Day 41 of the Truss premiership and some terrible front pages – politicalbetting.com

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dura_Ace said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Dickhead was always going to be like this. Everyone knew it.

https://twitter.com/DAVID_FIRTH/status/1575473269351845888

Yeah but s#%ts about to get real with him in charge.

https://youtube.com/shorts/v41JzqxwzlU?feature=share

Alistair said:

There's an alternative Universe where Gordon Brown not only doesn't knife Wendy Alexander in the back he actually goes all in on "Bring It On" and agrees to have a SIndy ref in 2009.

Given the economic circumstances Yes would have been lucky to get 35%. Brown would have gone into a 2010 not just the saviour of the banking sector but also of the Union.

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

There's an alternative Universe where Gordon Brown not only doesn't knife Wendy Alexander in the back he actually goes all in on "Bring It On" and agrees to have a SIndy ref in 2009.

Given the economic circumstances Yes would have been lucky to get 35%. Brown would have gone into a 2010 not just the saviour of the banking sector but also of the Union.

Given Brown was in charge when the economy collapsed Yes would likely still have got 40 to 45%, that is the Nationalist core vote regardless

It looked at the start of the campaign in 2014 as though Yes would be lucky to get 30%. By the end one poll had it ahead.

Never make assumptions.

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

DavidL said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.

Carnyx said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.

However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.

Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.

Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.

Forget Brexit.

What is it you propose?

Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?

And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.

Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.

I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.

Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.

I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.

Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability

I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:

For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.

Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.

But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of
secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.

We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.

That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.

That reduction is an inevitable consequence of the unprecedented competition faced by the low to medium skilled from the development of what were previously third world countries, specifically China. The massive increase in global trade simply left those groups, which contain the majority of the population, with no negotiating power. If they don't like the lower wages the factory was transplanted and minimal tariffs meant that the business could still produce its product for the market in the US or the EU.

This is the same problem we had with the SM writ large. It was of course possible for us to thrive in the SM, as Germany did, but it would have needed a completely different policy mix from governments who almost certainly would not have been re-elected.

Simplistic, idealistic notions of the benefits of free trade, low or non existent tariffs have completely undermined the majority of western society. Those with capital or with exceptional skills at the top have, of course, gained massively and we have seen GDP creep up, usually with increasing trade deficits as we import much of what we used to make.

We have heard this song before of course. Between the First and Second World Wars, following the US passing of The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, a wave of protectionist measures were passed around the wold. This did not end well: world trade collapsed, and economies – that had been recovering – deteriorated further. The raising of tariff barriers around the world was one of the ultimate causes of the Second World War; something recognised in the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, which went on to become the World Trade Organisation in 1995.

World Trade 1929-1933, as % of World GDP


Source: League of Nations’ World Economic Survey 1932-33

It is true that the benefits of free trade appear very unequal: to an unemployed steel worker in Sunderland, the 1% in his country have gotten wealthier, as have the people of China and other emerging markets, while he has found himself without a job. The problem is that the proposed alternatives – of erecting tariff barriers – make the problem worse.

Raising tariff barriers on – say – imported steel to maintain jobs in Redcar or Port Talbot won’t save those jobs. Or, if it temporarily does, it will do so at the expense of the steel consumers of the UK – car makers and the like.

But let us imagine this issue could be solved (and that we could avoid retaliatory tariffs from those affected by our actions): who would be the purchaser of manufactured products from us if we attempted to protect our industries? We would be making a conscious decision to produce goods at above world market prices. And we need our exports: because without exports of goods and services, we cannot afford the natural gas and oil and the like we need.

As we discussed in Why We Were Rich, above, the developed world used to have the monopoly on manufacturing goods. It no longer does. Attempting to protect industries that are no longer competitive will not help them, it will merely unbalance economies further. Recognising this is painful. Not recognising it is worse.

Yet that period between WW1 and 2 was when the world of deference ebbed away - what we might in Britain glibly call the Downton Abbey world came to an end - and both equality and quality of life for working people improved considerably. Which is why you have to look at the politics and the economics together.

A nice point. One only need look at the council houses of the 1920s ands 1930s round here - decent buildings in decent garden plots erected because all the free market had to offer the workers was tied factory and mine owned boxes, and private landlord flats, often near-slums. The latter situation had very nearly led to revolution in Clydeside, and more generally cannot be blamed on planning and nimbies.

maxh said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.

However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.

Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.

Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.

Forget Brexit.

What is it you propose?

Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?

And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.

Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.

I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.

Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.

I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.

Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability

I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:

For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.

Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.

But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of
secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.

We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.

That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.

The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.


I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the
fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.

Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.

The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.

I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.

That's like expecting Boris to suddenly start telling the truth, people don't change.

The Queen was a good monarch, but that said more about the Queen as an individual than it did about the quality of monarchy. She was always going to leave big shoes to fill, but Charles is really not going to come close by any means.

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the
calamity of her first month in office!

You’ve changed

Truss is a libertarian not a Tory who is trashing the party and leading it sleepwalking to its worst defeat since 1832 on current polls.

She has until the local elections to turn it round or she is gone

darkage said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JosiasJessop said:

Heathener said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

Not a lover of Truss, but [...] the misogynistic hatred propelled towards her is appalling.

I don't think it's got anything to do with her being a woman.

It's because she's fucking useless.

I'm no fan of hers, but I have no doubt that some of the (ahem) comments towards her are misogynistic. It's a particularly crass way of talking about her, as she's given people ample valid reasons to criticise her.

I agree

I think she is out of her depth and needs to go but I have detected a degree of misogyny in some comments that is not necessary

This is another thing Truss could suggest - that the criticism of her is misogynistic, and that she needs to carry on for this reason, don't give in to sexism etc. There will always be idiots who provide ammunition for this type of claim. But I would guess that it won't be received particularly well by the general public, who are primarily concerned with mortgage rates and cost of living issues. Also, I recall there was some polling recently that indicated that she was very unpopular with women, which will not help her. I don't think she is in any position where she can look for public sympathy in the way that Theresa May did. Unfortunately, the PM is a role where you just cannot keep someone on because you feel sorry for them.

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

Cicero said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.

However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.

Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.

Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.

Forget Brexit.

What is it you propose?

Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?

And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.

Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.

I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.

Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.

I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.

Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability

I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:

For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.

Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.

But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of
secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.

We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.

That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.

Three UK structural observations:

1) As the rewards for employment have fallen, the returns on capital have increased dramatically (especially true in the USA btw)

2) Income is taxed very heavily, capital is taxed relatively lightly and land not taxed at all.

3) The efficiency of government spending has collapsed as public services are no longer controlled by the taxpayer.

These problems date at least to the end of the 1960s.

Major reforms of employment are needed, including promoting self employment and small businesses. A major shift in the tax system is needed including an increase in wealth and capital taxes and a sharp reduction of the income tax burden. Major administrative reform is needed, including radical decentralization and a simplification of the role of the state.

At 10 million words, the UK still has the longest tax code in the world. Aiming to cut that would be a massive task, but the fiscal burden of administration is most definitely "anti-growth". We need a whole new approach, but our politics doesn´t even understand the question. Hence in order to address the economic crisis, we need to address the failures of our politics.

There can be no prosperity without reform.

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.

'seriously stupid'

Lol!
Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..

StuartDickson said:

- “My 2022 and 2023 bets on her exit starting to look good.”

@stjohn says on the previous thread that the best value bet around at the moment is laying Truss to be PM after the next GE, over at Smarkets.

Ok, no punter likes tying up cash for too long, but he reckons that even if he has to wait two years, he’s going to make a 28% return. There are worse investments at the moment.

He’s theoretically risking his stake, but c’mon, Liz Truss is never going to be PM after the next GE. It is now virtually impossible.

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dura_Ace said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Dickhead was always going to be like this. Everyone knew it.

https://twitter.com/DAVID_FIRTH/status/1575473269351845888

Yeah but s#%ts about to get real with him in charge.

https://youtube.com/shorts/v41JzqxwzlU?feature=share

That's got to be one of the worst Charles voice impressions ever. Cringingly bad.

Stark_Dawning said:

Just looked at the Chaz / Liz vid. Talk about fuss over nothing.

Pagan2 said:

maxh said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.

However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.

Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.

Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.

Forget Brexit.

What is it you propose?

Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?

And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.

Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.

I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.

Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.

I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.

Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability

I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:

For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.

Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.

But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of
secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.

We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.

That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.

The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.


I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the
fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.

Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.

The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.

I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.

I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.

LostPassword said:

RochdalePioneers said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning everyone.
The Guardian has a different take on the cabinet rows: 'Liz Truss on collision course with Jacob Rees-Mogg over solar power ban.'
Apparently he is in favour of farmers farming solar panels, she isn't!

This is one of their policy battles that I just don't understand. Farmers are usually Tories. Farmers own their land and need to make a living. Many are struggling to make money farming (in part by post-Brexit idiocy and energy prices crippling our fertiliser industry and spiking prices). So they make £ putting solar farms up. Which produces critical power.

Why would you stop this? I know that the spin line is "we promote Nuclear and the other parties don't". But if they authorise a new nuclear plant today its 2030 at best before it generates electricity. Whereas solar can generate power as soon as they are plugged in...

Reading the details in the Guardian the whole thing seems to be a storm in a teacup. Solar farms are already restricted from the best farmland. The proposal is to change the definition of the most valuable farmland to include the next tier down, so that it includes grades 1-3b, instead of 1-3a, on a nominally five point scale (where the middle point is divided in two).

There is no great clash of principle here. No sweeping ban. It's a slight change in emphasis. A tweak. A light hand on the tiller.

Now, if you spent the time to look at it in detail you could probably make a case for one side or the other of the debate, but it's being elevated in importance out of all proportion to its effect.

Arguing about this is pure displacement activity. There are much bigger issues that need to be grasped.

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

I'm on record as saying King Charles III will be a total disaster and I stand by that prediction.

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the
calamity of her first month in office!

You’ve changed

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the
calamity of her first month in office!

You’ve changed

Truss is a libertarian not a Tory who is trashing the party and leading it sleepwalking to its worst defeat since 1832 on current polls.

She has until the local elections to turn it round or she is gone

Why should it be the poor local councillors who have to be stuck with the fork to tell us what we all know

"Yep, she's done...."

Get rid before Christmas, start the New Year as afresh as this parliamentary party can muster.

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

'elected'?

Sean_F said:

Pagan2 said:

maxh said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.

However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.

Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.

Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.

Forget Brexit.

What is it you propose?

Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?

And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.

Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.

I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.

Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.

I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.

Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability

I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:

For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.

Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.

But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of
secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.

We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.

That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.

The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.


I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the
fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.

Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.

The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.

I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.

I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.

From 1970 to 1999, GDP per head grew by 2.5% pa. That way, everyone got get richer more or less, without too much difficulty.

Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

RochdalePioneers said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning everyone.
The Guardian has a different take on the cabinet rows: 'Liz Truss on collision course with Jacob Rees-Mogg over solar power ban.'
Apparently he is in favour of farmers farming solar panels, she isn't!

This is one of their policy battles that I just don't understand. Farmers are usually Tories. Farmers own their land and need to make a living. Many are struggling to make money farming (in part by post-Brexit idiocy and energy prices crippling our fertiliser industry and spiking prices). So they make £ putting solar farms up. Which produces critical power.

Why would you stop this? I know that the spin line is "we promote Nuclear and the other parties don't". But if they authorise a new nuclear plant today its 2030 at best before it generates electricity. Whereas solar can generate power as soon as they are plugged in...

Reading the details in the Guardian the whole thing seems to be a storm in a teacup. Solar farms are already restricted from the best farmland. The proposal is to change the definition of the most valuable farmland to include the next tier down, so that it includes grades 1-3b, instead of 1-3a, on a nominally five point scale (where the middle point is divided in two).

There is no great clash of principle here. No sweeping ban. It's a slight change in emphasis. A tweak. A light hand on the tiller.

Now, if you spent the time to look at it in detail you could probably make a case for one side or the other of the debate, but it's being elevated in importance out of all proportion to its effect.

Arguing about this is pure displacement activity. There are much bigger issues that need to be grasped.

The change proposed, is to stop a short-term rush for farmers to install solar panels in fields because of the power price spike, at the long-term cost of food production. It’s a sensible policy.

nico679 said:

Over 7 million now on NHS waiting lists.

The Tories will blame covid but it’s only exacerbated an already dire situation.

LostPassword said:

I think talk like this is very dangerous. It's tantamount to giving Putin permission to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

The Kyiv Independent
@KyivIndependent
·
18m
⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.

"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.

https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1580481219564687360

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.

'seriously stupid'

Lol!
Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..

Charles is an intellectual, he is not stupid. The Queen was not an intellectual even if maybe she had more common sense

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

'elected'?

Yes, elected under our system in exactly the same way as almost every other PM in recent history.

(Edited to add the "almost": Cameron's first term was a bit different.)

We have actually never had a PM who has neither won a general election or the support of a majority of their party's MPs in Parliament before Truss

LostPassword said:

I think talk like this is very dangerous. It's tantamount to giving Putin permission to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

The Kyiv Independent
@KyivIndependent
·
18m
⚡️ Macron: France won’t strike Russia if it nukes Ukraine.

"Our doctrine is based on the fundamental interests of (our) nation, and they are clearly defined. If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question," said Macron.

https://www.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1580481219564687360

Leon said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

'elected'?

She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

'elected'?

Yes, elected under our system in exactly the same way as almost every other PM in recent history.

(Edited to add the "almost": Cameron's first term was a bit different.)

We have actually never had a PM who has neither won a general election or the support of a majority of their party's MPs in Parliament before Truss

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

RochdalePioneers said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning everyone.
The Guardian has a different take on the cabinet rows: 'Liz Truss on collision course with Jacob Rees-Mogg over solar power ban.'
Apparently he is in favour of farmers farming solar panels, she isn't!

This is one of their policy battles that I just don't understand. Farmers are usually Tories. Farmers own their land and need to make a living. Many are struggling to make money farming (in part by post-Brexit idiocy and energy prices crippling our fertiliser industry and spiking prices). So they make £ putting solar farms up. Which produces critical power.

Why would you stop this? I know that the spin line is "we promote Nuclear and the other parties don't". But if they authorise a new nuclear plant today its 2030 at best before it generates electricity. Whereas solar can generate power as soon as they are plugged in...

Reading the details in the Guardian the whole thing seems to be a storm in a teacup. Solar farms are already restricted from the best farmland. The proposal is to change the definition of the most valuable farmland to include the next tier down, so that it includes grades 1-3b, instead of 1-3a, on a nominally five point scale (where the middle point is divided in two).

There is no great clash of principle here. No sweeping ban. It's a slight change in emphasis. A tweak. A light hand on the tiller.

Now, if you spent the time to look at it in detail you could probably make a case for one side or the other of the debate, but it's being elevated in importance out of all proportion to its effect.

Arguing about this is pure displacement activity. There are much bigger issues that need to be grasped.

The change proposed, is to stop a short-term rush for farmers to install solar panels in fields because of the power price spike, at the long-term cost of food production. It’s a sensible policy.

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

The only claim that anyone has to the Koh-I-Noor diamond is that their forebears looted it. That it is as true of India as any other claimant.

The only people who get really worked up about it are people who don't really have much in their lives to worry about.

All concerns that you don't share are kind of trivial in the grand scheme, aren't they?

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.

'seriously stupid'

Lol!
Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..

Charles is an intellectual, he is not stupid. The Queen was not an intellectual even if maybe she had more common sense

He did the BRNC commissioning course for Surface Warfare/Aviation officers in 6 weeks instead of the 49 weeks it normally takes. Genius.

noneoftheabove said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Just looked at the Chaz / Liz vid. Talk about fuss over nothing.

Agreed, but why was it even released? Assuming it had gone swimmingly are there loads of people who just have to see it?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

I'm on record as saying King Charles III will be a total disaster and I stand by that prediction.

The King has had a far better start to his reign than Truss has had to her premiership

That is the lowest bar possible

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

The only claim that anyone has to the Koh-I-Noor diamond is that their forebears looted it. That it is as true of India as any other claimant.

The only people who get really worked up about it are people who don't really have much in their lives to worry about.

All concerns that you don't share are kind of trivial in the grand scheme, aren't they?

It's not an issue that makes a difference to anybody's life, is it?

Stark_Dawning said:

Just looked at the Chaz / Liz vid. Talk about fuss over nothing.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.

'seriously stupid'

Lol!
Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..

Charles is an intellectual, he is not stupid. The Queen was not an intellectual even if maybe she had more common sense

Charles is a poor successor to HMQ and frankly I do not listen to much he says, nor appreciate the way he allows people to bow to him

Utter nonsense in these modern times

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

I agree but we have to remember that Charles is quite old (and not doing nearly as well as his mother or father did in respect of ageing), seriously stupid and quite new at the job. It is completely unrealistic that he is going to perform to the impeccable standards of his mother but he will hopefully improve.

'seriously stupid'

Lol!
Were Victoria and Elisabeth the only two properly smart British monarchs of the last 200 years? Even longer maybe..

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

Pagan2 said:

maxh said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.

However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.

Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.

Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.

Forget Brexit.

What is it you propose?

Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?

And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.

Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.

I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.

Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.

I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.

Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability

I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:

For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.

Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.

But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of
secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.

We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.

That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.

The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.


I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the
fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.

Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.

The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.

I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.

I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.

From 1970 to 1999, GDP per head grew by 2.5% pa. That way, everyone got get richer more or less, without too much difficulty.

Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.

Yes, but to my mind we are still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We are more concerned about how a pie that, per capita, is barely growing at all, is distributed than why our economy has been growing so slowly. That part of the Truss/Kwarteng analysis is right: we need more growth. Their prescription to achieve that, however, is bordering on madness both politically and economically.

There are far too many who are seeking to blame Truss and Kwarteng for really deep underlying problems that governments of all stripes have failed to address in the last 30 years. Some have not even tried. At best the Kamikwase mini budget made things slightly worse at the margins. The underlying problems are huge and I am not seeing any politician even attempting to address them. In particular those who think that everything will be fine again when SKS takes over are just deluding themselves.

I do think @Cicero made a lot of sound points upthread. Capital has to be taxed more, income less.

It's funny how increasingly people on left and right on this site can agree with principles like this.

The burden in income, capital and land is not remotely taxed evenly and as a result those working for an income (something we ought to want to encourage) bear the biggest burden of all.

Luckyguy1983 said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the
calamity of her first month in office!

You’ve changed

HYUFD, along with several other Tory supporters here, is enjoying a bit of a Truss-inspired wobbly meltdown at the moment. I'm hoping their testicles grow back at some point - thoughts and prayers.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

I'm on record as saying King Charles III will be a total disaster and I stand by that prediction.

The King has had a far better start to his reign than Truss has had to her premiership

That is the lowest bar possible

Driver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mortimer said:

nico679 said:

Over 7 million now on NHS waiting lists.

The Tories will blame covid but it’s only exacerbated an already dire situation.

Its such a shame Labour made the NHS such a political shibboleth - and yet worse that the Tories just accept it as such.

The problem with this argument is it is replicated across Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland to which each devolved government is responsible

The UK NHS needs radical reform but nobody is brave enough to attempt it

That's because they know they will be accused of wanting to bring in the American system, as if that's the only alternative.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

Pagan2 said:

maxh said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.

However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.

Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.

Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.

Forget Brexit.

What is it you propose?

Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?

And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.

Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.

I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.

Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.

I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.

Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability

I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:

For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.

Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.

But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of
secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.

We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.

That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.

The story in the US - replicated to a lesser extent around the rest of the developed world - is that the benefits of that growth have been appropriated mostly by a small group of the rich and powerful, and hence denied from the rest of us.


I do wonder whether the hypothesis that the
fall of communism removed the imperative to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism through sharing the benefits of growth more widely, because the potential alternative to capitalism had been defeated and the potential threat to the powerful of revolution went away, has something to it.

Really interesting thread, thanks pagan for starting it. I’m surprised by the diagnosis of centrist government as the source of the problem, though. To me the source is really quite simple - shareholder capitalism prioritising dividends and short term profit over investment.

The solution, in my view, is some form of stakeholder capitalism. Employees, customers and local communities (ie those with a long term interest in the growth of a business) owning as large a stake in that business as economically possible.

I don’t think it’s government that is the problem, though I agree with other parts of your diagnosis.

I blame centrist social democratic governements because they have served the interests of short term capitalism throughout, served the interests of the propertied with house prices which must be ever inflating, while at the same time heaping more and more on the states platter of things it does while pretending we can have all that for no more tax. It is the government we have had since around 1992 to the fall of governement....a cosy consensus between all main parties just like the eu was.

From 1970 to 1999, GDP per head grew by 2.5% pa. That way, everyone got get richer more or less, without too much difficulty.

Since 2000, GDP per head has grown by about 1% a year. Things become more dog eat dog in that environment.

Yes, but to my mind we are still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We are more concerned about how a pie that, per capita, is barely growing at all, is distributed than why our economy has been growing so slowly. That part of the Truss/Kwarteng analysis is right: we need more growth. Their prescription to achieve that, however, is bordering on madness both politically and economically.

There are far too many who are seeking to blame Truss and Kwarteng for really deep underlying problems that governments of all stripes have failed to address in the last 30 years. Some have not even tried. At best the Kamikwase mini budget made things slightly worse at the margins. The underlying problems are huge and I am not seeing any politician even attempting to address them. In particular those who think that everything will be fine again when SKS takes over are just deluding themselves.

I do think @Cicero made a lot of sound points upthread. Capital has to be taxed more, income less.

It's funny how increasingly people on left and right on this site can agree with principles like this.

The burden in income, capital and land is not remotely taxed evenly and as a result those working for an income (something we ought to want to encourage) bear the biggest burden of all.

Having said that I don't know of any good way to tax capital that doesn't lead to capital flight, but land can't take flight and the burden upon income versus land certain can be addressed.