The public really don’t rate Liz Truss – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
I think questions have to be asked as to whether the tories in their push to get more women in high office have allowed incompetent women to fly under the radarClutch_Brompton said:
Truss was passable when addressing an audience that mostly shared her views and wanted her to succeed. Remember the first debate with an audience of 'floating voters' where she was terrible. Incidentally one Kemi Badenoch barely rated better than Truss with the public - that should be remembered for the future. For the last hustings - when Sunak seemed to have more support - Liz froze again. It was all out there in plain view.williamglenn said:
There was one hustings in particular where she was genuinely impressive, and that made some believe (or hope) that she had hidden depths as a politician, but that was clearly a flash in the pan.IanB2 said:The public were desperate to draw a line under the scandals and incompetence of the Johnson years - it was quite obvious that someone like Mordaunt was needed, assuming she could rise to the challenge.
Instead we got Truss who has doubled down on the worst of the clown, continuing the incompetence and retaining the cabinet of numpties, whilst abandoning even those bits of the clown’s agenda that were popular.
What is remarkable is how predictable, and predicted, this all was (except for poor Leondamus, obvs). Like a slow motion car crash, as Truss rose through the leadership contest, went before the members, and then rushed into number ten to trash everything.
I know quite well some of the so-called 'Turnip Taliban.' They strongly opposed Truss as candidate in 2010 not just due to the multiple affairs and the fact she had been parachuted in from Central Office but also because they thought she was useless. Not up to the standard they expected of a Con MP - and remember they had been pushed to accept a dud in the previous election.
I talked to one of them yesterday. This all comes as no surprise to him.0 -
I am not recommending a declaration of war, merely a gradual losening of ties and moving toward a more reciprocally beneficial relationship.CarlottaVance said:
Just as long as we don’t need to borrow or trade sounds like a great idea!Luckyguy1983 said:
Utterly digusting intervention from the ghastly plastic-surgery experiment twat.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1581552880494202880
But also utterly predictable. As I've been saying here for years, America runs the show here, and they're not happy when anyone challenges their agenda. Which is why we need to support Liz in doing just that. This country is going nowhere in the world till we wriggle free of this. The general direction of world events is on the side of us doing so, so let's get on with it.0 -
Only if there is a technocratic grand coalition government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
'However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets'HYUFD said:
It also was to protect the monarchy and preserve Brexit but even Starmer Labour now sings God Save the King and is committed to Brexit.IanB2 said:
It's pretty depressing that keeping tax low for the rich is apparently the only reason to vote Tory, from their most ardent supporter.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
But the real answer to the question is to keep Labour out, just as it always was.
If the Tories are also a party of high tax then maybe the only difference with Starmer is they also want spending cuts now with Hunt. However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets do
The important difference is the markets will determine the country's economic viability and future, no matter what your perception of voters demands are
If Labour wins the next election no way Starmer's party will allow him to pursue the deep austerity the markets want and nor will the Tories allow their leadership to pursue ever higher taxes0 -
With respect I think you are overlooking the fact the public are yearning for grown up to take charge and to steady the markets and reverse the perverse measures in Truss's ill fated mini budget, and hopefully address the concerns of so many and especially those in great need in these very worrying times for so manyHeathener said:
You sound very certain but there is simply no guarantee of that.OllyT said:
Within a week there will be a poll showing the Tories doing better with Hunt as leader than with Truss.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningHYUFD said:
Better than Hunt would be.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, how well is Truss polling with Conservative voters from 2019?
Remainer Hunt's spending cuts and high tax agenda also has zero chance of regaining the Leave voting working class redwall voters Boris won now voting Labour again
You simply do not know how the public will react to Hunt but you have a visceral hatred of him which is a narrative throughout your comments
Hunt is not hugely popular, either with the public or his own MPs - he was eliminated in the first ballot. Truss, whose bar was set extremely low among tory MPs, was still over 3x more popular than Hunt.
I do not expect a sudden movement in the polls but two things to remember
1) Hunt is now the most influential politician in the country and if he gets this right some form of recovery in the polls is possible, even more so if Truss goes.
2) It is widely recognised Starmer has not sealed the deal yet with many to be convinced about his own fiscal prudence3 -
I guess the jury's out on whether Biden is friend or foe now.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/15815528804942028802 -
Populist Right 25-30%
Hunt Cons 10-15%
LD 5-10%
Starmer Lab 20-25%
Greens 10-15%
Socialist 5-10%
Others get what's left
I'm confident on the last one.
0 -
No idea, as the numbers aren’t readily findable.FrankBooth said:
How many can Iran provide them with? If we assume that 50% will be shot out of the sky, perhaps more if the west provides better protection, what difference will it make? And I assume the Iranians will be charging top dollar. How long can Putin afford this?Nigelb said:Regarding that shortage of Russian missiles.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1581566937896980486
"An intelligence assessment shared in recent days with Ukrainian and U.S. officials contends that Iran’s armaments industry is preparing a first shipment of Fateh-110 and Zolfaghar missiles, two well-known Iranian short-range ballistic missiles" to Russia.
250km and 700km+ ranges, and pretty accurate.
But the smaller Fateh missiles have been in production for quite a while.
As for your second question, oil revenues. Russia has severe economic problems; short term cash flow probably isn’t one of them.1 -
The jury passed a guilty verdict a long time ago; the question is whether we have the balls to resist - albeit passively for the time being.kinabalu said:
I guess the jury's out on whether Biden is friend or foe now.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/15815528804942028800 -
The fantasy is that we’re ‘ruled by America’.Luckyguy1983 said:
Brexit was a complete fantasy till it happened.Nigelb said:
Not context with Brexit, you now want to indulge in a complete fantasy ?Luckyguy1983 said:
Utterly digusting intervention from the ghastly plastic-surgery experiment twat.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1581552880494202880
But also utterly predictable. As I've been saying here for years, America runs the show here, and they're not happy when anyone challenges their agenda. Which is why we need to support Liz in doing just that. This country is going nowhere in the world till we wriggle free of this. The general direction of world events is on the side of us doing so, so let's get on with it.
And yes, being in favour of national sovereignty, I am naturally every bit as against being ruled by America over the telephone as I am being ruled by the EU by treaty.
By the way, it's already a sign of weakness that Biden has to make these public interventions rather than his word being automatic writ, as it would have in the Cameron or even Boris days.
Good luck with your referendum campaign.0 -
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/15815638488087101440 -
If the markets cannot be calmed either by Hunt or indeed Starmer if he is PM, than the IMF steps inHYUFD said:
Only if there is a technocratic grand coalition government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
'However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets'HYUFD said:
It also was to protect the monarchy and preserve Brexit but even Starmer Labour now sings God Save the King and is committed to Brexit.IanB2 said:
It's pretty depressing that keeping tax low for the rich is apparently the only reason to vote Tory, from their most ardent supporter.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
But the real answer to the question is to keep Labour out, just as it always was.
If the Tories are also a party of high tax then maybe the only difference with Starmer is they also want spending cuts now with Hunt. However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets do
The important difference is the markets will determine the country's economic viability and future, no matter what your perception of voters demands are
If Labour wins the next election no way Starmer's party will allow him to pursue the deep austerity the markets want and nor will the Tories allow their leadership to pursue ever higher taxes0 -
At present there has to be some kind of moving turbine generation within the system to provide "extra boosts" from the Kinetic energy stored in the moving turbines. This explains why the frequency drops below 50Hz now and again. Some KE is being used as a boost. Wind and solar don't have any/enough of that. Biomass and nuclear do, and obviously coal and gas, as they are still large scale turbine generators. I suspect large scale battery storage (or even BEV storage) will come online soon to replace them.LostPassword said:
I think they keep a few CCGT plants running because they can relatively quickly ramp up and down to match variations in demand (or wind supply) to balance the grid. I guess that might be one sign of a large increase in battery storage being added to the grid, that it would take over the balancing role.TimS said:Another stunningly renewable day on the grid. Just 3.5gw of CCGT generation currently, which seems to be the minimum it ever manages presumably because a couple of gas plants are cheaper to keep running than switch off and on.
https://grid.energynumbers.info/
Enough wind, solar, biomass and nuclear to cover almost 100% of domestic demand right now.0 -
Always has to be someone to blame doesn’t there? Now we can’t blame the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels the next target is obviously shadowy figures in American financial markets. Depressing.Nigelb said:
Not context with Brexit, you now want to indulge in a complete fantasy ?Luckyguy1983 said:
Utterly digusting intervention from the ghastly plastic-surgery experiment twat.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1581552880494202880
But also utterly predictable. As I've been saying here for years, America runs the show here, and they're not happy when anyone challenges their agenda. Which is why we need to support Liz in doing just that. This country is going nowhere in the world till we wriggle free of this. The general direction of world events is on the side of us doing so, so let's get on with it.0 -
Both Ukranian and Russian sources reporting Iran sending Fatty* (sp) missiles to Russia.0
-
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.bondegezou said:
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.StillWaters said:
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to closeRochdalePioneers said:Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer
1 -
Thanks, Richard, I knew there'd be a (relative) expert.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep. Planning has bugger all to do with it. To do anything offshore there are a huge range of investigations and permissions that need to be established. Some of these are imposed by government to ensure we don't damage stuff like fisheries and spawning grounds as well as other environmental hazards. Then there are hazards to shipping etc. The rest are all required to make sure the project actually works, doesn't sink without trace into unsuitable seabed, doesn't get eroded away by seasonal currents, doesn't get stuck on top of mines or other explosives (you would be horrified at how many WW1 and WW2 mines there are still scattered around the seabed) as well as other munitions - not least from all the aircraft returning from bombing missions in WW2 who had to ditch all undropped ordinance over the sea because of the risk of it going off on landing. And that isn't anywhere near everything.IanB2 said:
It's not really planning - I'm not an expert but to generate electricity for the grid and to build something out at sea you need a lot of other permissions; I'm sure another PB'er knows more.Luckyguy1983 said:
This is where we need radical planning reform. I think even a scheme to burn rubbish takes a decade to get through. Government should give itself emergency powers to greenlight energy projects - if this isn't a crisis what is?IanB2 said:
We're supposed to be getting a tidal scheme off the south of the island, currently seeking its various permissions. I believe the plan is to go live in 2025, but it's too early to know whether it will actually happen.Luckyguy1983 said:@MarqueeMark, with tidal barrages, would the construction of these need the same type of skills and labour as HS2? In other words, would mothballing HS2 free up capacity to build tidal barrages if such a scheme were prioritised above building HS2?
Stuck offshore I don't think the actual tidal turbines need planning permission at all - the planning is just for the substation onshore and digging the trench up the cliff for the cables, which is already with the council.
The problem is we should have been doing all of this a couple of decades or more ago. If we had then by now the systems would long have been up and running. But successive governments have preferred wind and solar as an alternative to hydrocarbons and so have completely failed to support the tidal projects.
And you only cover the "building stuff at sea" bit - there is a similar range of hurdles before a privately financed generator can be hooked up to the national grid.
So, far from "government" needing to 'sort out' planning, it's the government (and its various agencies) that is holding things up (for a lot of mostly good reasons, I'm sure)1 -
The usa is certainly throwing europe under a bus now to protect its own powerLuckyguy1983 said:
The jury passed a guilty verdict a long time ago; the question is whether we have the balls to resist - albeit passively for the time being.kinabalu said:
I guess the jury's out on whether Biden is friend or foe now.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/15815528804942028801 -
You are?IanB2 said:
Thanks, Richard, I knew there'd be a (relative) expert.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep. Planning has bugger all to do with it. To do anything offshore there are a huge range of investigations and permissions that need to be established. Some of these are imposed by government to ensure we don't damage stuff like fisheries and spawning grounds as well as other environmental hazards. Then there are hazards to shipping etc. The rest are all required to make sure the project actually works, doesn't sink without trace into unsuitable seabed, doesn't get eroded away by seasonal currents, doesn't get stuck on top of mines or other explosives (you would be horrified at how many WW1 and WW2 mines there are still scattered around the seabed) as well as other munitions - not least from all the aircraft returning from bombing missions in WW2 who had to ditch all undropped ordinance over the sea because of the risk of it going off on landing. And that isn't anywhere near everything.IanB2 said:
It's not really planning - I'm not an expert but to generate electricity for the grid and to build something out at sea you need a lot of other permissions; I'm sure another PB'er knows more.Luckyguy1983 said:
This is where we need radical planning reform. I think even a scheme to burn rubbish takes a decade to get through. Government should give itself emergency powers to greenlight energy projects - if this isn't a crisis what is?IanB2 said:
We're supposed to be getting a tidal scheme off the south of the island, currently seeking its various permissions. I believe the plan is to go live in 2025, but it's too early to know whether it will actually happen.Luckyguy1983 said:@MarqueeMark, with tidal barrages, would the construction of these need the same type of skills and labour as HS2? In other words, would mothballing HS2 free up capacity to build tidal barrages if such a scheme were prioritised above building HS2?
Stuck offshore I don't think the actual tidal turbines need planning permission at all - the planning is just for the substation onshore and digging the trench up the cliff for the cables, which is already with the council.
The problem is we should have been doing all of this a couple of decades or more ago. If we had then by now the systems would long have been up and running. But successive governments have preferred wind and solar as an alternative to hydrocarbons and so have completely failed to support the tidal projects.
And you only cover the "building stuff at sea" bit - there is a similar range of hurdles before a privately financed generator can be hooked up to the national grid.
So, far from "government" needing to 'sort out' planning, it's the government (and its various agencies) that is holding things up (for a lot of mostly good reasons, I'm sure)0 -
But for how much longer? They aren't now getting full price for their oil exports and the logistics of sending it to India and China are challenging shall we say.Nigelb said:
No idea, as the numbers aren’t readily findable.FrankBooth said:
How many can Iran provide them with? If we assume that 50% will be shot out of the sky, perhaps more if the west provides better protection, what difference will it make? And I assume the Iranians will be charging top dollar. How long can Putin afford this?Nigelb said:Regarding that shortage of Russian missiles.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1581566937896980486
"An intelligence assessment shared in recent days with Ukrainian and U.S. officials contends that Iran’s armaments industry is preparing a first shipment of Fateh-110 and Zolfaghar missiles, two well-known Iranian short-range ballistic missiles" to Russia.
250km and 700km+ ranges, and pretty accurate.
But the smaller Fateh missiles have been in production for quite a while.
As for your second question, oil revenues. Russia has severe economic problems; short term cash flow probably isn’t one of them.0 -
Presumably one finds in the archives you spitting tacks about President Trump's regular 'observations' on British affairs during his tenure.Luckyguy1983 said:
Utterly digusting intervention from the ghastly plastic-surgery experiment twat.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1581552880494202880
But also utterly predictable. As I've been saying here for years, America runs the show here, and they're not happy when anyone challenges their agenda. Which is why we need to support Liz in doing just that. This country is going nowhere in the world till we wriggle free of this. The general direction of world events is on the side of us doing so, so let's get on with it.1 -
That would be a blessed relief.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If the markets cannot be calmed either by Hunt or indeed Starmer if he is PM, than the IMF steps inHYUFD said:
Only if there is a technocratic grand coalition government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
'However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets'HYUFD said:
It also was to protect the monarchy and preserve Brexit but even Starmer Labour now sings God Save the King and is committed to Brexit.IanB2 said:
It's pretty depressing that keeping tax low for the rich is apparently the only reason to vote Tory, from their most ardent supporter.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
But the real answer to the question is to keep Labour out, just as it always was.
If the Tories are also a party of high tax then maybe the only difference with Starmer is they also want spending cuts now with Hunt. However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets do
The important difference is the markets will determine the country's economic viability and future, no matter what your perception of voters demands are
If Labour wins the next election no way Starmer's party will allow him to pursue the deep austerity the markets want and nor will the Tories allow their leadership to pursue ever higher taxes0 -
Whilst kamikaze policies of trussonomics have a detrimental effect on financial markets and systems which the UK participates in, other members/countries have every right to say ..."hang on...whoaa there.." or words to that effect.kinabalu said:
I guess the jury's out on whether Biden is friend or foe now.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/15815528804942028801 -
Because then the Russians chase after them - and come up against those 30,000 trained in the UK....ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/15815638488087101441 -
China is BMW's most important market. They'll do what they are told by the Chinese government.DavidL said:
Really weird timing by BMW. Who on earth thinks it a good idea to invest substantially in Chinese production now, with the US becoming ever more hostile and increasingly pulling out? We are heading towards trading wars and large scale trading blocs. The idea that things are going to move easily from China to western markets over the next 10-20 years borders on naive.eek said:Fpt
BMW 1 series length 4319mmcarnforth said:
I was surprised at the claim that BMW don’t have an electric platform small enough for the mini, so have to use Great Wall’s. Presumably they would want to share a future mini electic platform with the 1 series?Dura_Ace said:
Yeah... when BMW binned off Solihull and Longbridge they promised 100% of Mini production would always be at Cowley.carnforth said:
A spokesman from BMW is quoted in the Times this morning saying it will be brought back to the UK when a purpose-built electric-only production line is ready.Nigelb said:A dismal failure of government.
Could be just words, of course, but BMW claim the move is not permanent.
Meanwhile, MINI cabriolet production is being moved from the Netherlands to Cowley.
I reckon they'll sell Cowley to Great Wall. The IC engine plant at Hams Hall is doomed no matter who owns it.
Mini 3 door 3865mm
In a small car 450mm or 18 inches is a significant difference so the small mini is a very unique project if you want a standard base to work from (and extend to longer cars)
The reality is that the BMW 1 series isn’t a VW Up size it’s a Golf
And of course it’s not permanent as in 2030 or so all European cars will be electric only at which point if Oxford is going to be used it will be building electric cars
This investment is coming nearly 20 years too late but it is still very disappointing it was not made here.0 -
Brexit was an attempt to throw the EU countries under a bus, and Tories didn't care.ihunt said:
The usa is certainly throwing europe under a bus now to protect its own powerLuckyguy1983 said:
The jury passed a guilty verdict a long time ago; the question is whether we have the balls to resist - albeit passively for the time being.kinabalu said:
I guess the jury's out on whether Biden is friend or foe now.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/15815528804942028800 -
And Truss stays in office! Can't she be had for misfeasance or similar?LostPassword said:
I think it's £10bn per year, every year, in increased debt interest payments, for as long as we have any debt to pay interest on.DJ41 said:How much public money did the Truss-Kwarteng budget fiasco lose, to the nearest £1bn?
And where did it go?
If I did the equivalent at my local darts club, I'd be out on my ear'ole - and rightly. There's got to be a limit somewhere, or else she'll do it again - or somebody else will, or worse.
0 -
Where is the argument that the markets are demanding deep austerity? Support for gas bills is the big unknown and promising tax cuts at the same time was stupid. Just reverse the 'budget'.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If the markets cannot be calmed either by Hunt or indeed Starmer if he is PM, than the IMF steps inHYUFD said:
Only if there is a technocratic grand coalition government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
'However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets'HYUFD said:
It also was to protect the monarchy and preserve Brexit but even Starmer Labour now sings God Save the King and is committed to Brexit.IanB2 said:
It's pretty depressing that keeping tax low for the rich is apparently the only reason to vote Tory, from their most ardent supporter.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
But the real answer to the question is to keep Labour out, just as it always was.
If the Tories are also a party of high tax then maybe the only difference with Starmer is they also want spending cuts now with Hunt. However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets do
The important difference is the markets will determine the country's economic viability and future, no matter what your perception of voters demands are
If Labour wins the next election no way Starmer's party will allow him to pursue the deep austerity the markets want and nor will the Tories allow their leadership to pursue ever higher taxes0 -
Steady on, Hard Right Populist more than Nick's 10%, yes, but no way up there!Clutch_Brompton said:Populist Right 25-30%
Hunt Cons 10-15%
LD 5-10%
Starmer Lab 20-25%
Greens 10-15%
Socialist 5-10%
Others get what's left
I'm confident on the last one.
As I say, it's the same people as those who like Trump. 15/20% range imo and closer to the 15.0 -
Which means the electorate further shifts to the populist extremes if the IMF demands deep spending cuts and tax rises from the UK for a bailout.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If the markets cannot be calmed either by Hunt or indeed Starmer if he is PM, than the IMF steps inHYUFD said:
Only if there is a technocratic grand coalition government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
'However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets'HYUFD said:
It also was to protect the monarchy and preserve Brexit but even Starmer Labour now sings God Save the King and is committed to Brexit.IanB2 said:
It's pretty depressing that keeping tax low for the rich is apparently the only reason to vote Tory, from their most ardent supporter.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
But the real answer to the question is to keep Labour out, just as it always was.
If the Tories are also a party of high tax then maybe the only difference with Starmer is they also want spending cuts now with Hunt. However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets do
The important difference is the markets will determine the country's economic viability and future, no matter what your perception of voters demands are
If Labour wins the next election no way Starmer's party will allow him to pursue the deep austerity the markets want and nor will the Tories allow their leadership to pursue ever higher taxes
See Italy or Greece0 -
Huh?Daveyboy1961 said:
Brexit was an attempt to throw the EU countries under a bus, and Tories didn't care.ihunt said:
The usa is certainly throwing europe under a bus now to protect its own powerLuckyguy1983 said:
The jury passed a guilty verdict a long time ago; the question is whether we have the balls to resist - albeit passively for the time being.kinabalu said:
I guess the jury's out on whether Biden is friend or foe now.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/15815528804942028800 -
The saddest thing - 20 years ago, high performance electric Minis were built.eek said:Fpt
BMW 1 series length 4319mmcarnforth said:
I was surprised at the claim that BMW don’t have an electric platform small enough for the mini, so have to use Great Wall’s. Presumably they would want to share a future mini electic platform with the 1 series?Dura_Ace said:
Yeah... when BMW binned off Solihull and Longbridge they promised 100% of Mini production would always be at Cowley.carnforth said:
A spokesman from BMW is quoted in the Times this morning saying it will be brought back to the UK when a purpose-built electric-only production line is ready.Nigelb said:A dismal failure of government.
Could be just words, of course, but BMW claim the move is not permanent.
Meanwhile, MINI cabriolet production is being moved from the Netherlands to Cowley.
I reckon they'll sell Cowley to Great Wall. The IC engine plant at Hams Hall is doomed no matter who owns it.
Mini 3 door 3865mm
In a small car 450mm or 18 inches is a significant difference so the small mini is a very unique project if you want a standard base to work from (and extend to longer cars)
The reality is that the BMW 1 series isn’t a VW Up size it’s a Golf
And of course it’s not permanent as in 2030 or so all European cars will be electric only at which point if Oxford is going to be used it will be building electric cars
As part of the rubbish remake of the Italian Job, a custom conversion company was tasked with converting a number of Minis to electric. The reason - a number of stunts were being done it tunnels and regulations didn't allow ICE to run in the tunnels. After the conversion, the performance was such the converters asked if the company proper was interested in taking a look. The answer was no.
The same conversion companies were what inspired Tesla and the other electric vehicle startups - they cost something like $250,000 per car as custom jobs. A number of people saw this and thought - if we productions the process what will the price be. What will the price be if we design a vehicle round the tech?
The downside of the Mini conversions was range, IRRC. 75 miles or so. But the battery size had been restricted for stunt work.0 -
Also, IIRC that there are non-EU international agreements on regional produce names. "Champagne" is not applied to champagne method sparkling wine from many, many countries, not in the EU.TimS said:
Doesn’t work like that these days, and protected designations are one of the areas covered by the Brexit agreement.Ishmael_Z said:
Call it champagne. That's what Spain did till it joined the EEC and had to rebrand as cava, so here's an obvious brexit dividend.MattW said:Morning all.
The crucial question for the day - how should Welsh sparkling wine be rebranded?
Suggestions are "pefriog", "swigod", or "Eferw" (says the BBC). Meaning sparkling, bubbles and effervescent, respectively.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62967258
It is a very exclusive product - 180k bottles a year only, allegedly.
https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-09/welsh-vineyards-and-tourism-report.pdf
We now why @Leon ran away to Pembrokeshire in the lockdown.
Besides which calling things that aren’t champagne “champagne” has the perverse effect of making them seem cheap rip offs because of the association with such. See Russian “champagne” or Australian (or pea pod) “burgundy”.
Wales has a good opportunity here because the ESW name is now firmly established for English fizz and won’t be shifted now but is a bit of a mouthful. Whereas Wales still has the opportunity to differentiate.1 -
Evidently Srexit is the new black.Nigelb said:
The fantasy is that we’re ‘ruled by America’.Luckyguy1983 said:
Brexit was a complete fantasy till it happened.Nigelb said:
Not context with Brexit, you now want to indulge in a complete fantasy ?Luckyguy1983 said:
Utterly digusting intervention from the ghastly plastic-surgery experiment twat.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1581552880494202880
But also utterly predictable. As I've been saying here for years, America runs the show here, and they're not happy when anyone challenges their agenda. Which is why we need to support Liz in doing just that. This country is going nowhere in the world till we wriggle free of this. The general direction of world events is on the side of us doing so, so let's get on with it.
And yes, being in favour of national sovereignty, I am naturally every bit as against being ruled by America over the telephone as I am being ruled by the EU by treaty.
By the way, it's already a sign of weakness that Biden has to make these public interventions rather than his word being automatic writ, as it would have in the Cameron or even Boris days.
Good luck with your referendum campaign.
*special relationship0 -
We'll also get some meaningful (at last) public-sector/spending reform instead of every government's solution of just endlessly shovelling more cash into bottomless pits. Reform the basis of the NHS? (Gasp!!!! Whatever next?).HYUFD said:
Which means the electorate further shifts to the populist extremes if the IMF demands deep spending cuts and tax rises from the UK for a bailout.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If the markets cannot be calmed either by Hunt or indeed Starmer if he is PM, than the IMF steps inHYUFD said:
Only if there is a technocratic grand coalition government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
'However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets'HYUFD said:
It also was to protect the monarchy and preserve Brexit but even Starmer Labour now sings God Save the King and is committed to Brexit.IanB2 said:
It's pretty depressing that keeping tax low for the rich is apparently the only reason to vote Tory, from their most ardent supporter.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
But the real answer to the question is to keep Labour out, just as it always was.
If the Tories are also a party of high tax then maybe the only difference with Starmer is they also want spending cuts now with Hunt. However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets do
The important difference is the markets will determine the country's economic viability and future, no matter what your perception of voters demands are
If Labour wins the next election no way Starmer's party will allow him to pursue the deep austerity the markets want and nor will the Tories allow their leadership to pursue ever higher taxes
See Italy or Greece
1 -
1
-
And if the IMF doesn't step in?HYUFD said:
Which means the electorate further shifts to the populist extremes if the IMF demands deep spending cuts and tax rises from the UK for a bailout.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If the markets cannot be calmed either by Hunt or indeed Starmer if he is PM, than the IMF steps inHYUFD said:
Only if there is a technocratic grand coalition government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
'However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets'HYUFD said:
It also was to protect the monarchy and preserve Brexit but even Starmer Labour now sings God Save the King and is committed to Brexit.IanB2 said:
It's pretty depressing that keeping tax low for the rich is apparently the only reason to vote Tory, from their most ardent supporter.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
But the real answer to the question is to keep Labour out, just as it always was.
If the Tories are also a party of high tax then maybe the only difference with Starmer is they also want spending cuts now with Hunt. However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets do
The important difference is the markets will determine the country's economic viability and future, no matter what your perception of voters demands are
If Labour wins the next election no way Starmer's party will allow him to pursue the deep austerity the markets want and nor will the Tories allow their leadership to pursue ever higher taxes
See Italy or Greece
0 -
For an 'indy' supporter the amount of control you're entirely comfortable with giving away to non-Scots (providing they're not English) never ceases to amaze.Theuniondivvie said:
Evidently Srexit is the new black.Nigelb said:
The fantasy is that we’re ‘ruled by America’.Luckyguy1983 said:
Brexit was a complete fantasy till it happened.Nigelb said:
Not context with Brexit, you now want to indulge in a complete fantasy ?Luckyguy1983 said:
Utterly digusting intervention from the ghastly plastic-surgery experiment twat.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1581552880494202880
But also utterly predictable. As I've been saying here for years, America runs the show here, and they're not happy when anyone challenges their agenda. Which is why we need to support Liz in doing just that. This country is going nowhere in the world till we wriggle free of this. The general direction of world events is on the side of us doing so, so let's get on with it.
And yes, being in favour of national sovereignty, I am naturally every bit as against being ruled by America over the telephone as I am being ruled by the EU by treaty.
By the way, it's already a sign of weakness that Biden has to make these public interventions rather than his word being automatic writ, as it would have in the Cameron or even Boris days.
Good luck with your referendum campaign.
*special relationship0 -
Biden should STFU and mind his own fucking business.
2 -
I agree with the general percentages, but I think populist right needs breaking down and redefinition.kinabalu said:
Steady on, Hard Right Populist more than Nick's 10%, yes, but no way up there!Clutch_Brompton said:Populist Right 25-30%
Hunt Cons 10-15%
LD 5-10%
Starmer Lab 20-25%
Greens 10-15%
Socialist 5-10%
Others get what's left
I'm confident on the last one.
As I say, it's the same people as those who like Trump. 15/20% range imo and closer to the 15.
Traditionalist mainstream populist right: 20%
Far right / ultra-nationalist: 5%
Libertarian Tufton st. right: 5%1 -
Pathetic.Daveyboy1961 said:
Whilst kamikaze policies of trussonomics have a detrimental effect on financial markets and systems which the UK participates in, other members/countries have every right to say ..."hang on...whoaa there.." or words to that effect.kinabalu said:
I guess the jury's out on whether Biden is friend or foe now.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/15815528804942028800 -
-
Wallace is a projection candidate. That is, he is being projected as a saviour candidate, based on the hopes of those boosting him. Rather than basing it on anything he has said or done.darkage said:
My theory is that Wallace is being put forward because he is so popular with the membership.eek said:
So you force Truss to quitdarkage said:
Yes , but they could a) change the rules or b) force her to quit.eek said:
The Tories have a big problem - a leader who is utterly unsuitable for the job she won but no means of removing her sanely and quickly due to the rules of appointment which make a coronation of a suitable replacement impossibledarkage said:
Much depends on whether Truss can move out of the 'rabbit in the headlights' phase. If she continues, it is as PM in name only. But I have a suspicion she is actually temperamentally incapable of performing such a role. How can you, when no-one takes you seriously? Her performance in the press conference was abysmal.stjohn said:I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.
But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.
Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.
So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.
Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.
And that’s ignoring the “bedding down” rule that gives a new leader 1 year before complaints can be processed
I think B is more likely. I don't think she will be able to handle the pressure - no one could. We are rapidly approaching the point where - whenever she emerges in public - she is just met with howls of scorn, laughter and derision.
Edit - there are lots of stories that are simply devastating for her. Like the one from Kwarteng yesterday that she forced him in to the 45p tax cut etc. And then she sacked him for the consequences of the policy. Without giving any explanation why. The disasters are happening faster than we are able to process or assess them.
How do you stop the Tory membership voting for another candidate offering similar policies at the subsequent leadership election.
Because the Tory party has another fractions that a single party uniting candidate doesn’t exist
Apart from running the Ukraine military policy over a period of years in competent fashion of course. Though some have pointed out the contrast between the efficiency of training 10,000 Ukrainians at a time vs the Crapita fuckup for managing entry into the military.
I don't see how any candidate can do much at this point. The best that can be achieved is to calm the markets, I think.
Liz is walking toast.4 -
Exactly. As I mentioned a few days ago Italy has been playing the global PDO game a lot recently by protecting certain varietal names such as Vermentino and Sangiovese( which is outrageous and needs to stop). So Sangiovese can be used in the US because it’s been traditionally used there, but not in say South Africa.Malmesbury said:
Also, IIRC that there are non-EU international agreements on regional produce names. "Champagne" is not applied to champagne method sparkling wine from many, many countries, not in the EU.TimS said:
Doesn’t work like that these days, and protected designations are one of the areas covered by the Brexit agreement.Ishmael_Z said:
Call it champagne. That's what Spain did till it joined the EEC and had to rebrand as cava, so here's an obvious brexit dividend.MattW said:Morning all.
The crucial question for the day - how should Welsh sparkling wine be rebranded?
Suggestions are "pefriog", "swigod", or "Eferw" (says the BBC). Meaning sparkling, bubbles and effervescent, respectively.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62967258
It is a very exclusive product - 180k bottles a year only, allegedly.
https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-09/welsh-vineyards-and-tourism-report.pdf
We now why @Leon ran away to Pembrokeshire in the lockdown.
Besides which calling things that aren’t champagne “champagne” has the perverse effect of making them seem cheap rip offs because of the association with such. See Russian “champagne” or Australian (or pea pod) “burgundy”.
Wales has a good opportunity here because the ESW name is now firmly established for English fizz and won’t be shifted now but is a bit of a mouthful. Whereas Wales still has the opportunity to differentiate.0 -
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/15815638488087101440 -
Also the electric mini already exists - it’s the ora cat with a different body shellDura_Ace said:
China is BMW's most important market. They'll do what they are told by the Chinese government.DavidL said:
Really weird timing by BMW. Who on earth thinks it a good idea to invest substantially in Chinese production now, with the US becoming ever more hostile and increasingly pulling out? We are heading towards trading wars and large scale trading blocs. The idea that things are going to move easily from China to western markets over the next 10-20 years borders on naive.eek said:Fpt
BMW 1 series length 4319mmcarnforth said:
I was surprised at the claim that BMW don’t have an electric platform small enough for the mini, so have to use Great Wall’s. Presumably they would want to share a future mini electic platform with the 1 series?Dura_Ace said:
Yeah... when BMW binned off Solihull and Longbridge they promised 100% of Mini production would always be at Cowley.carnforth said:
A spokesman from BMW is quoted in the Times this morning saying it will be brought back to the UK when a purpose-built electric-only production line is ready.Nigelb said:A dismal failure of government.
Could be just words, of course, but BMW claim the move is not permanent.
Meanwhile, MINI cabriolet production is being moved from the Netherlands to Cowley.
I reckon they'll sell Cowley to Great Wall. The IC engine plant at Hams Hall is doomed no matter who owns it.
Mini 3 door 3865mm
In a small car 450mm or 18 inches is a significant difference so the small mini is a very unique project if you want a standard base to work from (and extend to longer cars)
The reality is that the BMW 1 series isn’t a VW Up size it’s a Golf
And of course it’s not permanent as in 2030 or so all European cars will be electric only at which point if Oxford is going to be used it will be building electric cars
This investment is coming nearly 20 years too late but it is still very disappointing it was not made here.0 -
The markets want to know there's a credible plan for paying down debt. It doesn't have to be austerity. But it is highly advantageous for it to exist.FrankBooth said:
Where is the argument that the markets are demanding deep austerity? Support for gas bills is the big unknown and promising tax cuts at the same time was stupid. Just reverse the 'budget'.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If the markets cannot be calmed either by Hunt or indeed Starmer if he is PM, than the IMF steps inHYUFD said:
Only if there is a technocratic grand coalition government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
'However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets'HYUFD said:
It also was to protect the monarchy and preserve Brexit but even Starmer Labour now sings God Save the King and is committed to Brexit.IanB2 said:
It's pretty depressing that keeping tax low for the rich is apparently the only reason to vote Tory, from their most ardent supporter.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
But the real answer to the question is to keep Labour out, just as it always was.
If the Tories are also a party of high tax then maybe the only difference with Starmer is they also want spending cuts now with Hunt. However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets do
The important difference is the markets will determine the country's economic viability and future, no matter what your perception of voters demands are
If Labour wins the next election no way Starmer's party will allow him to pursue the deep austerity the markets want and nor will the Tories allow their leadership to pursue ever higher taxes1 -
To be fair you’ve been consistently anti-American for years on here so I know it’s not just a Biden thing.Luckyguy1983 said:
Pathetic.Daveyboy1961 said:
Whilst kamikaze policies of trussonomics have a detrimental effect on financial markets and systems which the UK participates in, other members/countries have every right to say ..."hang on...whoaa there.." or words to that effect.kinabalu said:
I guess the jury's out on whether Biden is friend or foe now.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1581552880494202880
But the Tufton St libertarians and their favourite PM are absolutely besotted with the US. For years they wanted to leave the EU and join NAFTA, and the US approach to environmental regulation and animal welfare is a lodestar for them.2 -
It's part of a push from the EU Army types to try and take over the training of Ukrainian soldiers.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Various people have noticed that if you train an army, you embed doctrine, weapons and attitude favourable to the host country.
The UK is training 10,000 at a time - using a multinational training force that is NATO plus allies (I believe Australia and New Zealand have contributed personnel). This is a rolling program that will train that many over X weeks, with overlapping batches, IIRC.
Which, together with the American and British training from 2014, means embedding a whole military culture. And this generation of Ukrainian soldiers will, after the war, be making military policy for decades.
Not to mention being voters...0 -
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian army was going to win because they were getting sushi.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
Edit: No, it was real https://twitter.com/eightm0nkeys/status/15780370983842201662 -
Get back to me when Biden is telling us we don’t get a choice on membership of Unions, going to war, utilising our own resources, controlling our economy etc, etc.Luckyguy1983 said:
For an 'indy' supporter the amount of control you're entirely comfortable with giving away to non-Scots (providing they're not English) never ceases to amaze.Theuniondivvie said:
Evidently Srexit is the new black.Nigelb said:
The fantasy is that we’re ‘ruled by America’.Luckyguy1983 said:
Brexit was a complete fantasy till it happened.Nigelb said:
Not context with Brexit, you now want to indulge in a complete fantasy ?Luckyguy1983 said:
Utterly digusting intervention from the ghastly plastic-surgery experiment twat.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1581552880494202880
But also utterly predictable. As I've been saying here for years, America runs the show here, and they're not happy when anyone challenges their agenda. Which is why we need to support Liz in doing just that. This country is going nowhere in the world till we wriggle free of this. The general direction of world events is on the side of us doing so, so let's get on with it.
And yes, being in favour of national sovereignty, I am naturally every bit as against being ruled by America over the telephone as I am being ruled by the EU by treaty.
By the way, it's already a sign of weakness that Biden has to make these public interventions rather than his word being automatic writ, as it would have in the Cameron or even Boris days.
Good luck with your referendum campaign.
*special relationship
I wouldn't join you on the odd and whiffy barricade you're atop of but I might take you a bit more seriously.0 -
Lord Mounbatten was blown up by the IRA over 40 years ago and is not around to defend himself, this achieves little except muckrakingTres said:1 -
Then the tax rises and spending cuts already done still likely lead to a shift to populist extremesDJ41 said:
And if the IMF doesn't step in?HYUFD said:
Which means the electorate further shifts to the populist extremes if the IMF demands deep spending cuts and tax rises from the UK for a bailout.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If the markets cannot be calmed either by Hunt or indeed Starmer if he is PM, than the IMF steps inHYUFD said:
Only if there is a technocratic grand coalition government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
'However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets'HYUFD said:
It also was to protect the monarchy and preserve Brexit but even Starmer Labour now sings God Save the King and is committed to Brexit.IanB2 said:
It's pretty depressing that keeping tax low for the rich is apparently the only reason to vote Tory, from their most ardent supporter.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
But the real answer to the question is to keep Labour out, just as it always was.
If the Tories are also a party of high tax then maybe the only difference with Starmer is they also want spending cuts now with Hunt. However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets do
The important difference is the markets will determine the country's economic viability and future, no matter what your perception of voters demands are
If Labour wins the next election no way Starmer's party will allow him to pursue the deep austerity the markets want and nor will the Tories allow their leadership to pursue ever higher taxes
See Italy or Greece0 -
Surely the garlicky smell of Chicken Kyiv wafting over no man’s land. One of the greatest cooking smells in the world, along with frying bacon and simmering curry.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/15815638488087101440 -
So with Jake Berry we have a full complement of Blues Brothers in the Conservative fold.IanB2 said:A small snippet of news - Ellwood got the Tory whip back on Friday afternoon
2 -
Not sure I could accurately guess the moderate right v Farage right percentages without some definition of who's in which party first.
Which is Braverman in for example?
If she's in the moderate, then it's just the Tory Party.
If she's in the other then how about Patel? Baker? Bone? Chope?0 -
Muriel Gray back in town.
0 -
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.edmundintokyo said:
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.0 -
I wouldn't be too excited about Ukrainian logistics, apparently they can't even deliver chopsticks.Malmesbury said:
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.edmundintokyo said:
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.0 -
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.Malmesbury said:
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.edmundintokyo said:
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.1 -
I believe the Russian army was notable for rape and pillage once it entered Germany during World War II!Malmesbury said:
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.edmundintokyo said:
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.0 -
Corbynist left are a little on the high side and Starmer Labour a touch low. Permanent opposition for the Corbynistas would be their dream come true, with the possibility of Centrist coalition Government.Everyone is happy!kinabalu said:
No big demur, Nick, but I sadly feel the hard populist right might do a touch better than 10%. I'd say there's a close to perfect correlation between that and those in the UK who - either overtly or secretly - like Donald Trump. They are pretty much the exact same people.NickPalmer said:
As this is, unbelievably, a slow news day, what do we think the % shares would be if we had full list PR? I'd guess something like:TimS said:
I don’t see REFUK ever breaching 15-16% even in the case of total Tory collapse. Total Tory collapse implies the country falling out of love with right wing politics.HYUFD said:
Put in Labour 45%, RefUK 25%, LDs 15% and Tories 10% which is much more realistic in that scenario and you get RefUK 71, LDs 41. So Farage does become Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=10&LAB=45&LIB=15&Reform=25&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=7&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=45&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
Faragist RefUK 10
Huntist moderate Con 25
LibDems 20
Starmerist Labour 25
Corbynist left 15
Others 5
There will be a correlation between the fortunes of the Huntsters and the Farageists. I would imagine, each would move up and down at the expense of the other. But like the Corbyn faction, the dream of permanent carping from the sidelines should tick all Farage's boxes.1 -
Re- Corbyn becoming Labour leader, I have always blamed Harriet Harman who as Acting leader got the party to abstain on Osborne's post 2015 GE benefit changes. This sparked outrage across the membership.Of the leadership candidates only Corbyn was outside the Shadow Cabinet and able to oppose those proposals. The others had to go along with Harman - and wered doomed as a consequence. Harman - not Beckett - generated Corbyn's momentum.IanB2 said:
Traditionally a vacant PM’ship is almost always filled by the former CoE or former FS, and the MPs will have wanted someone with a track record in senior office. That was why Mordaunt would have carried some risk, against which you have to set Truss’s obvious personality flaws.FrequentLurker said:
I've read several commentators emphasising that this car crash is the Tory members' fault. They take a large part of the blame, but at least an equal part must lie at the feet of the 113 MPs who voted for Truss in the last round of MPs' voting.IanB2 said:The public were desperate to draw a line under the scandals and incompetence of the Johnson years - it was quite obvious that someone like Mordaunt was needed, assuming she could rise to the challenge.
Instead we got Truss who has doubled down on the worst of the clown, continuing the incompetence and retaining the cabinet of numpties, whilst abandoning even those bits of the clown’s agenda that were popular.
What is remarkable is how predictable, and predicted, this all was (except for poor Leondamus, obvs). Like a slow motion car crash, as Truss rose through the leadership contest, went before the members, and then rushed into number ten to trash everything.
What were they thinking?
1 They might have thought she was genuinely up to the job
...in which case, how could we ever trust their judgement again?
2 They might have thought she was genuinely better than Mordaunt
...in which case, how can such a group of MPs be so utterly devoid of leadership talent?
3 Some might have been Sunak supporters wanting to give Rishi an easier ride
...in which case, how could we trust such Machiavellian gamblers in the future? The risks of voting for such a candidate were ridiculously high, as we're now seeing
I can't see any other possibilities...
Johnson is significantly to blame for sowing the seeds of this fiasco, deliberately choosing weak deputies for fear of having competent ones.
So many of the MPs won’t have got beyond “top tier cabinet member but not Rishi”. Blaming Rishi for Johnson’s demise is ridiculous, given that everyone wanted him gone, but that is how these people seem to think. Rishi was also too sensible for the ERG crew, unwilling to buy into their warped world view.
But, as you suggest, possibly a few Rishi supporters imagined their membership wouldn’t be foolish enough to vote for Truss, and got her into the final ahead of Mordaunt? A big mistake, up there with those Labour MPs who helped put Corbyn in front of their members, never expecting they would vote for him!
Had the latter not happened, we may not have got landed with Johnson - certainly not in such a powerful position. So, really, follow the trail and it would seem that Margaret Beckett’s stupidity is to blame for everything that followed.1 -
Governments matter.IanB2 said:
The press from almost anywhere else in the world.StillWaters said:
Evidence for “reduced standing in the world”. Preferably without shouting.IanB2 said:
Yes, but it's not just BREXIT -> POOR ECONOMIC PERFORMANCEFrankBooth said:
The big question is how much is down to Brexit and how much down to the incompetence of the Brexiteers? I actually don't think things are that complicated. There's a lot of psychobabble talked about the markets but they probably want to see two things:northern_monkey said:Wow. Apols if already discussed, just seen it. Chimes with my assertion the other day that we’re living through Project Fear. Except that this is Jeremy Warner, of the Telegraph, saying it, not some random northern simian schmuck:
’Project Fear was right all along’
Downbeat predictions by the Treasury and others on the economic consequences of leaving the EU, contemptuously dismissed at the time by Brexit campaigners as "Project Fear", have been on a long fuse, but they have turned out to be overwhelmingly correct, and if anything have underestimated both the calamitous loss of international standing and the scale of the damage that six years of policy confusion and ineptitude has imposed on the country.
…Perhaps I exaggerate, but not since the humiliation of the International Monetary Fund bailout in 1976 have we seen an unravelling quite as spectacular. This too from a Tory Government with a substantial overall majority. It is scarcely believable.
These are dark days for Tory MPs, who will be acutely aware that loss of reputation for economic competence is electoral poison for their party. As the former Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has already observed, that reputation has been comprehensively trashed by what's just occurred.
…We'll be paying the consequences in reduced standing and prosperity for years, if not decades, to come.
You can red the unpaywalled article here: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/15/project-fear-right-along/
1) Stop threatening a trade war with our biggest trading partner over Northern Ireland
2) Have a plan that shows percentage debt to GDP falling in the medium term
It's not that complicated. Will those measures make up for the costs of leaving the single market and customs union? Probably not and the lack of compensatory benefits to leaving bodes ill for our economic future. But I remain unconvinced by the disaster analysis.
It's also BREXIT -> POLITICAL INSTABILITY -> UNCERTAINTY -> CRISIS
and BREXIT -> REDUCED STANDING IN THE WORLD
BREXIT -> MORE POLITICS OF FANTASY AND LIES
BREXIT -> WE DONT NEED THE REST OF THE WORLD, and
BREXIT -> PM BORIS -> POLITICAL SCANDAL
The press not so much1 -
Or if you like a reservation at one of our new French eateries. It's overpriced, and not as good as you think it's going to be, most food swimming in grease, but better than the shit you're eating now and you do have the fun of being served by slightly surly and condescending French-trained waiters.TimS said:
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.Malmesbury said:
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.edmundintokyo said:
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Can't Wetherspoons open up a few joints? Everyone likes their curry club. The Russians would surrender in droves for a curry and a pint of Tyskie for 5.99. Just leave your guns at the door....
(although on thinking about it, being fully-armed is probably best when visiting a Wetherspoons.....)0 -
Jings, that's not good. Lot of building work still going on there - wonder if that's related, or something totally separate.Theuniondivvie said:Muriel Gray back in town.
0 -
If the number of voters who might switch from Starmer to Hunt is tiny, then, at least for now, the Right are done as a force in politics. You can obsess about who’s going to pay for the funeral, but it doesn’t really matter, does it?HYUFD said:
The number of voters like you who might switch from Starmer to Hunt is tiny. It is dwarfed by the number of populist right voters who might switch from a Hunt led Tories to Farage's party.Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have this right HY.HYUFD said:
No, I would still support a Hunt led party over a Farage led party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningHYUFD said:
Better than Hunt would be.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, how well is Truss polling with Conservative voters from 2019?
Remainer Hunt's spending cuts and high tax agenda also has zero chance of regaining the Leave voting working class redwall voters Boris won now voting Labour again
You simply do not know how the public will react to Hunt but you have a visceral hatred of him which is a narrative throughout your comments
Just I also know that a Remainer Hunt led tax rising and spending cutting Tory party would be toxic not only in the redwall but with most Leave voters who still back the Tories even now (many of whom backed the Brexit Party in early 2019). I am in a minority of Remain voting Tories like you don't forget and voted for Sunak.
Most Tories are Leave voters who backed Truss and Boris
Left leaning Centrists like me are not frightened by the hugely impressive Hunt, some would even be prepared to vote for him against an incredibly weak and ineffective LOTO like Starmer. Hunt is economically and to a degree socially incompatible with us, but not full on scary, these are the voters you need.
Farage, Braverman and Badenoch on the other hand frighten the bejeezuz out of us, and they appeal to a tiny proportion of the population. The fact that this tiny percentage are already Conservative Party members makes your argument even weaker. Going full on Trump GOP is not a winning strategy.
0 -
AV and accept the result or lose the whip.Heathener said:
I haven't really followed this in depth but Pesto said on Friday that there was a clear mechanism for replacing Truss and then gave no explanation.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
That's not a decision for the 1922 Committee.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nah. They should just scrap the members ballot completely and have the MPs decide.MaxPB said:
Yes the 1922 committee should add a rule that leadership candidates must have at least 40% of MPs vote for them in a final round to make a members ballot.IanB2 said:
Start at the other end - if there's a vacancy, neither the Tories nor the country can afford a contest lasting months. We'd be lucky to get 50 cents for a £ by the end of it.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, as an uncontested successor, it could be Hunt. But there's no chance if it goes to the members.
So if there's a replacement, it has to be done by the MPs. You don't even need to think about any personalities to get that far.
The members' ballot is in the Conservative Party Constitution, which isn't set by the 1922 Committee and places a duty on them to offer a "choice of candidates" for a members' ballot. There is a get-out where only one person puts their name forward (Howard in 2003). In 2017, the 1922 Committee did offer a choice of candidates but one (Leadsom) subsequently withdrew.
The 1922 Committee's role relates to setting the Round One rules for coming up with the "choice of candidates" to go to Round Two (in consultation with the Party Board, in fact, but the decision is ultimately the 1922's) - they can't simply refuse to come up with a choice of candidates. That gives them a certain amount of power - for instance, the fact it's two rather than more candidates at Round Two is because of the 1922 Committee - the Constitution just refers to a "choice".
A response may be that the 1922 Committee could make the rules of Round One so restrictive that only one candidate can realistically make it, but there would be a pretty strong argument that's unconstitional. Their better bet is probably to achieve a gentlemen's agreement that the second person in the MPs' ballot would be put forward with the winner, but would decide, in the interests of Party unity, to withdraw at that point. They can't enforce that though.
Is there?
Am I right in thinking that the membership elect the party leader and that's "constitutionally" all they do?
Can Party MPs decide who leads their own group of MPs in Parliament, as opposed to who leads the wider Party?
Which leads to the related point that in our unwritten constitution is there any reason why any Member of Parliament cannot go to the Palace if he or she commands a majority in the House of Commons?
The problem comes back to the one that such a divided group of MPs aren't going to be able to unite around one candidate.0 -
Well Pete when you say everbody would be happy i think you would be happier with continuity Liberal Elitism that we have had since 1979 rather than a redistributive Labour. This bollocks about people on the left being happy in opposition is complete rubbish.Mexicanpete said:
Corbynist left are a little on the high side and Starmer Labour a touch low. Permanent opposition for the Corbynistas would be their dream come true, with the possibility of Centrist coalition Government.Everyone is happy!kinabalu said:
No big demur, Nick, but I sadly feel the hard populist right might do a touch better than 10%. I'd say there's a close to perfect correlation between that and those in the UK who - either overtly or secretly - like Donald Trump. They are pretty much the exact same people.NickPalmer said:
As this is, unbelievably, a slow news day, what do we think the % shares would be if we had full list PR? I'd guess something like:TimS said:
I don’t see REFUK ever breaching 15-16% even in the case of total Tory collapse. Total Tory collapse implies the country falling out of love with right wing politics.HYUFD said:
Put in Labour 45%, RefUK 25%, LDs 15% and Tories 10% which is much more realistic in that scenario and you get RefUK 71, LDs 41. So Farage does become Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=10&LAB=45&LIB=15&Reform=25&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=7&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=45&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
Faragist RefUK 10
Huntist moderate Con 25
LibDems 20
Starmerist Labour 25
Corbynist left 15
Others 5
There will be a correlation between the fortunes of the Huntsters and the Farageists. I would imagine, each would move up and down at the expense of the other. But like the Corbyn faction, the dream of permanent carping from the sidelines should tick all Farage's boxes.
Forde would suggest its rather the Centrists who would rather be in opposition than have even a whiff of Democratic Socialism0 -
There’s plenty of evidence that Tory men are just as incompetent! Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Kwarteng, Raab, Frost…ihunt said:
I think questions have to be asked as to whether the tories in their push to get more women in high office have allowed incompetent women to fly under the radarClutch_Brompton said:
Truss was passable when addressing an audience that mostly shared her views and wanted her to succeed. Remember the first debate with an audience of 'floating voters' where she was terrible. Incidentally one Kemi Badenoch barely rated better than Truss with the public - that should be remembered for the future. For the last hustings - when Sunak seemed to have more support - Liz froze again. It was all out there in plain view.williamglenn said:
There was one hustings in particular where she was genuinely impressive, and that made some believe (or hope) that she had hidden depths as a politician, but that was clearly a flash in the pan.IanB2 said:The public were desperate to draw a line under the scandals and incompetence of the Johnson years - it was quite obvious that someone like Mordaunt was needed, assuming she could rise to the challenge.
Instead we got Truss who has doubled down on the worst of the clown, continuing the incompetence and retaining the cabinet of numpties, whilst abandoning even those bits of the clown’s agenda that were popular.
What is remarkable is how predictable, and predicted, this all was (except for poor Leondamus, obvs). Like a slow motion car crash, as Truss rose through the leadership contest, went before the members, and then rushed into number ten to trash everything.
I know quite well some of the so-called 'Turnip Taliban.' They strongly opposed Truss as candidate in 2010 not just due to the multiple affairs and the fact she had been parachuted in from Central Office but also because they thought she was useless. Not up to the standard they expected of a Con MP - and remember they had been pushed to accept a dud in the previous election.
I talked to one of them yesterday. This all comes as no surprise to him.
1 -
The markets don’t want deep austerity. They want balanced budgets. That’s something the Tories used to want to…HYUFD said:
Only if there is a technocratic grand coalition government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
'However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets'HYUFD said:
It also was to protect the monarchy and preserve Brexit but even Starmer Labour now sings God Save the King and is committed to Brexit.IanB2 said:
It's pretty depressing that keeping tax low for the rich is apparently the only reason to vote Tory, from their most ardent supporter.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
But the real answer to the question is to keep Labour out, just as it always was.
If the Tories are also a party of high tax then maybe the only difference with Starmer is they also want spending cuts now with Hunt. However the number of voters wanting deep austerity now is tiny, even if the markets do
The important difference is the markets will determine the country's economic viability and future, no matter what your perception of voters demands are
If Labour wins the next election no way Starmer's party will allow him to pursue the deep austerity the markets want and nor will the Tories allow their leadership to pursue ever higher taxes4 -
All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.TimS said:
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.Malmesbury said:
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.edmundintokyo said:
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.5 -
Or the reality: Brexit was a cry of rage from people who had been marginalised and poorly served by their leaders for many many years.TimS said:
There are a range of political views within the pro-European cause as there were fir Brexit.williamglenn said:
The best example of the way the EU is merely symbolic for many pro-Europeans is the way they will argue that we should copy the major EU countries because everything is better there while the UK is stuck in the past, but then act as if the biggest domestic threat is to the NHS. Somehow at this point the idea of learning from or European neighbours becomes too painful.rcs1000 said:
We've always obsessed too much about the EU: discussion of our relationship with it manages to stifle any discussion of the UK's real issues.Sean_F said:
Within the EU our economic difficulties would be exactly the same as outside the EU.Scott_xP said:
Truss is the prime example of the fantasy economics of Brexit taken to extremes.FrankBooth said:The big question is how much is down to Brexit and how much down to the incompetence of the Brexiteers?
You can't wish away economic reality.
Leaving our closest biggest market crushed our trade.
Borrowing to fund tax cuts crushed our economy.
Some day, people who can count will be in charge again.
Many of the same voters who believed the BoZo bullshit and voted for Brexit believed the Truss bullshit and voted for her.
They have proven that are not fit to choose again...
We would still have a trade deficit, still have a growth rate that is half what it was from 1950-1999, still be coping with the fallout from Covid and Ukraine.
And, politically, Conservative MPs would still be behaving like Conservative MP's.
The “Brexit is a ruse to destroy the NHS, despoil the environment and enable tax avoidance” is from the lefty / monbiot remain flank.
“Brexit is economic self harm imposed by retired golf club bores out of touch with the real world of business” is the centrist dad remain battalion.
Finally, “Brexit shows Britain is a nation of awful racists who by the way practised murder and eugenics with their lax lockdown policies” is the FBPE / blue heart paramilitary wing.
I am in the centrist dad battalion most of whom had accepted things in 2019 and got on with life but find the occasional “told you so” irresistible.
0 -
Thinking of the Moon Under Water in Leicester Square, London - at least how it used to be. Not sure that Wagner Group are hard enough for that place.ozymandias said:
Or if you like a reservation at one of our new French eateries. It's overpriced, and not as good as you think it's going to be, most food swimming in grease, but better than the shit you're eating now and you do have the fun of being served by slightly surly and condescending French-trained waiters.TimS said:
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.Malmesbury said:
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.edmundintokyo said:
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Can't Wetherspoons open up a few joints? Everyone likes their curry club. The Russians would surrender in droves for a curry and a pint of Tyskie for 5.99. Just leave your guns at the door....
(although on thinking about it, being fully-armed is probably best when visiting a Wetherspoons.....)0 -
.Fingers crossed the regime in Iran will be toppled soon, and the supply of Iranian weapons to Russia will cease.1
-
Indeed, 20 was a significant increase on last time. Hard to raise it to a level where a contest is avoidable though.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Re your last sentence, that can be changed by the 1922 committee at anytimeOllyT said:
The Tories are paralysed and stuck with Truss until they figure out a way to bypass the barking mad membership.eek said:
So you force Truss to quitdarkage said:
Yes , but they could a) change the rules or b) force her to quit.eek said:
The Tories have a big problem - a leader who is utterly unsuitable for the job she won but no means of removing her sanely and quickly due to the rules of appointment which make a coronation of a suitable replacement impossibledarkage said:
Much depends on whether Truss can move out of the 'rabbit in the headlights' phase. If she continues, it is as PM in name only. But I have a suspicion she is actually temperamentally incapable of performing such a role. How can you, when no-one takes you seriously? Her performance in the press conference was abysmal.stjohn said:I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.
But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.
Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.
So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.
Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.
And that’s ignoring the “bedding down” rule that gives a new leader 1 year before complaints can be processed
I think B is more likely. I don't think she will be able to handle the pressure - no one could. We are rapidly approaching the point where - whenever she emerges in public - she is just met with howls of scorn, laughter and derision.
Edit - there are lots of stories that are simply devastating for her. Like the one from Kwarteng yesterday that she forced him in to the 45p tax cut etc. And then she sacked him for the consequences of the policy. Without giving any explanation why. The disasters are happening faster than we are able to process or assess them.
How do you stop the Tory membership voting for another candidate offering similar policies at the subsequent leadership election.
Because the Tory party has another fractions that a single party uniting candidate doesn’t exist
To replace Truss you need to ensure her replacement is appointed unopposed and it’s that more than anything else which is keeping Truss in place
John Major's "bastards" have now got too strong a foothold in parliament and the membership is right behind them - they would elect Farage if that was an option.
I can't see a unity candidate emerging - it only takes 20 MPs to dissent and it goes to the members.0 -
Wasn't Chamberlain still party leader when Churchill was called to the Palace?logical_song said:
AV and accept the result or lose the whip.Heathener said:
I haven't really followed this in depth but Pesto said on Friday that there was a clear mechanism for replacing Truss and then gave no explanation.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
That's not a decision for the 1922 Committee.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nah. They should just scrap the members ballot completely and have the MPs decide.MaxPB said:
Yes the 1922 committee should add a rule that leadership candidates must have at least 40% of MPs vote for them in a final round to make a members ballot.IanB2 said:
Start at the other end - if there's a vacancy, neither the Tories nor the country can afford a contest lasting months. We'd be lucky to get 50 cents for a £ by the end of it.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, as an uncontested successor, it could be Hunt. But there's no chance if it goes to the members.
So if there's a replacement, it has to be done by the MPs. You don't even need to think about any personalities to get that far.
The members' ballot is in the Conservative Party Constitution, which isn't set by the 1922 Committee and places a duty on them to offer a "choice of candidates" for a members' ballot. There is a get-out where only one person puts their name forward (Howard in 2003). In 2017, the 1922 Committee did offer a choice of candidates but one (Leadsom) subsequently withdrew.
The 1922 Committee's role relates to setting the Round One rules for coming up with the "choice of candidates" to go to Round Two (in consultation with the Party Board, in fact, but the decision is ultimately the 1922's) - they can't simply refuse to come up with a choice of candidates. That gives them a certain amount of power - for instance, the fact it's two rather than more candidates at Round Two is because of the 1922 Committee - the Constitution just refers to a "choice".
A response may be that the 1922 Committee could make the rules of Round One so restrictive that only one candidate can realistically make it, but there would be a pretty strong argument that's unconstitional. Their better bet is probably to achieve a gentlemen's agreement that the second person in the MPs' ballot would be put forward with the winner, but would decide, in the interests of Party unity, to withdraw at that point. They can't enforce that though.
Is there?
Am I right in thinking that the membership elect the party leader and that's "constitutionally" all they do?
Can Party MPs decide who leads their own group of MPs in Parliament, as opposed to who leads the wider Party?
Which leads to the related point that in our unwritten constitution is there any reason why any Member of Parliament cannot go to the Palace if he or she commands a majority in the House of Commons?
The problem comes back to the one that such a divided group of MPs aren't going to be able to unite around one candidate.
(I saw it in a film once...:))
0 -
The more weapons they supply, the more likely they will be toppled.LostPassword said:.Fingers crossed the regime in Iran will be toppled soon, and the supply of Iranian weapons to Russia will cease.
0 -
Raising taxes fits your thesis just as well as austerity. That’s the choice then: cut public services or raise taxes. Polling suggests the latter is more popular. That’s probably why Sunak chose that route.StillWaters said:
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.bondegezou said:
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.StillWaters said:
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to closeRochdalePioneers said:Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer0 -
I wonder how many of them will be feeling that they are getting better service from their leaders now? The reality is that Brexit was never going to be the solution to their problems.StillWaters said:
Or the reality: Brexit was a cry of rage from people who had been marginalised and poorly served by their leaders for many many years.TimS said:
There are a range of political views within the pro-European cause as there were fir Brexit.williamglenn said:
The best example of the way the EU is merely symbolic for many pro-Europeans is the way they will argue that we should copy the major EU countries because everything is better there while the UK is stuck in the past, but then act as if the biggest domestic threat is to the NHS. Somehow at this point the idea of learning from or European neighbours becomes too painful.rcs1000 said:
We've always obsessed too much about the EU: discussion of our relationship with it manages to stifle any discussion of the UK's real issues.Sean_F said:
Within the EU our economic difficulties would be exactly the same as outside the EU.Scott_xP said:
Truss is the prime example of the fantasy economics of Brexit taken to extremes.FrankBooth said:The big question is how much is down to Brexit and how much down to the incompetence of the Brexiteers?
You can't wish away economic reality.
Leaving our closest biggest market crushed our trade.
Borrowing to fund tax cuts crushed our economy.
Some day, people who can count will be in charge again.
Many of the same voters who believed the BoZo bullshit and voted for Brexit believed the Truss bullshit and voted for her.
They have proven that are not fit to choose again...
We would still have a trade deficit, still have a growth rate that is half what it was from 1950-1999, still be coping with the fallout from Covid and Ukraine.
And, politically, Conservative MPs would still be behaving like Conservative MP's.
The “Brexit is a ruse to destroy the NHS, despoil the environment and enable tax avoidance” is from the lefty / monbiot remain flank.
“Brexit is economic self harm imposed by retired golf club bores out of touch with the real world of business” is the centrist dad remain battalion.
Finally, “Brexit shows Britain is a nation of awful racists who by the way practised murder and eugenics with their lax lockdown policies” is the FBPE / blue heart paramilitary wing.
I am in the centrist dad battalion most of whom had accepted things in 2019 and got on with life but find the occasional “told you so” irresistible.0 -
I don't need to know anything about you to be honest.....Luckyguy1983 said:
Pathetic.Daveyboy1961 said:
Whilst kamikaze policies of trussonomics have a detrimental effect on financial markets and systems which the UK participates in, other members/countries have every right to say ..."hang on...whoaa there.." or words to that effect.kinabalu said:
I guess the jury's out on whether Biden is friend or foe now.CarlottaVance said:On Biden criticising Trussonomics:
I don’t care what your politics are. This is a totally inappropriate intervention in another country’s domestic politics. Just not done to an ally. Being right doesn’t make it right
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1581552880494202880
0 -
I lived in System Street!Peter_the_Punter said:@Mexicanpete
You went into Splott without an armed guard?
Respect.
I once went into the Adamsdown chip shop. I ordered Clarks pie and chips "d'ya want that hot luv? "Yes" I replied, so she promptly dropped the pie into the hot fat! Splott class!0 -
Yes - Chamberlain remained Tory leader until Autumn 1940 when his terminal condition led him to step down.Daveyboy1961 said:
Wasn't Chamberlain still party leader when Churchill was called to the Palace?logical_song said:
AV and accept the result or lose the whip.Heathener said:
I haven't really followed this in depth but Pesto said on Friday that there was a clear mechanism for replacing Truss and then gave no explanation.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
That's not a decision for the 1922 Committee.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nah. They should just scrap the members ballot completely and have the MPs decide.MaxPB said:
Yes the 1922 committee should add a rule that leadership candidates must have at least 40% of MPs vote for them in a final round to make a members ballot.IanB2 said:
Start at the other end - if there's a vacancy, neither the Tories nor the country can afford a contest lasting months. We'd be lucky to get 50 cents for a £ by the end of it.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, as an uncontested successor, it could be Hunt. But there's no chance if it goes to the members.
So if there's a replacement, it has to be done by the MPs. You don't even need to think about any personalities to get that far.
The members' ballot is in the Conservative Party Constitution, which isn't set by the 1922 Committee and places a duty on them to offer a "choice of candidates" for a members' ballot. There is a get-out where only one person puts their name forward (Howard in 2003). In 2017, the 1922 Committee did offer a choice of candidates but one (Leadsom) subsequently withdrew.
The 1922 Committee's role relates to setting the Round One rules for coming up with the "choice of candidates" to go to Round Two (in consultation with the Party Board, in fact, but the decision is ultimately the 1922's) - they can't simply refuse to come up with a choice of candidates. That gives them a certain amount of power - for instance, the fact it's two rather than more candidates at Round Two is because of the 1922 Committee - the Constitution just refers to a "choice".
A response may be that the 1922 Committee could make the rules of Round One so restrictive that only one candidate can realistically make it, but there would be a pretty strong argument that's unconstitional. Their better bet is probably to achieve a gentlemen's agreement that the second person in the MPs' ballot would be put forward with the winner, but would decide, in the interests of Party unity, to withdraw at that point. They can't enforce that though.
Is there?
Am I right in thinking that the membership elect the party leader and that's "constitutionally" all they do?
Can Party MPs decide who leads their own group of MPs in Parliament, as opposed to who leads the wider Party?
Which leads to the related point that in our unwritten constitution is there any reason why any Member of Parliament cannot go to the Palace if he or she commands a majority in the House of Commons?
The problem comes back to the one that such a divided group of MPs aren't going to be able to unite around one candidate.
(I saw it in a film once...:))0 -
Putin certainly won't be in much of a position to interfere. What about China?LostPassword said:.Fingers crossed the regime in Iran will be toppled soon, and the supply of Iranian weapons to Russia will cease.
0 -
If there is any need for conclusive proof that Russia is no longer a great power it is surely their begging weapons off the likes of Iran and North Korea. It’s a bit pathetic.Pulpstar said:Both Ukranian and Russian sources reporting Iran sending Fatty* (sp) missiles to Russia.
1 -
Much more likely to poll circa 3% - as UKIP did in 2010.kjh said:
I disagree. It would be fun to find out though.HYUFD said:
Not necessarily, if Farage's party got 25 to 30% of the vote and Hunt's party say 10% them Farage's party would win 150 to 200 seats.kjh said:
Even if you are right and there was a Tory wipe out, Farage would not be LOTO under FPTP. That would be the SNP or LDs.HYUFD said:
Hunt could also lead the Tories to extinction. With Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer in a Canada 1993 scenario.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.
Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.
Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.
If you impose a leader most Tory voters don't want let alone Tory members that is the risk Tory MPs take. Realistically only Wallace would do. Hunt can stay Chancellor but not become leader
However as I said yesterday I think you are wrong re Hunt. Yes he would lose the wingnuts to the right, but he is sane and that attracts moderate non political voters.
Farage would then be Leader of the Opposition
Farage will not have a ground game. He couldn't even do it in by-elections. He was rubbish in organising locally. Depending upon the seat, Lab (mainly) or the LDs will pick up tactical votes to win from the Tories. I don't believe Farage could win more than a few tens of seats even on that percentage.
I could be wrong of course.1 -
And we've (deep down) known for decades that the British solution of almost-European public spending with almost-American taxes has been dodgily sustained by assuming that various windfalls are permanent.bondegezou said:
Raising taxes fits your thesis just as well as austerity. That’s the choice then: cut public services or raise taxes. Polling suggests the latter is more popular. That’s probably why Sunak chose that route.StillWaters said:
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.bondegezou said:
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.StillWaters said:
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to closeRochdalePioneers said:Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer
Recent government antics have just made that more stark. And dealing with the fallout will be unpopular... Tough.1 -
In order to balance the budget you need both. Especially as borrowing more to plug the deficit is increasingly difficult/expensive. The deficit cannot be plugged by tax arises alone. It's far too large.bondegezou said:
Raising taxes fits your thesis just as well as austerity. That’s the choice then: cut public services or raise taxes. Polling suggests the latter is more popular. That’s probably why Sunak chose that route.StillWaters said:
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.bondegezou said:
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.StillWaters said:
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to closeRochdalePioneers said:Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer
Tax the rich bastards - fine. But you're going to have to see pretty heavy spending cuts as well. Hence why HYFD is actually correct. The next government of whatever colour is going to please no-one and quite likely piss everyone off.1 -
If they start getting used - ABM systems in Ukraine look inevitable.DavidL said:
If there is any need for conclusive proof that Russia is no longer a great power it is surely their begging weapons off the likes of Iran and North Korea. It’s a bit pathetic.Pulpstar said:Both Ukranian and Russian sources reporting Iran sending Fatty* (sp) missiles to Russia.
Can we start the "That is a redline that means real, full fat nuclear war with Russia, weak woke NATO tactical nuclear war" discussion, now, please?0 -
jings help ma boabsolarflare said:
Jings, that's not good. Lot of building work still going on there - wonder if that's related, or something totally separate.Theuniondivvie said:Muriel Gray back in town.
0 -
Major fire in Leeds yesterday evening in a building undergoing refurbishment.solarflare said:
Jings, that's not good. Lot of building work still going on there - wonder if that's related, or something totally separate.Theuniondivvie said:Muriel Gray back in town.
Maybe someone has mistaken both buildings for Russian conscription centres?0 -
One of my favourite war stories is the Germans at Monte Casino in WW 2. Besieged for weeks they were reduced to living on rats. In desperation, they counterattacked breaking into the American trenches…where they found fresh cream cakes delivered from Chicago.ozymandias said:
Or if you like a reservation at one of our new French eateries. It's overpriced, and not as good as you think it's going to be, most food swimming in grease, but better than the shit you're eating now and you do have the fun of being served by slightly surly and condescending French-trained waiters.TimS said:
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.Malmesbury said:
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.edmundintokyo said:
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Can't Wetherspoons open up a few joints? Everyone likes their curry club. The Russians would surrender in droves for a curry and a pint of Tyskie for 5.99. Just leave your guns at the door....
(although on thinking about it, being fully-armed is probably best when visiting a Wetherspoons.....)
They surrendered.1 -
To act as a drag anchor for the countryClippP said:
A very good question, young HY. What the Tories say is one thing, what they do is another. I believe actions rather than words.Northern_Al said:
A good question. I struggle to think of any.HYUFD said:
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?Razedabode said:Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?
So in your opinion, what is the point of the Conservative Party?
0 -
During the Michael Offensive in 1918, a major issue for the Germans was that when the attackers got to the support trenches, they would stop to loot the vast mountains of food they found there. There was a joke that the secret Allied weapon against breakthroughs was to leave a vat of stew bubbling away on the stove.DavidL said:
One of my favourite war stories is the Germans at Monte Casino in WW 2. Besieged for weeks they were reduced to living on rats. In desperation, they counterattacked breaking into the American trenches…where they found fresh cream cakes delivered from Chicago.ozymandias said:
Or if you like a reservation at one of our new French eateries. It's overpriced, and not as good as you think it's going to be, most food swimming in grease, but better than the shit you're eating now and you do have the fun of being served by slightly surly and condescending French-trained waiters.TimS said:
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.Malmesbury said:
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.edmundintokyo said:
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.kyf_100 said:
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.ozymandias said:
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??Nigelb said:France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister
The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Can't Wetherspoons open up a few joints? Everyone likes their curry club. The Russians would surrender in droves for a curry and a pint of Tyskie for 5.99. Just leave your guns at the door....
(although on thinking about it, being fully-armed is probably best when visiting a Wetherspoons.....)
They surrendered.0 -
What’s your evidence that the deficit can’t be plugged by tax increases alone? Sunak’s last budget was working OK and there was plenty of scope for tax rises on top of that.ozymandias said:
In order to balance the budget you need both. Especially as borrowing more to plug the deficit is increasingly difficult/expensive. The deficit cannot be plugged by tax arises alone. It's far too large.bondegezou said:
Raising taxes fits your thesis just as well as austerity. That’s the choice then: cut public services or raise taxes. Polling suggests the latter is more popular. That’s probably why Sunak chose that route.StillWaters said:
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.bondegezou said:
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.StillWaters said:
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to closeRochdalePioneers said:Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer
Tax the rich bastards - fine. But you're going to have to see pretty heavy spending cuts as well. Hence why HYFD is actually correct. The next government of whatever colour is going to please no-one and quite likely piss everyone off.0 -
The 'austerity' squealing has already featured large among the hacks on the news this morning. It's the bogey word trotted out always when reality hits the fan as if just by saying the word it means it cannot be done regardless of the cold hard facts. All the focus now will be on this aspect as everyone pretends there's no room to cut anything. It would be amusing if it was actually true.StillWaters said:
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.bondegezou said:
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.StillWaters said:
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to closeRochdalePioneers said:Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer1 -
Inactive sprinkler systems, due to work? Combine with piles of building materials and paint? Add a light topping of site electrics...SandyRentool said:
Major fire in Leeds yesterday evening in a building undergoing refurbishment.solarflare said:
Jings, that's not good. Lot of building work still going on there - wonder if that's related, or something totally separate.Theuniondivvie said:Muriel Gray back in town.
Maybe someone has mistaken both buildings for Russian conscription centres?
The things that people will bodge together on sites to "just get some power" are terrifying. Policing it is a full time effort.1 -
https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/y5d15m/kingston_street_in_glasgow_city_centre_just_now/ has some video. Does look pretty bad to my eyes. And the suggestion that it's deliberate to free up the plot for developers is scandalous. Scandalous I say.solarflare said:
Jings, that's not good. Lot of building work still going on there - wonder if that's related, or something totally separate.Theuniondivvie said:Muriel Gray back in town.
0 -
how much extra engineering would a tidal lagoon need to allow it to double as pumped storage for excess wind power? i know the tide timings might not always match up but if we have them in different locations round the coast at least one should always be available.LostPassword said:
I think they keep a few CCGT plants running because they can relatively quickly ramp up and down to match variations in demand (or wind supply) to balance the grid. I guess that might be one sign of a large increase in battery storage being added to the grid, that it would take over the balancing role.TimS said:Another stunningly renewable day on the grid. Just 3.5gw of CCGT generation currently, which seems to be the minimum it ever manages presumably because a couple of gas plants are cheaper to keep running than switch off and on.
https://grid.energynumbers.info/
Enough wind, solar, biomass and nuclear to cover almost 100% of domestic demand right now.0 -
I disagree. If needs must there will be a horse trade. I think the gravity of the situation will focus minds. If the right gets someone in DCMS (so they have a platform for the anti woke stuff) and International Trade that might be enough for them. Quite possibly they might want to keep Cruella at the Home Office, though I sincerely hope they don’t get that.kle4 said:
Indeed, 20 was a significant increase on last time. Hard to raise it to a level where a contest is avoidable though.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Re your last sentence, that can be changed by the 1922 committee at anytimeOllyT said:
The Tories are paralysed and stuck with Truss until they figure out a way to bypass the barking mad membership.eek said:
So you force Truss to quitdarkage said:
Yes , but they could a) change the rules or b) force her to quit.eek said:
The Tories have a big problem - a leader who is utterly unsuitable for the job she won but no means of removing her sanely and quickly due to the rules of appointment which make a coronation of a suitable replacement impossibledarkage said:
Much depends on whether Truss can move out of the 'rabbit in the headlights' phase. If she continues, it is as PM in name only. But I have a suspicion she is actually temperamentally incapable of performing such a role. How can you, when no-one takes you seriously? Her performance in the press conference was abysmal.stjohn said:I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.
But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.
Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.
So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.
Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.
And that’s ignoring the “bedding down” rule that gives a new leader 1 year before complaints can be processed
I think B is more likely. I don't think she will be able to handle the pressure - no one could. We are rapidly approaching the point where - whenever she emerges in public - she is just met with howls of scorn, laughter and derision.
Edit - there are lots of stories that are simply devastating for her. Like the one from Kwarteng yesterday that she forced him in to the 45p tax cut etc. And then she sacked him for the consequences of the policy. Without giving any explanation why. The disasters are happening faster than we are able to process or assess them.
How do you stop the Tory membership voting for another candidate offering similar policies at the subsequent leadership election.
Because the Tory party has another fractions that a single party uniting candidate doesn’t exist
To replace Truss you need to ensure her replacement is appointed unopposed and it’s that more than anything else which is keeping Truss in place
John Major's "bastards" have now got too strong a foothold in parliament and the membership is right behind them - they would elect Farage if that was an option.
I can't see a unity candidate emerging - it only takes 20 MPs to dissent and it goes to the members.0 -
Looks from this vid that the likely source is some industrial buildings nearby, though can't 100% rule out the red high rise.SandyRentool said:
Major fire in Leeds yesterday evening in asolarflare said:
Jings, that's not good. Lot of building work still going on there - wonder if that's related, or something totally separate.Theuniondivvie said:Muriel Gray back in town.
building undergoing refurbishment.
Maybe someone has mistaken both buildings for Russian conscription centres?
https://twitter.com/Sats70057066/status/1581579885004611586?t=s3xjuHFOWKibmKVKOALCmA&s=190
This discussion has been closed.