Former White House Director of Communications @Scaramucci has predicted that Kamala Harris will win the US election despite recent polling suggesting the race is to close to call.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Or just abolish the whole damn thing.
But that would be hard work and need thinking through. And we've only been on that for 100 years or so. So, in the meantime, lets have another reform that is not thought through but makes Labour MPs who are in the main professionals and pen pushers feel just a little bit radical, just for one day.
Scrap it entirely. Revising should be done in Commons committees and MPs held responsible if they write laws poorly, not rely on the Lords to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
Former White House Director of Communications @Scaramucci has predicted that Kamala Harris will win the US election despite recent polling suggesting the race is to close to call.
It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.
Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.
Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
The closest Western European analogue is perhaps Italy?
Yep that seems fair, albeit ageing population is a problem more widely in Europe. Median age (CIA, 2023) in: - Japan: 49.5 - Italy: 48.1 - Germany: 46.7 - France: 42.2 - UK: 40.6 - China: 39.8 - US: 38.8
We do have a demographics problem here (increasing % of population retired or in need of the NHS), but we in a much better position than most of Europe.
We need net migration at sustainable levels (so lower than recent years), but the UK/US are in a much better demographic position than many because migration is an established part of society (and most of it is well integrated).
China's median age will of course increase much faster than ours.
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
You're in Osaka. Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Or just abolish the whole damn thing.
But that would be hard work and need thinking through. And we've only been on that for 100 years or so. So, in the meantime, lets have another reform that is not thought through but makes Labour MPs who are in the main professionals and pen pushers feel just a little bit radical, just for one day.
Scrap it entirely. Revising should be done in Commons committees and MPs held responsible if they write laws poorly, not rely on the Lords to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
That's certainly my view. But it would require the Commons to take their revising committees of legislation a bit more seriously than they do right now.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.
One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
Policies mostly written by HR and accounting types, who just see numbers on a spreadsheet but who never leave the office themselves.
The trouble with Covid was this: for a year and a half almost all corporate travel, hospitality and expenses ceased. Everyone saw a nice little bump in their P&L as opex fell. When the world opened up again they were loath to turn the taps back on.
Oh indeed, but telling your road warriors - who are the productive part of the company - to stay at the Travelodge rather than the Hilton, results in a spike in staff turnover really damn quickly in a competitive market.
Conveniently in the month used to calculate increases to public sector pensions.
Still at least 2.5....
That's State Pension. Other benefits are linked to inflation so the 1.7% will apply.
I thought public sector pensions were inflation too?
My private defined benefit pension is also inflation (though December's IIRC) but with a maximum of 5%.
State Pension next year will be +4% thanks to the TL
Yep. But other benefits will be facing a very low increase of 1.7% as September's figure is used. Gonna be big trouble if Iran kicks off and energy prices surge again this winter and benefit peeps are only get 1.7%.
Much more effective when positioned as 75p a week (or whatever)
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
Issue is the BBC looks at the audience numbers and demographics. They don’t actually focus on what is good - just what is commercial and popular.
Hard hitting news programmes are valuable but not commercial
Mind you, one of the advantages about a non commercially funded news organisation could be…
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.
One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
I remember this from a few years ago - a particular low point being a travelodge with a 'breakfast box'. It is actually an incentive to switch to a job that does not involve business travel.
Oh I like business travel but my rules are very simple - can’t work on a plane and can’t work on a standard class seat.
So I will travel that way but it’s very unproductive and I will be treating it as part of my working time
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
"Hobby" is questionable. It depends what you want the Lords to be - an alternative democratic representation, say like Australia's Senate (regional and longer terms), an appointed 'house of experts and experience', or a mixture, or something else.
And what you want it to do.
Me, I think the revising functions work well, and the non-political / crossbench peers work well (eg Tanni-Grey Thompson), but the political side has more problems at the fringes.
I'm perhaps drawn to a hybrid model where there are appointed 'experts' who speak but don't have voting rights. That was a model I saw proposed by by friend Carl Gardner who way back was one of the lawyers who worked for Govt in framing iirc the Human Rights Act.
Like everything here, it will evolve not revolt.
Well I'm being slightly flippant. But only slightly. I am, though, irritated at the proffessionally religious having a dedicated spot in the political process as if their perspective was more valid than that of any other human.
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
Issue is the BBC looks at the audience numbers and demographics. They don’t actually focus on what is good - just what is commercial and popular.
Hard hitting news programmes are valuable but not commercial
Mind you, one of the advantages about a non commercially funded news organisation could be…
The whole point of the BBC should be making what others won’t make,
Things like, oh I don’t know, how’s about genuinely objective, but probing and well-researched, interviews with the World’s leading political figures and thought leaders…
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
That's actually what I would do, though not (of course) Chief Trainspotter. *If* the HoL is meant to be a revising chamber, then stuff it with experts. Not just lawyers, but engineers, scientists, educationalists, charity representatives, and all sorts of other field experts. Let (say) the Royal Society of Chemistry vote on who will represent them. Let the organisations decide on term limits and how they can get rid of them if they do not perform.
In addition, let them form committees that can advise the government and wider HoC on legislation and the way thing work.
That, IMO, would lead to far better legislation than just stuffing it with elected party reps.
That’s the sort of reform they should do
Which is why the hereditaries were left..: to motivate the government to focus on solving the problem
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
Whilst you are in Japan, I'd be interested to see your observations on the urban setup in Tokyo and other places compared to London, especially around walking / cycling.
Tokyo is fairly unique in having less separated infra in the streets (pavements, cycle tracks) than other developed country cities, due to the narrowness of everything - eg wall to wall will often be less than just the kerb-kerb dimension in the UK. And everything being narrow causes a perception to those driving motor vehicles that they should slow right down.
K-Cars also make a difference - eg Suzuki Cappucino size.
It's a bit in conflict with post war redevelopment which followed Usonian practice Okonomiyake .
Are you sure? A couple of years back it was the most vibrant place I'd ever been. Although I was staying in the New Otani. You are probably as usual on a backpacker's budget in some shitehole. Work to rule and only write shite for the Speccie when they refuse you 5* digs!
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…
Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…
Although on reflection…
Dodgy analysis.
What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.
For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.
You save money in the long term with that approach.
All of which are completely unconnected to whether you actually need first class travel…
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
Issue is the BBC looks at the audience numbers and demographics. They don’t actually focus on what is good - just what is commercial and popular.
Hard hitting news programmes are valuable but not commercial
Mind you, one of the advantages about a non commercially funded news organisation could be…
The whole point of the BBC should be making what others won’t make,
Things like, oh I don’t know, how’s about genuinely objective, but probing and well-researched, interviews with the World’s leading political figures and thought leaders…
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
You're in Osaka. Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
Osaka is a big and fairly prosperous city
When I say “poor” I don’t mean absolutely poor. I mean relatively poor compared to Western Europe and North America and - definitely relatively poor compared to what I expected
I haven’t been back in 3 decades and I thought this hi tech country wouid have continued racing ahead. But it feels exactly like it did only the people are older and the tech is now behind, if anything
(Eg lots of places with no contactless indeed no card payments)
It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.
Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.
Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
It is strikingly noticeable
It feels like a country that has completely run out of ideas
Admittedly this is day 1 - could be jet lag could be the fact I’m in Osaka - but I’m good at this. Getting an instant grasp. And there’s no denying that half the taxis are vintage Toyota Corollas - the very same cars they were driving in 1995 when I lived here
It’s like Cuba with its old Cadillacs
Rather melancholy. Japan felt like the future back then - dazzling!! Definitely doesn’t now
OTOH it is spotless and crime free and the people are lovely albeit a little melancholy
I don't think that humans can live in a society with such a shortage of youth without getting melancholy. They are the future, they are the point and they give purpose to our lives even if they are occasionally annoying.
Sounds like they build good cars though if taxi are still Toyota Corollas from 1990s.
Toyota Crowns. But they were still making the '70s look model with the self closing rear doors well into the 21st century.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.
One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
Policies mostly written by HR and accounting types, who just see numbers on a spreadsheet but who never leave the office themselves.
The trouble with Covid was this: for a year and a half almost all corporate travel, hospitality and expenses ceased. Everyone saw a nice little bump in their P&L as opex fell. When the world opened up again they were loath to turn the taps back on.
Oh indeed, but telling your road warriors - who are the productive part of the company - to stay at the Travelodge rather than the Hilton, results in a spike in staff turnover really damn quickly in a competitive market.
I am a Hilton whore. And have educated several client business units that Hilton is so often the cheaper option than “value” chains like Premier Inn.
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
That's actually what I would do, though not (of course) Chief Trainspotter. *If* the HoL is meant to be a revising chamber, then stuff it with experts. Not just lawyers, but engineers, scientists, educationalists, charity representatives, and all sorts of other field experts. Let (say) the Royal Society of Chemistry vote on who will represent them. Let the organisations decide on term limits and how they can get rid of them if they do not perform.
In addition, let them form committees that can advise the government and wider HoC on legislation and the way thing work.
That, IMO, would lead to far better legislation than just stuffing it with elected party reps.
Yeah, not unreasonable. Though I'd say there is rather more government policy on which the view of the chief trainspotter might be relevant than that if Justin bloody Welby.
Are you sure? A couple of years back it was the most vibrant place I'd ever been. Although I was staying in the New Otani. You are probably as usual on a backpacker's budget in some shitehole. Work to rule and only write shite for the Speccie when they refuse you 5* digs!
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.
One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
I remember this from a few years ago - a particular low point being a travelodge with a 'breakfast box'. It is actually an incentive to switch to a job that does not involve business travel.
Oh I like business travel but my rules are very simple - can’t work on a plane and can’t work on a standard class seat.
So I will travel that way but it’s very unproductive and I will be treating it as part of my working time
I was exactly the same when working for myself.
No I’m not taking an overnight flight and going straight into work, because I’m not going to be in any way productive for you - so either you pay me to travel the day before or fly me in business class.
To be fair most companies do understand this for consultants, even if the guy hiring you has to have an argument with his boss and the accountant to get it approved.
I think most people were forecasting inflation below 2%, albeit 1.7% is a bit lower than expected. It suggests that the Bank's hesitancy in cutting interest rates at their last meeting was misplaced. It also, once again, raises the issue of whether Sunak was a tad premature in going in July.
The most unpopular thing the government has done is the early release of prisoners. That was, for those with eyes to see, inevitable and predictable and would have been necessary even without the riots.
Imagine what would have happened if it had been on Sunak's watch. He had to do a runner.
In terms of the header, there are lots of factors affecting politics and it's hard to tell which ones matter in real time.
I think going when he did was at least partly a spoiler. Even in the sticks working for the DWP it is obvious that nothing has been happening, which is exactly what happens if you have an election immediately before the summer recess. Those things that have been done, such as the means-testing of the winter fuel allowance, have obviously been rushed (I presume the felt they needed to give people at least some notice so it couldn't wait for the Budget without postponing it for a year)
Are you sure? A couple of years back it was the most vibrant place I'd ever been. Although I was staying in the New Otani. You are probably as usual on a backpacker's budget in some shitehole. Work to rule and only write shite for the Speccie when they refuse you 5* digs!
Are you sure? A couple of years back it was the most vibrant place I'd ever been. Although I was staying in the New Otani. You are probably as usual on a backpacker's budget in some shitehole. Work to rule and only write shite for the Speccie when they refuse you 5* digs!
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
You're in Osaka. Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
I’m visiting West Yorkshire today. Much of it looks quite prosperous (my wife’s from Wetterby).
But this is a feature of declining economies like Japan. The capital city remains rich and cosmopolitan looking. The rot sets in first in the provincial cities and countryside. We see it here but you really see it strongly in poor countries with rich histories. Moscow vs Russia is probably the extreme, but there are lots of other examples.
That’s one thing you don’t yet see in France, Germany or these countries (or Italy, these days). The provinces mostly look fairly prosperous.
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
I could see a “catch up” fuel duty increase. Because pump prices are so low right now they could get away banging 30p plus on a litre and say it’s to stop climate change. Fuel duty is a big money spinner.
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
Er, the UK?
Looking at our fundamentals I don’t think we’re at the forefront. We have better demographics than most, a diversified and flexible economy. We’ve been in relative decline for decades but I’d say we’re not an outlier. I’d worry more for Germany in the next decade or two. Or Sweden.
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
I could see a “catch up” fuel duty increase. Because pump prices are so low right now they could get away banging 30p plus on a litre and say it’s to stop climate change. Fuel duty is a big money spinner.
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
You're in Osaka. Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
I’m visiting West Yorkshire today. Much of it looks quite prosperous (my wife’s from Wetterby).
But this is a feature of declining economies like Japan. The capital city remains rich and cosmopolitan looking. The rot sets in first in the provincial cities and countryside. We see it here but you really see it strongly in poor countries with rich histories. Moscow vs Russia is probably the extreme, but there are lots of other examples.
That’s one thing you don’t yet see in France, Germany or these countries (or Italy, these days). The provinces mostly look fairly prosperous.
Germany and Italy don't have a top 5 global city like the UK and Japan and London and Tokyo also have a greater gdp than Paris.
If you think East Germany or Sicily are very prosperous you also haven't been paying attention
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
I could see a “catch up” fuel duty increase. Because pump prices are so low right now they could get away banging 30p plus on a litre and say it’s to stop climate change. Fuel duty is a big money spinner.
They are very lucky that the budget coincides with a big recent drop in pump prices.
A clever government back in 2022 could have promised to flex fuel duty so that pump prices were fixed at say 1.65 for the next 5 years. They would be absolutely raking it in now.
Macron’s fuel duty hikes, the ones that got the gilets jaunes going, are now contributing a lot to the coffers. Average petrol price on my visit last week was about €1.75. France used to be considerably cheaper than Britain.
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
Are you sure? A couple of years back it was the most vibrant place I'd ever been. Although I was staying in the New Otani. You are probably as usual on a backpacker's budget in some shitehole. Work to rule and only write shite for the Speccie when they refuse you 5* digs!
The betting markets are like the financial futures market - they are an great indicator of the mood of the present and a phenomenally crap guide to events in the future.
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
Er, the UK?
Surely we are experiencing a long-term trend (say 300 - 500 years) where some countries took a huge leap forward and gradually the rest will all catch up?
Which would actually be a very good thing overall, but a bit painful for those of us who grew-up in an era of rapidly improving prosperity.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Or just abolish the whole damn thing.
But that would be hard work and need thinking through. And we've only been on that for 100 years or so. So, in the meantime, lets have another reform that is not thought through but makes Labour MPs who are in the main professionals and pen pushers feel just a little bit radical, just for one day.
Scrap it entirely. Revising should be done in Commons committees and MPs held responsible if they write laws poorly, not rely on the Lords to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
Why should MPs in cttees be any better at scrutinising laws than they were before they voted on them?
The Lords at least has members who were not all politicians from professional and business life and the civic Sphere
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
You're in Osaka. Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
I’m visiting West Yorkshire today. Much of it looks quite prosperous (my wife’s from Wetterby).
But this is a feature of declining economies like Japan. The capital city remains rich and cosmopolitan looking. The rot sets in first in the provincial cities and countryside. We see it here but you really see it strongly in poor countries with rich histories. Moscow vs Russia is probably the extreme, but there are lots of other examples.
That’s one thing you don’t yet see in France, Germany or these countries (or Italy, these days). The provinces mostly look fairly prosperous.
Germany and Italy don't have a top 5 global city like the UK and Japan and London and Tokyo also have a greater gdp than Paris.
If you think East Germany or Sicily are very prosperous you also haven't been paying attention
I’m saying they “look” more prosperous than they did 20 years ago. Much more. Even rural East Germany.
Are you sure? A couple of years back it was the most vibrant place I'd ever been. Although I was staying in the New Otani. You are probably as usual on a backpacker's budget in some shitehole. Work to rule and only write shite for the Speccie when they refuse you 5* digs!
If you have gone over to do a hatchet job on Japan you are doing those who have never been a grave disservice.
It is a fantastic fusion of Western and Asian cultures. I found the escorts dressed as schoolgirls somewhat quease inducing but I am guessing you won't have a problem with that. The pleas from the guides that Geisha aren't hookers raised my eyebrow as you see the disheveled girls scuttling home at 10 o'clock the following morning after an evening entertaining clients. But everything else, except capital punishment and the Yakuza was awesome.
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
That's fair comment.
I'll offer same stakes to anyone for a charity bet that fuel duty will not be frozen at last year's level.
Not least, the Tories spent £2.4bn (iirc?) of our money in 24/25 keeping the fuel duty 5p below the 2010/11 level in cash terms in addition to the cost of the cash terms duty freeze. Given that overall motoring costs are *still* below where they were back then (RAC cost of motoring index) in real terms, there's no way imo RR will leave that alone. Nor should she.
IMO it will be a) +5p to unroll the temporary energy crisis reduction, or b) that and inflation, and c) perhaps a bit extra as well because fuel prices are currently at their lowest since summer 2021 afaics.
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
The "quite well paid" carry a disproportionate burden of tax, particularly if just over £100k. We have moved to a situation where those on moderate incomes pay very low tax rates compared with similar economies. This is a part of the problem for the Labour government as they have promised to not put up taxes on "working people" (whatever the feck that means). The reality is that though many people will claim "I paid my taxes all my life therefore I should get this, I should get that", a very large section of society will receive a lot more than they pay.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
Exactly Hard Talk should be financed by the licence fee and Strictly by advertising
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
Most of that is because of ruinously expensive housing and most of the rest is because we pretend to old people that they can live forever in comfort without working largely at public expense.
Can you tell me why? I cannot recall any single incident caused by mobile phone use at a petrol pump. There used to be scare stories, but it was never a genuine risk.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
The problem with reforming bit by bit (such as the current proposal about hereditaries and this one about bishops) is that they propose reform by making things worse.
Worse in the sense that it leaves intact exactly those people who certainly should not be there. The placemen and placewomen, the retired party hacks, those who happen to prop up the party coffers, insider greasy pole climbers and so on.
Remove those first; then consider how to create a true expert revising and advising chamber. Our populist democracy is not a good place to start. But among them should be some who are experienced religious leaders, some whose families have centuries of experience and responsibility in local and national life by reason of old fsahioned heredity, but very few whose experience is as back bench voting fodder.
Professions, academia, business, manufacturing; these are the backgrounds which should dominate the second chamber.
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
I could see a “catch up” fuel duty increase. Because pump prices are so low right now they could get away banging 30p plus on a litre and say it’s to stop climate change. Fuel duty is a big money spinner.
I don't think they could. Fuel prices dropping back are one of the main reasons inflation has calmed down. Sticking 30p on a litre would kick off another tidal wave.
Also really regressive - rich people in their EVs* don't pay a penny extra, normals get shafted.
One possible halfway house which wouldn't alter headline pump prices would be to put VAT on fuel to zero, and make up the difference with extra fuel duty. This would make no difference to normals, but make business fuel 20% more expensive as there would be no VAT reclaims available.
*the only reason EVs are ceaper to run than ICE vehicles is the tax arbitrage - if we put the equivalent of fuel duty onto electricity for EVs, they would be more expensive to run than ICE vehicles.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
That's actually what I would do, though not (of course) Chief Trainspotter. *If* the HoL is meant to be a revising chamber, then stuff it with experts. Not just lawyers, but engineers, scientists, educationalists, charity representatives, and all sorts of other field experts. Let (say) the Royal Society of Chemistry vote on who will represent them. Let the organisations decide on term limits and how they can get rid of them if they do not perform.
In addition, let them form committees that can advise the government and wider HoC on legislation and the way thing work.
That, IMO, would lead to far better legislation than just stuffing it with elected party reps.
Yeah, not unreasonable. Though I'd say there is rather more government policy on which the view of the chief trainspotter might be relevant than that if Justin bloody Welby.
Why? The Bishops views are perfectly relevant on matters of ethical and social policy, indeed while 46% of the country are Christian less than 5% of the Lords are Bishops so if anything they are underrepresented
Can you tell me why? I cannot recall any single incident caused by mobile phone use at a petrol pump. There used to be scare stories, but it was never a genuine risk.
On a related topic has a plane ever crashed thanks to someone forgetting to put their mobile in flight safe mode?
On parsimonious business travel I think that is also part of the New Puritanism.
Work should be suffering and unpleasant. If money is spent on providing a pleasant working environment, or making business travel enjoyable, then there's a suspicion that you're cheating and stealing money.
No-one is supposed to enjoy themselves unless they're doing it with their own money that has been earned in approved ways - definitely not with an income from public sector employment, or from a business that makes too much profit - and any such enjoyment shouldn't disturb the peace of a joyless old person.
This is part of the backlash against the Taylor Swift tickets - how dare they enjoy themselves! - but it's pretty pervasive.
Can you tell me why? I cannot recall any single incident caused by mobile phone use at a petrol pump. There used to be scare stories, but it was never a genuine risk.
Indeed, and as a lot of people pay contactless, I suspect it's quite common to have your phone ready in your hand
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
A decade and a half of Tory government which sees only the cost, and not the value of institutions.
Though I'm not convinced this government will be much better, beyond its ideological commitment to tax and spend.
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
I could see a “catch up” fuel duty increase. Because pump prices are so low right now they could get away banging 30p plus on a litre and say it’s to stop climate change. Fuel duty is a big money spinner.
I don't think they could. Fuel prices dropping back are one of the main reasons inflation has calmed down. Sticking 30p on a litre would kick off another tidal wave.
Also really regressive - rich people in their EVs* don't pay a penny extra, normals get shafted.
One possible halfway house which wouldn't alter headline pump prices would be to put VAT on fuel to zero, and make up the difference with extra fuel duty. This would make no difference to normals, but make business fuel 20% more expensive as there would be no VAT reclaims available.
*the only reason EVs are ceaper to run than ICE vehicles is the tax arbitrage - if we put the equivalent of fuel duty onto electricity for EVs, they would be more expensive to run than ICE vehicles.
That’s the same for everything to do with energy. The only way to make fossil fuels appear more expensive is to simultaneously tax it and subsidise the alternatives.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
Williamson playing sneaky games, and another sign that the Tories are disconnecting from a group of previously core supporters. Disestablishment in this way will pull threads that will undermine the Crown as well as the House of Lords, so yet another proof of the intellectual death of Conservatism.
Even if you approve of the goal, the shallow and disrespectful means disqualify it.
Can you tell me why? I cannot recall any single incident caused by mobile phone use at a petrol pump. There used to be scare stories, but it was never a genuine risk.
It isn't 'genuinely dangerous'. It isn't to be advised, though.
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
I could see a “catch up” fuel duty increase. Because pump prices are so low right now they could get away banging 30p plus on a litre and say it’s to stop climate change. Fuel duty is a big money spinner.
I don't think they could. Fuel prices dropping back are one of the main reasons inflation has calmed down. Sticking 30p on a litre would kick off another tidal wave.
Also really regressive - rich people in their EVs* don't pay a penny extra, normals get shafted.
One possible halfway house which wouldn't alter headline pump prices would be to put VAT on fuel to zero, and make up the difference with extra fuel duty. This would make no difference to normals, but make business fuel 20% more expensive as there would be no VAT reclaims available.
*the only reason EVs are ceaper to run than ICE vehicles is the tax arbitrage - if we put the equivalent of fuel duty onto electricity for EVs, they would be more expensive to run than ICE vehicles.
That’s the same for everything to do with energy. The only way to make fossil fuels appear more expensive is to simultaneously tax it and subsidise the alternatives.
Fossil fuel prices are artificially suppressed globally because unlike just about every other industry those that extract and burn them are not required to process and dispose of their primary industrial waste product (CO2) safely, at their own cost.
Imagine how cheap other industrial products would be if their manufacturers could just dump all their toxic waste in the nearby waterways.
Regarding "poor" Japan: international per capita income figures in dollars seriously under-state Japan's relative position, given the currently very weak yen.
Once Japan increase interest rates, such international comparisons will be more favourable.
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
The "quite well paid" carry a disproportionate burden of tax, particularly if just over £100k. We have moved to a situation where those on moderate incomes pay very low tax rates compared with similar economies. This is a part of the problem for the Labour government as they have promised to not put up taxes on "working people" (whatever the feck that means). The reality is that though many people will claim "I paid my taxes all my life therefore I should get this, I should get that", a very large section of society will receive a lot more than they pay.
Yes the LibDem/Coalition policy adopted by the Conservatives of taking people out of tax by raising thresholds in the 2010s was a disaster. It increased the number of freeloaders who can vote for higher public spending without paying the taxes that result from it. And we wonder why it's so politically difficult to get out of the tax/spend/stagnate doom loop that we're currently in.
It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.
Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.
Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
It is strikingly noticeable
It feels like a country that has completely run out of ideas
Admittedly this is day 1 - could be jet lag could be the fact I’m in Osaka - but I’m good at this. Getting an instant grasp. And there’s no denying that half the taxis are vintage Toyota Corollas - the very same cars they were driving in 1995 when I lived here
It’s like Cuba with its old Cadillacs
Rather melancholy. Japan felt like the future back then - dazzling!! Definitely doesn’t now
OTOH it is spotless and crime free and the people are lovely albeit a little melancholy
This was kind of my impression when I was there in the spring, although I think you are maybe over-egging it a bit. The toilets are still space-age tech though and just being clean and organised gets you a long way compared to the dirty and run down public realm that confronts you in many places here.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
Most of that is because of ruinously expensive housing and most of the rest is because we pretend to old people that they can live forever in comfort without working largely at public expense.
On parsimonious business travel I think that is also part of the New Puritanism.
Work should be suffering and unpleasant. If money is spent on providing a pleasant working environment, or making business travel enjoyable, then there's a suspicion that you're cheating and stealing money.
No-one is supposed to enjoy themselves unless they're doing it with their own money that has been earned in approved ways - definitely not with an income from public sector employment, or from a business that makes too much profit - and any such enjoyment shouldn't disturb the peace of a joyless old person.
This is part of the backlash against the Taylor Swift tickets - how dare they enjoy themselves! - but it's pretty pervasive.
Yep. And it’s politically expedient, as well as playing well on social media.
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
You're in Osaka. Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
Osaka is a big and fairly prosperous city
When I say “poor” I don’t mean absolutely poor. I mean relatively poor compared to Western Europe and North America and - definitely relatively poor compared to what I expected
I haven’t been back in 3 decades and I thought this hi tech country wouid have continued racing ahead. But it feels exactly like it did only the people are older and the tech is now behind, if anything
(Eg lots of places with no contactless indeed no card payments)
Japan was always the future ... let's hope it's not still that.
I'd be curious, though, how Tokyo/Osaka compares with London/Leeds ? (I've never visited Japan, but would very much like to.)
Conveniently in the month used to calculate increases to public sector pensions.
Still at least 2.5....
That's State Pension. Other benefits are linked to inflation so the 1.7% will apply.
I thought public sector pensions were inflation too?
My private defined benefit pension is also inflation (though December's IIRC) but with a maximum of 5%.
State Pension next year will be +4% thanks to the TL
Yep, triple lock needs to go but parties have to match-promise each other to stand any chance of being elected.
Another monumental cock-up by Cameron and Osborne.
The only (politcally acceptable) solution is a quadruple lock but with four weaker components than the current three. If you can't beat them bamboozle them.
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
Most of that is because of ruinously expensive housing and most of the rest is because we pretend to old people that they can live forever in comfort without working largely at public expense.
This is an interesting graph of who pays in to the state coffers and who takes out:
Currently 13.6% of our population is over 70 (about 9 500 000) projected to be about 20% in 2040. The current number of over 85's will double to 4% of the population too.
Keeping older workers in the workforce is key to the nations finances, as is maintaining the working age population.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
As a member of my Conservative Association's Executive Cttee I will ensure my Tory MP votes against Williamson's amendment and ideally speaks against it in the Commons too
Regarding "poor" Japan: international per capita income figures in dollars seriously under-state Japan's relative position, given the currently very weak yen.
Once Japan increase interest rates, such international comparisons will be more favourable.
It’s a fair point. In PPP terms Japan has grown very slowly but steadily since 1990, whereas economies like the UK grew rapidly until 2008 and have flatlined since. We’re still a bit ahead of Japan on that measure but not so much.
But PPP is a partial measure. It inflates GDP on the basis of the cost of domestically produced basics, particularly housing and food, but doesn’t reflect the real impact exchange rates have on the affordability of global commodities and high end imports that drive prosperity and consumption.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Taking back control from our unelected rulers is all the rage today.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Or just abolish the whole damn thing.
But that would be hard work and need thinking through. And we've only been on that for 100 years or so. So, in the meantime, lets have another reform that is not thought through but makes Labour MPs who are in the main professionals and pen pushers feel just a little bit radical, just for one day.
Scrap it entirely. Revising should be done in Commons committees and MPs held responsible if they write laws poorly, not rely on the Lords to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
Why should MPs in cttees be any better at scrutinising laws than they were before they voted on them?
The Lords at least has members who were not all politicians from professional and business life and the civic Sphere
IMO it should be a prerequisite that MPs have done a *proper job* previously. Sadly that would rule out a large part of the current Conservative Party and most of the Labour Party
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
As a member of my Conservative Association's Executive Cttee I will ensure my Tory MP votes against Williamson's amendment and ideally speaks against it in the Commons too
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
You're in Osaka. Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
Osaka is a big and fairly prosperous city
When I say “poor” I don’t mean absolutely poor. I mean relatively poor compared to Western Europe and North America and - definitely relatively poor compared to what I expected
I haven’t been back in 3 decades and I thought this hi tech country wouid have continued racing ahead. But it feels exactly like it did only the people are older and the tech is now behind, if anything
(Eg lots of places with no contactless indeed no card payments)
Japan was always the future ... let's hope it's not still that.
I'd be curious, though, how Tokyo/Osaka compares with London/Leeds ? (I've never visited Japan, but would very much like to.)
Both about a 2 hour train journey from each other. But Osaka is vast. Leeds looks quite parochial and quaint by comparison. There’s no view of Mt Fuji from the LNER Azuma sadly.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Taking back control from our unelected rulers is all the rage today.
We should be taking back control from this useless Labour government elected on a mere 33% of the vote not undermining true Tory principles. If Williamson wants a civil war in the Tory Party on this I and others will make damn sure he gets one!!
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
Most of that is because of ruinously expensive housing and most of the rest is because we pretend to old people that they can live forever in comfort without working largely at public expense.
This is an interesting graph of who pays in to the state coffers and who takes out:
Currently 13.6% of our population is over 70 (about 9 500 000) projected to be about 20% in 2040. The current number of over 85's will double to 4% of the population too.
Keeping older workers in the workforce is key to the nations finances, as is maintaining the working age population.
Re-enforces we should be investing heavily in weight loss injections. Will both reduce the health costs below the line and extend tax revenue above the line.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
Williamson playing sneaky games, and another sign that the Tories are disconnecting from a group of previously core supporters. Disestablishment in this way will pull threads that will undermine the Crown as well as the House of Lords, so yet another proof of the intellectual death of Conservatism.
Even if you approve of the goal, the shallow and disrespectful means disqualify it.
Interesting though that it seemingly took a dissonance opr at least discrepancy so close to home for him to confront the basic issue - the unfair representation of one sect of one religion which isn't even applicable to the UK as a whole. No Bishops of the Churches of Wales and Ireland, or the ECS, and no Presbyterian Moderators.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Unstupidly... why not? In my Blob article I made passive reference to British corporatism. Corporatism (as distinct from rule by corporations, a different thing) is a form of government where special interest groups are included. The three most often mentioned are management, trades unions, and the people. In mediaeval times it would include the guilds. Similar proposals were mentioned (but alas not considered) as a counter to the aborted Clegg reforms...oddly enough in the Spectator, IIRC. I'll provide a link to a video about Corporatism later.
The biggest complaint by everybody at the moment is lack of representation: how politics has been taken over by an elite class that acts in its own interest. I think that is true but that then begs the question what to do about it. Adding guild representation in the Lords, and/or expanding it to include faith leadership, would be a move in a corporate direction and all the better for it.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…
Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…
Although on reflection…
Dodgy analysis.
What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.
For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.
You save money in the long term with that approach.
All of which are completely unconnected to whether you actually need first class travel…
(FWIW I only get it on flights over 6 hours)
I'm not convinced by the need for First over Business !
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
Most of that is because of ruinously expensive housing and most of the rest is because we pretend to old people that they can live forever in comfort without working largely at public expense.
Well, that needs to end, I'm afraid.
We all have to live in the real world.
Yes, the Triple lock is clearly something that cannot last. Yet both 2 parties of government are wedded to it.
Scrap it and leave it to the CoE to decide the increase each year, and also stop the silly pledges over never increasing income tax or NI. It just makes for distorting and self defeating stealth tax rises on various allowances.
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
You're in Osaka. Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
Osaka is a big and fairly prosperous city
When I say “poor” I don’t mean absolutely poor. I mean relatively poor compared to Western Europe and North America and - definitely relatively poor compared to what I expected
I haven’t been back in 3 decades and I thought this hi tech country wouid have continued racing ahead. But it feels exactly like it did only the people are older and the tech is now behind, if anything
(Eg lots of places with no contactless indeed no card payments)
Japan was always the future ... let's hope it's not still that.
I'd be curious, though, how Tokyo/Osaka compares with London/Leeds ? (I've never visited Japan, but would very much like to.)
Both about a 2 hour train journey from each other. But Osaka is vast. Leeds looks quite parochial and quaint by comparison. There’s no view of Mt Fuji from the LNER Azuma sadly.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Taking back control from our unelected rulers is all the rage today.
We should be taking back control from this useless Labour government elected on a mere 33% of the vote not undermining true Tory principles. If Williamson wants a civil war in the Tory Party on this I and others will make damn sure he gets one!!
Did you vote in favour of electoral reform in the referendum?
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Taking back control from our unelected rulers is all the rage today.
We should be taking back control from this useless Labour government elected on a mere 33% of the vote not undermining true Tory principles. If Williamson wants a civil war in the Tory Party on this I and others will make damn sure he gets one!!
I am currently writing a header on why Gavin Williamson should be Tory leader.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Or just abolish the whole damn thing.
But that would be hard work and need thinking through. And we've only been on that for 100 years or so. So, in the meantime, lets have another reform that is not thought through but makes Labour MPs who are in the main professionals and pen pushers feel just a little bit radical, just for one day.
Scrap it entirely. Revising should be done in Commons committees and MPs held responsible if they write laws poorly, not rely on the Lords to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
Why should MPs in cttees be any better at scrutinising laws than they were before they voted on them?
The Lords at least has members who were not all politicians from professional and business life and the civic Sphere
IMO it should be a prerequisite that MPs have done a *proper job* previously. Sadly that would rule out a large part of the current Conservative Party and most of the Labour Party
A requirement MPs work at least 5 years outside Westminster and in a job which is not a SPAD/political researcher/policy wonk/lobbyist/councillor might not be a bad thing
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…
Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…
Although on reflection…
Dodgy analysis.
What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.
For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.
You save money in the long term with that approach.
All of which are completely unconnected to whether you actually need first class travel…
(FWIW I only get it on flights over 6 hours)
I'm not convinced by the need for First over Business !
Given we were talking trains, there’s no business class (except the Eurostar, which I’m taking next week - in standard).
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
IMF!? What are you smoking Max?
Tax rises will be used to address the terrible financial situation the Tories have left behind, not IMF bail-outs.
The problem is that one can always raise tax rates. It's quite a lot more difficult to achieve sustained increases to the tax take. And it's virtually impossible to do either of these without destroying any hint of growth in the economy.
The only possibile fix that doesn't involve the IMF is to get something for nothing, and cut business costs by deregulation. But regulation has been on a one way ratchet since the end of WW2, and the idiots in the Labour Party are the last people on earth willing to reverse this even though it is the underlying cause of most of the malaise.
You don't seem to understand what the IMF is or what it does.
It is there to help (mostly developing) countries on fixed exchange rates, which we don't have, out of temporary liquidity difficulties, which we can't have because of the government's ability to borrow in sterling and if necessary turn on the printing presses (AKA quantitative easing). It is not there to save a cowardly electorate and lazy and spineless politicians from the long-term consequences of their own folly.
An IMF loan would do nothing to help us, out of our long-term economic difficulties, which are caused by poor supply side policies, and indeed would, with their focus on macro-economic rather than micro-economic measures, probably prevent them from being addressed.
In any case, the IMF's resources are already under such strain that it can hardly keep up its current programme to much poorer and more deserving countries, let alone take on a gigantic new liability. Even if they did, pumping a loan large enough to make a difference into an economy like ours would certainly be inflationary, and would likely lead to a wage-price spiral of the type we've just escaped from.
Finally, of course, any IMF programme would have no democratic legitimacy, and even if successful (and they have a poor track record) the government would simply renege on it as soon as it safely could, as Labour did in the late 1970s.
In times of difficulty it is always attractive to look for a shortcut, but I'm afraid there is none - in a democracy, politicians with the intelligence to see the policies required and the public spirit necessary to persevere in the face of short-term unpopularity need to win free elections. They aren't in any way abstract or complicated - low taxes, light but effective regulation, cheap energy, enough housing and decent infrastructure - and our failure is of political will, not economic competence.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Unstupidly... why not? In my Blob article I made passive reference to British corporatism. Corporatism (as distinct from rule by corporations, a different thing) is a form of government where special interest groups are included. The three most often mentioned are management, trades unions, and the people. In mediaeval times it would include the guilds. Similar proposals were mentioned (but alas not considered) as a counter to the aborted Clegg reforms...oddly enough in the Spectator, IIRC. I'll provide a link to a video about Corporatism later.
The biggest complaint by everybody at the moment is lack of representation: how politics has been taken over by an elite class that acts in its own interest. I think that is true but that then begs the question what to do about it. Adding guild representation in the Lords, and/or expanding it to include faith leadership, would be a move in a corporate direction and all the better for it.
Mm, so we should bring back the University seats for graduates to have a second vote? And special Trade Union MPs for specific sets of unions?
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
As a member of my Conservative Association's Executive Cttee I will ensure my Tory MP votes against Williamson's amendment and ideally speaks against it in the Commons too
Good morning
I rarely endorse Williamson on anything but he is absolutely correct on this
Of course you are upset but some of us do not share your views
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
The problem with removing the Bishops from the House of Lords is that it undermines the religious settlement of the country.
That is, preventing people who believe in anything beyond "a vague niceness and weak tea" occupying a position of power.
The cleverness of this approach is that instead of banning religion or something silly, you simply fill all the posts available with elderly and querulous agnostics.
The replacements for the Bishops might well be *religious* - Are you ready for people who believe in God having power again?
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
Comments
We may as well hear from his third nipple.
Harris 50 ( +1)
Trump 46 ( -)
That is genuinely dangerous.
- Japan: 49.5
- Italy: 48.1
- Germany: 46.7
- France: 42.2
- UK: 40.6
- China: 39.8
- US: 38.8
We do have a demographics problem here (increasing % of population retired or in need of the NHS), but we in a much better position than most of Europe.
We need net migration at sustainable levels (so lower than recent years), but the UK/US are in a much better demographic position than many because migration is an established part of society (and most of it is well integrated).
China's median age will of course increase much faster than ours.
Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Hard hitting news programmes are valuable but not commercial
Mind you, one of the advantages about a non commercially funded news organisation could be…
So I will travel that way but it’s very unproductive and I will be treating it as part of my working time
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
Things like, oh I don’t know, how’s about genuinely objective, but probing and well-researched, interviews with the World’s leading political figures and thought leaders…
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
Which is why the hereditaries were left..: to motivate the government to focus on solving the problem
Tokyo is fairly unique in having less separated infra in the streets (pavements, cycle tracks) than other developed country cities, due to the narrowness of everything - eg wall to wall will often be less than just the kerb-kerb dimension in the UK. And everything being narrow causes a perception to those driving motor vehicles that they should slow right down.
K-Cars also make a difference - eg Suzuki Cappucino size.
It's a bit in conflict with post war redevelopment which followed Usonian practice Okonomiyake .
(FWIW I only get it on flights over 6 hours)
Osaka is a big and fairly prosperous city
When I say “poor” I don’t mean absolutely poor. I mean relatively poor compared to Western Europe and North America and - definitely relatively poor compared to what I expected
I haven’t been back in 3 decades and I thought this hi tech country wouid have continued racing ahead. But it feels exactly like it did only the people are older and the tech is now behind, if anything
(Eg lots of places with no contactless indeed no card payments)
This is my gaff in Osaka
https://www.booking.com/Share-eCGzLNw
The Zentis. Very stylish
No I’m not taking an overnight flight and going straight into work, because I’m not going to be in any way productive for you - so either you pay me to travel the day before or fly me in business class.
To be fair most companies do understand this for consultants, even if the guy hiring you has to have an argument with his boss and the accountant to get it approved.
I just wanted to boast about my lovely hotel
But this is a feature of declining economies like Japan. The capital city remains rich and cosmopolitan looking. The rot sets in first in the provincial cities and countryside. We see it here but you really see it strongly in poor countries with rich histories. Moscow vs Russia is probably the extreme, but there are lots of other examples.
That’s one thing you don’t yet see in France, Germany or these countries (or Italy, these days). The provinces mostly look fairly prosperous.
If you think East Germany or Sicily are very prosperous you also haven't been paying attention
A clever government back in 2022 could have promised to flex fuel duty so that pump prices were fixed at say 1.65 for the next 5 years. They would be absolutely raking it in now.
Macron’s fuel duty hikes, the ones that got the gilets jaunes going, are now contributing a lot to the coffers. Average petrol price on my visit last week was about €1.75. France used to be considerably cheaper than Britain.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
Which would actually be a very good thing overall, but a bit painful for those of us who grew-up in an era of rapidly improving prosperity.
The Lords at least has members who were not all politicians from professional and business life and the civic Sphere
It is a fantastic fusion of Western and Asian cultures. I found the escorts dressed as schoolgirls somewhat quease inducing but I am guessing you won't have a problem with that. The pleas from the guides that Geisha aren't hookers raised my eyebrow as you see the disheveled girls scuttling home at 10 o'clock the following morning after an evening entertaining clients. But everything else, except capital punishment and the Yakuza was awesome.
I'll offer same stakes to anyone for a charity bet that fuel duty will not be frozen at last year's level.
Not least, the Tories spent £2.4bn (iirc?) of our money in 24/25 keeping the fuel duty 5p below the 2010/11 level in cash terms in addition to the cost of the cash terms duty freeze. Given that overall motoring costs are *still* below where they were back then (RAC cost of motoring index) in real terms, there's no way imo RR will leave that alone. Nor should she.
IMO it will be a) +5p to unroll the temporary energy crisis reduction, or b) that and inflation, and c) perhaps a bit extra as well because fuel prices are currently at their lowest since summer 2021 afaics.
I'd say 25:75 on b or c.
Another monumental cock-up by Cameron and Osborne.
Worse in the sense that it leaves intact exactly those people who certainly should not be there. The placemen and placewomen, the retired party hacks, those who happen to prop up the party coffers, insider greasy pole climbers and so on.
Remove those first; then consider how to create a true expert revising and advising chamber. Our populist democracy is not a good place to start. But among them should be some who are experienced religious leaders, some whose families have centuries of experience and responsibility in local and national life by reason of old fsahioned heredity, but very few whose experience is as back bench voting fodder.
Professions, academia, business, manufacturing; these are the backgrounds which should dominate the second chamber.
Worst of all would be to elect it.
Also really regressive - rich people in their EVs* don't pay a penny extra, normals get shafted.
One possible halfway house which wouldn't alter headline pump prices would be to put VAT on fuel to zero, and make up the difference with extra fuel duty. This would make no difference to normals, but make business fuel 20% more expensive as there would be no VAT reclaims available.
*the only reason EVs are ceaper to run than ICE vehicles is the tax arbitrage - if we put the equivalent of fuel duty onto electricity for EVs, they would be more expensive to run than ICE vehicles.
Work should be suffering and unpleasant. If money is spent on providing a pleasant working environment, or making business travel enjoyable, then there's a suspicion that you're cheating and stealing money.
No-one is supposed to enjoy themselves unless they're doing it with their own money that has been earned in approved ways - definitely not with an income from public sector employment, or from a business that makes too much profit - and any such enjoyment shouldn't disturb the peace of a joyless old person.
This is part of the backlash against the Taylor Swift tickets - how dare they enjoy themselves! - but it's pretty pervasive.
Though I'm not convinced this government will be much better, beyond its ideological commitment to tax and spend.
Even if you approve of the goal, the shallow and disrespectful means disqualify it.
This seems a good ummary:
https://www.fuelsindustryuk.org/consumer-information/mobile-phones-on-filling-station-forecourts/
Speaking of which, those who think benefits are out of control in the UK should take a look at this chart:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63129705
Imagine how cheap other industrial products would be if their manufacturers could just dump all their toxic waste in the nearby waterways.
Once Japan increase interest rates, such international comparisons will be more favourable.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
We all have to live in the real world.
I'd be curious, though, how Tokyo/Osaka compares with London/Leeds ?
(I've never visited Japan, but would very much like to.)
Currently 13.6% of our population is over 70 (about 9 500 000) projected to be about 20% in 2040. The current number of over 85's will double to 4% of the population too.
Keeping older workers in the workforce is key to the nations finances, as is maintaining the working age population.
But PPP is a partial measure. It inflates GDP on the basis of the cost of domestically produced basics, particularly housing and food, but doesn’t reflect the real impact exchange rates have on the affordability of global commodities and high end imports that drive prosperity and consumption.
The biggest complaint by everybody at the moment is lack of representation: how politics has been taken over by an elite class that acts in its own interest. I think that is true but that then begs the question what to do about it. Adding guild representation in the Lords, and/or expanding it to include faith leadership, would be a move in a corporate direction and all the better for it.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Scrap it and leave it to the CoE to decide the increase each year, and also stop the silly pledges over never increasing income tax or NI. It just makes for distorting and self defeating stealth tax rises on various allowances.
Not that I would get elected on such a platform.
It is there to help (mostly developing) countries on fixed exchange rates, which we don't have, out of temporary liquidity difficulties, which we can't have because of the government's ability to borrow in sterling and if necessary turn on the printing presses (AKA quantitative easing). It is not there to save a cowardly electorate and lazy and spineless politicians from the long-term consequences of their own folly.
An IMF loan would do nothing to help us, out of our long-term economic difficulties, which are caused by poor supply side policies, and indeed would, with their focus on macro-economic rather than micro-economic measures, probably prevent them from being addressed.
In any case, the IMF's resources are already under such strain that it can hardly keep up its current programme to much poorer and more deserving countries, let alone take on a gigantic new liability. Even if they did, pumping a loan large enough to make a difference into an economy like ours would certainly be inflationary, and would likely lead to a wage-price spiral of the type we've just escaped from.
Finally, of course, any IMF programme would have no democratic legitimacy, and even if successful (and they have a poor track record) the government would simply renege on it as soon as it safely could, as Labour did in the late 1970s.
In times of difficulty it is always attractive to look for a shortcut, but I'm afraid there is none - in a democracy, politicians with the intelligence to see the policies required and the public spirit necessary to persevere in the face of short-term unpopularity need to win free elections. They aren't in any way abstract or complicated - low taxes, light but effective regulation, cheap energy, enough housing and decent infrastructure - and our failure is of political will, not economic competence.
I rarely endorse Williamson on anything but he is absolutely correct on this
Of course you are upset but some of us do not share your views
That is, preventing people who believe in anything beyond "a vague niceness and weak tea" occupying a position of power.
The cleverness of this approach is that instead of banning religion or something silly, you simply fill all the posts available with elderly and querulous agnostics.
The replacements for the Bishops might well be *religious* - Are you ready for people who believe in God having power again?
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him