirkier shops.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
He doesn't care. It is desperate bid to claw something back against a 20 point Lab lead by pandering to the ageing tory vote who can't understand why it is not 1953 anymore.
He doesn't even care about the red wall, as others have demonstrated.
He's targeting a core, reactionary group of older voters (unkindly known as gammons/karens by the yoof) in order to drive turnout and avoid a catastrophic Tory defeat.
Yep.
This is die in the last ditch stuff.
In a sense it tonight's announcement is fantastic for Starmer.
It says that they know they have lost and it is about how very badly they lose now.
It'll be interesting if Mr Sunak ditches his helicopter. I doubt now he will.
That would cause a major emergency services response would it not?
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 57m It's intriguing that Sunak's announcement got leaked - and genuinely leaked given they were clearly taken by surprise. To date it's been a remarkably watertight No 10 operation.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
There may be exceptions but the local elections in May mainly saw Tory controlled councils losing control to Nimby LDs and Independents and Greens in southern England because the Tory councils Local Plans were seen as building too many new flats and houses and not protecting the greenbelt enough
I was in Brentwood today - the High Street is a curiousity. One end seems to be struggling, the other seems to be doing quite well. Shades of Epping with a decent M&S and plenty of eatieries, charity shops and hairdressers but perhaps Brentwood needs a few more of Epping's quirkier shops.
Indeed, though the most expensive parts of Brentwood district are actually villages like Ingatestone and Herongate and small towns like Shenfield rather than Brentwood town itself.
Brentwood also has almost 5 times the population of Epping
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
Exactly.
I mean what does it matter how strict the new homes energy policy is given that this government can't actually bloody build any new homes.
He is a better man than this which just shows the pressures of party and media politics on someone who is frankly inexperienced.
Maybe he’s not a better man . I think many were willing to give him a chance as he seemed the polar opposite to Johnson and were relieved when he took over. We’ve just got nasty , useless and spineless in a posh suit with a now very annoying over enthusiastic manner .
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 3h Be in no doubt @RishiSunak 's plan to weaken the Govt's commitment to Net Zero policies is the single most significant political decision of this year. Net Zero is a disaster for our economy, our security and our freedoms. Reality is winning.
Simon Clarke MP @SimonClarkeMP · 3h Our climate is changing dramatically. The UK has carved out a world-leading role delivering net zero in a market-friendly way that will deliver clean, secure energy and thousands of jobs in deprived communities like Teesside. My Red Wall constituents overwhelmingly support it.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
The 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date too.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 12m In today's poll from @DeltapollUK the Tories were on 5% for 18-24 year olds. And 18% for 25-54 year olds. Don't think this evening's announcements are going to help with that.
The net zero rumours are moving quickly tonight, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unusually jumping in to reiterate he is "committed to net zero".
It had been circulating that Mr Sunak could be planning on pushing back a ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035.
On this, the prime minister said: "No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change.
"As a first step, I'll be giving a speech this week to set out an important long-term decision we need to make so our country becomes the place I know we all want it to be for our children..."
"Our politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment."
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
The 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date too.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
Sunak has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons and it will be fascinating to see how this unfolds
The net zero rumours are moving quickly tonight, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unusually jumping in to reiterate he is "committed to net zero".
It had been circulating that Mr Sunak could be planning on pushing back a ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035.
On this, the prime minister said: "No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change.
"As a first step, I'll be giving a speech this week to set out an important long-term decision we need to make so our country becomes the place I know we all want it to be for our children..."
"Our politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment."
What utter drivel . And his last sentence is vomit inducing , he’s clearly putting short term interest first . The best thing Sunak can do for the country and its children is to fxck off back to California.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 12m In today's poll from @DeltapollUK the Tories were on 5% for 18-24 year olds. And 18% for 25-54 year olds. Don't think this evening's announcements are going to help with that.
It might if they drive a petrol car or live in a rural area reliant on oil boilers
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Slightly different bans.
The UK's 2030 is for pure petrol/diesel only; hybrids would still be allowed.
The EU's 2035 is for anything with a combustion engine, so includes hybrids.
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
The 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date too.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
Sure (I grew up with one). But only 5% of the population use them. That is not the vote share the Tories are looking for.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Slightly different bans.
The UK's 2030 is for pure petrol/diesel only; hybrids would still be allowed.
The EU's 2035 is for anything with a combustion engine, so includes hybrids.
So the EU will be selling ICE cars for 5 years more than the UK
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Slightly different bans.
The UK's 2030 is for pure petrol/diesel only; hybrids would still be allowed.
The EU's 2035 is for anything with a combustion engine, so includes hybrids.
Tory: We left EU to do our own thing and the massive single market next door to us makes not a jot of difference.
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
The 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date too.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
Sure (I grew up with one). But only 5% of the population use them. That is not the vote share the Tories are looking for.
It is, rural areas are the Conservative core vote and it is a big issue for them, it is not a big issue for the other 95%
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 12m In today's poll from @DeltapollUK the Tories were on 5% for 18-24 year olds. And 18% for 25-54 year olds. Don't think this evening's announcements are going to help with that.
It might if they drive a petrol car or live in a rural area reliant on oil boilers
The petrol car thing is about this mythical 18 year old buying a new petrol car, or not, in 7 years time.
How many 18 years olds are interested in what they will buy in 7 years?
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Slightly different bans.
The UK's 2030 is for pure petrol/diesel only; hybrids would still be allowed.
The EU's 2035 is for anything with a combustion engine, so includes hybrids.
Tory: We left EU to do our own thing and the massive single market next door to us makes not a jot of difference.
Also Tory: EU says 2035 - we should too.
Pathetic on stilts.
It will be hilarious to see the gymnastics performed as the Brexit cabal explain to us why we should be in tune with the EU .
The net zero rumours are moving quickly tonight, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unusually jumping in to reiterate he is "committed to net zero".
It had been circulating that Mr Sunak could be planning on pushing back a ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035.
On this, the prime minister said: "No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change.
"As a first step, I'll be giving a speech this week to set out an important long-term decision we need to make so our country becomes the place I know we all want it to be for our children..."
"Our politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment."
What utter drivel . And his last sentence is vomit inducing , he’s clearly putting short term interest first . The best thing Sunak can do for the country and its children is to fxck off back to California.
He has no clue. Or he does but aussie advisors are whispering crap in his ear.
The net zero rumours are moving quickly tonight, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unusually jumping in to reiterate he is "committed to net zero".
It had been circulating that Mr Sunak could be planning on pushing back a ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035.
On this, the prime minister said: "No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change.
"As a first step, I'll be giving a speech this week to set out an important long-term decision we need to make so our country becomes the place I know we all want it to be for our children..."
"Our politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment."
What utter drivel . And his last sentence is vomit inducing , he’s clearly putting short term interest first . The best thing Sunak can do for the country and its children is to fxck off back to California.
He has no clue. Or he does but aussie advisors are whispering crap in his ear.
Remind me how the last aussie election went?
The Coalition actually won most votes on first preferences even if they lost on 2PP
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Because car manufacturers are going to beat the 2030 deadline, some by several years.
This is anti-green posturing, with no basis in what is going on in the real world. You must be delighted.
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
The 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date too.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
Sunak has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons and it will be fascinating to see how this unfolds
Genuinely starting to think that Sunak could end up a bigger vote loser than Truss, and that bringing back Boris is maybe not completely nuts.
If the opposition have any sense they’ll tie Sunaks announcement to Truss who basically said the same thing in her speech. The public will surely think oh dear if it’s a Truss suggestion .
Comments
Pretty bloody sure Sunak told a newspaper this in an interview.
- Card and Paper
- Other mixed recycling
- Rubbish
No food caddy. I do have a compost bin in my garden I put my compost into instead.
Could pay for a garden bin, but don't bother. Composting it myself seems more sensible than paying the Council to do so.
Only issue with the compost is that its an underground one I dug and installed into my garden, I read that's a good idea as it attracts worms and improves the health of your garden . . . but my bin has been flooded for the last couple of weeks. The garden being waterlogged was an issue when we moved in, in December, which is part of the reason I dug a hole and installed the underground compost bin and I thought it might be an issue again in winter, but I wasn't expecting the garden to be waterlogged again already by the start of Autumn.
Been a very wet year it seems.
Not sure if any of the site's gardening fans have a suggestion.
@_SeanOGrady
The break with Cakeism. Historic.
https://twitter.com/_SeanOGrady
Secondly, by your argument, just put a warning before Jim'll Fix It saying "not suitable for children" as with other material. But that's not the point - the BBC don't show it (and nor do other broadcasters who may have rights to content) because people would think less of them if they did and it would damage their (for want of a better word) brand. The Channel 4 decision is wholly understandable, and it's their decision.
Thirdly, a huge amount of Brand's content is, in fact, about his libertine reputation and sexual experimentation. Responses to it are rather radically affected by the very strong likelihood he wasn't playing a part on stage, and indeed was toning it down, just as one cannot now look at Savile interacting with a child or speaking about his enigmatic persona without overlaying what you (with very good reason) believe about him.
Luke Tryl
@LukeTryl
·
Jul 26
The TL;DR Red Wall voters have high thread perception which shapes their attitudes to a huge range of issues, on climate change the threat of climate change -makes them among the most likely to support climate action and transition.
https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1684118582924279808
Uxbridge.
Irony lives.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
https://conservativehome.com/2023/09/19/simister-thomas-selected-for-south-norfolk-for-being-able-to-care-about-the-constituency-but-be-impressive-on-the-national-stage/
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Hope he loses his seat if that's his priority.
Havering still runs on good old fashioned bin bags. Maybe the council are taking backhanders from foxes. Orange for paper/tins/plastic bottles, your own bags for everything else. And now the tetra pack bins have vanished from the local supermarket car parks.
In other news, haven't heard anything either way about Aklu Plaza. Bottom line is that it's always a shame when a business fails, even if it's not one you use personally. And there are already lots of empty shops around Romford Market, it will be a more than a shame if there's another one.
Will this conveyor belt ever end?
Fortnightly general waste
Other fortnightly garden waste (annual fee), paper and card boxes, recycling (plastics and glass).
Garden and food waste - collected two weekly.
Paper and card - collected three weekly.
Metal, plastic and glass - collected three weekly.
General waste - collected three weekly.
No extra charges levied. Compostable food caddy bags provided FOC.
Our local authority is proud of its recycling figures, and rightly so!
@SamCoatesSky
·
1h
Lots of Whitehall blindsided tonight on the car element of the net zero package, and the timing.
Not least the UK delegation in New York for the climate events at UNGA
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1704224035821715651
https://www.harboroughmail.co.uk/news/people/harborough-area-mps-come-together-to-call-on-council-leader-to-scrap-plans-to-increase-housing-targets-for-the-town-4337375
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
And politically it's all too distant. No one is sat around worried about not being able to buy a brand new petrol car on 7 years' time. For anyone financially struggling you can add another 5-10 years' onto that for the age of car purchased, and that feels an age away.
Perhaps Sunak is just a bit crap at this politics business.
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23708129.tories-select-david-simister-thomas-norwich-south-seat/
Come next week we should be back into low to mid 20s by day again and we look on course to beat the record for warmest ever September in the Central England Temperature series. Possibly also beating June into warmest month of the year.
Later next week is also when a Cape Verde disturbance modelled to develop into a major hurricane looks on course to hit the Caribbean. The GFS model has it hitting the lesser Antilles, then Haiti, Cuba and finally the Bahamas.
By contrast Tory PM election winners who went to university most commonly read PPE ie Heath and Cameron or classics ie Macmillan and Boris. Thatcher read chemistry (plus did a law conversion), May read Geography and Eden read Oriental languages. Home read history but like Brown did not win an election, Truss and Sunak also read PPE of course
He's targeting a core, reactionary group of older voters (unkindly known as gammons/karens by the yoof) in order to drive turnout and avoid a catastrophic Tory defeat.
Ramsey McDonald studied botany and agriculture at Birbeck but failed to take the exams (wikipedia tells me - I didn;t know this one).
See also Oxfordshire and Surrey where the LDs were relentless in their Focus leaflets in attacking Tory councils plans for new flats and new housing and the Tories lost control of most of their councils and see also Uttlesford where Independents/Residents have control on a Nimby platform
Could only ever be a Tory candidate.
This is die in the last ditch stuff.
In a sense it tonight's announcement is fantastic for Starmer.
It says that they know they have lost and it is about how very badly they lose now.
https://youtu.be/OKuHYO9TM5A?feature=shared
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
57m
It's intriguing that Sunak's announcement got leaked - and genuinely leaked given they were clearly taken by surprise. To date it's been a remarkably watertight No 10 operation.
His memoirs will have to try and explain it away.
He is a better man than this which just shows the pressures of party and media politics on someone who is frankly inexperienced.
Brentwood also has almost 5 times the population of Epping
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
He is just using Johnson's random policy generator.
I mean what does it matter how strict the new homes energy policy is given that this government can't actually bloody build any new homes.
Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
·
3h
Be in no doubt
@RishiSunak
's plan to weaken the Govt's commitment to Net Zero policies is the single most significant political decision of this year.
Net Zero is a disaster for our economy, our security and our freedoms. Reality is winning.
Simon Clarke MP
@SimonClarkeMP
·
3h
Our climate is changing dramatically. The UK has carved out a world-leading role delivering net zero in a market-friendly way that will deliver clean, secure energy and thousands of jobs in deprived communities like Teesside. My Red Wall constituents overwhelmingly support it.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
@Samfr
·
12m
In today's poll from
@DeltapollUK
the Tories were on 5% for 18-24 year olds. And 18% for 25-54 year olds. Don't think this evening's announcements are going to help with that.
The net zero rumours are moving quickly tonight, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unusually jumping in to reiterate he is "committed to net zero".
It had been circulating that Mr Sunak could be planning on pushing back a ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035.
On this, the prime minister said: "No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change.
"As a first step, I'll be giving a speech this week to set out an important long-term decision we need to make so our country becomes the place I know we all want it to be for our children..."
"Our politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment."
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-nhs-doctors-strike-as-ministers-consider-extending-strikes-law-starmer-to-meet-macron-in-paris-12593360?postid=6459677#liveblog-body
"Post Office auditor let false information go into her High Court statement"
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/post-office-auditor/
@PickardJE
·
19m
is he really suggesting that delaying green reforms will make Britain a better place “for our children”?
https://nitter.net/thomasknox/status/1701867275052020124#m
Yes, Cones Hotline Director’s Cut it is. I had a grim moment of clarity in that regard this afternoon.
Sunak has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons and it will be fascinating to see how this unfolds
Not for the feint hearted conservatives I believe
The UK's 2030 is for pure petrol/diesel only; hybrids would still be allowed.
The EU's 2035 is for anything with a combustion engine, so includes hybrids.
To me that doesn't make sense
Also Tory: EU says 2035 - we should too.
Pathetic on stilts.
How many 18 years olds are interested in what they will buy in 7 years?
Remind me how the last aussie election went?
This is anti-green posturing, with no basis in what is going on in the real world. You must be delighted.
Most of us have had multiple bins for at least that last ten years or more.