Tim Montgomerie is right about this Sunak Tweet – politicalbetting.com

darkage said:

Foxy said:

darkage said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

In Algeria 10 soldiers dead while trying to evacuate folk from fires:

https://news.sky.com/story/weather-latest-uk-corfu-rhodes-fires-wildfires-heatwave-holiday-updates-12920226?postid=6213474#liveblog-body

Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?

I am not turning my back

Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK

Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.

I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK

None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost

"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.

The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.

The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.

That is in a lot of ways the lesson of austerity. Not spending and cutting essential projects just increases the cost in the future. For instance, spending money now to adapt to climate change should be obvious.

Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.

The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.

We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.

Agreed, but I would comment that it is a peculiarly English problem connected to austerity and the legacy of Thatcherism. The hope must be that we will somehow move on from it.

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

In Algeria 10 soldiers dead while trying to evacuate folk from fires:

https://news.sky.com/story/weather-latest-uk-corfu-rhodes-fires-wildfires-heatwave-holiday-updates-12920226?postid=6213474#liveblog-body

Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?

I am not turning my back

Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK

Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.

I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK

None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost

"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.

The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.

The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.

I would have said the key problem with 'investment' as a political word is that Brown used it passim ad nauseam when he actually meant 'current spending.' A very different concept which needs a different funding model. His sleight of hand left us with far too much unfunded debt.

And unfortunately discredited both genuine investment and current spending as concepts.

It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?

Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.

The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.

FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.

But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.

I have never put any thought into the phrase 'common or garden' and it looks weird when I see it written down. I hear it and say it as commonergarden. But then I am an idiot.

Fishing said:

Andy_JS said:

The "most liveable cities index" obviously doesn't take cost of living into account, by putting places like Zurich and Geneva in the top 5. Talk about being out of touch.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/07/25/these-are-the-most-liveable-cities-in-europe

Or little factors like nightlife, weather, freedom, decent food or any of the other things that make a city more than a big collection of buildings. They give the impression of being designed by a well-off, rather crusty middle-aged couple who just want a quiet life - rather like a senior Economist journalist and partner I imagine.

You'll probably never get two people who value the exact same things in a city, and even if they do, what people value changes a lot over time, so indices like these are much too subjective to be worth anything.

Peck said:

Peck said:

What riffraff seem to rise to the top in the BBC these days!

One minute, the BBC chairman is sorting out an £800K loan for the prime minister.

The next minute, the BBC business editor is passing on dirt from the bankers to the oligarchs about a leading opposition politician.

PS What charity was it that held the 3 July dinner at the Langham Hotel at which Simon Jack supposedly "sat next" to Alison Rose? Were any members of the royal family present? How about any Russian businessmen?

OK someone has just filled me in on this. The dinner was held in aid of BBC Media Action. Apparently a collective noun of senior BBC presenters were present, and according to the Torygraph their "star power helped to draw in the sort of wealthy individuals who could make the night a success for the charity". So who were those ultra-rich types then?

Why's it not surprising that senior BBC figures spend their time hobnobbing with bankers while persuading the filthy rich to make donations?

Seriously what would people say if this happened in Bogota or Moscow?

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

In Algeria 10 soldiers dead while trying to evacuate folk from fires:

https://news.sky.com/story/weather-latest-uk-corfu-rhodes-fires-wildfires-heatwave-holiday-updates-12920226?postid=6213474#liveblog-body

Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?

I am not turning my back

Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK

Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.

I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK

None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost

"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.

The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.

The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.

I would have said the key problem with 'investment' as a political word is that Brown used it passim ad nauseam when he actually meant 'current spending.' A very different concept which needs a different funding model. His sleight of hand left us with far too much unfunded debt.

And unfortunately discredited both genuine investment and current spending as concepts.

It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?

Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.

The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.

FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.

But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.

She addressed a series of problems the UK had from the 70s and 80s. Those who followed her had the advantage of a cleaner slate, Politicians such as Blair or Cameron made the national bed we now have to lie in and on some measures they royally messed things up.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Peck said:

Malmesbury said:

Peck said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

williamglenn said:

Farage on the brink of claiming his first scalp.

Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.

https://twitter.com/markkleinmansky/status/1683963592742240257

Can Farage spin this moment of renewed relevance into a political revival? Does he even want to? What's his motive in all this?

No, and no, is my guess

But a hefty win in a libel court and a pleasing victory over the Woke Remoaners: Yes

Not sure of the basis for Libel. The report suggested members of the public perceived him as a liar and a racist and a grifter. It didn't claim he was.

That can still constitute libel. Did you think it was unactionable to say "Others say Mr X is a liar"? I strongly doubt he'll sue, though. Generally it's sensible not to. If he did he'd have to be super-confident of victory on proper advice and they'd settle.

What's his motive? I guess he wants somewhere to bank, as most of us do, but more than that? Reform UK will be totally irrelevant in the next election IMO. So it isn't that. As I've said before, perhaps he's got snow on his boots. He wouldn't be the only far right figure in western Europe about whom that has been suggested. And he seems to have damaged the City a bit. Even a year and a half into the war the City still handles an awful lot of Russian-in-origin money. Who knows what the next chapter in that story will be? Perhaps this is an early chapter.

Even without any Russian considerations, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's not batting for someone else to some extent or at least being used. He'd be brave to take on the BBC single-handed.

If Britain weren't so full of royalist lickspittles, the fact that the royal family's bankers took exception to him disrespecting the then Prince of Wales for receiving a million euros in cash in a suitcase handed to him by a Qatari prince wouldn't be allowed to plummet down the memory hole.

And the left would make the following extremely obvious point: the City, not wanting to handle dirty people's money - talk about taking the f***ing piss!

No one in banking gives a crap about a spat between two clients. Professionals stay out of that. Blank face with a smile. Oh, and collect your fee.

What if one of the clients is now the king and the bank gets a call from the king's palace saying your other client dissed the king something rotten and he's most displeased?

We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.

Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.

We are not Saudi Arabia but a constitutional not absolute monarchy

Oh? Why do you then bleat about treason every time someone talks about throwing an egg at the King on walkabout?

As that is an assault under UK law and battery if it hits

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Peck said:

Malmesbury said:

Peck said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

williamglenn said:

Farage on the brink of claiming his first scalp.

Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.

https://twitter.com/markkleinmansky/status/1683963592742240257

Can Farage spin this moment of renewed relevance into a political revival? Does he even want to? What's his motive in all this?

No, and no, is my guess

But a hefty win in a libel court and a pleasing victory over the Woke Remoaners: Yes

Not sure of the basis for Libel. The report suggested members of the public perceived him as a liar and a racist and a grifter. It didn't claim he was.

That can still constitute libel. Did you think it was unactionable to say "Others say Mr X is a liar"? I strongly doubt he'll sue, though. Generally it's sensible not to. If he did he'd have to be super-confident of victory on proper advice and they'd settle.

What's his motive? I guess he wants somewhere to bank, as most of us do, but more than that? Reform UK will be totally irrelevant in the next election IMO. So it isn't that. As I've said before, perhaps he's got snow on his boots. He wouldn't be the only far right figure in western Europe about whom that has been suggested. And he seems to have damaged the City a bit. Even a year and a half into the war the City still handles an awful lot of Russian-in-origin money. Who knows what the next chapter in that story will be? Perhaps this is an early chapter.

Even without any Russian considerations, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's not batting for someone else to some extent or at least being used. He'd be brave to take on the BBC single-handed.

If Britain weren't so full of royalist lickspittles, the fact that the royal family's bankers took exception to him disrespecting the then Prince of Wales for receiving a million euros in cash in a suitcase handed to him by a Qatari prince wouldn't be allowed to plummet down the memory hole.

And the left would make the following extremely obvious point: the City, not wanting to handle dirty people's money - talk about taking the f***ing piss!

No one in banking gives a crap about a spat between two clients. Professionals stay out of that. Blank face with a smile. Oh, and collect your fee.

What if one of the clients is now the king and the bank gets a call from the king's palace saying your other client dissed the king something rotten and he's most displeased?

We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.

Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.

We are not Saudi Arabia but a constitutional not absolute monarchy

Oh? Why do you then bleat about treason every time someone talks about throwing an egg at the King on walkabout?

As that is an assault under UK law and battery if it hits

Not if it's a free range egg.

Benpointer said:

O/T Does anyone know how you can find out from a County Court case number, what the case is about? I assume it's too much to expect there to be an on-line database one can search?

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Peck said:

Malmesbury said:

Peck said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

williamglenn said:

Farage on the brink of claiming his first scalp.

Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.

https://twitter.com/markkleinmansky/status/1683963592742240257

Can Farage spin this moment of renewed relevance into a political revival? Does he even want to? What's his motive in all this?

No, and no, is my guess

But a hefty win in a libel court and a pleasing victory over the Woke Remoaners: Yes

Not sure of the basis for Libel. The report suggested members of the public perceived him as a liar and a racist and a grifter. It didn't claim he was.

That can still constitute libel. Did you think it was unactionable to say "Others say Mr X is a liar"? I strongly doubt he'll sue, though. Generally it's sensible not to. If he did he'd have to be super-confident of victory on proper advice and they'd settle.

What's his motive? I guess he wants somewhere to bank, as most of us do, but more than that? Reform UK will be totally irrelevant in the next election IMO. So it isn't that. As I've said before, perhaps he's got snow on his boots. He wouldn't be the only far right figure in western Europe about whom that has been suggested. And he seems to have damaged the City a bit. Even a year and a half into the war the City still handles an awful lot of Russian-in-origin money. Who knows what the next chapter in that story will be? Perhaps this is an early chapter.

Even without any Russian considerations, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's not batting for someone else to some extent or at least being used. He'd be brave to take on the BBC single-handed.

If Britain weren't so full of royalist lickspittles, the fact that the royal family's bankers took exception to him disrespecting the then Prince of Wales for receiving a million euros in cash in a suitcase handed to him by a Qatari prince wouldn't be allowed to plummet down the memory hole.

And the left would make the following extremely obvious point: the City, not wanting to handle dirty people's money - talk about taking the f***ing piss!

No one in banking gives a crap about a spat between two clients. Professionals stay out of that. Blank face with a smile. Oh, and collect your fee.

What if one of the clients is now the king and the bank gets a call from the king's palace saying your other client dissed the king something rotten and he's most displeased?

We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.

Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.

We are not Saudi Arabia but a constitutional not absolute monarchy

Oh? Why do you then bleat about treason every time someone talks about throwing an egg at the King on walkabout?

As that is an assault under UK law and battery if it hits

Only if it's an egg from a battery hen.

Mexicanpete said:

bigjohnowls said:

One of the biggest political scandals of the century; SKS hires Martin Forde to carry out root & branch inquiry into the Labour Party, Forde finds party is riddled with racists & scumbags, & SKS does nothing. The racists, the scumbags, they're still there.

Now WE add a whippersnapper to the PLP with antiquated views about women

SKS's cess pit

"We"!!!! I thought you'd left.I am on to Caroline Lucas* as we speak to have you, a Labour Trojan Horse drummed out of the Greens.

* I can't remember who runs the Greens these days. Is it that antipodean woman + 1?

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The shocking thing is I don't think anybody is shocked by this.

Unconscious with her hands cuffed behind her back, a woman is carried into a police cell.

She is forced face-down onto a thin mattress. Police officers take off her jeans, cut off her knickers, pull a pair of oversized custody shorts over her legs, then remove her top and bra before leaving her alone and topless. All of this is captured on CCTV.

The woman in the footage is Zayna Iman, 38, who alleges that she was drugged and sexually assaulted while being held in custody by Greater Manchester Police.

"Instead of providing an unconscious female with medical attention they thought, 'I know let's take her clothes off instead and leave her there'," says Zayna, sounding incredulous. "It's just something that the police do for their own perverse kicks."

Police broke into her home in the early hours of 5 February 2021, and arrested her after she knocked the glasses off a female officer's face. They were following up a welfare callout over a woman high on cocaine. Over the next 40 hours or so, Zayna - who has waived her right to anonymity - would be taken to and held at a police station.

From that period, there are three hours of missing footage which GMP have so far failed to supply.

Zayna's allegation is supported by her medical records which show evidence of sexual injuries. She has also shared her concerns with former GMP chief superintendent, Martin Harding, who has seen the available footage and the glaring inconsistencies with the custody log, and says her claims are credible.

https://news.sky.com/story/stripped-and-left-topless-in-a-cell-i-was-drugged-and-sexually-assaulted-by-greater-manchester-police-12924141

What the actual fuck is wrong with the police?

This quote tells you everything that is wrong with the police.

GMP has not explained why the footage is missing but says there is currently no evidence to suggest any employees have misconducted themselves or committed a criminal offence.

"... no evidence to suggest any employees have misconducted themselves.." ?

WTAF ?

Benpointer said:

Alanbrooke said:

Benpointer said:

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

The problem is that "delay net zero" just means don't do anything.

And we're paying the price for it each time we delay it.

Delaying is over, it is time to do something about it so we don't have this conversation in 10 years time again. The UK is literally one of the best countries on Earth for renewable energy potential.

Nobody is suggesting delaying net zero by 2050

However it is reasonable to question why the UK is banning the sale of ICE vehicles by 2030 when the EU is continuing until 2035

Furthermore measures have to be affordable not only to the population but also the government and in a clear recognition of this Starmer has abandoned his 28 billion a year green commitment

It is not all or nothing, it is making progress across all fronts at a pace that is realistic

And your children and grandchildren will pay the price of that delay, not just financially, but in the form of chaos around the world, wars, famines and refugees like we have never seen in human history.

Climate change is a world problem and as such requires worldwide cooperation which if the recent G20 meeting is to go by is simply not there

Ensuring our climate measures are affordable and sensible is not going to cause the catastrophe you suggest as we are not able to stop it ourselves

The Skidmore review makes it clear that we are not on track for Net Zero by 2050, but also that far from being a cost, it is a net economic benefit:

"Yet his review also makes it clear that net zero offers huge economic potential for the UK. Rather than being a cost, as Skidmore’s rightwing colleagues would argue, the review shows in detail how pursuing net zero can bring: green jobs, economic growth to regions in need of levelling-up, health and wellbeing benefits as well as fulfilling the UK’s international climate obligations."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/12/why-net-zero-tsar-review-is-a-damning-indictment-of-tory-government-chris-skidmore?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Starmer backtracking is equally shaming and dispiriting. This country is going to suffer from our lack of action.

Exactly - even just the positive externalities of mitigation are worth more than the costs.

And we have people on here whose entire rationale is to say how wonderful the "Conservatives" are, bleating about the 'cost' and saying brainlessly that it'll be all right because Mr Sunak with his helicopter flights will do wonders for the Southern English date industry. (I exaggerate a bit, but one of us did say it was OK for the Gulf Stream to collapse because it would cool the summers a little.)

Be nice.

Remember if the Gulf Stream stops Scotland will be so cold youll all have to move South and be civilised.

We'll all regret we can't just move to the the Med* once the permanent ice sheet reaches the Thames.

(*Brexit bonus)

If its fridge or furnace Im staying in the cool.

Ironically, the gulf stream stopping could save the Med from the furnace.

bigjohnowls said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Mexicanpete said:

bigjohnowls said:

One of the biggest political scandals of the century; SKS hires Martin Forde to carry out root & branch inquiry into the Labour Party, Forde finds party is riddled with racists & scumbags, & SKS does nothing. The racists, the scumbags, they're still there.

Now WE add a whippersnapper to the PLP with antiquated views about women

SKS's cess pit

"We"!!!! I thought you'd left.I am on to Caroline Lucas* as we speak to have you, a Labour Trojan Horse drummed out of the Greens.

* I can't remember who runs the Greens these days. Is it that antipodean woman + 1?

My membership Card arrived yesterday with a badge a window poster and a welcome pack

Still don't know who the leader is though.

Have attended a local meeting soon after I joined was very welcoming but then again there were a number of Socialists in the room who I knew from my days in the Lab Party.

Looks like we will be targeting 2 Council wards in next years Locals 1 Tory held and 1 Lab seat both look winnable as we came a close 2nd last time.

How well did you do in Uxbridge?

How did SKS do?

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

In Algeria 10 soldiers dead while trying to evacuate folk from fires:

https://news.sky.com/story/weather-latest-uk-corfu-rhodes-fires-wildfires-heatwave-holiday-updates-12920226?postid=6213474#liveblog-body

Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?

I am not turning my back

Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK

Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.

I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK

None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost

"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.

The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.

The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.

I would have said the key problem with 'investment' as a political word is that Brown used it passim ad nauseam when he actually meant 'current spending.' A very different concept which needs a different funding model. His sleight of hand left us with far too much unfunded debt.

And unfortunately discredited both genuine investment and current spending as concepts.

It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?

Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.

The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.

FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.

But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.

She addressed a series of problems the UK had from the 70s and 80s. Those who followed her had the advantage of a cleaner slate, Politicians such as Blair or Cameron made the national bed we now have to lie in and on some measures they royally messed things up.

Hmm, rather a mixed legacy for me. Some plusses but on the whole neutral to negative.

Gardenwalker said:

Look what Thanet could have won!
Oh well, I guess only poor people live there so it doesn’t matter.

Northern_Al said:

bigjohnowls said:

Cess Pit

https://twitter.com/JGerrings/status/1682726370663604225

Have you bothered to look at other tweets from that account? It's from somebody who is a fascist, with explicitly racist tweets scattered throughout. Deeply unpleasant.

For a socialist, you really should know better than citing far right-wing lunatics in support of your hatred of Labour. You've sunk into the gutter on this one.

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

darkage said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

In Algeria 10 soldiers dead while trying to evacuate folk from fires:

https://news.sky.com/story/weather-latest-uk-corfu-rhodes-fires-wildfires-heatwave-holiday-updates-12920226?postid=6213474#liveblog-body

Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?

I am not turning my back

Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK

Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.

I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK

None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost

"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.

The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.

The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.

That is in a lot of ways the lesson of austerity. Not spending and cutting essential projects just increases the cost in the future. For instance, spending money now to adapt to climate change should be obvious.

Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.

The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.

We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.

Which is why using cheap migrant labour is wrong. Its a sticking plaster to cover lack of investment, The whole of the UK whether public or private needs to upgrade its infrastructure and push for greater productivity, We could then afford to pay people a decent salary,

And in the meantime ?

There is no mean time. We have to start now as we are on a slow slope of deterioration,
Ive written some thoughts below most of which require not pissing money up the wall and setting some national priorities.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Why the fuck was Ms. Rose earning £5 million???

Those people who work at the top echelons of the banking, particularly in compliance, are vastly underpaid considering all the good things they do.

Ms Rose is the prime example.

Cyclefree said:

It's worth remembering that NatWest's results are due out shortly. The Board will have had in mind (I hope) that you cannot have a CEO who does not understand what you can and cannot say to a journalist while in possession of confidential and price-sensitive information. If she opened her mouth about Farage without thinking how could the Board trust her not to open her mouth about other much more sensitive information.

StillWaters said:

Gardenwalker said:

Look what Thanet could have won!
Oh well, I guess only poor people live there so it doesn’t matter.

That picture Looks a bit like colditz castle though!

Cyclefree said:

It's worth remembering that NatWest's results are due out shortly. The Board will have had in mind (I hope) that you cannot have a CEO who does not understand what you can and cannot say to a journalist while in possession of confidential and price-sensitive information. If she opened her mouth about Farage without thinking how could the Board trust her not to open her mouth about other much more sensitive information.

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

It's worth remembering that NatWest's results are due out shortly. The Board will have had in mind (I hope) that you cannot have a CEO who does not understand what you can and cannot say to a journalist while in possession of confidential and price-sensitive information. If she opened her mouth about Farage without thinking how could the Board trust her not to open her mouth about other much more sensitive information.

Im still scratching my head as to how the Coutts Board have side stepped all the crap since they in essence created the problem

https://www.coutts.com/about/board.html

HMG should have demanded they all resign without compensation pour encourager les autres.

A chairman with a background in the water industry sort of tells you all you need to know.

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

It's worth remembering that NatWest's results are due out shortly. The Board will have had in mind (I hope) that you cannot have a CEO who does not understand what you can and cannot say to a journalist while in possession of confidential and price-sensitive information. If she opened her mouth about Farage without thinking how could the Board trust her not to open her mouth about other much more sensitive information.

Im still scratching my head as to how the Coutts Board have side stepped all the crap since they in essence created the problem

https://www.coutts.com/about/board.html

HMG should have demanded they all resign without compensation pour encourager les autres.

A chairman with a background in the water industry sort of tells you all you need to know.

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

darkage said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

In Algeria 10 soldiers dead while trying to evacuate folk from fires:

https://news.sky.com/story/weather-latest-uk-corfu-rhodes-fires-wildfires-heatwave-holiday-updates-12920226?postid=6213474#liveblog-body

Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?

I am not turning my back

Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK

Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.

I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK

None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost

"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.

The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.

The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.

That is in a lot of ways the lesson of austerity. Not spending and cutting essential projects just increases the cost in the future. For instance, spending money now to adapt to climate change should be obvious.

Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.

The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.

We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.

Which is why using cheap migrant labour is wrong. Its a sticking plaster to cover lack of investment, The whole of the UK whether public or private needs to upgrade its infrastructure and push for greater productivity, We could then afford to pay people a decent salary,

And in the meantime ?

There is no mean time. We have to start now as we are on a slow slope of deterioration,
Ive written some thoughts below most of which require not pissing money up the wall and setting some national priorities.

I also agree with quite a lot of what you suggest.
But we are in the meantime, since there's absolutely no sign of the administration in power adopting any if that.

And I think the whole argument over immigration pretty well irrelevant to whether we make those sort of changes.
The idea that a tightening of immigration policy might be some sort of catalyst for them is, IMO, utterly fanciful.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well.

The majority of Tory voters who plan to switch to Labour in the next election think that Rishi Sunak has not done enough on climate change, according to polling that comes as the Conservatives consider rowing back on green policies.

Clean energy industry figures said the results showed that the idea that environmental policies are unpopular was “totally unfounded”.

Polling of 3,000 adults by Opinium found that, for voters who voted Tory in 2019 and planned to vote Labour next year, 57 per cent felt the prime minister had “not gone far enough” on tackling climate change. Only 9 per cent thought he had gone too far, 25 per cent thought he had it about right and 10 per cent did not know.

“This polling is a ‘wake up and smell the coffee’ moment for the siren voices arguing that watering down the government’s green growth agenda will be a vote winner — it clearly won’t,” said Alok Sharma, the Tory MP who chaired the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow two years ago.

Since the Conservatives narrowly held on in the Uxbridge by-election after campaigning against the expansion of London’s clean air zone, some Tories have argued for the government to drop “unpopular, expensive green policies”. Energy efficiency deadlines for landlords and the 2030 ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars have been floated as policies that could be changed.

However, the latest polling showed that more than two thirds of switching voters think that Sunak has not done enough to increase the use of renewable energy in the UK. The prime minister promised to end an effective ban on onshore wind power to stave off a Tory rebellion last year, but has failed to lift the block.....

.....The polling also suggested that several policies to support renewable energy are as popular or more so than Sunak’s five pledges.

Ending illegal immigration by small boats is supported by 68 per cent of all voters. By comparison, 77 per cent back increased investment in renewables to make the UK a net electricity exporter by 2030. The figure rises to 84 per cent among Tory voters.

Several Tory MPs have urged Sunak not to backtrack on green policies. Sir Simon Clarke pointed to Jaguar Land Rover’s investment last week in an electric vehicle battery plant as a reason not to water down the 2030 car ban. “Delaying the target risks losing UK jobs and industry overseas,” he said.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-switching-to-labour-say-rishi-sunak-isn-t-green-enough-9ffmc6c8z

Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well.

The majority of Tory voters who plan to switch to Labour in the next election think that Rishi Sunak has not done enough on climate change, according to polling that comes as the Conservatives consider rowing back on green policies.

Clean energy industry figures said the results showed that the idea that environmental policies are unpopular was “totally unfounded”.

Polling of 3,000 adults by Opinium found that, for voters who voted Tory in 2019 and planned to vote Labour next year, 57 per cent felt the prime minister had “not gone far enough” on tackling climate change. Only 9 per cent thought he had gone too far, 25 per cent thought he had it about right and 10 per cent did not know.

“This polling is a ‘wake up and smell the coffee’ moment for the siren voices arguing that watering down the government’s green growth agenda will be a vote winner — it clearly won’t,” said Alok Sharma, the Tory MP who chaired the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow two years ago.

Since the Conservatives narrowly held on in the Uxbridge by-election after campaigning against the expansion of London’s clean air zone, some Tories have argued for the government to drop “unpopular, expensive green policies”. Energy efficiency deadlines for landlords and the 2030 ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars have been floated as policies that could be changed.

However, the latest polling showed that more than two thirds of switching voters think that Sunak has not done enough to increase the use of renewable energy in the UK. The prime minister promised to end an effective ban on onshore wind power to stave off a Tory rebellion last year, but has failed to lift the block.....

.....The polling also suggested that several policies to support renewable energy are as popular or more so than Sunak’s five pledges.

Ending illegal immigration by small boats is supported by 68 per cent of all voters. By comparison, 77 per cent back increased investment in renewables to make the UK a net electricity exporter by 2030. The figure rises to 84 per cent among Tory voters.

Several Tory MPs have urged Sunak not to backtrack on green policies. Sir Simon Clarke pointed to Jaguar Land Rover’s investment last week in an electric vehicle battery plant as a reason not to water down the 2030 car ban. “Delaying the target risks losing UK jobs and industry overseas,” he said.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-switching-to-labour-say-rishi-sunak-isn-t-green-enough-9ffmc6c8z

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Northern_Al said:

bigjohnowls said:

Cess Pit

https://twitter.com/JGerrings/status/1682726370663604225

Have you bothered to look at other tweets from that account? It's from somebody who is a fascist, with explicitly racist tweets scattered throughout. Deeply unpleasant.

For a socialist, you really should know better than citing far right-wing lunatics in support of your hatred of Labour. You've sunk into the gutter on this one.

You know who else was a socialist but quite right wing in other ways...

(This is not a reference to BJO, btw)

Ken just couldn't stop talking about Hitler, in somewhat sympathetic terms.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

@bigjohnowls

Across all three of last week's by-elections, only 6,675 people voted Green.

1,838 in Selby
3,944 in Somerton
893 only in Uxbridge

Sunil_Prasannan said:

@bigjohnowls

Across all three of last week's by-elections, only 6,675 people voted Green.

1,838 in Selby
3,944 in Somerton
893 only in Uxbridge

noneoftheabove said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well.

The majority of Tory voters who plan to switch to Labour in the next election think that Rishi Sunak has not done enough on climate change, according to polling that comes as the Conservatives consider rowing back on green policies.

Clean energy industry figures said the results showed that the idea that environmental policies are unpopular was “totally unfounded”.

Polling of 3,000 adults by Opinium found that, for voters who voted Tory in 2019 and planned to vote Labour next year, 57 per cent felt the prime minister had “not gone far enough” on tackling climate change. Only 9 per cent thought he had gone too far, 25 per cent thought he had it about right and 10 per cent did not know.

“This polling is a ‘wake up and smell the coffee’ moment for the siren voices arguing that watering down the government’s green growth agenda will be a vote winner — it clearly won’t,” said Alok Sharma, the Tory MP who chaired the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow two years ago.

Since the Conservatives narrowly held on in the Uxbridge by-election after campaigning against the expansion of London’s clean air zone, some Tories have argued for the government to drop “unpopular, expensive green policies”. Energy efficiency deadlines for landlords and the 2030 ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars have been floated as policies that could be changed.

However, the latest polling showed that more than two thirds of switching voters think that Sunak has not done enough to increase the use of renewable energy in the UK. The prime minister promised to end an effective ban on onshore wind power to stave off a Tory rebellion last year, but has failed to lift the block.....

.....The polling also suggested that several policies to support renewable energy are as popular or more so than Sunak’s five pledges.

Ending illegal immigration by small boats is supported by 68 per cent of all voters. By comparison, 77 per cent back increased investment in renewables to make the UK a net electricity exporter by 2030. The figure rises to 84 per cent among Tory voters.

Several Tory MPs have urged Sunak not to backtrack on green policies. Sir Simon Clarke pointed to Jaguar Land Rover’s investment last week in an electric vehicle battery plant as a reason not to water down the 2030 car ban. “Delaying the target risks losing UK jobs and industry overseas,” he said.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-switching-to-labour-say-rishi-sunak-isn-t-green-enough-9ffmc6c8z

Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt

It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.

It is actually already popular, rather than unpopular, in the sense more people support it than not.

Not sure "explaining" it helps with those who are on tight budgets and having to pay several £k for a new car - and these are the people switching votes or changing turnout habits over it, not the people who have not bothered to understand it.

What would help is making the scrappage scheme open to all or tapering in the charges from an initial lower charge perhaps £5 rather than £12.50.

bigjohnowls said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

@bigjohnowls

Across all three of last week's by-elections, only 6,675 people voted Green.

1,838 in Selby
3,944 in Somerton
893 only in Uxbridge

SKS Cesspit Party could have done with those 893 votes

I see Lab lost 5000 votes compared to "the worst result ever" in Uxbridge back down to Gordon Brown / Tony Blair levels of votes

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well.

The majority of Tory voters who plan to switch to Labour in the next election think that Rishi Sunak has not done enough on climate change, according to polling that comes as the Conservatives consider rowing back on green policies.

Clean energy industry figures said the results showed that the idea that environmental policies are unpopular was “totally unfounded”.

Polling of 3,000 adults by Opinium found that, for voters who voted Tory in 2019 and planned to vote Labour next year, 57 per cent felt the prime minister had “not gone far enough” on tackling climate change. Only 9 per cent thought he had gone too far, 25 per cent thought he had it about right and 10 per cent did not know.

“This polling is a ‘wake up and smell the coffee’ moment for the siren voices arguing that watering down the government’s green growth agenda will be a vote winner — it clearly won’t,” said Alok Sharma, the Tory MP who chaired the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow two years ago.

Since the Conservatives narrowly held on in the Uxbridge by-election after campaigning against the expansion of London’s clean air zone, some Tories have argued for the government to drop “unpopular, expensive green policies”. Energy efficiency deadlines for landlords and the 2030 ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars have been floated as policies that could be changed.

However, the latest polling showed that more than two thirds of switching voters think that Sunak has not done enough to increase the use of renewable energy in the UK. The prime minister promised to end an effective ban on onshore wind power to stave off a Tory rebellion last year, but has failed to lift the block.....

.....The polling also suggested that several policies to support renewable energy are as popular or more so than Sunak’s five pledges.

Ending illegal immigration by small boats is supported by 68 per cent of all voters. By comparison, 77 per cent back increased investment in renewables to make the UK a net electricity exporter by 2030. The figure rises to 84 per cent among Tory voters.

Several Tory MPs have urged Sunak not to backtrack on green policies. Sir Simon Clarke pointed to Jaguar Land Rover’s investment last week in an electric vehicle battery plant as a reason not to water down the 2030 car ban. “Delaying the target risks losing UK jobs and industry overseas,” he said.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-switching-to-labour-say-rishi-sunak-isn-t-green-enough-9ffmc6c8z

Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt

It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Northern_Al said:

bigjohnowls said:

Cess Pit

https://twitter.com/JGerrings/status/1682726370663604225

Have you bothered to look at other tweets from that account? It's from somebody who is a fascist, with explicitly racist tweets scattered throughout. Deeply unpleasant.

For a socialist, you really should know better than citing far right-wing lunatics in support of your hatred of Labour. You've sunk into the gutter on this one.

You know who else was a socialist but quite right wing in other ways...

(This is not a reference to BJO, btw)

Ken just couldn't stop talking about Hitler, in somewhat sympathetic terms.

Hitler is the perfect example why you should never trust a vegan/vegetarian.

Stark_Dawning said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

It's worth remembering that NatWest's results are due out shortly. The Board will have had in mind (I hope) that you cannot have a CEO who does not understand what you can and cannot say to a journalist while in possession of confidential and price-sensitive information. If she opened her mouth about Farage without thinking how could the Board trust her not to open her mouth about other much more sensitive information.

Im still scratching my head as to how the Coutts Board have side stepped all the crap since they in essence created the problem

https://www.coutts.com/about/board.html

HMG should have demanded they all resign without compensation pour encourager les autres.

A chairman with a background in the water industry sort of tells you all you need to know.

The Coutts board should be fired for letting Nigel Farage, Thom Yorke of Radiohead, and myself be customers.

Talk about low standards.

What are the advantages of banking with them (other than the embossed debit card)?

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well.

The majority of Tory voters who plan to switch to Labour in the next election think that Rishi Sunak has not done enough on climate change, according to polling that comes as the Conservatives consider rowing back on green policies.

Clean energy industry figures said the results showed that the idea that environmental policies are unpopular was “totally unfounded”.

Polling of 3,000 adults by Opinium found that, for voters who voted Tory in 2019 and planned to vote Labour next year, 57 per cent felt the prime minister had “not gone far enough” on tackling climate change. Only 9 per cent thought he had gone too far, 25 per cent thought he had it about right and 10 per cent did not know.

“This polling is a ‘wake up and smell the coffee’ moment for the siren voices arguing that watering down the government’s green growth agenda will be a vote winner — it clearly won’t,” said Alok Sharma, the Tory MP who chaired the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow two years ago.

Since the Conservatives narrowly held on in the Uxbridge by-election after campaigning against the expansion of London’s clean air zone, some Tories have argued for the government to drop “unpopular, expensive green policies”. Energy efficiency deadlines for landlords and the 2030 ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars have been floated as policies that could be changed.

However, the latest polling showed that more than two thirds of switching voters think that Sunak has not done enough to increase the use of renewable energy in the UK. The prime minister promised to end an effective ban on onshore wind power to stave off a Tory rebellion last year, but has failed to lift the block.....

.....The polling also suggested that several policies to support renewable energy are as popular or more so than Sunak’s five pledges.

Ending illegal immigration by small boats is supported by 68 per cent of all voters. By comparison, 77 per cent back increased investment in renewables to make the UK a net electricity exporter by 2030. The figure rises to 84 per cent among Tory voters.

Several Tory MPs have urged Sunak not to backtrack on green policies. Sir Simon Clarke pointed to Jaguar Land Rover’s investment last week in an electric vehicle battery plant as a reason not to water down the 2030 car ban. “Delaying the target risks losing UK jobs and industry overseas,” he said.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-switching-to-labour-say-rishi-sunak-isn-t-green-enough-9ffmc6c8z

Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt

It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.

bigjohnowls said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

@bigjohnowls

Across all three of last week's by-elections, only 6,675 people voted Green.

1,838 in Selby
3,944 in Somerton
893 only in Uxbridge

To be fair that is a 100% increase on the week before.

The Greens need PR to make a significant impact on Politics

Cons/ SKS have both ruled it out.

The latters Party voted overwhelmingly for it but as we know SKS doesnt do democracy

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

In Algeria 10 soldiers dead while trying to evacuate folk from fires:

https://news.sky.com/story/weather-latest-uk-corfu-rhodes-fires-wildfires-heatwave-holiday-updates-12920226?postid=6213474#liveblog-body

Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?

I am not turning my back

Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK

Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.

I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK

None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost

"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.

The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.

The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.

I would have said the key problem with 'investment' as a political word is that Brown used it passim ad nauseam when he actually meant 'current spending.' A very different concept which needs a different funding model. His sleight of hand left us with far too much unfunded debt.

And unfortunately discredited both genuine investment and current spending as concepts.

It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?

Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.

The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.

FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.

But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.

She addressed a series of problems the UK had from the 70s and 80s. Those who followed her had the advantage of a cleaner slate, Politicians such as Blair or Cameron made the national bed we now have to lie in and on some measures they royally messed things up.

Hmm, rather a mixed legacy for me. Some plusses but on the whole neutral to negative.

Ended perpetual strikes, cut income tax, increased hole ownership amongst the working class particularly, increased GDP per capita, cut inflation and privatised inefficient industry

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

It's worth remembering that NatWest's results are due out shortly. The Board will have had in mind (I hope) that you cannot have a CEO who does not understand what you can and cannot say to a journalist while in possession of confidential and price-sensitive information. If she opened her mouth about Farage without thinking how could the Board trust her not to open her mouth about other much more sensitive information.

Im still scratching my head as to how the Coutts Board have side stepped all the crap since they in essence created the problem

https://www.coutts.com/about/board.html

HMG should have demanded they all resign without compensation pour encourager les autres.

A chairman with a background in the water industry sort of tells you all you need to know.

The Coutts board should be fired for letting Nigel Farage, Thom Yorke of Radiohead, and myself be customers.

Talk about low standards.

What are the advantages of banking with them (other than the embossed debit card)?

Better rates.

But if you want a really good concierge service get the Centurion charge card from
AMEX.

Worth every penny of £3,400 annual fee.

Edit - I left Coutts a couple of years ago.

Miklosvar said:

Stark_Dawning said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

It's worth remembering that NatWest's results are due out shortly. The Board will have had in mind (I hope) that you cannot have a CEO who does not understand what you can and cannot say to a journalist while in possession of confidential and price-sensitive information. If she opened her mouth about Farage without thinking how could the Board trust her not to open her mouth about other much more sensitive information.

Im still scratching my head as to how the Coutts Board have side stepped all the crap since they in essence created the problem

https://www.coutts.com/about/board.html

HMG should have demanded they all resign without compensation pour encourager les autres.

A chairman with a background in the water industry sort of tells you all you need to know.

The Coutts board should be fired for letting Nigel Farage, Thom Yorke of Radiohead, and myself be customers.

Talk about low standards.

What are the advantages of banking with them (other than the embossed debit card)?

Having 4% of your net worth creamed off in management fees every year, at a guess.

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

First post-GE poll in Spain has PSOE taking the lead from PP.

https://twitter.com/electo_mania/status/1683958124263211010?s=46&t=rw5lNVUgmRPVyKpxfV_pPQ

It looks like PP is on the verge of having a major internal fight, one which its leader, Alberto Feijóo, will do well to survive. Meanwhile, there are signs PSOE may get the abstentions it needs from Catalan separatists to form a government. If not, though, that poll suggests they may win a new election anyway. That said, it’s one poll, so more are needed before any pattern can be ascertained.

Even that poll has PSOE little more than 1% ahead and still well short of a majority even with Sumar. Catalan separatists will demand an independence referendum for their support

One might, one won’t. Around 10 extra seats for PSOE and Sumar takes the one that might out of the equation.

Pulpstar said:

noneoftheabove said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well.

The majority of Tory voters who plan to switch to Labour in the next election think that Rishi Sunak has not done enough on climate change, according to polling that comes as the Conservatives consider rowing back on green policies.

Clean energy industry figures said the results showed that the idea that environmental policies are unpopular was “totally unfounded”.

Polling of 3,000 adults by Opinium found that, for voters who voted Tory in 2019 and planned to vote Labour next year, 57 per cent felt the prime minister had “not gone far enough” on tackling climate change. Only 9 per cent thought he had gone too far, 25 per cent thought he had it about right and 10 per cent did not know.

“This polling is a ‘wake up and smell the coffee’ moment for the siren voices arguing that watering down the government’s green growth agenda will be a vote winner — it clearly won’t,” said Alok Sharma, the Tory MP who chaired the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow two years ago.

Since the Conservatives narrowly held on in the Uxbridge by-election after campaigning against the expansion of London’s clean air zone, some Tories have argued for the government to drop “unpopular, expensive green policies”. Energy efficiency deadlines for landlords and the 2030 ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars have been floated as policies that could be changed.

However, the latest polling showed that more than two thirds of switching voters think that Sunak has not done enough to increase the use of renewable energy in the UK. The prime minister promised to end an effective ban on onshore wind power to stave off a Tory rebellion last year, but has failed to lift the block.....

.....The polling also suggested that several policies to support renewable energy are as popular or more so than Sunak’s five pledges.

Ending illegal immigration by small boats is supported by 68 per cent of all voters. By comparison, 77 per cent back increased investment in renewables to make the UK a net electricity exporter by 2030. The figure rises to 84 per cent among Tory voters.

Several Tory MPs have urged Sunak not to backtrack on green policies. Sir Simon Clarke pointed to Jaguar Land Rover’s investment last week in an electric vehicle battery plant as a reason not to water down the 2030 car ban. “Delaying the target risks losing UK jobs and industry overseas,” he said.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-switching-to-labour-say-rishi-sunak-isn-t-green-enough-9ffmc6c8z

Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt

It would be less unpopular were it explained. Labour, however, seem to think that's someone else's job.

It is actually already popular, rather than unpopular, in the sense more people support it than not.

Not sure "explaining" it helps with those who are on tight budgets and having to pay several £k for a new car - and these are the people switching votes or changing turnout habits over it, not the people who have not bothered to understand it.

What would help is making the scrappage scheme open to all or tapering in the charges from an initial lower charge perhaps £5 rather than £12.50.

I'd expand the scrappage scheme to include money off a (I suppose it'd have to be dealers only) a compliant second hand vehicle.

boulay said:

Malmesbury said:

Fishing said:

Andy_JS said:

The "most liveable cities index" obviously doesn't take cost of living into account, by putting places like Zurich and Geneva in the top 5. Talk about being out of touch.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/07/25/these-are-the-most-liveable-cities-in-europe

Or little factors like nightlife, weather, freedom, decent food or any of the other things that make a city more than a big collection of buildings. They give the impression of being designed by a well-off, rather crusty middle-aged couple who just want a quiet life - rather like a senior Economist journalist and partner I imagine.

You'll probably never get two people who value the exact same things in a city, and even if they do, what people value changes a lot over time, so indices like these are much too subjective to be worth anything.

Switzerland. The country where mowing the lawn on the wrong day can get you sent to prison. Also the country where not owning an honest-to-God fully automatic military weapon can get you sent to prison.

I think peak Switzerland was when a friend moved there. The first morning in his apartment, a prim lady knocked on his door to give him a warning about breaking the rules for the apartment building - about what times you could flush your toilet at night.

To be fair to Switzerland, and I have my own prejudices about it from living there, the loo flushing at night is dependent on your commune and at largest level, Canton’s rules and obviously in apartments - similar issues with doing laundry to the point that some apartment blocks prohibit having your own machines and you must use a communal basement laundry. These are mostly applied in the German speaking Cantons.

I can’t remember ever coming across a law saying you can be sent to prison for mowing your lawn on the wrong day but again that’s usually a Commune law - mine banned powered garden machinery after 12 on a Saturday until Monday morning which I hated at first but now would be delighted if people weren’t allowed to use noisy kit on a sunny Saturday and Sunday when you are trying to relax.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

@bigjohnowls

Across all three of last week's by-elections, only 6,675 people voted Green.

1,838 in Selby
3,944 in Somerton
893 only in Uxbridge

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

darkage said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

In Algeria 10 soldiers dead while trying to evacuate folk from fires:

https://news.sky.com/story/weather-latest-uk-corfu-rhodes-fires-wildfires-heatwave-holiday-updates-12920226?postid=6213474#liveblog-body

Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?

I am not turning my back

Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK

Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.

I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK

None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost

"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.

The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.

The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.

That is in a lot of ways the lesson of austerity. Not spending and cutting essential projects just increases the cost in the future. For instance, spending money now to adapt to climate change should be obvious.

Under investment in equipment, buildings and staff training is the root of NHS outcomes and productivity being poorer than they should be.

The British disease is to hollow out the foundations in order to keep the show on the road for the short term. It afflicts all aspects of our national life, from armed forces, to criminal justice, to immigration regulation, to water, to councils.

We are running on empty, in a clapped out old banger as a result.

Which is why using cheap migrant labour is wrong. Its a sticking plaster to cover lack of investment, The whole of the UK whether public or private needs to upgrade its infrastructure and push for greater productivity, We could then afford to pay people a decent salary,

And in the meantime ?

There is no mean time. We have to start now as we are on a slow slope of deterioration,
Ive written some thoughts below most of which require not pissing money up the wall and setting some national priorities.

I also agree with quite a lot of what you suggest.
But we are in the meantime, since there's absolutely no sign of the administration in power adopting any if that.

And I think the whole argument over immigration pretty well irrelevant to whether we make those sort of changes.
The idea that a tightening of immigration policy might be some sort of catalyst for them is, IMO, utterly fanciful.

If the next administration is SKS I very much doubt theyll do anything either,

It will be activity pretending to be action.

A no risks lawyer isnt going to upset the apple cart. He`ll dick about with some meaningless initiatives designed to capture headlines and then throw in a bit of light social engineering or Brexity bollocks to keep his activists happy but he`s not actually going to change a status quo in which he is comfortable. Reversing the current policy failures requires a bit of blood on the carpet and thats not him any more than it is Sunak.