Unlike Cromer, Sheringham is a really nice resort. I'm off there this weekend, and will make sure I buy some extra bagels whilst there.
Sheringham is indeed pleasant, with more than an element of Walmington on Sea about it. It's no surprise they decided to have a 1940s festival as it's very on brand... as is the fact they commendably did a Captain Mainwaring on the idiots who tried to spoil it.
Cromer, like many seaside towns around the UK, jumped all in on the mass holiday resort bandwagon, got absolutely hammered when the package holiday came in, and has never really recovered. Sheringham has always had a tourist trade, but smaller scale and sold as more genteel, so they weren't hit nearly as hard.
Funny word genteel, only seen in one context which is classy old resorts.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The Constitutional protection around free speech applies to government action. It has no impact on what a social media company can do. It does not apply to the actions of Rumble. Rumble routinely blocks material from its platform.
BOE interest rate decision today and most commentators do not know if another increase will happen
I hope I'm wrong but despite inflation coming down I think there will be another rise.
Seems the decision is on a knife edge
I think there will be a vote for a rate rise but it won't be 7-2. 5-4 I think. Could be worth a final rise just to suffocate the UK economy the current inflation.
I think we need to shoot every dog in the country.
Driver rams dog with car to stop attack
A driver used his car to ram a mastiff-type dog as it attacked a dog walker and dragged him into the road.
Video showed the man being set upon by a large brown dog next to a busy road in Sheffield while he held on to his smaller pet, trying to keep it out of reach. As the dog tried to pull him into the road, a passing motorist mounted the pavement and struck the animal with the car bonnet.
Armed police were called to the Handsworth area on Tuesday and eventually managed to restrain the dog and seize it. The man was left with serious injuries to his arm and was taken to hospital. South Yorkshire police said that a 53-year-old man from the city had been arrested on suspicion of having a dangerous dog out of control and remained in custody.
The dog was believed to live at a nearby property and is said to have jumped over a wall before pouncing on the passer-by.
Unlike Cromer, Sheringham is a really nice resort. I'm off there this weekend, and will make sure I buy some extra bagels whilst there.
Sheringham is indeed pleasant, with more than an element of Walmington on Sea about it. It's no surprise they decided to have a 1940s festival as it's very on brand... as is the fact they commendably did a Captain Mainwaring on the idiots who tried to spoil it.
Cromer, like many seaside towns around the UK, jumped all in on the mass holiday resort bandwagon, got absolutely hammered when the package holiday came in, and has never really recovered. Sheringham has always had a tourist trade, but smaller scale and sold as more genteel, so they weren't hit nearly as hard.
Sheringham is also at one end of the North Norfolk Railway. That's the main reason I went there, but found the town very pleasant. Holt, at the other end of the railway, is also worth a visit.
Also, there's a lot of confected outrage about this - the EU adopted a similar 2035 target six months ago and voices were rather quieter about that.
I suspect there is a rationale in simply not putting the UK at a comparative disadvantage. HMG will have access to investment data.
I went back to the time the EU announced that, your fellow Brexiteers on here were extolling the decision as a Brexit benefit giving the UK a competitive advantage over the sclerotic EU.
But I am glad you are seeing the wisdom of aligning ourselves with the EU, you'll be campaigning for Rejoin in the next referendum, mark my words.
On the flip side it's amusing how it's remainers in the main that are frothing at the mouth over EU alignment on environment policy
I shall admit I don't have the technical or industry knowledge to really know whether 2030 or 2035 is a good thing or not. I suspect it makes less difference to both household finances and the environment than either "side" would like to admit.
In terms of politics however, it is a massive sign of weakness to do this two days after your laughing stock predecessor insists you do it.
And in terms of UK investment and preventing our managed decline, it is a massive error and another sign of weakness to commit to a major car manufacturer on a long term framework one week and then u-turn straight away.
There are few votes for investment in this country.
What people want are more handouts and lower prices.
With smaller, more fanatical, groups who want ever higher NHS spending and ever higher house prices.
The current UK market share of 100% ICE passenger cars is now 40%.
Does anybody want to hazard a guess at what it will be in 7 years?
This measure makes Sunak look like a fucking idiot to everbody except those who didn't understand the policy in the first place. Which I suppose is the point.
The UK share of ICE-only cars is 40%?
That means there’s 16m ICE-only cars, and 24m hybrid and electric cars?
Or do you mean the share of *NEW* ICE-only cars is only 40%?
August from the SMMT:
So conventionally fueled vehicles are already less than half the market, and shrinking.
Though as I understood it is only EV and PHEV vehicles that were exempt from the 2030 ban, not all hybrids, so 27.8% of August sales meet the old 2030 target.
It is true that conventionally fueled vehicles are less than half the market and shrinking, but private buyers are still reluctant to make the switch. The growth in non-ICE cars is driven by fleet sales. Also, as you say, it isn't just ICE cars that would be banned. New cars that meet the target are a minority of sales.
You make an interesting point that EV sales are being driven by fleet sales
Do you know the percentage v private sales?
Apparently 66.7% ev sales were fleet as of Jan 23
Presumably these will all cascade into the second hand market over the next 3 years.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Even the BBC keeps making that mistake, and the local Facebook groups are riddled with it.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
Remember how I talk about how the Tories have weaponised stupidity and ignorance...?
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Why bother with elections then? Just let you and your friends run the country as you see fit? After all you are far smarter than the rest of us!
Someone has a fragile ego today. No, democracy is the least bad system of government. But countries that keep making dumb decisions get poorer and more chaotic, and skilled people with an outside option leave to raise their families somewhere else. This is just a fact, it has happened elsewhere and will happen here too. Anecdotally it probably already is.
I think we need to shoot every dog in the country.
Driver rams dog with car to stop attack
A driver used his car to ram a mastiff-type dog as it attacked a dog walker and dragged him into the road.
Video showed the man being set upon by a large brown dog next to a busy road in Sheffield while he held on to his smaller pet, trying to keep it out of reach. As the dog tried to pull him into the road, a passing motorist mounted the pavement and struck the animal with the car bonnet.
Armed police were called to the Handsworth area on Tuesday and eventually managed to restrain the dog and seize it. The man was left with serious injuries to his arm and was taken to hospital. South Yorkshire police said that a 53-year-old man from the city had been arrested on suspicion of having a dangerous dog out of control and remained in custody.
The dog was believed to live at a nearby property and is said to have jumped over a wall before pouncing on the passer-by.
Also, there's a lot of confected outrage about this - the EU adopted a similar 2035 target six months ago and voices were rather quieter about that.
I suspect there is a rationale in simply not putting the UK at a comparative disadvantage. HMG will have access to investment data.
I went back to the time the EU announced that, your fellow Brexiteers on here were extolling the decision as a Brexit benefit giving the UK a competitive advantage over the sclerotic EU.
But I am glad you are seeing the wisdom of aligning ourselves with the EU, you'll be campaigning for Rejoin in the next referendum, mark my words.
On the flip side it's amusing how it's remainers in the main that are frothing at the mouth over EU alignment on environment policy
I shall admit I don't have the technical or industry knowledge to really know whether 2030 or 2035 is a good thing or not. I suspect it makes less difference to both household finances and the environment than either "side" would like to admit.
In terms of politics however, it is a massive sign of weakness to do this two days after your laughing stock predecessor insists you do it.
And in terms of UK investment and preventing our managed decline, it is a massive error and another sign of weakness to commit to a major car manufacturer on a long term framework one week and then u-turn straight away.
There are few votes for investment in this country.
What people want are more handouts and lower prices.
With smaller, more fanatical, groups who want ever higher NHS spending and ever higher house prices.
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
Yes, it was a disgrace. He's utterly trashed every notion of how someone in his role should behave, both during and after.
You were advocating for free speech and railing against cancel culture only the other day.
Now you're condemning someone who is objectively well qualified to express a view on economic policy for doing so, more than three years after he ceased to be Governor of the Bank of England.
I am not in favour of taking away Mark Carney's right to free speech, just happily exercising mine, to say he's a disgrace, not to mention a rancid hypocrite given that his grotesque mishandling of monetary policy during his tenure did far more damage to the UK economy than the misfiring minibudget could dream of. His was a disastrous appointment - a lesson in what getting one of these global conveyor belt people to do a job like that will result in. Absolute loyalty to a global agenda, zero loyalty to the role or the country.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The Constitutional protection around free speech applies to government action. It has no impact on what a social media company can do. It does not apply to the actions of Rumble. Rumble routinely blocks material from its platform.
Yes, if it breaks their policies they're within their rights to act.
They're also within their rights to tell a politician who while acting in an official capacity as a politician insists that speech gets taken down, that the first amendment applies.
Charles might have been able to pour some oil on troubled waters here, sadly he's poncing about in France with his overlarge binbag looking evening trousers. Camilla looked nice though.
Also, there's a lot of confected outrage about this - the EU adopted a similar 2035 target six months ago and voices were rather quieter about that.
I suspect there is a rationale in simply not putting the UK at a comparative disadvantage. HMG will have access to investment data.
I went back to the time the EU announced that, your fellow Brexiteers on here were extolling the decision as a Brexit benefit giving the UK a competitive advantage over the sclerotic EU.
But I am glad you are seeing the wisdom of aligning ourselves with the EU, you'll be campaigning for Rejoin in the next referendum, mark my words.
On the flip side it's amusing how it's remainers in the main that are frothing at the mouth over EU alignment on environment policy
I shall admit I don't have the technical or industry knowledge to really know whether 2030 or 2035 is a good thing or not. I suspect it makes less difference to both household finances and the environment than either "side" would like to admit.
In terms of politics however, it is a massive sign of weakness to do this two days after your laughing stock predecessor insists you do it.
And in terms of UK investment and preventing our managed decline, it is a massive error and another sign of weakness to commit to a major car manufacturer on a long term framework one week and then u-turn straight away.
There are few votes for investment in this country.
What people want are more handouts and lower prices.
With smaller, more fanatical, groups who want ever higher NHS spending and ever higher house prices.
Polling says otherwise.
Talk is easy.
Reality is different.
People only want higher taxes and lower spending when it affects 'people like them'.
How odd. They specifically seem to be Waffen-SS (or worse) rather than the Wehrmacht, too, with the Reich eagle on the left arm, and what looks like the lightning runes on the collar patch and skull on the cap (clearly so in some cases). So the report by the LBC and BBC of SS outfits is quite right. Also see this.
What is also odd is that the ORs seem to be in late war ankle boots and gaiters.
Surprising choice all round when they have the Wehrmacht option if it's just the Stahlhelm, jackboot and Schmeisser MP40 look they want.
I love the fact that they were escorted out of town by a few marshalls and a car. If only WW2 had been resolved this easily. The whole episode has a kind of Dad's Army quality to it. Vot is your name? Don't tell him, Pike...
India suspending grant of visas to Canadians. Oof.
Has Modi actually started assassinating his enemies in NATO countries? Anyone looked into this? I mean, I guess he would if he thought he could get away with it, and it would be following his role model Putin, but seems a bit of a risky step to take - unless he's got an agreement with China up his sleeve.
Also, there's a lot of confected outrage about this - the EU adopted a similar 2035 target six months ago and voices were rather quieter about that.
I suspect there is a rationale in simply not putting the UK at a comparative disadvantage. HMG will have access to investment data.
I went back to the time the EU announced that, your fellow Brexiteers on here were extolling the decision as a Brexit benefit giving the UK a competitive advantage over the sclerotic EU.
But I am glad you are seeing the wisdom of aligning ourselves with the EU, you'll be campaigning for Rejoin in the next referendum, mark my words.
On the flip side it's amusing how it's remainers in the main that are frothing at the mouth over EU alignment on environment policy
I shall admit I don't have the technical or industry knowledge to really know whether 2030 or 2035 is a good thing or not. I suspect it makes less difference to both household finances and the environment than either "side" would like to admit.
In terms of politics however, it is a massive sign of weakness to do this two days after your laughing stock predecessor insists you do it.
And in terms of UK investment and preventing our managed decline, it is a massive error and another sign of weakness to commit to a major car manufacturer on a long term framework one week and then u-turn straight away.
There are few votes for investment in this country.
What people want are more handouts and lower prices.
With smaller, more fanatical, groups who want ever higher NHS spending and ever higher house prices.
Even if we are not going to do much investment, doing limited investment consistently is still miles better than limited investment inconsistently. This week alone alongside this car manufacturing u-turn we also hear yet more flip flopping and weak uncertainty on HS2. Regardless of the rights and wrongs on these issues, we need to learn to stick to our decisions more often and u-turn as exceptions rather than the norm.
Also, there's a lot of confected outrage about this - the EU adopted a similar 2035 target six months ago and voices were rather quieter about that.
I suspect there is a rationale in simply not putting the UK at a comparative disadvantage. HMG will have access to investment data.
I went back to the time the EU announced that, your fellow Brexiteers on here were extolling the decision as a Brexit benefit giving the UK a competitive advantage over the sclerotic EU.
But I am glad you are seeing the wisdom of aligning ourselves with the EU, you'll be campaigning for Rejoin in the next referendum, mark my words.
On the flip side it's amusing how it's remainers in the main that are frothing at the mouth over EU alignment on environment policy
I shall admit I don't have the technical or industry knowledge to really know whether 2030 or 2035 is a good thing or not. I suspect it makes less difference to both household finances and the environment than either "side" would like to admit.
In terms of politics however, it is a massive sign of weakness to do this two days after your laughing stock predecessor insists you do it.
And in terms of UK investment and preventing our managed decline, it is a massive error and another sign of weakness to commit to a major car manufacturer on a long term framework one week and then u-turn straight away.
There are few votes for investment in this country.
What people want are more handouts and lower prices.
With smaller, more fanatical, groups who want ever higher NHS spending and ever higher house prices.
India suspending grant of visas to Canadians. Oof.
Has Modi actually started assassinating his enemies in NATO countries? Anyone looked into this? I mean, I guess he would if he thought he could get away with it, and it would be following his role model Putin, but seems a bit of a risky step to take - unless he's got an agreement with China up his sleeve.
It's obviously extremely bad if India is doing this, but if they are, it also seems extremely odd for thr Canadian authorities to air their suspicions publicly? Since when was this a thing?
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
I think we need to shoot every dog in the country.
Driver rams dog with car to stop attack
A driver used his car to ram a mastiff-type dog as it attacked a dog walker and dragged him into the road.
Video showed the man being set upon by a large brown dog next to a busy road in Sheffield while he held on to his smaller pet, trying to keep it out of reach. As the dog tried to pull him into the road, a passing motorist mounted the pavement and struck the animal with the car bonnet.
Armed police were called to the Handsworth area on Tuesday and eventually managed to restrain the dog and seize it. The man was left with serious injuries to his arm and was taken to hospital. South Yorkshire police said that a 53-year-old man from the city had been arrested on suspicion of having a dangerous dog out of control and remained in custody.
The dog was believed to live at a nearby property and is said to have jumped over a wall before pouncing on the passer-by.
Also, there's a lot of confected outrage about this - the EU adopted a similar 2035 target six months ago and voices were rather quieter about that.
I suspect there is a rationale in simply not putting the UK at a comparative disadvantage. HMG will have access to investment data.
I went back to the time the EU announced that, your fellow Brexiteers on here were extolling the decision as a Brexit benefit giving the UK a competitive advantage over the sclerotic EU.
But I am glad you are seeing the wisdom of aligning ourselves with the EU, you'll be campaigning for Rejoin in the next referendum, mark my words.
On the flip side it's amusing how it's remainers in the main that are frothing at the mouth over EU alignment on environment policy
I shall admit I don't have the technical or industry knowledge to really know whether 2030 or 2035 is a good thing or not. I suspect it makes less difference to both household finances and the environment than either "side" would like to admit.
In terms of politics however, it is a massive sign of weakness to do this two days after your laughing stock predecessor insists you do it.
And in terms of UK investment and preventing our managed decline, it is a massive error and another sign of weakness to commit to a major car manufacturer on a long term framework one week and then u-turn straight away.
There are few votes for investment in this country.
What people want are more handouts and lower prices.
With smaller, more fanatical, groups who want ever higher NHS spending and ever higher house prices.
Even if we are not going to do much investment, doing limited investment consistently is still miles better than limited investment inconsistently. This week alone alongside this car manufacturing u-turn we also hear yet more flip flopping and weak uncertainty on HS2. Regardless of the rights and wrongs on these issues, we need to learn to stick to our decisions more often and u-turn as exceptions rather than the norm.
Fair point.
But there's also the issue of 'throwing good money after bad' and reinforcing failure.
My suggestion would be for governments to minimise grandiloquent mega strategies and 'world beating' vanity projects and instead operate at a scale that can effectively applied.
In this country thinking big seems always to be followed by implemented badly.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Yes, it seems like an idea Macron has been pushing for quite a while and is little different to Cameron's failed "renegotiation" before the Brexit referendum.
Four simple questions on associate membership proposals.
1: Will associate members be able to diverge on laws or standards, set their own laws or standards via their own Parliament that might differ from the EU's? Or will EU laws apply?
2: Will associate members be able to sign their own customs agreements with third parties? Or will EU customs apply?
3: What will associate members membership fees be?
4: Will associate members be able to set their own policies with regards to immigration from the rest of the EU? Or will EU free movement apply?
Sovereignty, laws, trade, money and borders. Those are the issues we debated in 2016 and ever since ad nauseum, what will associate membership if it becomes an option change? If nothing, then its just another name for the same thing. If its meaningful, lets hear it.
Charles might have been able to pour some oil on troubled waters here, sadly he's poncing about in France with his overlarge binbag looking evening trousers. Camilla looked nice though.
No he couldn’t, it is a row between Modi and Sikhs Trudeau is supporting.
India is not a Commonwealth realm and the King is sensibly staying out of it and building bridges with Macron and the French instead
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
India suspending grant of visas to Canadians. Oof.
Has Modi actually started assassinating his enemies in NATO countries? Anyone looked into this? I mean, I guess he would if he thought he could get away with it, and it would be following his role model Putin, but seems a bit of a risky step to take - unless he's got an agreement with China up his sleeve.
It's obviously extremely bad if India is doing this, but if they are, it also seems extremely odd for thr Canadian authorities to air their suspicions publicly? Since when was this a thing?
Particularly as both are Commonwealth countries and therefore have more established diplomatic channels to use.
BOE interest rate decision today and most commentators do not know if another increase will happen
I hope I'm wrong but despite inflation coming down I think there will be another rise.
I think so. Having been slow to get hiking they will probably now strain the other way. It's human nature. Also the reputational risk calculus is skewed in that direction. Their mission in life is getting inflation down. If they keep hiking and it comes down but at a bigger than necessary price, so what? You can't prove that cause & effect and in any case they're only doing their job. No big problem (for them) there. But if they under-hike and inflation pops up again? Then they'll look like a bunch of charlies and get some serious stick. "You have one job, one job, and yet again you've managed to fail to do it" (people will say). That most of these 'people' won't have much of a clue what they're talking about is neither here nor there. The BoE's rep will be further tarnished.
So, yep, I'll be surprised and impressed if they don't hike again today.
Also, there's a lot of confected outrage about this - the EU adopted a similar 2035 target six months ago and voices were rather quieter about that.
I suspect there is a rationale in simply not putting the UK at a comparative disadvantage. HMG will have access to investment data.
I went back to the time the EU announced that, your fellow Brexiteers on here were extolling the decision as a Brexit benefit giving the UK a competitive advantage over the sclerotic EU.
But I am glad you are seeing the wisdom of aligning ourselves with the EU, you'll be campaigning for Rejoin in the next referendum, mark my words.
On the flip side it's amusing how it's remainers in the main that are frothing at the mouth over EU alignment on environment policy
Zac Goldsmith is a Remainer?
No, but he's good err friends with Bojo's missed who clearly steered Boris on his outlook/policy decisions on this.
I'm no fan of Goldsmith for various reasons, and he has other reasons than his principles for trying to undermine Sunak. But I think, in fairness, that his environmentalist credentials long predate his acquaintance with Carrie Johnson and that his annoyance at the watering down of policies that he certainly advocated for when in Government is genuine. Alok Sharma too has been critical, in his slightly more measured way, due to the feeling it undemines what he was about in office.
Agreed. He's an environmentalist first and a Tory second, and there is a point (possibly already reached) when the latter will cease to apply.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
So, just as Brexit was the fault of those who opposed it rather than those who advocated it, so the environmental damage ensuing from rowing back on green policies will be the fault of environmentalists rather than those who reject green policies. Political double-speak at its finest! Well done.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Well put.
I think Sunak has horrendously mishandled this and deserves criticism not praise. He could have said a while back he was putting this policy into review, rather than committing to the policy last week, then changing policy overnight. Surely this decision has been made based on a review of the evidence and if so then he's lied to the industry when he's made commitments in the last few days that this deadline was going ahead - that is no way to run a country. Its incompetent and a total lack of integrity, an honest answer of "we have concerns so are putting this policy into review" could have been said and then after a review then determine that 2030 is too soon and 2035 is more appropriate. Might have taken more people along too, if the arguments for the delay were then made.
But despite the way its been utterly and incompetently mishandled, yes people do need to be taken along.
Hopefully EVs will replace Petrol sooner than later, but 2030 does seem a bit too soon. Currently you can get new petrol vehicles for £13k, while the cheapest equivalent new electric vehicle is £27k. Crossover on that doesn't look like it will occur within 6 years, so that's a problem.
The market will see ever escalating BEV sales anyway with or without this deadline, so that's a good thing.
Right decision probably made, but in completely a cack-handed and incompetent fashion.
I think we need to shoot every dog in the country.
Driver rams dog with car to stop attack
A driver used his car to ram a mastiff-type dog as it attacked a dog walker and dragged him into the road.
Video showed the man being set upon by a large brown dog next to a busy road in Sheffield while he held on to his smaller pet, trying to keep it out of reach. As the dog tried to pull him into the road, a passing motorist mounted the pavement and struck the animal with the car bonnet.
Armed police were called to the Handsworth area on Tuesday and eventually managed to restrain the dog and seize it. The man was left with serious injuries to his arm and was taken to hospital. South Yorkshire police said that a 53-year-old man from the city had been arrested on suspicion of having a dangerous dog out of control and remained in custody.
The dog was believed to live at a nearby property and is said to have jumped over a wall before pouncing on the passer-by.
India suspending grant of visas to Canadians. Oof.
Has Modi actually started assassinating his enemies in NATO countries? Anyone looked into this? I mean, I guess he would if he thought he could get away with it, and it would be following his role model Putin, but seems a bit of a risky step to take - unless he's got an agreement with China up his sleeve.
It's obviously extremely bad if India is doing this, but if they are, it also seems extremely odd for thr Canadian authorities to air their suspicions publicly? Since when was this a thing?
Particularly as both are Commonwealth countries and therefore have more established diplomatic channels to use.
The Leader of the Canadian NDP party, which Trudeau’s Liberal government relies on for confidence and supply, is a Sikh
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
I think we need to shoot every dog in the country.
Driver rams dog with car to stop attack
A driver used his car to ram a mastiff-type dog as it attacked a dog walker and dragged him into the road.
Video showed the man being set upon by a large brown dog next to a busy road in Sheffield while he held on to his smaller pet, trying to keep it out of reach. As the dog tried to pull him into the road, a passing motorist mounted the pavement and struck the animal with the car bonnet.
Armed police were called to the Handsworth area on Tuesday and eventually managed to restrain the dog and seize it. The man was left with serious injuries to his arm and was taken to hospital. South Yorkshire police said that a 53-year-old man from the city had been arrested on suspicion of having a dangerous dog out of control and remained in custody.
The dog was believed to live at a nearby property and is said to have jumped over a wall before pouncing on the passer-by.
BOE interest rate decision today and most commentators do not know if another increase will happen
I hope I'm wrong but despite inflation coming down I think there will be another rise.
I think so. Having been slow to get hiking they will probably now strain the other way. It's human nature. Also the reputational risk calculus is skewed in that direction. Their mission in life is getting inflation down. If they keep hiking and it comes down but at a bigger than necessary price, so what? You can't prove that cause & effect and in any case they're only doing their job. No big problem (for them) there. But if they under-hike and inflation pops up again? Then they'll look like a bunch of charlies and get some serious stick. "You have one job, one job, and yet again you've managed to fail to do it" (people will say). That most of these 'people' won't have much of a clue what they're talking about is neither here nor there. The BoE's rep will be further tarnished.
So, yep, I'll be surprised and impressed if they don't hike again today.
They want to bring on a recession. Bunch of nutters.
Charles might have been able to pour some oil on troubled waters here, sadly he's poncing about in France with his overlarge binbag looking evening trousers. Camilla looked nice though.
No he couldn’t, it is a row between Modi and Sikhs Trudeau is supporting.
India is not a Commonwealth realm and the King is sensibly staying out of it and building bridges with Macron and the French instead
Also, there's a lot of confected outrage about this - the EU adopted a similar 2035 target six months ago and voices were rather quieter about that.
I suspect there is a rationale in simply not putting the UK at a comparative disadvantage. HMG will have access to investment data.
The argument [edit] for 2030, from the same government, was to diverge from the EU and get in ahead with new investment and new industry ...
The irony is that the argument is irrelevant come July 2025 all cars need to meet the Euro 7 rules which means all ICE cars will need to be hybrid to meet any chance of meeting the criteria...
It might be possible to get an ICE car through Euro 7 but it would probably need a very small displacement (<1.0L) and forced induction. It's definitely killing off low volume, high-performance variants such as Focus RS, i30N, etc.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
So, just as Brexit was the fault of those who opposed it rather than those who advocated it, so the environmental damage ensuing from rowing back on green policies will be the fault of environmentalists rather than those who reject green policies. Political double-speak at its finest! Well done.
If a defender does a horrendous and unnecessary passback to the goalkeeper that gets intercepted by the opposing sides striker who then taps in an easy goal, whose "fault" is that goal? The defender who screwed up? Or the striker who did his job?
Striker gets credit, defender gets blame.
If you want to know whose fault it is if you lose, look at your own side, not your opponents. Your opponents were just doing their job, you need to ask why your side wasn't better.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
Charles might have been able to pour some oil on troubled waters here, sadly he's poncing about in France with his overlarge binbag looking evening trousers. Camilla looked nice though.
No he couldn’t, it is a row between Modi and Sikhs Trudeau is supporting.
India is not a Commonwealth realm and the King is sensibly staying out of it and building bridges with Macron and the French instead
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
Our very own Alistair Meeks said this was a risk back in 2016 in one of his headers.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
BOE interest rate decision today and most commentators do not know if another increase will happen
I hope I'm wrong but despite inflation coming down I think there will be another rise.
I think so. Having been slow to get hiking they will probably now strain the other way. It's human nature. Also the reputational risk calculus is skewed in that direction. Their mission in life is getting inflation down. If they keep hiking and it comes down but at a bigger than necessary price, so what? You can't prove that cause & effect and in any case they're only doing their job. No big problem (for them) there. But if they under-hike and inflation pops up again? Then they'll look like a bunch of charlies and get some serious stick. "You have one job, one job, and yet again you've managed to fail to do it" (people will say). That most of these 'people' won't have much of a clue what they're talking about is neither here nor there. The BoE's rep will be further tarnished.
So, yep, I'll be surprised and impressed if they don't hike again today.
They do indeed have one job, and they have one tool for carrying it out. They've been too slow and given out too many mixed messages during this hiking cycle and as a result have allowed inflation to become more embedded than they needed to. I think they should hike again to bring inflation down and demonstrate their commitment to the 2% target. But keeping rates on hold would be an entirely unsurprising outcome.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
So, just as Brexit was the fault of those who opposed it rather than those who advocated it, so the environmental damage ensuing from rowing back on green policies will be the fault of environmentalists rather than those who reject green policies. Political double-speak at its finest! Well done.
If a defender does a horrendous and unnecessary passback to the goalkeeper that gets intercepted by the opposing sides striker who then taps in an easy goal, whose "fault" is that goal? The defender who screwed up? Or the striker who did his job?
Striker gets credit, defender gets blame.
If you want to know whose fault it is if you lose, look at your own side, not your opponents. Your opponents were just doing their job, you need to ask why your side wasn't better.
Government isn't a football match. The executive has functional power that oppositions don't have, and a ruling party has legislation-making opportunities that are much, much more limited for minority parties.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
So, just as Brexit was the fault of those who opposed it rather than those who advocated it, so the environmental damage ensuing from rowing back on green policies will be the fault of environmentalists rather than those who reject green policies. Political double-speak at its finest! Well done.
If a defender does a horrendous and unnecessary passback to the goalkeeper that gets intercepted by the opposing sides striker who then taps in an easy goal, whose "fault" is that goal? The defender who screwed up? Or the striker who did his job?
Striker gets credit, defender gets blame.
If you want to know whose fault it is if you lose, look at your own side, not your opponents. Your opponents were just doing their job, you need to ask why your side wasn't better.
It's not a game of football. If the environment that supports us is damaged, we all lose.
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
Our very own Alistair Meeks said this was a risk back in 2016 in one of his headers.
Happily he was proven wrong in the event, which I am sure he acknowledged with characteristic magnanimous good grace.
BOE interest rate decision today and most commentators do not know if another increase will happen
I hope I'm wrong but despite inflation coming down I think there will be another rise.
I think so. Having been slow to get hiking they will probably now strain the other way. It's human nature. Also the reputational risk calculus is skewed in that direction. Their mission in life is getting inflation down. If they keep hiking and it comes down but at a bigger than necessary price, so what? You can't prove that cause & effect and in any case they're only doing their job. No big problem (for them) there. But if they under-hike and inflation pops up again? Then they'll look like a bunch of charlies and get some serious stick. "You have one job, one job, and yet again you've managed to fail to do it" (people will say). That most of these 'people' won't have much of a clue what they're talking about is neither here nor there. The BoE's rep will be further tarnished.
So, yep, I'll be surprised and impressed if they don't hike again today.
They want to bring on a recession. Bunch of nutters.
Their brief is to control inflation. If they are to run macro economic and fiscal policy we'll need to abolish the Treasury.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Charles might have been able to pour some oil on troubled waters here, sadly he's poncing about in France with his overlarge binbag looking evening trousers. Camilla looked nice though.
No he couldn’t, it is a row between Modi and Sikhs Trudeau is supporting.
India is not a Commonwealth realm and the King is sensibly staying out of it and building bridges with Macron and the French instead
What is your definition of a Commonwealth realm?
A Commonwealth nation where the King is head of state, which excludes India
"...asked about a proposal on whether the government was planning on making people have seven bins - something Sunak said he scrapped - he says that was in the environment act.
"There's a very clear statement there," Sunak says."
But the Environment Act 2021 section 57 (which his government passed) says: ... (6) Recyclable household waste in two or more recyclable waste streams may be collected together where— (a) it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or (b) collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together). ... (10) For the purposes of this section the recyclable waste streams are— (a) glass; (b) metal; (c) plastic; (d) paper and card; (e) food waste; (f) garden waste. ...
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Well put.
I think Sunak has horrendously mishandled this and deserves criticism not praise. He could have said a while back he was putting this policy into review, rather than committing to the policy last week, then changing policy overnight. Surely this decision has been made based on a review of the evidence and if so then he's lied to the industry when he's made commitments in the last few days that this deadline was going ahead - that is no way to run a country. Its incompetent and a total lack of integrity, an honest answer of "we have concerns so are putting this policy into review" could have been said and then after a review then determine that 2030 is too soon and 2035 is more appropriate. Might have taken more people along too, if the arguments for the delay were then made.
But despite the way its been utterly and incompetently mishandled, yes people do need to be taken along.
Hopefully EVs will replace Petrol sooner than later, but 2030 does seem a bit too soon. Currently you can get new petrol vehicles for £13k, while the cheapest equivalent new electric vehicle is £27k. Crossover on that doesn't look like it will occur within 6 years, so that's a problem.
The market will see ever escalating BEV sales anyway with or without this deadline, so that's a good thing.
Right decision probably made, but in completely a cack-handed and incompetent fashion.
Politicians are often scared into the right decision by fear of the electoral consequences if they don't. It's messy but it works.
No punishment for Boris Johnson for breaking ministerial rules with his '£1m' Daily Mail column. Oliver Dowden says it would be "disproportionate" to take any action.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
Of course you do not like being challenged but on this he has made the right decision
Time will tell where this goes, but yesterday did set in train the next GE campaign even if it is another year away
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
So, just as Brexit was the fault of those who opposed it rather than those who advocated it, so the environmental damage ensuing from rowing back on green policies will be the fault of environmentalists rather than those who reject green policies. Political double-speak at its finest! Well done.
Yes. Politics is debate, it is argument, it is winning people over to your side. If you cannot win the argument, if you cannot win a vote, despite having the merits of the case on your side, then that is absolutely the fault of the people making it.
Do not blame the people leading the case for opposing what you want: that is their job and there will always be some inclined to that view. Do not blame the voters for taking that view; voters are pretty good at making their decisions on the arguments put. Blame those who were not capable of putting those arguments, despite their merit, and despite an advantage in funding and media access.
Reading about the Canadian claim that India was behind the execution of a Sikh activist in Canada, I happened upon the reporting of the funeral of Avtar Singh Khanda in Birmingham earlier this year. It seems that his family were refused visas by the Home Office to attend the funeral partly because the deceased had been arrested during a protest at the Indian High Commission but the Met Police flatly contradict that this was the case. Why is the Home Office seemingly happy to antagonise the Sikh community?
Charles might have been able to pour some oil on troubled waters here, sadly he's poncing about in France with his overlarge binbag looking evening trousers. Camilla looked nice though.
No he couldn’t, it is a row between Modi and Sikhs Trudeau is supporting.
India is not a Commonwealth realm and the King is sensibly staying out of it and building bridges with Macron and the French instead
Charles might have been able to pour some oil on troubled waters here, sadly he's poncing about in France with his overlarge binbag looking evening trousers. Camilla looked nice though.
No he couldn’t, it is a row between Modi and Sikhs Trudeau is supporting.
India is not a Commonwealth realm and the King is sensibly staying out of it and building bridges with Macron and the French instead
What is your definition of a Commonwealth realm?
A Commonwealth nation where the King is head of state, which excludes India
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
So, just as Brexit was the fault of those who opposed it rather than those who advocated it, so the environmental damage ensuing from rowing back on green policies will be the fault of environmentalists rather than those who reject green policies. Political double-speak at its finest! Well done.
If a defender does a horrendous and unnecessary passback to the goalkeeper that gets intercepted by the opposing sides striker who then taps in an easy goal, whose "fault" is that goal? The defender who screwed up? Or the striker who did his job?
Striker gets credit, defender gets blame.
If you want to know whose fault it is if you lose, look at your own side, not your opponents. Your opponents were just doing their job, you need to ask why your side wasn't better.
It's not a game of football. If the environment that supports us is damaged, we all lose.
Of course its like a game of football. People have different views on what to do, that's politics, and its for debate and Parliament to determine the outcome, then us at elections to determine Parliament. That's democracy.
No one side gets to say "this is too important" and circumvent democracy. That's not how it works, quite rightly.
This weekend is the Manchester derby. Hypothetically if Man City hammer Man Utd 8-0 who do you think will get more blame for that? Guardiola or Ten Hag? I would expect quite rightly Guardiola to bask in the glory, while Ten Hag carries the blame, but you seem to think it should be the other way around.
There's 27 years to go until 2050. A lot has changed in the past 27 years, a lot more will change in the next 27, getting the technological framework right for then is far more important than rushing into flawed decisions prematurely before the technology is ready or affordable for all.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
So, just as Brexit was the fault of those who opposed it rather than those who advocated it, so the environmental damage ensuing from rowing back on green policies will be the fault of environmentalists rather than those who reject green policies. Political double-speak at its finest! Well done.
Yes. Politics is debate, it is argument, it is winning people over to your side. If you cannot win the argument, if you cannot win a vote, despite having the merits of the case on your side, then that is absolutely the fault of the people making it.
Do not blame the people leading the case for opposing what you want: that is their job and there will always be some inclined to that view. Do not blame the voters for taking that view; voters are pretty good at making their decisions on the arguments put. Blame those who were not capable of putting those arguments, despite their merit, and despite an advantage in funding and media access.
Ah, well, if we're talking about what the voters think, then there are two aspects that need to be brought into play. One is whether the makeup of parliament accurately reflects what voters in bulk want, and the other is whether the government acts in a way that it indicated it would before the previous election.
You can't wave a mandate in people's faces and avoid pertinent questions about what that mandate really look like.
BOE interest rate decision today and most commentators do not know if another increase will happen
I hope I'm wrong but despite inflation coming down I think there will be another rise.
I think so. Having been slow to get hiking they will probably now strain the other way. It's human nature. Also the reputational risk calculus is skewed in that direction. Their mission in life is getting inflation down. If they keep hiking and it comes down but at a bigger than necessary price, so what? You can't prove that cause & effect and in any case they're only doing their job. No big problem (for them) there. But if they under-hike and inflation pops up again? Then they'll look like a bunch of charlies and get some serious stick. "You have one job, one job, and yet again you've managed to fail to do it" (people will say). That most of these 'people' won't have much of a clue what they're talking about is neither here nor there. The BoE's rep will be further tarnished.
So, yep, I'll be surprised and impressed if they don't hike again today.
They want to bring on a recession. Bunch of nutters.
Their brief is to control inflation. If they are to run macro economic and fiscal policy we'll need to abolish the Treasury.
But their decisions don't relate to the inflation figures. If inflation has risen, they say "AH, inflation has risen, hike the rates". If inflation falls, they say, "false dawn, hike the rates". Their decisions seem arbitrary and utterly divorced from the inflation figures.
On topic, Sunak isn't pitching to centrists or floating voters. He's trying to shore up his base so they have a reason to turn out for him next year rather than staying at home, shrugging that they're no different to Labour, or voting Reform. The objective is to save as many Tory seats as possible so they have a chance to rebuild in opposition.
The strategy and policy will have been carefully polled and focus grouped - the Tories have plenty of money to do this - so expect more of it.
You’d assume so, but the chaotic way in which it was leaked then announced and the way it apparently took even some front benchers by surprise doesn’t point to something extensively polled and focus grouped.
I think that's very much in the eye of the beholder. Sunak might well have intended to keep it under wraps to avoid leaks and create maximum headline impact.
It's certainly achieved that.
Yes, Sunak is very impressive and has comprehensively bamboozled Starmer, particularly with the repeal of the meat tax, airline tax and seven bin abomination.
Why then does he send Kemi Badenoch to sell his genius to news outlets near you? Zac Goldsmith, she says, is so rich, he is not qualified to comment on politics that affect poor people. Rishi Sunak remains on the Sunday Times rich list.
"...asked about a proposal on whether the government was planning on making people have seven bins - something Sunak said he scrapped - he says that was in the environment act.
"There's a very clear statement there," Sunak says."
But the Environment Act 2021 section 57 (which his government passed) says: ... (6) Recyclable household waste in two or more recyclable waste streams may be collected together where— (a) it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or (b) collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together). ... (10) For the purposes of this section the recyclable waste streams are— (a) glass; (b) metal; (c) plastic; (d) paper and card; (e) food waste; (f) garden waste. ...
"According to Defra, the new Simpler Recycling system, which Defra says will be outlined “shortly”, will ensure all homes in England “recycle the same materials, ending the confusion and postcode lottery over what can and can’t be recycled”.
"Seemingly backing commingling or a twin-stream system, the statement added: “Those materials won’t need to be separated at home – so whilst it was never the case that seven bins would be needed by households, this new plan ensures it.”"
OMG! New Header needed!!! Flip flop on the Potus market. Donald Trump is now the 3.1 Fav.
If you feel the way I do - that it's not happening - this has to be the juiciest sell imaginable. For everyone else, apart from hard right loons and Putin, it's very bleak news.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
So, just as Brexit was the fault of those who opposed it rather than those who advocated it, so the environmental damage ensuing from rowing back on green policies will be the fault of environmentalists rather than those who reject green policies. Political double-speak at its finest! Well done.
Yes. Politics is debate, it is argument, it is winning people over to your side. If you cannot win the argument, if you cannot win a vote, despite having the merits of the case on your side, then that is absolutely the fault of the people making it.
Do not blame the people leading the case for opposing what you want: that is their job and there will always be some inclined to that view. Do not blame the voters for taking that view; voters are pretty good at making their decisions on the arguments put. Blame those who were not capable of putting those arguments, despite their merit, and despite an advantage in funding and media access.
Indeed. Persuading people of your case - manufacturing and keeping consent - is not a nice-to-have, it's a must-have.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
Of course you do not like being challenged but on this he has made the right decision
Time will tell where this goes, but yesterday did set in train the next GE campaign even if it is another year away
Oh yes, he made it clear where the Tory campaign is heading. A core vote strategy.
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
Our very own Alistair Meeks said this was a risk back in 2016 in one of his headers.
The red wall voters who got Brexit to 52% didn’t want Singapore on Thames, they wanted centrist economics but with free movement ended and tighter immigration controls. That is what they got under Boris and will also get under Starmer (at least in his first term in terms of no major changes to our EU relationship).
The free market libertarian Brexiteer experiment under Truss lasted less than 2 months
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Well put.
I think Sunak has horrendously mishandled this and deserves criticism not praise. He could have said a while back he was putting this policy into review, rather than committing to the policy last week, then changing policy overnight. Surely this decision has been made based on a review of the evidence and if so then he's lied to the industry when he's made commitments in the last few days that this deadline was going ahead - that is no way to run a country. Its incompetent and a total lack of integrity, an honest answer of "we have concerns so are putting this policy into review" could have been said and then after a review then determine that 2030 is too soon and 2035 is more appropriate. Might have taken more people along too, if the arguments for the delay were then made.
But despite the way its been utterly and incompetently mishandled, yes people do need to be taken along.
Hopefully EVs will replace Petrol sooner than later, but 2030 does seem a bit too soon. Currently you can get new petrol vehicles for £13k, while the cheapest equivalent new electric vehicle is £27k. Crossover on that doesn't look like it will occur within 6 years, so that's a problem.
The market will see ever escalating BEV sales anyway with or without this deadline, so that's a good thing.
Right decision probably made, but in completely a cack-handed and incompetent fashion.
Politicians are often scared into the right decision by fear of the electoral consequences if they don't. It's messy but it works.
They're also often scared into the wrong decision by fear of the electoral consequences if they don't. It's messy but its democracy, and need to accept that as a part of democracy.
But either way, does Sunak deserve credit here for either showing a complete lack of integrity and lying to industry who sought guarantees a few days ago, or giving those guarantees only a few days ago and meaning it then changing policy in a flash without any new developments in the interim?
Do not blame the voters for taking that view; voters are pretty good at making their decisions on the arguments put.
That's bollocks though.
Uxbridge is the most recent example.
Voters made their decision based on misunderstanding the arguments put.
Some yes. But you seem to discount the possibility that many disagreed on principle, in sympathy with those who are affected (and of course they are all affected indirectly through taxation due to the cost of the scrappage scheme).
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
Of course you do not like being challenged but on this he has made the right decision
Time will tell where this goes, but yesterday did set in train the next GE campaign even if it is another year away
Oh yes, he made it clear where the Tory campaign is heading. A core vote strategy.
I don't know about that; it's what you sign up to do. Almost everyone (except a few weirdo wankers) would rather be at sea than on a shore draft. The real challenge for the sundodgers was moving the SSKNs to Faslane and AUKUS. As predicted by almost everyone (they did exactly the same with the RAF MPA crews) the Australians have started asset stripping the submarine service with lateral transfers and much better terms of service. The poorest paid rate on their first cruise on a RAN boat makes £70k. Now, nobody joins the Navy for the money but...
Was there not also an American report that submariners were often would-be pilots with poor eyesight, but now, thanks to laser eye surgery, these people can fly after a short op? Ah, here is a 2006 report. Obviously the one I'd read would have been more recent. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/us/20eye.html
Its all about the realité. Firstly the infrastructure for charging isn't there and there are questions over whether the national grid can cope with demand. There are issues over the range of cars at less than 300 miles. I saw a couple looking miserable yesterday... Hooked up to a charger whilst twiddling their thumbs.. for up to an hour?.. (bugger that for a game of soldiers). How do you charge if you have no garage or on property parking.. People were sold a pup. The manufacturers lied about the range of the car.
It wouldn't surprise me if 2040 became the date. Meanwhile my clean euro6 compliant diesel does 60mpg and has a range of over 700 miles meaning I never get ripped off with motorway prices. What's not to like
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
Our very own Alistair Meeks said this was a risk back in 2016 in one of his headers.
Happily he was proven wrong in the event, which I am sure he acknowledged with characteristic magnanimous good grace.
Has he been proved wrong? The quality of our politicians, their behaviour and decision-making has - IMO - markedly worsened in the years since.
"...asked about a proposal on whether the government was planning on making people have seven bins - something Sunak said he scrapped - he says that was in the environment act.
"There's a very clear statement there," Sunak says."
But the Environment Act 2021 section 57 (which his government passed) says: ... (6) Recyclable household waste in two or more recyclable waste streams may be collected together where— (a) it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or (b) collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together). ... (10) For the purposes of this section the recyclable waste streams are— (a) glass; (b) metal; (c) plastic; (d) paper and card; (e) food waste; (f) garden waste. ...
"According to Defra, the new Simpler Recycling system, which Defra says will be outlined “shortly”, will ensure all homes in England “recycle the same materials, ending the confusion and postcode lottery over what can and can’t be recycled”.
"Seemingly backing commingling or a twin-stream system, the statement added: “Those materials won’t need to be separated at home – so whilst it was never the case that seven bins would be needed by households, this new plan ensures it.”"
Why has he only ruled out seven bins? What about eight bins? I note too that he hasn't ruled out a slaughter of the first born, so presumably that's in the pipeline.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
So, just as Brexit was the fault of those who opposed it rather than those who advocated it, so the environmental damage ensuing from rowing back on green policies will be the fault of environmentalists rather than those who reject green policies. Political double-speak at its finest! Well done.
Yes. Politics is debate, it is argument, it is winning people over to your side. If you cannot win the argument, if you cannot win a vote, despite having the merits of the case on your side, then that is absolutely the fault of the people making it.
Do not blame the people leading the case for opposing what you want: that is their job and there will always be some inclined to that view. Do not blame the voters for taking that view; voters are pretty good at making their decisions on the arguments put. Blame those who were not capable of putting those arguments, despite their merit, and despite an advantage in funding and media access.
So if I decide to drive the bus off the cliff and you are unable to persuade me not to do it, then the ensuing crash is your fault for not being sufficiently persuasive? Have I got that right?
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
So, just as Brexit was the fault of those who opposed it rather than those who advocated it, so the environmental damage ensuing from rowing back on green policies will be the fault of environmentalists rather than those who reject green policies. Political double-speak at its finest! Well done.
Yes. Politics is debate, it is argument, it is winning people over to your side. If you cannot win the argument, if you cannot win a vote, despite having the merits of the case on your side, then that is absolutely the fault of the people making it.
Do not blame the people leading the case for opposing what you want: that is their job and there will always be some inclined to that view. Do not blame the voters for taking that view; voters are pretty good at making their decisions on the arguments put. Blame those who were not capable of putting those arguments, despite their merit, and despite an advantage in funding and media access.
Ah, well, if we're talking about what the voters think, then there are two aspects that need to be brought into play. One is whether the makeup of parliament accurately reflects what voters in bulk want, and the other is whether the government acts in a way that it indicated it would before the previous election.
You can't wave a mandate in people's faces and avoid pertinent questions about what that mandate really look like.
Isn't the point that the Net Zero policy is in danger of not having a mandate?
Just because all main parties back it, that doesn't imply popular support, any more than all parliamentary parties backing membership of the EU did. And if an issue becomes sufficiently salient, despite a lack of parliamentary support, politics will find a way for that issue to become pertinent - usually with the other side's argument being made by hardline extremists, for the simple reason that they're the only ones who cared enough about it to bang on against the consensus, and so led that side when more moderate sceptics stayed quiet.
I agree that were parliament elected by PR, there might be more balance but going by the 2019 results - and the mandates implied by those votes, barely. Con+Lab+LD+Grn+SNP would still likely have 95%+ of the MPs.
"...asked about a proposal on whether the government was planning on making people have seven bins - something Sunak said he scrapped - he says that was in the environment act.
"There's a very clear statement there," Sunak says."
But the Environment Act 2021 section 57 (which his government passed) says: ... (6) Recyclable household waste in two or more recyclable waste streams may be collected together where— (a) it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or (b) collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together). ... (10) For the purposes of this section the recyclable waste streams are— (a) glass; (b) metal; (c) plastic; (d) paper and card; (e) food waste; (f) garden waste. ...
But it is technically possible to collect them together, and there's an environmental benefit to collecting them together (only one waste bin needs to go around).
I've always put glass, metal and plastic into the same bin. They're easily separated at the recycling facility via machinery. There's no technical need to have separate bins for those streams.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
Of course you do not like being challenged but on this he has made the right decision
Time will tell where this goes, but yesterday did set in train the next GE campaign even if it is another year away
Oh yes, he made it clear where the Tory campaign is heading. A core vote strategy.
Whatever happened to Vote Blue, Go Green?
It failed to get a Conservative majority even in 2010?
BOE interest rate decision today and most commentators do not know if another increase will happen
I hope I'm wrong but despite inflation coming down I think there will be another rise.
I think so. Having been slow to get hiking they will probably now strain the other way. It's human nature. Also the reputational risk calculus is skewed in that direction. Their mission in life is getting inflation down. If they keep hiking and it comes down but at a bigger than necessary price, so what? You can't prove that cause & effect and in any case they're only doing their job. No big problem (for them) there. But if they under-hike and inflation pops up again? Then they'll look like a bunch of charlies and get some serious stick. "You have one job, one job, and yet again you've managed to fail to do it" (people will say). That most of these 'people' won't have much of a clue what they're talking about is neither here nor there. The BoE's rep will be further tarnished.
So, yep, I'll be surprised and impressed if they don't hike again today.
They do indeed have one job, and they have one tool for carrying it out. They've been too slow and given out too many mixed messages during this hiking cycle and as a result have allowed inflation to become more embedded than they needed to. I think they should hike again to bring inflation down and demonstrate their commitment to the 2% target. But keeping rates on hold would be an entirely unsurprising outcome.
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
Our very own Alistair Meeks said this was a risk back in 2016 in one of his headers.
I can't see anyone calling London "Buenos Aires" any time soon, no matter how effective the ULEZ turns out to be.
1. The Online Security Bill - about to become law. There are some troubling provisions in it. Perhaps one of our more techy posters might opine.
2. The Law Commission's Surrogacy paper - which seems to me to disregard the rights of women and treat them as mere body parts to be used for the benefit of others.
Comments
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/a-new-plan-will-offer-britain-associate-membership-of-the-eu-but-will-labour-jump-at-it/
What people want are more handouts and lower prices.
With smaller, more fanatical, groups who want ever higher NHS spending and ever higher house prices.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/india-issues-travel-advisory-urging-citizens-to-remain-vigilant-in-canada-as-diplomatic-row-deepens/ar-AA1h1NrK
They're also within their rights to tell a politician who while acting in an official capacity as a politician insists that speech gets taken down, that the first amendment applies.
Reality is different.
People only want higher taxes and lower spending when it affects 'people like them'.
Vot is your name?
Don't tell him, Pike...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks
People will poll in favour of almost any spending, and almost any tax cut. What they'll vote for, is a different matter.
1 GBP = 1.1547924 Euros
1 GBP = 1.2305415 US Dollars
What will it be at 4pm today? Any predictions? Will take a range.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
But there's also the issue of 'throwing good money after bad' and reinforcing failure.
My suggestion would be for governments to minimise grandiloquent mega strategies and 'world beating' vanity projects and instead operate at a scale that can effectively applied.
In this country thinking big seems always to be followed by implemented badly.
Four simple questions on associate membership proposals.
1: Will associate members be able to diverge on laws or standards, set their own laws or standards via their own Parliament that might differ from the EU's? Or will EU laws apply?
2: Will associate members be able to sign their own customs agreements with third parties? Or will EU customs apply?
3: What will associate members membership fees be?
4: Will associate members be able to set their own policies with regards to immigration from the rest of the EU? Or will EU free movement apply?
Sovereignty, laws, trade, money and borders. Those are the issues we debated in 2016 and ever since ad nauseum, what will associate membership if it becomes an option change? If nothing, then its just another name for the same thing. If its meaningful, lets hear it.
India is not a Commonwealth realm and the King is sensibly staying out of it and building bridges with Macron and the French instead
So, yep, I'll be surprised and impressed if they don't hike again today.
I think Sunak has horrendously mishandled this and deserves criticism not praise. He could have said a while back he was putting this policy into review, rather than committing to the policy last week, then changing policy overnight. Surely this decision has been made based on a review of the evidence and if so then he's lied to the industry when he's made commitments in the last few days that this deadline was going ahead - that is no way to run a country. Its incompetent and a total lack of integrity, an honest answer of "we have concerns so are putting this policy into review" could have been said and then after a review then determine that 2030 is too soon and 2035 is more appropriate. Might have taken more people along too, if the arguments for the delay were then made.
But despite the way its been utterly and incompetently mishandled, yes people do need to be taken along.
Hopefully EVs will replace Petrol sooner than later, but 2030 does seem a bit too soon. Currently you can get new petrol vehicles for £13k, while the cheapest equivalent new electric vehicle is £27k. Crossover on that doesn't look like it will occur within 6 years, so that's a problem.
The market will see ever escalating BEV sales anyway with or without this deadline, so that's a good thing.
Right decision probably made, but in completely a cack-handed and incompetent fashion.
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
A car maker can’t force people to buy electric cars , fining them for the public not buying enough electric cars seems ridiculous.
And with the 2030 date pushed back to 2035 it’s more likely electric car sales will drop .
I'm wavering.
Striker gets credit, defender gets blame.
If you want to know whose fault it is if you lose, look at your own side, not your opponents. Your opponents were just doing their job, you need to ask why your side wasn't better.
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ8NtGIZE7w
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
"...asked about a proposal on whether the government was planning on making people have seven bins - something Sunak said he scrapped - he says that was in the environment act.
"There's a very clear statement there," Sunak says."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-66872792 08:31
But the Environment Act 2021 section 57 (which his government passed) says:
...
(6) Recyclable household waste in two or more recyclable waste streams may be collected together where—
(a) it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or
(b) collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together).
...
(10) For the purposes of this section the recyclable waste streams are—
(a) glass;
(b) metal;
(c) plastic;
(d) paper and card;
(e) food waste;
(f) garden waste.
...
No punishment for Boris Johnson for breaking ministerial rules with his '£1m' Daily Mail column. Oliver Dowden says it would be "disproportionate" to take any action.
Time will tell where this goes, but yesterday did set in train the next GE campaign even if it is another year away
Do not blame the people leading the case for opposing what you want: that is their job and there will always be some inclined to that view. Do not blame the voters for taking that view; voters are pretty good at making their decisions on the arguments put. Blame those who were not capable of putting those arguments, despite their merit, and despite an advantage in funding and media access.
https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-to-attend-funeral-of-sikh-activist-but-not-one-family-member-will-be-present-12938108
Uxbridge is the most recent example.
Voters made their decision based on misunderstanding the arguments put.
No one side gets to say "this is too important" and circumvent democracy. That's not how it works, quite rightly.
This weekend is the Manchester derby. Hypothetically if Man City hammer Man Utd 8-0 who do you think will get more blame for that? Guardiola or Ten Hag? I would expect quite rightly Guardiola to bask in the glory, while Ten Hag carries the blame, but you seem to think it should be the other way around.
There's 27 years to go until 2050. A lot has changed in the past 27 years, a lot more will change in the next 27, getting the technological framework right for then is far more important than rushing into flawed decisions prematurely before the technology is ready or affordable for all.
You can't wave a mandate in people's faces and avoid pertinent questions about what that mandate really look like.
Why then does he send Kemi Badenoch to sell his genius to news outlets near you? Zac Goldsmith, she says, is so rich, he is not qualified to comment on politics that affect poor people. Rishi Sunak remains on the Sunday Times rich list.
"Seemingly backing commingling or a twin-stream system, the statement added: “Those materials won’t need to be separated at home – so whilst it was never the case that seven bins would be needed by households, this new plan ensures it.”"
https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/defra-outlines-simpler-recycling-scheme-after-pm-rules-out-seven-bins/
If you feel the way I do - that it's not happening - this has to be the juiciest sell imaginable. For everyone else, apart from hard right loons and Putin, it's very bleak news.
Whatever happened to Vote Blue, Go Green?
The free market libertarian Brexiteer experiment under Truss lasted less than 2 months
But either way, does Sunak deserve credit here for either showing a complete lack of integrity and lying to industry who sought guarantees a few days ago, or giving those guarantees only a few days ago and meaning it then changing policy in a flash without any new developments in the interim?
You can do the right thing, the wrong way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/us/20eye.html
up to a charger whilst twiddling their thumbs.. for up to an hour?.. (bugger that for a game of soldiers). How do you charge if you have no garage or on property parking.. People were sold a pup. The manufacturers lied about the range of the car.
It wouldn't surprise me if 2040 became the date. Meanwhile my clean euro6 compliant diesel does 60mpg and has a range of over 700 miles meaning I never get ripped off with motorway prices. What's not to like
Just because all main parties back it, that doesn't imply popular support, any more than all parliamentary parties backing membership of the EU did. And if an issue becomes sufficiently salient, despite a lack of parliamentary support, politics will find a way for that issue to become pertinent - usually with the other side's argument being made by hardline extremists, for the simple reason that they're the only ones who cared enough about it to bang on against the consensus, and so led that side when more moderate sceptics stayed quiet.
I agree that were parliament elected by PR, there might be more balance but going by the 2019 results - and the mandates implied by those votes, barely. Con+Lab+LD+Grn+SNP would still likely have 95%+ of the MPs.
I've always put glass, metal and plastic into the same bin. They're easily separated at the recycling facility via machinery. There's no technical need to have separate bins for those streams.
There's an important difference between honest and 'honest'.
1. The Online Security Bill - about to become law. There are some troubling provisions in it. Perhaps one of our more techy posters might opine.
2. The Law Commission's Surrogacy paper - which seems to me to disregard the rights of women and treat them as mere body parts to be used for the benefit of others.