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.
That seems unlikely. As also noted this morning, private sector business culture is much the same, with the idea of long term investment being very much a minority interest.
Reshaping an entire culture, which dates back at least four decades, is an enormous undertaking.
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
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.
You might well be right. Probably are. I didn't check, just wrote it as it came.
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.
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
(a) No such thing as UK law for that purpose.
(b) The local variant is relevant.
(c) But that is not the same as treason, unless you want to claim it is, and you sure did before.
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.
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.
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?
It's a BBC official charity, I see, not one off the presenters' own bat. So they were on duty. Which means the DG and Chairman are responsible, rather than the presenters, at least in general terms.
I think @bigjohnowls may be the template the Russian bots use as a template. Post a clearly one-sided and rather dubious analysis. Repeat. Repeat. Sneer a bit. Repeat.
Its entertaining, but it won't change anyone's opinions. I just wonder what the objective is. Russian bots aren't going to win the war or persuade anyone of its merits - the opposite. And the same with BJO grifting for Corbyn.
Mate, you lost. It happens in life. You will get a government you despise. That also happens in life. But why waste so much energy raging against something out of your influence? Control the controllables...
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.
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
Starmer got rid of at least one racist (antisemitic) scumbag.
According to the bloke he appointed to look into the racism in the Party SKS runs a heirachy of racism approach based on factional interests
Not sure who you are referring to if its Corbyn he is still a Labour member and AS was not the reason he is not standing according to SKS
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
This conversation is making my brain go all scrambled.
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.
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.." ?
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?
Glad to see the resignation of the Nat west boss over the Farage scandal. Why banks ever got in their head they were the moral judges of people and wanted only those with the 'correct' political views is worrying
We were told this was down to "activist staff", but it was actually the CEO!
Some here are on PB are completely blinded by their mistrust of younger people. In my career so far, the biggest errors and failures have all come from older, senior colleagues who have become lazy and/or arrogant.
Particularly true in finance. Two companies I worked for (Equitable Life and Halifax) went bust because of arrogant hubris from the board.
There is a variant of this. Arrogant bosses trying to be Down W’ Der Kidz. The usual result is something worse than Prince Charles *and* an Archbishop dancing in a disco. Plus vast sums of money being lost.
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.
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.
You beat me to it by 4 minutes, but I'm going to claim my phrasing was funnier. :-)
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.
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
(a) No such thing as UK law for that purpose.
(b) The local variant is relevant.
(c) But that is not the same as treason, unless you want to claim it is, and you sure did before.
Yes there is in England and Scotland.
Different legislation. Different terminology. For instance, 'assault and battery' (your wording) doesn't exist in Scotland, and neither does GBH.
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?
Morning all! Now that the tabloid media has its CEO scalp, perhaps they could target their fire on other CEOs. Or is upsetting nice Mr Nigel the only thing people should be hounded out of their jobs for. How about Water Company CEOs? P&O?
If you want the chief who’s done the most widespread and possibly irreversible damage, Spielman of OFSTED would be a good one.
She is set to leave in a few months but it would be good to make sure she never works again so we have no more mad disasters wished on us.
What G force limits should we specify for the launch? Don’t want this project to get out of hand.
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.
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 ?
Does currently no evidence mean that before deleting the three hours of missing cctv there was such evidence....
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.
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."
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.
No it doesn't. The Med will still be 45 degrees in summer gulf stream or no gulf stream due to global temperature rises. The same temperature rises have seen the UK have warmer winters on average to offset even a few degrees lost if the gulf stream went. No gulf stream also means less rain in the UK in summer albeit more water for irrigation
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.
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.
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.
Id have thought she did some things you would heartily approve of. Shut down the coal industry ( badly ) so no heartache for middle class lefties on carbon foot print. Integrated us closer in to the EU. She didnt really have much by way of social engineering ( not her style ). Her big "sin" was a more fluid form of capitalism but Labour were quite happy to encourage this through three terms of office.
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.
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.
On topic this is a QTWAIN. The Lab leads have NOT impacted upon or clouded Sunak's judgment.
His judgment has been deeply flawed for a lot longer than Lab have held a lead.
It's just that many here have refused to see it prior to him becoming PM as they disliked Boris and Truss more.
But simply not being Boris doesn't make Sunak of sound judgment, any more than not being Trump makes RDS someone anyone liberally minded should welcome.
I think that’s a little harsh.
He’s got the capability and is clearly bright. But a lot of judgement comes from experience- he was promoted too soon and is untested resulting in errors that are playing out in public
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.
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.
Small point on 'sub sets' of lawyers. Assuming this story has legs, and this is an injured individual versus a mighty arm of the police and state, if this were me every single firm of solicitors I would want to go to to represent my interests are what the Mail would call 'lefty'. The sort this government (and most governments) hate.
I am not of the left, but lefty lawyers do an immense amount to defend people against the oppressions of the state. And yes, they can be amazingly annoying too.
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.
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.
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...
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.
(Doesn't mean that much until the party leaderships shake out.)
Sounds like the polling companies are scrambling to save their reputations or improve their methodologies?
What if... they are making the same mistake in the UK, over-sampling right of centre voters or inflating their support through their modelling?
The average swing in the three recent by-elections was 19.8%. Apply that to the 2019 vote shares and you get Con 23.8% Lab 52%. Which would leave the Tories in wipe-out territory.
(At this point I narrowly manage to resist doing a 'Keegan'.)
I've no idea. They are clearly a mess and Feijoo may lose the leadership as a result. He's a decent man - ondee most Spanish politicians seem better than those in the UK. However he didn't quite deal the deal.
From what I have seen an read, the government has got into bed with some awful people to prop itself up, and has implemented some policies so progressive as to be over the top.
But
The alternative was Vox. Until recently in Europe, give people a choice of the far right or anyone else, and anyone wins. Spain has just repeated the exercise.
Yes I know that PP won more seats. But cannot form a government. And it already feels like it has topped out and will now sink back.
Not in Italy where Meloni's far right won most seats and formed a government
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.
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.
I agree - and I voted for her government in 1983 (and would have done in '79 had I been slightly older).
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
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.
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
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.
Small point on 'sub sets' of lawyers. Assuming this story has legs, and this is an injured individual versus a mighty arm of the police and state, if this were me every single firm of solicitors I would want to go to to represent my interests are what the Mail would call 'lefty'. The sort this government (and most governments) hate.
I am not of the left, but lefty lawyers do an immense amount to defend people against the oppressions of the state. And yes, they can be amazingly annoying too.
One needs to be careful though. You could run into a Phil Shiner, or the late, and very much unlamented, Macmillan Williams.
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
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
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.
Doesn't change the fact ULEZ is deeply unpopular in outer London as Uxbridge showed and the M25 belt
Deeply cynical move by Grant Shapps by imposing it as a key condition of the TfL Covid bailouts. Do something, blame the opposition. As a Moral Person you approve of such skulduggery I assume...?
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.
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.
The problem is that far from “picking winners”, the government (in the broad sense) is adept at picking losers.
After the war, some civil servants decided that liquid oxygen was too complex and difficult as a rocket fuel. So they told British industry to invest in HTP. Which was an expensive dead end. Meanwhile solid fuel rocket research was kicked into a corner. Did you know the *Italians* nearly finished their own version of Polaris?
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.
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.
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.
This is entirely consistent with the general trend of political human nature. People of goodwill support all policies which save the world, make it a better place and so on. It is impossible not to support a policy of Net Zero by 2050. It is 27 years away and my support is free of personal direct cost right now or in the immediate term, as is every policy to be done by someone else, either now or in the future.
The vote issue is different. Sir K knows this. The approval of Net Zero 2050 or 5 million houses being built by October does not mean I will vote for my neighbour's new house at the back of mine, or to limit my global travel/car use etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The problem is that far from “picking winners”, the government (in the broad sense) is adept at picking losers.
After the war, some civil servants decided that liquid oxygen was too complex and difficult as a rocket fuel. So they told British industry to invest in HTP. Which was an expensive dead end. Meanwhile solid fuel rocket research was kicked into a corner. Did you know the *Italians* nearly finished their own version of Polaris?
The best post war rocket spin off was the invention of the first effective antidepressants, the MAOIs, after the pharmaceutical bois were given a lot of unwanted hydrazine to see if they could do anything useful with it
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
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.
Look at where the CEO worked for many years: J P Morgan Private Wealth Management. Then read the many recent articles about that same entity, Jes Staley, Jeffrey Epstein and the legal difficulties JPM are currently facing.
These entities have a nerve lecturing the rest of us about anything at all.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
Hitler's vegetarianism was due to the chronic flatulence he suffered, whenever he ate meat.
I do enjoy your new avatar. That joke about releasing their first product in Japan still makes me chuckle.
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.
Hitler's vegetarianism was due to the chronic flatulence he suffered, whenever he ate meat.
I do enjoy your new avatar. That joke about releasing their first product in Japan still makes me chuckle.
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
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.
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.
To their credit they have been quite imaginative on the scheme with things like getting deals in place with bike rentals and car clubs, or getting a mix of cash and bus pass that is worth significantly more than the cash alone.
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.
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.
Agreed - remember that I am not a Labour voter and a critic of Starmer. Quite how they have managed to get painted into this corner I don't know. But when Tories keep insisting its all Starmer, we do have to point out the painting is being done at the direction of Grant Shapps.
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
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
Also massively centralised government; used the proceeds of asset sales to finance current spending (which Tories rightly criticised Brown for); favoured finance over industry; privatised monopolies with inadequate regulation... etc.
Curiously, her European legacy was much better than that of her Tory successors, who claimed to be aping her.
As kinabalu says, a very mixed legacy - which has not improved over the years. A set of successors who had spent more time questioning it constructively might have helped.
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
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
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.
Whenever a Coutts client transferred to me, back when god was a boy, their investment portfolios would be stuffed full of Coutts funds which were very rarely in the top quartile performance yet alone top decile. The clients usually had no concept that not only were they paying Coutts annual management fees but the funds within their portfolios were also taking out fees so it was trebles all round for Coutts.
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.
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.
Agreed - remember that I am not a Labour voter and a critic of Starmer. Quite how they have managed to get painted into this corner I don't know. But when Tories keep insisting its all Starmer, we do have to point out the painting is being done at the direction of Grant Shapps.
When your party both agrees and disagrees with something that actually costs people money in a regressive way (ULEZ) you can't blame another party for the policy. It's too complicated. What you have to do is to ensure that everyone thinks it applies to everyone but them.
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.
In the November 2019 Spanish election Sanchez's PSOE was 8% and 31 seats ahead of the PP. So either way his outgoing government is a lot weaker than it was going into the election
[snip] 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 [/snip]
This looks like the first ever observed in the wild Brexit benefit, to me. We can go ahead and take measures to clean up our air without being delayed by the most reluctant in the EU. One could almost say we'll be taking back control
(I'm assuming that it won't be possible to ban earlier than 2035 witihn EU due to single market rules, could be wrong...)
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.
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.
Hell, a second hand Prius with a brand new battery would be the price of decent scrapage scheme. And if you are buying in bulk….
Bring your non-compliant car in. Sign some paperwork, pick a car from the lot. Paperwork on the spot. Drive it home
Just been checking some UK:USA road safety numbers.
Quite the difference. UK can be taken as broadly representative of Western Europe.
UK:USA
Population 67 million: 332 million (1 to 5) Road miles travelled per capita: 6250:16000 (1 to 2.5) Road deaths 2022: 1695: 42795 (1 to 25) Pedestrians killed on roads 2022: 376:7508 (1 to 20): Drink drive deaths 2022: 200:13,500 (1 to 67)
The most startling is perhaps that USA pedestrian deaths have nearly doubled since 2009.
(Various numbers are out there; these are the most reliable I can find)
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.
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.
Agreed, and you get unreasonable people anywhere. I moved from Haslemere because my upstairs neighbour repeatedly harassed me over taking telephone calls after 930 at night ("I could hear you talking again!" - I don't have a loud voice, but he said his disabled wife was upset to hear anything through the presumably thin floor). At least the Swiss have a mechanism to decide what a local community wants and doesn't want.
But at Fishing says these lists are a bit pointless as we all have different priorities. I try to avoid any article entitled "the [number] best ways to [something]" as they always turn out to be a journalist filling space with clickbait.
Her interview with Farage consisted of (and I am not making this up or exaggerating) where do you keep your money, under the bed? And then how much money you got....come on, how much, tell us.
How much does she get paid for this absolute twattery...while Sky News pushed a load of very good well informed journalists out the door.
[snip] 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 [/snip]
This looks like the first ever observed in the wild Brexit benefit, to me. We can go ahead and take measures to clean up our air without being delayed by the most reluctant in the EU. One could almost say we'll be taking back control
(I'm assuming that it won't be possible to ban earlier than 2035 witihn EU due to single market rules, could be wrong...)
Except we wont have the infrastructure to support and nobody is rushing to put it in place.
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.
I don't disagree. As I said, 'there is no meantime' is just wrong. Like if or not, it's where we're stuck.
The only Labour policy I'm genuinely enthusiastic about is their plan to give local government greatly increased powers to acquire land for house building. If they get it right..
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.
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
(a) No such thing as UK law for that purpose.
(b) The local variant is relevant.
(c) But that is not the same as treason, unless you want to claim it is, and you sure did before.
Yes there is in England and Scotland.
Different legislation. Different terminology. For instance, 'assault and battery' (your wording) doesn't exist in Scotland, and neither does GBH.
Assault is illegal in Scotland, as is aggravated assault and reckless injury
Comments
As also noted this morning, private sector business culture is much the same, with the idea of long term investment being very much a minority interest.
Reshaping an entire culture, which dates back at least four decades, is an enormous undertaking.
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.
Its entertaining, but it won't change anyone's opinions. I just wonder what the objective is. Russian bots aren't going to win the war or persuade anyone of its merits - the opposite. And the same with BJO grifting for Corbyn.
Mate, you lost. It happens in life. You will get a government you despise. That also happens in life. But why waste so much energy raging against something out of your influence? Control the controllables...
Not sure who you are referring to if its Corbyn he is still a Labour member and AS was not the reason he is not standing according to SKS
WTAF ?
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/crown-courts-cases.php
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.
He’s got the capability and is clearly bright. But a lot of judgement comes from experience- he was promoted too soon and is untested resulting in errors that are playing out in public
I am not of the left, but lefty lawyers do an immense amount to defend people against the oppressions of the state. And yes, they can be amazingly annoying too.
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.
(This is not a reference to BJO, btw)
Ms Rose is the prime example.
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.
He’s another odious spiteful entitled Tory PM who pretended to be the Johnson antidote .
(Most memorable experience of a weekend I spent in Thanet a few years ago).
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.
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
Talk about low standards.
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.
After the war, some civil servants decided that liquid oxygen was too complex and difficult as a rocket fuel. So they told British industry to invest in HTP. Which was an expensive dead end. Meanwhile solid fuel rocket research was kicked into a corner. Did you know the *Italians* nearly finished their own version of Polaris?
The vote issue is different. Sir K knows this. The approval of Net Zero 2050 or 5 million houses being built by October does not mean I will vote for my neighbour's new house at the back of mine, or to limit my global travel/car use etc.
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 see Lab lost 5000 votes compared to "the worst result ever" in Uxbridge back down to Gordon Brown / Tony Blair levels of votes
These entities have a nerve lecturing the rest of us about anything at all.
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.
But you are right. Starmer rowing back on positive issues isn't good politics.
I do enjoy your new avatar. That joke about releasing their first product in Japan still makes me chuckle.
Cons/ SKS have both ruled it out.
The latters Party voted overwhelmingly for it but as we know SKS doesnt do democracy
Curiously, her European legacy was much better than that of her Tory successors, who claimed to be aping her.
As kinabalu says, a very mixed legacy - which has not improved over the years.
A set of successors who had spent more time questioning it constructively might have helped.
I wonder what their concierge service would be like. The anti-fraud dept would be a whole barrel of laughs, certainly.
(I'm assuming that it won't be possible to ban earlier than 2035 witihn EU due to single market rules, could be wrong...)
Bring your non-compliant car in. Sign some paperwork, pick a car from the lot. Paperwork on the spot. Drive it home
Just been checking some UK:USA road safety numbers.
Quite the difference. UK can be taken as broadly representative of Western Europe.
UK:USA
Population 67 million: 332 million (1 to 5)
Road miles travelled per capita: 6250:16000 (1 to 2.5)
Road deaths 2022: 1695: 42795 (1 to 25)
Pedestrians killed on roads 2022: 376:7508 (1 to 20):
Drink drive deaths 2022: 200:13,500 (1 to 67)
The most startling is perhaps that USA pedestrian deaths have nearly doubled since 2009.
(Various numbers are out there; these are the most reliable I can find)
But at Fishing says these lists are a bit pointless as we all have different priorities. I try to avoid any article entitled "the [number] best ways to [something]" as they always turn out to be a journalist filling space with clickbait.
Her next job will
1) pay more
2) involve client confidentiality.
Her interview with Farage consisted of (and I am not making this up or exaggerating) where do you keep your money, under the bed? And then how much money you got....come on, how much, tell us.
How much does she get paid for this absolute twattery...while Sky News pushed a load of very good well informed journalists out the door.
As I said, 'there is no meantime' is just wrong. Like if or not, it's where we're stuck.
The only Labour policy I'm genuinely enthusiastic about is their plan to give local government greatly increased powers to acquire land for house building. If they get it right..