They’re vigilantes. Not sure they care that much. But it does feel a very coastal-American failure model.
Is the model, wanting everything and not willing to pay for it? They seem to have more of a Boomer issue than we have, but we're always 10 years behind.
It's easy to underestimate the scale of US drug deaths, 80% of which are opiates. Currently it is running at 130 deaths a day or so.
To put that in perspective it is more deaths than gun deaths and traffic deaths combined. Or perhaps best thought of as a mass shooting every hour or so.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
She’s being asked to dissociate herself from someone she’s never been associated with and then being condemned for it.
They’re vigilantes. Not sure they care that much. But it does feel a very coastal-American failure model.
Is the model, wanting everything and not willing to pay for it? They seem to have more of a Boomer issue than we have, but we're always 10 years behind.
I’ve just realised - the description of the politics and society in SF. It is converging on the descriptions from the Robert Heinlein novel “Friday”.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
She’s being asked to dissociate herself from someone she’s never been associated with and then being condemned for it.
Bizarre.
If you say someome has been unfairly demonised, you are morally and actuvely ssociating yourself with them, rather than disassociating oneself.
It's just par for the course for Liz now, though,, because she moves in Trumpist circles.
And no Nigel this is not another idea for your manifesto.
The irony of him saying there can be no compromise with those who want us dead while, in effect, talking about killing people for not sharing his views is clearly lost on the drunken old fool.
Isn't he the one trying to unseat the incumbent Republican senator, or is that another Trump-deluded weirdo?
He's the ultra conservative guy whose Wikipedia entry has a novella length section on his "legal issues" (he's as corrupt as they come). Also, in the manner of most devout MAGA Christian politicians, unfaithful to his wife.
I think they believe Thou Shalt Commit Adultery is one of the Ten Commandments.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
Brexit has failed, indeed it is the primary reason that our nation is so divided and run down.
So we have the man most responsible for that debacle in pole position for PM in 2029.
We never learn.
There's no other word for that statment than mental.
Nope, it's run down because the tory party spent 3 years arguing over which shade of Brexit they wanted and then allowed 1 million immigrants to arrive..
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
If someone wants the right to pronounce on what is 'right and decent', I might suggest they start by not associating herself with criminal neo-Nazi thugs.
Truss is not setting herself up as the pronouncer of what is right and decent - she is refusing to submit to what is effectively a left-wing derived rulebook of modern manners.
Morning, P.B.
Yes, in this case bit like the one that says the Nazi S.A. we're beyond the pale.
Morning.
You've accidentally made a useful point there. The Nazis are part of this because when I studied history it was OK to say Hitler was an effective speechmaker and polemicist - to study the technique of a wicked man and distinguish it from his politics. In today's polite society people are condemned for saying this. Telling the truth. It is pervasive, and I can understand many people on the right of politics now refusing to be judged by that yardstick.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
She’s being asked to dissociate herself from someone she’s never been associated with and then being condemned for it.
Bizarre.
If you say someome has been unfairly demonised, you are morally and actuvely ssociating yourself with them, rather than disassociating oneself.
It's just par for the course for Liz now, though,, because she moves in Trumpist circles.
What if she thinks he has been demonised unfairly? Is she supposed to keep her trap shut about it?
Back to immigration. This is the briefing being given out by the HoC researchers for all MP's on the 2025 Immigration White Paper. This section caught my eye
Will migrants have to wait ten years for indefinite leave to remain? The standard qualifying period for permanent residence will be increased under the government’s proposals. The default will be indefinite leave to remain after ten years, rather than five years at present, but some people will be able to qualify earlier. Under this “earned settlement” proposal, there will be a shorter pathway than ten years for people who have made “Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society” (paragraph 266).
The white paper did not say how these points would be earned or how much of a reduction on the ten-year qualifying period would be available. But the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has since said that relevant factors will include being in work; National Insurance payments; not claiming benefits; good English; a clean criminal record; and “giving back” in the community. This will be covered in more detail in the promised consultation.
So immigration will be front and centre of political debate for probably the rest of this parliament while the WP is debated and refined. The only question is whether it will puncture the Reform bubble or simply contribute to it. We can only wait.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
If someone wants the right to pronounce on what is 'right and decent', I might suggest they start by not associating herself with criminal neo-Nazi thugs.
Truss is not setting herself up as the pronouncer of what is right and decent - she is refusing to submit to what is effectively a left-wing derived rulebook of modern manners.
Morning, P.B.
Yes, in this case bit like the one that says the Nazi S.A. we're beyond the pale.
Morning.
You've accidentally made a useful point there. The Nazis are part of this because when I studied history it was OK to say Hitler was an effective speechmaker and polemicist - to study the technique of a wicked man and distinguish it from his politics. In today's polite society people are condemned for saying this. Telling the truth. It is pervasive, and I can understand many people on the right of politics now refusing to be judged by that yardstick.
Saying that Hitler was a great speechmaker, isn't the same as saying that thd S.A. in their starting years of the 1920's were unfairly demonised, which is essentially what Truss has done.
Back to immigration. This is the briefing being given out by the HoC researchers for all MP's on the 2025 Immigration White Paper. This section caught my eye
Will migrants have to wait ten years for indefinite leave to remain? The standard qualifying period for permanent residence will be increased under the government’s proposals. The default will be indefinite leave to remain after ten years, rather than five years at present, but some people will be able to qualify earlier. Under this “earned settlement” proposal, there will be a shorter pathway than ten years for people who have made “Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society” (paragraph 266).
The white paper did not say how these points would be earned or how much of a reduction on the ten-year qualifying period would be available. But the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has since said that relevant factors will include being in work; National Insurance payments; not claiming benefits; good English; a clean criminal record; and “giving back” in the community. This will be covered in more detail in the promised consultation.
So immigration will be front and centre of political debate for probably the rest of this parliament while the WP is debated and refined. The only question is whether it will puncture the Reform bubble or simply contribute to it. We can only wait.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Yes look at how boris and fishy rishi have refused to ever apologise for their open border immigration and trade policy, putting up asylum seekers in hotel, destroying the country’s finances and messing up brexit
They’re vigilantes. Not sure they care that much. But it does feel a very coastal-American failure model.
Is the model, wanting everything and not willing to pay for it? They seem to have more of a Boomer issue than we have, but we're always 10 years behind.
It's easy to underestimate the scale of US drug deaths, 80% of which are opiates. Currently it is running at 130 deaths a day or so.
To put that in perspective it is more deaths than gun deaths and traffic deaths combined. Or perhaps best thought of as a mass shooting every hour or so.
Of course, few people realise that the primary reason for all this is brexit.
Back to immigration. This is the briefing being given out by the HoC researchers for all MP's on the 2025 Immigration White Paper. This section caught my eye
Will migrants have to wait ten years for indefinite leave to remain? The standard qualifying period for permanent residence will be increased under the government’s proposals. The default will be indefinite leave to remain after ten years, rather than five years at present, but some people will be able to qualify earlier. Under this “earned settlement” proposal, there will be a shorter pathway than ten years for people who have made “Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society” (paragraph 266).
The white paper did not say how these points would be earned or how much of a reduction on the ten-year qualifying period would be available. But the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has since said that relevant factors will include being in work; National Insurance payments; not claiming benefits; good English; a clean criminal record; and “giving back” in the community. This will be covered in more detail in the promised consultation.
So immigration will be front and centre of political debate for probably the rest of this parliament while the WP is debated and refined. The only question is whether it will puncture the Reform bubble or simply contribute to it. We can only wait.
It keeps it in the news - so it will contribute to it because the other reporting will be x00 arrived on boats today...
Perhaps the language should change to visa holders (economic migrants who are invited) and non-visa holders (economic migrants who are not invited and potential refugees)
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Yes look at how boris and fishy rishi have refused to ever apologise for their open border immigration and trade policy, putting up asylum seekers in hotel, destroying the country’s finances and messing up brexit
Some people just have no shame
"... and messing up brexit"
Brexit was always going to be a mess, because of the way it had been sold. There was no way of getting a sane, workable Brexit and appease the hardcore Brexiteers.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Yes look at how boris and fishy rishi have refused to ever apologise for their open border immigration and trade policy, putting up asylum seekers in hotel, destroying the country’s finances and messing up brexit
Some people just have no shame
Is it true that no living former leader of the Tory Party has shown up for the Conference?
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
She’s being asked to dissociate herself from someone she’s never been associated with and then being condemned for it.
Bizarre.
If you say someome has been unfairly demonised, you are morally and actuvely ssociating yourself with them, rather than disassociating oneself.
It's just par for the course for Liz now, though,, because she moves in Trumpist circles.
What if she thinks he has been demonised unfairly? Is she supposed to keep her trap shut about it?
I don’t want to unfairly characterise you as mental, but thinking there’s a chance that Truss might keep her trap shut about anything is mental.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
She’s being asked to dissociate herself from someone she’s never been associated with and then being condemned for it.
Bizarre.
If you say someome has been unfairly demonised, you are morally and actuvely ssociating yourself with them, rather than disassociating oneself.
It's just par for the course for Liz now, though,, because she moves in Trumpist circles.
It’s nothing of the sort but, I suspect, because it’s Truss who is a political opponent it is just cheap point scoring. She passed an observation about him, she didn’t cheer or flag wave for his brand of politics.
It will all blow over in a day or so and the LedByDonkeys lot will have to find something else, trivial, to carry on the obsession.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What’s their rationale for these tariffs, or is it just protectionism ?
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
She’s being asked to dissociate herself from someone she’s never been associated with and then being condemned for it.
Bizarre.
If you say someome has been unfairly demonised, you are morally and actuvely ssociating yourself with them, rather than disassociating oneself.
It's just par for the course for Liz now, though,, because she moves in Trumpist circles.
It’s nothing of the sort but, I suspect, because it’s Truss who is a political opponent it is just cheap point scoring. She passed an observation about him, she didn’t cheer or flag wave for his brand of politics.
It will all blow over in a day or so and the LedByDonkeys lot will have to find something else, trivial, to carry on the obsession.
So what did the observation that she passed on to us mean, then ?
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Yes look at how boris and fishy rishi have refused to ever apologise for their open border immigration and trade policy, putting up asylum seekers in hotel, destroying the country’s finances and messing up brexit
Some people just have no shame
Is it true that no living former leader of the Tory Party has shown up for the Conference?
Otoh the ghost of Mags stalks the halls tutting at all the empty seats.
At least an almost leader was there. A snippet on the radio said that Heseltine had chosen a smaller room to do his speech deliberately (100 turned away apparently). At least there’s still one pro left in the party, assuming he’s still a member.
Back to immigration. This is the briefing being given out by the HoC researchers for all MP's on the 2025 Immigration White Paper. This section caught my eye
Will migrants have to wait ten years for indefinite leave to remain? The standard qualifying period for permanent residence will be increased under the government’s proposals. The default will be indefinite leave to remain after ten years, rather than five years at present, but some people will be able to qualify earlier. Under this “earned settlement” proposal, there will be a shorter pathway than ten years for people who have made “Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society” (paragraph 266).
The white paper did not say how these points would be earned or how much of a reduction on the ten-year qualifying period would be available. But the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has since said that relevant factors will include being in work; National Insurance payments; not claiming benefits; good English; a clean criminal record; and “giving back” in the community. This will be covered in more detail in the promised consultation.
So immigration will be front and centre of political debate for probably the rest of this parliament while the WP is debated and refined. The only question is whether it will puncture the Reform bubble or simply contribute to it. We can only wait.
It keeps it in the news - so it will contribute to it because the other reporting will be x00 arrived on boats today...
Perhaps the language should change to visa holders (economic migrants who are invited) and non-visa holders (economic migrants who are not invited and potential refugees)
I have been advising all my colleagues with ILR to get their British citizenship ASAP. It is possible that even having a British passport won't be enough to prevent their deportation under "remigration" plans, but it surely helps.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Yes look at how boris and fishy rishi have refused to ever apologise for their open border immigration and trade policy, putting up asylum seekers in hotel, destroying the country’s finances and messing up brexit
Some people just have no shame
Is it true that no living former leader of the Tory Party has shown up for the Conference?
I assume it was posted already. That Chris Phillip speech. The "jokes". The mild titters and precious flew claps. Nobody there and/or you're not funny luv
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, it's an economic fact of life in the age of Trump. The last country or trade block to protect their steel industry will probably lose it.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal. Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving. And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, tariffs are bad, but in a world of increasing tariff wars being outside our largest and closest export market is a problem.
Our steel towns voted for Brexit and now want Farage as PM. They are like the abused wives going home with a black eye because "he loves me really" and "won't do it again".
According to Grok (I know) in the comments below, the footage is from August, and is being recycled.
So, real riots. But not real riots happening all the time, but being recycled to make a political point.
As an aside, I've been to SF twice in the last 3 or 4 months, and it is much cleaned up. I mean, SoMa is the same dump it's always been, but the business areas, and Union Square, and Fisherman's Wharf are much improved on where it was at the start of the year.
Have the stores come back downtown, a large amount of them became vacant post pandemic (and not just because of the out of control shop lifting)? That seemed like quite a big issue ontop of the zombified drug addicts everywhere.
Downtown areas were hollowed out by Covid, and made worse on the West Coast by the problem of homeless mentally ill drug addicts. (Which is not all the fault of the cities involved: geography plays a role. Who wants to be homeless in Minneapolis or Houston?)
There are definitely *fewer* empty stores than there were - whether in Los Angeles/Santa Monica or San Francisco. But it isn't like they're all full again. The old Westfield Center on Market Street has not recovered from Westfield walking away in mid-2023, resulting in Nordstrom departing too. It doesn't help that there's no easy way to get there by car.
Like many places, San Francisco is in the process of moving away from being retail + office focused, to beign residential + entertainment. The development of "The Bank" shopping and entertainment complex in the home of the old Bank of Italy Building (with associated high end private members club that is twinned with the Groucho) tells you where things are going.
But it's not an easy transition.
Oakland office space appears to remain cheap after COVID.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Yes look at how boris and fishy rishi have refused to ever apologise for their open border immigration and trade policy, putting up asylum seekers in hotel, destroying the country’s finances and messing up brexit
Some people just have no shame
Is it true that no living former leader of the Tory Party has shown up for the Conference?
Otoh the ghost of Mags stalks the halls tutting at all the empty seats.
At least an almost leader was there. A snippet on the radio said that Heseltine had chosen a smaller room to do his speech deliberately (100 turned away apparently). At least there’s still one pro left in the party, assuming he’s still a member.
I initially read that as the ghost of Maga stalking the Tory meetup, as that applies almost equally, too.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
If someone wants the right to pronounce on what is 'right and decent', I might suggest they start by not associating herself with criminal neo-Nazi thugs.
Truss is not setting herself up as the pronouncer of what is right and decent - she is refusing to submit to what is effectively a left-wing derived rulebook of modern manners.
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, it's an economic fact of life in the age of Trump. The last country or trade block to protect their steel industry will probably lose it.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal. Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving. And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
Brexit has failed, indeed it is the primary reason that our nation is so divided and run down.
So we have the man most responsible for that debacle in pole position for PM in 2029.
We never learn.
Nah, that’s just self satisfied chuntering.
The issue is that politicians focus on near term current spending rather than capital investment and then increased net immigration without building capacity in government services.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, it's an economic fact of life in the age of Trump. The last country or trade block to protect their steel industry will probably lose it.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal. Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving. And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
Ah, it’s all Trump and Farage’s fault 👍
Not *all*, but it's hard to say they have *none* of the responsibility, either.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
"Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine"
Yes, comrade, that will fit our interests very well...
They’re vigilantes. Not sure they care that much. But it does feel a very coastal-American failure model.
Is the model, wanting everything and not willing to pay for it? They seem to have more of a Boomer issue than we have, but we're always 10 years behind.
It's easy to underestimate the scale of US drug deaths, 80% of which are opiates. Currently it is running at 130 deaths a day or so.
To put that in perspective it is more deaths than gun deaths and traffic deaths combined. Or perhaps best thought of as a mass shooting every hour or so.
There were 308 drug deaths in Scotland in the first quarter of 2025. PB.com has previously been amazed at how much higher the rate of drug deaths is in Scotland compared to England or Europe.
The population of Scotland is 5.5 million and there are 90 days in the first quarter, so it equates to about 0.62 drug deaths per day per million population.
The population of the US is 342 million, so there are about 0.38 drug deaths per day per million population in the US.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
She’s being asked to dissociate herself from someone she’s never been associated with and then being condemned for it.
Bizarre.
It’s the “when did you stop beating your wife” model.
If she disassociates herself the headline becomes “Robinson crosses the line” which implies that Truss thinks everything else up to now is ok
Badenoch’s speech to conference looks more sensible to me, with a focus on spending and the Tories as being the responsible party compared to Labour or Reform. I don’t believe Badenoch could deliver on it in government(!), but I think it offers a better picture of who the party wants to be to the electorate.
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, it's an economic fact of life in the age of Trump. The last country or trade block to protect their steel industry will probably lose it.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal. Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving. And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
Ah, it’s all Trump and Farage’s fault 👍
Well Farage certainly bears a significant responsibility for Brexit, as I'm sure he'd agree. And Trump brought back massive tarriffs to world trade, for the first time in decades.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
I'm imagining Leon here standing at the cliffs of Dover ready to fight them on the beaches, Special Brew and pork scratchings in one hand, and French hotel reservations and Chateau Neuf du Pape in the other.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
I see Brexiteers have moved on from birthing Singapore on Thames, to aspiring to be North Korea.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
It’s bomb Brussels time again. Shame Starmer is in charge who would do none of these things. You should do a D’Annunzio and declare an independent Great Yarmouth, though if it ever got out that you voted for Starmer..
Back to immigration. This is the briefing being given out by the HoC researchers for all MP's on the 2025 Immigration White Paper. This section caught my eye
Will migrants have to wait ten years for indefinite leave to remain? The standard qualifying period for permanent residence will be increased under the government’s proposals. The default will be indefinite leave to remain after ten years, rather than five years at present, but some people will be able to qualify earlier. Under this “earned settlement” proposal, there will be a shorter pathway than ten years for people who have made “Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society” (paragraph 266).
The white paper did not say how these points would be earned or how much of a reduction on the ten-year qualifying period would be available. But the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has since said that relevant factors will include being in work; National Insurance payments; not claiming benefits; good English; a clean criminal record; and “giving back” in the community. This will be covered in more detail in the promised consultation.
So immigration will be front and centre of political debate for probably the rest of this parliament while the WP is debated and refined. The only question is whether it will puncture the Reform bubble or simply contribute to it. We can only wait.
It keeps it in the news - so it will contribute to it because the other reporting will be x00 arrived on boats today...
Perhaps the language should change to visa holders (economic migrants who are invited) and non-visa holders (economic migrants who are not invited and potential refugees)
I have been advising all my colleagues with ILR to get their British citizenship ASAP. It is possible that even having a British passport won't be enough to prevent their deportation under "remigration" plans, but it surely helps.
Here’s something to amuse.
My relative who runs a building company came across, a long while back, a couple of guys who had British passports. Valid, but they had no right to them.
Apparently one passport issuing office had got lazy and stopped checking properly. Not criminal, but the word got round, and a lot of applications went through.
The amusing bit? My relative talked to a lawyer - who told him that the way the law was written, a valid UK passport might not immunise him (my relative) from being liable for employing people illegally!
So if the Process State is already reducing identity to a farce, what protection does it provide?
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, it's an economic fact of life in the age of Trump. The last country or trade block to protect their steel industry will probably lose it.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal. Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving. And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
Ah, it’s all Trump and Farage’s fault 👍
Well Farage certainly bears a significant responsibility for Brexit, as I'm sure he'd agree. And Trump brought back massive tarriffs to world trade, for the first time in decades.
Are you claiming otherwise ?
In isolation both of those statements are broadly correct however neither is relevant to the tariffs the only people responsible for these tariffs are the EU.
The EU has constantly condemned Trumps tariffs, rightly so.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
Brexit has failed, indeed it is the primary reason that our nation is so divided and run down.
So we have the man most responsible for that debacle in pole position for PM in 2029.
We never learn.
Nah, that’s just self satisfied chuntering.
The issue is that politicians focus on near term current spending rather than capital investment and then increased net immigration without building capacity in government services.
The growth in public service demand is due to demographics mainly. Immigration is partly to provide capacity for that demand in the care sector. You have a strong argument that the increase in demand should have been planned for, future demographic changes are in plain sight. So that's on the coalition and conservative govts. 2010-5 they reduced capacity, 2016-24 they wasted on Brexit
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
Well, she sort of did, if not by what she did then by the way she did it.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
She’s being asked to dissociate herself from someone she’s never been associated with and then being condemned for it.
Bizarre.
If you say someome has been unfairly demonised, you are morally and actuvely ssociating yourself with them, rather than disassociating oneself.
It's just par for the course for Liz now, though,, because she moves in Trumpist circles.
What if she thinks he has been demonised unfairly? Is she supposed to keep her trap shut about it?
No, but she can expect the sort of blowback that she’s deservedly getting.
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, it's an economic fact of life in the age of Trump. The last country or trade block to protect their steel industry will probably lose it.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal. Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving. And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
Ah, it’s all Trump and Farage’s fault 👍
Well Farage certainly bears a significant responsibility for Brexit, as I'm sure he'd agree. And Trump brought back massive tarriffs to world trade, for the first time in decades.
Are you claiming otherwise ?
In isolation both of those statements are broadly correct however neither is relevant to the tariffs the only people responsible for these tariffs are the EU.
The EU has constantly condemned Trumps tariffs, rightly so.
They are hypocrites
I think there is a difference between using tariffs in a limited and selective way for the purpose of defending specific industries - as the EU has done with steel - and the blunt force trauma approach that Trump has taken to increasing tariffs across the board.
It's sad that Brexit supporters are still blinded by their antipathy towards the EU that they are unable to see that difference.
I would hope that the UK would be able to negotiate with the EU an exemption to these tariff changes, which are surely primarily intended to protect the European steel industry from Chinese dumping of steel, rather than from the much smaller quantity of steel from Britain.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
Well, she sort of did, if not by what she did then by the way she did it.
How ?
She has no official standing in the Tory party whatsoever
Just seen the full clip of Bob Jenrick's final few seconds of his speech.
OMG.
He actually said "let's build this new order"!!
And everyone is freaking over "take our country back"???
I saw New Order live once. The stage collapsed.
That’s them Thousand Year Reichs fer ye.
I always think a thousand years was a bit optimistic. Has there EVER been an empire that lasted that long? Arguably the Eastern Roman Empire lived into the medieval period but was that a thousand years?
The Holy Roman Empire lasted from 800 to 1806 although its debateable how Holy, how Roman and how much of an Empire it was.
It was though the First Reich.
Roman Empire also counts - Rome was founded in 753 BCE, conventionally, and fell conventionally in 476 CE if you want to go on geography.
If you insist on emperors in the modern sense, the principate began in 27 BCE so you've got 27 BCE to 1453 CE for the Empire under that definition. Though the empire in terms of domination of other states began 2-3 centuries earlier.
Japan and China too.
England's still got some way to go, at least outwith Britain, counting its Irish enclave c. 1250 as the beginning. Or should I say the Empire of Normandy?
Denmark might have a better case.
Athelstan (927) is commonly recognised as the first king of a united England. Whereas Denmark is probably Harald Bluetooth about 50 years later
Sure, but Athelstan didn't bvuild an empire outwith England AFAIK. Harald did for Scandinavia.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
“Suspend British tourism to Spain”. A vote winning strategy I’m sure.
Kemi Badenoch’s future in doubt as shadow ministers consider coup
The Tory leader tried to rebuff Robert Jenrick’s simmering challenge at conference — but some think she is heading for a poor performance in the May elections
I predict that Badenoch is a gonner in 7 months or less.
And that you'll have resigned your membership within 12 months with no-cartoons-for-kids, fifty-shades-of-white as the Tory leader.
You have to give Jenrick credit. He is testing the maxim that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" to the limit.
Nailed on next Tory leader. The Tory membership lap up this stuff.
Jenrick has done well today, and he has done himself and his party a power of good.
The getting rid of lefty ("foreigner" loving) lawyers will be popular and the "there are too many "foreigners" in Birmingham and a city near you" is what everyone wants to hear, unless they are a lefty to be scorned or a "foreigner".
It isn't the sort of country I want to live in, but neither was Brexit Britain and PBers loved it, so what do I know?
The media are lapping this up. The first time since the election that a politician who isn't Nigel Farage has captured the hearts of the nation's journalists.
I think you're joking but it's not always easy to tell. If on the off chance you're being serious I really can't see it. Those kind of bad smells follow politicians to their grave and even if we might be going through one of those 'moments' the direction of travel is inexorably in the opposite direction. This will more than likely finish him.
No I'm deadly serious. PB Tories may be squeamish but the blue collar voters I rub shoulders with have pricked up their ears. They are listening to Jenrick and they will listen to Jenrick Tories. It's all very Trumpian, but Jenrick is making Farage look very Centrist Dad. Although I haven't confirmed this with Tirana taxi drivers yet.
Remember Enoch! A nine day wonder. A few months later all anyone remembers is his Rivers of Blood and Hitler moustache. A shrivalled little man less well regarded than Mosely.
These racist fads come and go but all the time the young people are growing older and they don't want to see any of that crap. They don't even get it or recognise what it's all about.
The Tories are out of time. Jenrick wouldn't be welcome in Reform. They're a racist Party but they don't want to be seen attracting racists
Jenrick is more subtle than Peter Griffiths, Enoch Powell or Terry Dicks. His racism like Boris Johnson's (Picanninies with water melon smiles and women looking like letterboxes was of course simply satire) is deniable, for the moment at least.
I doubt Jenrick dislikes dark skinned people. I would imagine he's fairly agnostic about whether people of an olive complexion come or go. He thinks he's tapped into a rich seam and he will pick away as long as it remains helpful to him. It is cheap politics, but it is effective politics.
Don't forget he's a sly f*****. Not many would have survived the Dirty Desmond scandal, and make no mistake that was a proper scandal.
Didn’t Terry Dicks write a lot of the Dr Who Target novelisations?
Terrance Dicks certainly did. He was also script editor in the early seventies, wrote several TV stories and some radio stuff.
Not the same guy as the Tory politician. Obvs.
Mixing up two blokes with the same name proves we need digital ID cards tattooed on our foreheads.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
I see Brexiteers have moved on from birthing Singapore on Thames, to aspiring to be North Korea.
It's been on the cards since 2019, if not 2016.
If your guiding star is Control-with-a-capital-C, there are two ways of doing it. One is to be Top Nation by quite a distance. Then you can impose your will on those who might disagree with you. The other is to build a walled garden where you don't have to consider other nations, because you don't interact with them.
The High Tory vision of Brexit started with hankering for the first, discovering that it wasn't an option, then going for the second.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
Brexit has failed, indeed it is the primary reason that our nation is so divided and run down.
So we have the man most responsible for that debacle in pole position for PM in 2029.
We never learn.
There's no other word for that statment than mental.
Kemi Badenoch’s future in doubt as shadow ministers consider coup
The Tory leader tried to rebuff Robert Jenrick’s simmering challenge at conference — but some think she is heading for a poor performance in the May elections
I predict that Badenoch is a gonner in 7 months or less.
And that you'll have resigned your membership within 12 months with no-cartoons-for-kids, fifty-shades-of-white as the Tory leader.
You have to give Jenrick credit. He is testing the maxim that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" to the limit.
Nailed on next Tory leader. The Tory membership lap up this stuff.
Jenrick has done well today, and he has done himself and his party a power of good.
The getting rid of lefty ("foreigner" loving) lawyers will be popular and the "there are too many "foreigners" in Birmingham and a city near you" is what everyone wants to hear, unless they are a lefty to be scorned or a "foreigner".
It isn't the sort of country I want to live in, but neither was Brexit Britain and PBers loved it, so what do I know?
The media are lapping this up. The first time since the election that a politician who isn't Nigel Farage has captured the hearts of the nation's journalists.
I think you're joking but it's not always easy to tell. If on the off chance you're being serious I really can't see it. Those kind of bad smells follow politicians to their grave and even if we might be going through one of those 'moments' the direction of travel is inexorably in the opposite direction. This will more than likely finish him.
No I'm deadly serious. PB Tories may be squeamish but the blue collar voters I rub shoulders with have pricked up their ears. They are listening to Jenrick and they will listen to Jenrick Tories. It's all very Trumpian, but Jenrick is making Farage look very Centrist Dad. Although I haven't confirmed this with Tirana taxi drivers yet.
Remember Enoch! A nine day wonder. A few months later all anyone remembers is his Rivers of Blood and Hitler moustache. A shrivalled little man less well regarded than Mosely.
These racist fads come and go but all the time the young people are growing older and they don't want to see any of that crap. They don't even get it or recognise what it's all about.
The Tories are out of time. Jenrick wouldn't be welcome in Reform. They're a racist Party but they don't want to be seen attracting racists
Jenrick is more subtle than Peter Griffiths, Enoch Powell or Terry Dicks. His racism like Boris Johnson's (Picanninies with water melon smiles and women looking like letterboxes was of course simply satire) is deniable, for the moment at least.
I doubt Jenrick dislikes dark skinned people. I would imagine he's fairly agnostic about whether people of an olive complexion come or go. He thinks he's tapped into a rich seam and he will pick away as long as it remains helpful to him. It is cheap politics, but it is effective politics.
Don't forget he's a sly f*****. Not many would have survived the Dirty Desmond scandal, and make no mistake that was a proper scandal.
Didn’t Terry Dicks write a lot of the Dr Who Target novelisations?
Terrance Dicks certainly did. He was also script editor in the early seventies, wrote several TV stories and some radio stuff.
Not the same guy as the Tory politician. Obvs.
Mixing up two blokes with the same name proves we need digital ID cards tattooed on our foreheads.
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, it's an economic fact of life in the age of Trump. The last country or trade block to protect their steel industry will probably lose it.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal. Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving. And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
Ah, it’s all Trump and Farage’s fault 👍
Well Farage certainly bears a significant responsibility for Brexit, as I'm sure he'd agree. And Trump brought back massive tarriffs to world trade, for the first time in decades.
Are you claiming otherwise ?
In isolation both of those statements are broadly correct however neither is relevant to the tariffs the only people responsible for these tariffs are the EU.
The EU has constantly condemned Trumps tariffs, rightly so.
They are hypocrites
I think there is a difference between using tariffs in a limited and selective way for the purpose of defending specific industries - as the EU has done with steel - and the blunt force trauma approach that Trump has taken to increasing tariffs across the board.
It's sad that Brexit supporters are still blinded by their antipathy towards the EU that they are unable to see that difference.
I would hope that the UK would be able to negotiate with the EU an exemption to these tariff changes, which are surely primarily intended to protect the European steel industry from Chinese dumping of steel, rather than from the much smaller quantity of steel from Britain.
If the EU (or anyone else) wants to protect the steel industry, long term, then it needs to work out how to produce steel cheaply.
But tariffs are the fentanyl of politics. A cheap, quick high. That fucks you up.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Yes look at how boris and fishy rishi have refused to ever apologise for their open border immigration and trade policy, putting up asylum seekers in hotel, destroying the country’s finances and messing up brexit
Some people just have no shame
"... and messing up brexit"
Brexit was always going to be a mess, because of the way it had been sold. There was no way of getting a sane, workable Brexit and appease the hardcore Brexiteers.
Disagree the basic principle of brexit is simple - a return to pre-1972 relations with Europe. Review everything that has changed since then to align to revert. Don’t think that process was ever done.
A day 1 change and drawing a clear statement of intent should have been scrapping the eu’s vat and bringing back the purchase tax
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, it's an economic fact of life in the age of Trump. The last country or trade block to protect their steel industry will probably lose it.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal. Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving. And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
Ah, it’s all Trump and Farage’s fault 👍
Well Farage certainly bears a significant responsibility for Brexit, as I'm sure he'd agree. And Trump brought back massive tarriffs to world trade, for the first time in decades.
Are you claiming otherwise ?
In isolation both of those statements are broadly correct however neither is relevant to the tariffs the only people responsible for these tariffs are the EU.
The EU has constantly condemned Trumps tariffs, rightly so.
They are hypocrites
You're a fool, if you expect them to suffer the knock on effects of Trump's tariffs - huge amounts of Chinese steel dumped in world markets, at the same time as EU exports to the US are curtailed - without doing something to protect their domestic industry.
That's mere pragmatism, and very little to do with hypocrisy.
The reason global agreements on tariffs are necessary, and worked for decades, is that they prevent the almost inevitable tit for tat which otherwise ensues. But those agreements just fall apart in the face of someone like Trump, when governments are faced with the potential death of a domestic industry.
Being in a large trade block offers some protection from that. Being on the outside can be a very lonely place.
I don't blame Farage for failing to predict Trump. But he's entirely culpable for pretending there were no benefits to our membership.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
“Suspend British tourism to Spain”. A vote winning strategy I’m sure.
Starmer is already the most unpopular prime minister in history. So it doesn’t matter. Do it
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Liz Truss has gone totally gaga. Yaxley-Lennon isn't some political fringe figure to be welcomed into the Tory family, he's a racist thug and football hooligan with a record as long as your arm to prove it.
Allowing him his platform to organise a ruck crosses the line from freedom of speech into incitement to riot.
She hasn't welcomed him into the Tory family. She answered a question on him saying that she thinks he has been unfairly demonised, and then failed to apologise for saying so later.
Truss has become gradually more conspiratorial in her world view since leaving office. It's not something I can particularly blame her for, given the way she left and the fact that almost the entire political establishment, including her own party, insists that she 'crashed the economy' when she didn't do any such thing.
Well, she sort of did, if not by what she did then by the way she did it.
How ?
She has no official standing in the Tory party whatsoever
The word “official” carries a lot of weight there. She’s a former leader and Prime Minister and thus carries a lot of influence.
I feel like this photo of masked, armed men pepper spraying a pastor protecting his community is going to be a defining picture of this moment in America for a long, long time.
They’re vigilantes. Not sure they care that much. But it does feel a very coastal-American failure model.
Is the model, wanting everything and not willing to pay for it? They seem to have more of a Boomer issue than we have, but we're always 10 years behind.
It's easy to underestimate the scale of US drug deaths, 80% of which are opiates. Currently it is running at 130 deaths a day or so.
To put that in perspective it is more deaths than gun deaths and traffic deaths combined. Or perhaps best thought of as a mass shooting every hour or so.
There were 308 drug deaths in Scotland in the first quarter of 2025. PB.com has previously been amazed at how much higher the rate of drug deaths is in Scotland compared to England or Europe.
The population of Scotland is 5.5 million and there are 90 days in the first quarter, so it equates to about 0.62 drug deaths per day per million population.
The population of the US is 342 million, so there are about 0.38 drug deaths per day per million population in the US.
Scotland. What the hell?
It's worth digging into the Scottish data on this - from memory, the reason that we continue to have such a high numbers of deaths is drug users from the 80s/90s (when we had our insane heroin epidemic) find that their bodies fail in their 40s and 50s. My partner spends a good part of her week trying to find a solution to this in the less salubrious parts of Lothian/Fife. It shows up in the demographic data too.
So, the frightening thing about America is what will happen in 20 years time when the current drug using population also hit their 40s, where else in Scotland we should see the numbers fall over time as the drug using population literally dies out.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
"Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine"
Yes, comrade, that will fit our interests very well...
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, it's an economic fact of life in the age of Trump. The last country or trade block to protect their steel industry will probably lose it.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal. Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving. And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
Ah, it’s all Trump and Farage’s fault 👍
Well Farage certainly bears a significant responsibility for Brexit, as I'm sure he'd agree. And Trump brought back massive tarriffs to world trade, for the first time in decades.
Are you claiming otherwise ?
In isolation both of those statements are broadly correct however neither is relevant to the tariffs the only people responsible for these tariffs are the EU.
The EU has constantly condemned Trumps tariffs, rightly so.
They are hypocrites
I think there is a difference between using tariffs in a limited and selective way for the purpose of defending specific industries - as the EU has done with steel - and the blunt force trauma approach that Trump has taken to increasing tariffs across the board.
It's sad that Brexit supporters are still blinded by their antipathy towards the EU that they are unable to see that difference.
I would hope that the UK would be able to negotiate with the EU an exemption to these tariff changes, which are surely primarily intended to protect the European steel industry from Chinese dumping of steel, rather than from the much smaller quantity of steel from Britain.
If the EU (or anyone else) wants to protect the steel industry, long term, then it needs to work out how to produce steel cheaply.
But tariffs are the fentanyl of politics. A cheap, quick high. That fucks you up.
Sure, but that's really the work of a decade or more. Trump introducing 50% tariffs on stuff overnight presents a more immediate problem.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
Brexit has failed, indeed it is the primary reason that our nation is so divided and run down.
So we have the man most responsible for that debacle in pole position for PM in 2029.
We never learn.
Nah, that’s just self satisfied chuntering.
The issue is that politicians focus on near term current spending rather than capital investment and then increased net immigration without building capacity in government services.
When something apparently foolish happens, it's always worth working out why. Think of the absurdity of the peacock's tail.
The reason that politicians focus on short term spending is that politicians who don't don't survive.
The reason that the Johnson government opened the migration taps was partly that they didn't understand their own policies and partly because they needed something, anything, to keep headline GDP moving and universities viable.
See our mates in the EU have whacked massive tariffs on our steel industry.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
No, it's an economic fact of life in the age of Trump. The last country or trade block to protect their steel industry will probably lose it.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal. Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving. And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
Ah, it’s all Trump and Farage’s fault 👍
Well Farage certainly bears a significant responsibility for Brexit, as I'm sure he'd agree. And Trump brought back massive tarriffs to world trade, for the first time in decades.
Are you claiming otherwise ?
In isolation both of those statements are broadly correct however neither is relevant to the tariffs the only people responsible for these tariffs are the EU.
The EU has constantly condemned Trumps tariffs, rightly so.
They are hypocrites
The EU is increasing tariffs to counter China dumping cut-price steel. China has an increased surplus of steel due to Trump's tariffs, the UK is now outside the EU due to Brexit. Prior to Brexit our steel industry would have benefitted from protection from Chinese dumping, now we're a victim twice-over.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
Yes look at how boris and fishy rishi have refused to ever apologise for their open border immigration and trade policy, putting up asylum seekers in hotel, destroying the country’s finances and messing up brexit
Some people just have no shame
"... and messing up brexit"
Brexit was always going to be a mess, because of the way it had been sold. There was no way of getting a sane, workable Brexit and appease the hardcore Brexiteers.
Disagree the basic principle of brexit is simple - a return to pre-1972 relations with Europe. Review everything that has changed since then to align to revert. Don’t think that process was ever done.
A day 1 change and drawing a clear statement of intent should have been scrapping the eu’s vat and bringing back the purchase tax
The basic principle of many things are easy. Trivially easy. Say something, and it shall be done.
Problems occur when something that seems a 'basic principle' meet reality.
They’re vigilantes. Not sure they care that much. But it does feel a very coastal-American failure model.
Is the model, wanting everything and not willing to pay for it? They seem to have more of a Boomer issue than we have, but we're always 10 years behind.
It's easy to underestimate the scale of US drug deaths, 80% of which are opiates. Currently it is running at 130 deaths a day or so.
To put that in perspective it is more deaths than gun deaths and traffic deaths combined. Or perhaps best thought of as a mass shooting every hour or so.
There were 308 drug deaths in Scotland in the first quarter of 2025. PB.com has previously been amazed at how much higher the rate of drug deaths is in Scotland compared to England or Europe.
The population of Scotland is 5.5 million and there are 90 days in the first quarter, so it equates to about 0.62 drug deaths per day per million population.
The population of the US is 342 million, so there are about 0.38 drug deaths per day per million population in the US.
Scotland. What the hell?
It's worth digging into the Scottish data on this - from memory, the reason that we continue to have such a high numbers of deaths is drug users from the 90s (when we had our insane heroin epidemic) find that their bodies fail in their 40s and 50s. My partner spends a good part of her week trying to find a solution to this in the less salubrious parts of Lothian/Fife.
So, the frightening thing about America is what will happen in 20 years time when the current drug using population also hit their 40s.
In the case of the fentanyl (and similar) epidemic, the point is that the deaths aren’t delayed.
The body count is now.
Which is why a certain kind of people see it as useful - getting rid of a problem, as they see it. The kind of people who wear “I ❤️ ICE” t shirts.
Just seen the full clip of Bob Jenrick's final few seconds of his speech.
OMG.
He actually said "let's build this new order"!!
And everyone is freaking over "take our country back"???
I saw New Order live once. The stage collapsed.
That’s them Thousand Year Reichs fer ye.
I always think a thousand years was a bit optimistic. Has there EVER been an empire that lasted that long? Arguably the Eastern Roman Empire lived into the medieval period but was that a thousand years?
The Holy Roman Empire lasted from 800 to 1806 although its debateable how Holy, how Roman and how much of an Empire it was.
It was though the First Reich.
Roman Empire also counts - Rome was founded in 753 BCE, conventionally, and fell conventionally in 476 CE if you want to go on geography.
If you insist on emperors in the modern sense, the principate began in 27 BCE so you've got 27 BCE to 1453 CE for the Empire under that definition. Though the empire in terms of domination of other states began 2-3 centuries earlier.
Japan and China too.
England's still got some way to go, at least outwith Britain, counting its Irish enclave c. 1250 as the beginning. Or should I say the Empire of Normandy?
Denmark might have a better case.
Athelstan (927) is commonly recognised as the first king of a united England. Whereas Denmark is probably Harald Bluetooth about 50 years later
Sure, but Athelstan didn't bvuild an empire outwith England AFAIK. Harald did for Scandinavia.
Depends what you mean by England. His kingdom stretched up the east coast as far as the Forth, while simultaneously the kingdom of Strathclyde stretched down the East Coast as far as the Mersey, broadly with the Pennines as the border. A territorial exchange starting in 975 with the Scots conquest of Lothian ultimately resulted in the modern divide a few centuries later. I’m not aware of irredentism on either side suggesting a readjustment along those lines, some occasional Scots complaints re Berwick notwithstanding.
They’re vigilantes. Not sure they care that much. But it does feel a very coastal-American failure model.
Is the model, wanting everything and not willing to pay for it? They seem to have more of a Boomer issue than we have, but we're always 10 years behind.
It's easy to underestimate the scale of US drug deaths, 80% of which are opiates. Currently it is running at 130 deaths a day or so.
To put that in perspective it is more deaths than gun deaths and traffic deaths combined. Or perhaps best thought of as a mass shooting every hour or so.
There were 308 drug deaths in Scotland in the first quarter of 2025. PB.com has previously been amazed at how much higher the rate of drug deaths is in Scotland compared to England or Europe.
The population of Scotland is 5.5 million and there are 90 days in the first quarter, so it equates to about 0.62 drug deaths per day per million population.
The population of the US is 342 million, so there are about 0.38 drug deaths per day per million population in the US.
Scotland. What the hell?
It's worth digging into the Scottish data on this - from memory, the reason that we continue to have such a high numbers of deaths is drug users from the 80s/90s (when we had our insane heroin epidemic) find that their bodies fail in their 40s and 50s. My partner spends a good part of her week trying to find a solution to this in the less salubrious parts of Lothian/Fife. It shows up in the demographic data too.
So, the frightening thing about America is what will happen in 20 years time when the current drug using population also hit their 40s, where else in Scotland we should see the numbers fall over time as the drug using population literally dies out.
I can think of one heroin-using PBer who should count himself fortunate that he hasn't gone the same way. Some of the stories you hear are heartbreaking, and it's the same individuals causing a significant degree of the chaos and petty crime in Scotland. Hopefully we'll learn the lessons of that period because her we are, decades later, spending billions on the consequences.
Oh well. Expensive diesel then. Expensive petrol too, if you can find any.
Still only 66p (79 roubles) for I guess a litre (it used to be 65 roubles looking on google).
Yes, it’s not exactly expensive, but still up around 20% in a couple of months. One tank costs an average man’s weekly wage.
More of a problem is the supply shortages, there’s long queues and petrol is being rationed to 10 litres or 20 litres. Which is a problem in a massive country, where motorway petrol stations can often be 150km apart.
They’re vigilantes. Not sure they care that much. But it does feel a very coastal-American failure model.
Is the model, wanting everything and not willing to pay for it? They seem to have more of a Boomer issue than we have, but we're always 10 years behind.
It's easy to underestimate the scale of US drug deaths, 80% of which are opiates. Currently it is running at 130 deaths a day or so.
To put that in perspective it is more deaths than gun deaths and traffic deaths combined. Or perhaps best thought of as a mass shooting every hour or so.
There were 308 drug deaths in Scotland in the first quarter of 2025. PB.com has previously been amazed at how much higher the rate of drug deaths is in Scotland compared to England or Europe.
The population of Scotland is 5.5 million and there are 90 days in the first quarter, so it equates to about 0.62 drug deaths per day per million population.
The population of the US is 342 million, so there are about 0.38 drug deaths per day per million population in the US.
Scotland. What the hell?
It's worth digging into the Scottish data on this - from memory, the reason that we continue to have such a high numbers of deaths is drug users from the 90s (when we had our insane heroin epidemic) find that their bodies fail in their 40s and 50s. My partner spends a good part of her week trying to find a solution to this in the less salubrious parts of Lothian/Fife.
So, the frightening thing about America is what will happen in 20 years time when the current drug using population also hit their 40s.
In the case of the fentanyl (and similar) epidemic, the point is that the deaths aren’t delayed.
The body count is now.
Which is why a certain kind of people see it as useful - getting rid of a problem, as they see it. The kind of people who wear “I ❤️ ICE” t shirts.
That's true I guess - but given how widespread the issue I wonder if the current deaths are just the tip of the iceberg.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
“Suspend British tourism to Spain”. A vote winning strategy I’m sure.
Starmer is already the most unpopular prime minister in history. So it doesn’t matter. Do it
On steel, the EU is looking to protect its industry against imports.
Our steel is an import.
We'r being tret the same as the rest of the non-EU.
Isn't this what we wanted?
It’s not a problem. Remember, we hold all the cards.
The Prosecco makers will be lobbying non stop against the tariffs, especially in the face of the global threat of English fizz.
You may jest. But I got an invite to a French fizz industry bash, where the threat from furrin fizz was on the agenda. I didn’t attend, but apparently the worry is that English fizz is having a noticeable effect on the “it must be Champagne” thing.
Personally I think that is bunk - the reason that people are drinking Prosecco, Cava, Crémant and Champagne Method (grapes and process, not location) is that Champagne prices are in the Cashing In zone. As in, buy a vineyard, double the prices and ride the industry into the ground.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
“Suspend British tourism to Spain”. A vote winning strategy I’m sure.
Policy has run counter to that, we've stopped OAP exports which will have reduced demand on French and Spanish services and housing, and we've restricted OAP access to cheap fags and booze, extending their lives but in unhappier circumstances.
"Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine" - your reminder that the UK has an increasingly strong 5th column.
They’re vigilantes. Not sure they care that much. But it does feel a very coastal-American failure model.
Is the model, wanting everything and not willing to pay for it? They seem to have more of a Boomer issue than we have, but we're always 10 years behind.
It's easy to underestimate the scale of US drug deaths, 80% of which are opiates. Currently it is running at 130 deaths a day or so.
To put that in perspective it is more deaths than gun deaths and traffic deaths combined. Or perhaps best thought of as a mass shooting every hour or so.
There were 308 drug deaths in Scotland in the first quarter of 2025. PB.com has previously been amazed at how much higher the rate of drug deaths is in Scotland compared to England or Europe.
The population of Scotland is 5.5 million and there are 90 days in the first quarter, so it equates to about 0.62 drug deaths per day per million population.
The population of the US is 342 million, so there are about 0.38 drug deaths per day per million population in the US.
Scotland. What the hell?
It's worth digging into the Scottish data on this - from memory, the reason that we continue to have such a high numbers of deaths is drug users from the 90s (when we had our insane heroin epidemic) find that their bodies fail in their 40s and 50s. My partner spends a good part of her week trying to find a solution to this in the less salubrious parts of Lothian/Fife.
So, the frightening thing about America is what will happen in 20 years time when the current drug using population also hit their 40s.
Perhaps a bit earlier, 1980s? Though IANAE.
The local AIDS epidemic, of course, stemmed in part from the heroin boom combined with 1980s government policy - [edit] notably a stamping down on the sale of clean needles by the polis. Though I would be mildly surprised if the relevant AIDS deaths today are scored as consequences of heroin addiction, it would not be astounding, as recording seems to be pretty thorough (with but not because of and all that).
Just read Starmer is making it so indian employees on assignment from outsourcing firms don’t have to pay national insurance anymore
Great news for rishi sunaks family but bad news for uk jobs
Let’s unpick this a little as it’s a few months since the first outbreak of commentary on the agreement, and because it’s a good example of the way the media creates and social media propagates bizarre narratives.
As part of last year’s Indian trade deal, there is an agreement to mitigate double social security contributions for assigned workers going in both directions.
Absent reciprocal social security agreements, an assigned worker pays the equivalent of NI in both their home country and the destination country, with no double tax relief. Ie they are taxed twice despite having no access to the pension system of the destination.
DSSAs are set up to avoid this by allowing people to keep paying in their home country only, so long as the assignment is formalised and of a limited duration. We have such agreements with all EU countries, most OECD countries and a wide range of developing countries, and have done for years. We didn’t have one with India. Now we do. It will help my organisation as we post a number of relatively highly paid UK employees over to India every year, and get a similar number of Indian assignees back.
The absolute numbers of posted workers are governed by visa rules. The DSSA simply ensures no unfairness in treatment. Those railing against it are essentially arguing for double taxation.
Just read Starmer is making it so indian employees on assignment from outsourcing firms don’t have to pay national insurance anymore
Great news for rishi sunaks family but bad news for uk jobs
Let’s unpick this a little as it’s a few months since the first outbreak of commentary on the agreement, and because it’s a good example of the way the media creates and social media propagates bizarre narratives.
As part of last year’s Indian trade deal, there is an agreement to mitigate double social security contributions for assigned workers going in both directions.
Absent reciprocal social security agreements, an assigned worker pays the equivalent of NI in both their home country and the destination country, with no double tax relief. Ie they are taxed twice despite having no access to the pension system of the destination.
DSSAs are set up to avoid this by allowing people to keep paying in their home country only, so long as the assignment is formalised and of a limited duration. We have such agreements with all EU countries, most OECD countries and a wide range of developing countries, and have done for years. We didn’t have one with India. Now we do. It will help my organisation as we post a number of relatively highly paid UK employees over to India every year, and get a similar number of Indian assignees back.
The absolute numbers of posted workers are governed by visa rules. The DSSA simply ensures no unfairness in treatment. Those railing against it are essentially arguing for double taxation.
Yes, but it's double taxation on other people, which is a win for us.
I feel like this photo of masked, armed men pepper spraying a pastor protecting his community is going to be a defining picture of this moment in America for a long, long time.
Looks like a violent thug attacking government workers.
His 'community' presumably being illegal immigrants.
On steel, the EU is looking to protect its industry against imports.
Our steel is an import.
We'r being tret the same as the rest of the non-EU.
Isn't this what we wanted?
It’s not a problem. Remember, we hold all the cards.
The Prosecco makers will be lobbying non stop against the tariffs, especially in the face of the global threat of English fizz.
You may jest. But I got an invite to a French fizz industry bash, where the threat from furrin fizz was on the agenda. I didn’t attend, but apparently the worry is that English fizz is having a noticeable effect on the “it must be Champagne” thing.
Personally I think that is bunk - the reason that people are drinking Prosecco, Cava, Crémant and Champagne Method (grapes and process, not location) is that Champagne prices are in the Cashing In zone. As in, buy a vineyard, double the prices and ride the industry into the ground.
When the French stuff is pushing £50 a bottle, it’s hardly surprising that people look elsewhere for similar quality but without the name.
The question is whether Jenrick is “racist” is not illuminating. Yet, whether something or someone is “racist” consumes a massive amount of media attention and focus in 2025.
No, what is relevant is that Jenrick’s comments - taken out of context or not - were offensive.
God only knows how I’d feel if I was a brown migrant or perhaps even just brown, in the UK today. I would not be feeling very welcome, and I would also be feeling that the next Tory leader is stoking racial enmity for partisan advantage.
Jenrick should apologize, but he hasn’t and he won’t. He’s beyond the pale.
There is a trend on the right to stop apologising - see also Truss's refusal to disassociate herself from Tommy Robinson. Liz Truss isn't a supporter of Tommy Robinson, but she refused to give any ground on it because she did not want to continue what she sees as the left being given the right to pronounce on what is right and decent, and what, as you say, is 'beyond the pale'.
If someone wants the right to pronounce on what is 'right and decent', I might suggest they start by not associating herself with criminal neo-Nazi thugs.
Truss is not setting herself up as the pronouncer of what is right and decent - she is refusing to submit to what is effectively a left-wing derived rulebook of modern manners.
Don't be a nitwit. You don't need to be left-wing to criticise Tommy Robinson.
She is making the same mistake as Enoch Powell who refused to give any ground to his critics even when the criticism was justified. The latest episode of The Rest is History is very good on this and how his utter refusal to show or express any empathy for those harmed by his words, even in the face of clear evidence of such harm, damned him even more. He didn't simply make criticisms. He deliberately used inflammatory language and then tried to claim the consequences of his choice of words had nothing to do with him.
This is irresponsible dangerous politics. It is as bad as those marchers shouting Arab slogans from the 8th century about killing Jews and then pretending this has nothing to do with creating a climate of fear.
Tory politicians should not be behaving like this.
It is indeed, a combination of the fuel problems, the train line closed by Poland, and Russian paranoia after that drones-hidden-in-trucks attack a couple of months ago.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What’s their rationale for these tariffs, or is it just protectionism ?
You may be amazed that the EU was once called the European Coal and Steel Community - protecting Coal and Steel communities.
Just read Starmer is making it so indian employees on assignment from outsourcing firms don’t have to pay national insurance anymore
Great news for rishi sunaks family but bad news for uk jobs
Let’s unpick this a little as it’s a few months since the first outbreak of commentary on the agreement, and because it’s a good example of the way the media creates and social media propagates bizarre narratives.
As part of last year’s Indian trade deal, there is an agreement to mitigate double social security contributions for assigned workers going in both directions.
Absent reciprocal social security agreements, an assigned worker pays the equivalent of NI in both their home country and the destination country, with no double tax relief. Ie they are taxed twice despite having no access to the pension system of the destination.
DSSAs are set up to avoid this by allowing people to keep paying in their home country only, so long as the assignment is formalised and of a limited duration. We have such agreements with all EU countries, most OECD countries and a wide range of developing countries, and have done for years. We didn’t have one with India. Now we do. It will help my organisation as we post a number of relatively highly paid UK employees over to India every year, and get a similar number of Indian assignees back.
The absolute numbers of posted workers are governed by visa rules. The DSSA simply ensures no unfairness in treatment. Those railing against it are essentially arguing for double taxation.
We are allowed to be unfair to citizens of other countries. The reason why we don't do it is because they will be unfair to us in return. But it is a choice.
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What’s their rationale for these tariffs, or is it just protectionism ?
China is dumping the steel they can’t sell in the US on Europe. But the EU are feardie cats and so go after the UK to compensate
EU steel tariff hike threatens 'biggest ever crisis' for UK industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy875px79po The EU has announced plans to hike tariffs on imported steel in a move the UK's steel industry has said could be "perhaps the biggest crisis" it has ever faced. The commission has set out plans to cut the amount of steel that can be imported into the bloc by half - beyond which the new 50% tariffs will apply. The EU is the UK's most important export destination for steel, worth nearly £3bn and representing 78% of steel products made in the UK for overseas markets. The commission has come under pressure from some member states and their steel industries, which have been struggling to compete with cheap imports from countries like China and Turkey. The EU is proposing to reduce tariff-free quotas for imports to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47% reduction from 2024 levels...
The theory that tariffs affect the country imposing them rather than the country they are imposed upon seems to have gone missing on Remainer PB this evening.
Perhaps it was never quite that simple in the first place.
Tariffs damage both our country and the EU.
80% of our steel exports go there, or used to.
But Brexit put us in this bad place.
We do, however, buy more of their steel than they do ours.
Being out has tariff advantages too: not paying 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs like our EU cousins, for example.
I wonder what, if anything, we will tariff in response to these steel tariffs.
Yes, so a tariff war damages us from both sides.
Putting up trade barriers to our largest and closest market was supreme folly.
Indeed if we were still in the EU we may have been able to stop a tariff war with other producers too.
May be we could have a common trading area without all the politics stuff? Wouldn’t that be grand.
The problem is... you can't and you never could. Making economic decisions is political by definition. Heath knew that at the time and said so clearly. Those looking for apolitical economics are wishing for the Moon.
Of course these things are political. But that doesn’t mean you need a “ever closer union” monetary union, freedom of movement, etc etc
Well, 27 countries have agreed to precisely that. That's the deal, not some anaemic non Union which doesn't exist and which it appears no one else supports.
Which is why we left.
And why it’s so dull the jabs from people like @Foxy - they just state a true fact (a free trade area is better) without talking about the costs (the political baggage) and think it’s some kind of killer point.
It is if you're the UK steel industry, as you're about to get killed if we can't negotiate a deal.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne. The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
What you do is: something that hurts them
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
Comments
To put that in perspective it is more deaths than gun deaths and traffic deaths combined. Or perhaps best thought of as a mass shooting every hour or so.
Bizarre.
It's just par for the course for Liz now, though,, because she moves in Trumpist circles.
You've accidentally made a useful point there. The Nazis are part of this because when I studied history it was OK to say Hitler was an effective speechmaker and polemicist - to study the technique of a wicked man and distinguish it from his politics. In today's polite society people are condemned for saying this. Telling the truth. It is pervasive, and I can understand many people on the right of politics now refusing to be judged by that yardstick.
The standard qualifying period for permanent residence will be increased under the government’s proposals. The default will be indefinite leave to remain after ten years, rather than five years at present, but some people will be able to qualify earlier. Under this “earned settlement” proposal, there will be a shorter pathway than ten years for people who have made “Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society” (paragraph 266).
The white paper did not say how these points would be earned or how much of a reduction on the ten-year qualifying period would be available. But the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has since said that relevant factors will include being in work; National Insurance payments; not claiming benefits; good English; a clean criminal record; and “giving back” in the community. This will be covered in more detail in the promised consultation.
So immigration will be front and centre of political debate for probably the rest of this parliament while the WP is debated and refined. The only question is whether it will puncture the Reform bubble or simply contribute to it. We can only wait.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10267/
An afterthought - Is the ability to shape immigration through this WP, a Brexit benefit?
Some people just have no shame
Wonder if he brought up to their pm that the uk just guaranteed a loan for $1.5 billion to an indian company
Is it clear why tata or the indian government couldn’t do it themselves yet ?
Brexit was always going to be a mess, because of the way it had been sold. There was no way of getting a sane, workable Brexit and appease the hardcore Brexiteers.
That going to be difficult. 50% of our production - and about 80% of exports - goes to Europe. With 50% tariffs, above the small tariff free quota, we won't sell a tonne.
The numbers in the opposite direction are far, far smaller, so retaliation won't work.
Which is a neat illustration of the problem.
"Political baggage" is just a slogan. We're barely noticeably freer since we left, and around two thirds of the electorate agree with me that it was a mistake.
It will all blow over in a day or so and the LedByDonkeys lot will have to find something else, trivial, to carry on the obsession.
Presumably tariffs are okay now and it’s all our fault for leaving the EU ?
At least an almost leader was there. A snippet on the radio said that Heseltine had chosen a smaller room to do his speech deliberately (100 turned away apparently). At least there’s still one pro left in the party, assuming he’s still a member.
And of course once you're outside the club, it's not just some of the members you gave to persuade to get a deal.
Which puts us in an awkward spot.
As noted yesterday, Farage's pet project is the gift which will keep giving.
And a third of the electorate apparently still want the pillock to run the country.
Our steel towns voted for Brexit and now want Farage as PM. They are like the abused wives going home with a black eye because "he loves me really" and "won't do it again".
*British* manners.
She's going down the American/MAGA rabbithole.
The issue is that politicians focus on near term current spending rather than capital investment and then increased net immigration without building capacity in government services.
Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine. Suspend British tourism to Spain and France. Block usage of British airspace and fishing in British seas
TOW BACK ALL THE BOATS
Yes, comrade, that will fit our interests very well...
The population of Scotland is 5.5 million and there are 90 days in the first quarter, so it equates to about 0.62 drug deaths per day per million population.
The population of the US is 342 million, so there are about 0.38 drug deaths per day per million population in the US.
Scotland. What the hell?
Great news for rishi sunaks family but bad news for uk jobs
If she disassociates herself the headline becomes “Robinson crosses the line” which implies that Truss thinks everything else up to now is ok
And Trump brought back massive tarriffs to world trade, for the first time in decades.
Are you claiming otherwise ?
Salute, brethren.
Shame Starmer is in charge who would do none of these things. You should do a D’Annunzio and declare an independent Great Yarmouth, though if it ever got out that you voted for Starmer..
My relative who runs a building company came across, a long while back, a couple of guys who had British passports. Valid, but they had no right to them.
Apparently one passport issuing office had got lazy and stopped checking properly. Not criminal, but the word got round, and a lot of applications went through.
The amusing bit? My relative talked to a lawyer - who told him that the way the law was written, a valid UK passport might not immunise him (my relative) from being liable for employing people illegally!
So if the Process State is already reducing identity to a farce, what protection does it provide?
The EU has constantly condemned Trumps tariffs, rightly so.
They are hypocrites
You have a strong argument that the increase in demand should have been planned for, future demographic changes are in plain sight.
So that's on the coalition and conservative govts. 2010-5 they reduced capacity, 2016-24 they wasted on Brexit
It's sad that Brexit supporters are still blinded by their antipathy towards the EU that they are unable to see that difference.
I would hope that the UK would be able to negotiate with the EU an exemption to these tariff changes, which are surely primarily intended to protect the European steel industry from Chinese dumping of steel, rather than from the much smaller quantity of steel from Britain.
She has no official standing in the Tory party whatsoever
If your guiding star is Control-with-a-capital-C, there are two ways of doing it. One is to be Top Nation by quite a distance. Then you can impose your will on those who might disagree with you. The other is to build a walled garden where you don't have to consider other nations, because you don't interact with them.
The High Tory vision of Brexit started with hankering for the first, discovering that it wasn't an option, then going for the second.
Our steel is an import.
We'r being tret the same as the rest of the non-EU.
Isn't this what we wanted?
Be careful what you wish for, it may come true...
But tariffs are the fentanyl of politics. A cheap, quick high. That fucks you up.
A day 1 change and drawing a clear statement of intent should have been scrapping the eu’s vat and bringing back the purchase tax
That's mere pragmatism, and very little to do with hypocrisy.
The reason global agreements on tariffs are necessary, and worked for decades, is that they prevent the almost inevitable tit for tat which otherwise ensues.
But those agreements just fall apart in the face of someone like Trump, when governments are faced with the potential death of a domestic industry.
Being in a large trade block offers some protection from that. Being on the outside can be a very lonely place.
I don't blame Farage for failing to predict Trump. But he's entirely culpable for pretending there were no benefits to our membership.
They’d fold
I feel like this photo of masked, armed men pepper spraying a pastor protecting his community is going to be a defining picture of this moment in America for a long, long time.
So, the frightening thing about America is what will happen in 20 years time when the current drug using population also hit their 40s, where else in Scotland we should see the numbers fall over time as the drug using population literally dies out.
https://x.com/natalkakyiv/status/1975619254876815685
Oh well. Expensive diesel then. Expensive petrol too, if you can find any.
Trump introducing 50% tariffs on stuff overnight presents a more immediate problem.
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1975801581041000804
The reason that politicians focus on short term spending is that politicians who don't don't survive.
The reason that the Johnson government opened the migration taps was partly that they didn't understand their own policies and partly because they needed something, anything, to keep headline GDP moving and universities viable.
China has an increased surplus of steel due to Trump's tariffs, the UK is now outside the EU due to Brexit.
Prior to Brexit our steel industry would have benefitted from protection from Chinese dumping, now we're a victim twice-over.
Problems occur when something that seems a 'basic principle' meet reality.
The body count is now.
Which is why a certain kind of people see it as useful - getting rid of a problem, as they see it. The kind of people who wear “I ❤️ ICE” t shirts.
More of a problem is the supply shortages, there’s long queues and petrol is being rationed to 10 litres or 20 litres. Which is a problem in a massive country, where motorway petrol stations can often be 150km apart.
Pun not intended.
https://bsky.app/profile/theukrainianreview.bsky.social/post/3m2m5mwb4yk2w
NEW THREAD
Personally I think that is bunk - the reason that people are drinking Prosecco, Cava, Crémant and Champagne Method (grapes and process, not location) is that Champagne prices are in the Cashing In zone. As in, buy a vineyard, double the prices and ride the industry into the ground.
"Refuse defense cooperation re Ukraine" - your reminder that the UK has an increasingly strong 5th column.
The local AIDS epidemic, of course, stemmed in part from the heroin boom combined with 1980s government policy - [edit] notably a stamping down on the sale of clean needles by the polis. Though I would be mildly surprised if the relevant AIDS deaths today are scored as consequences of heroin addiction, it would not be astounding, as recording seems to be pretty thorough (with but not because of and all that).
As part of last year’s Indian trade deal, there is an agreement to mitigate double social security contributions for assigned workers going in both directions.
Absent reciprocal social security agreements, an assigned worker pays the equivalent of NI in both their home country and the destination country, with no double tax relief. Ie they are taxed twice despite having no access to the pension system of the destination.
DSSAs are set up to avoid this by allowing people to keep paying in their home country only, so long as the assignment is formalised and of a limited duration. We have such agreements with all EU countries, most OECD countries and a wide range of developing countries, and have done for years. We didn’t have one with India. Now we do. It will help my organisation as we post a number of relatively highly paid UK employees over to India every year, and get a similar number of Indian assignees back.
The absolute numbers of posted workers are governed by visa rules. The DSSA simply ensures no unfairness in treatment. Those railing against it are essentially arguing for double taxation.
His 'community' presumably being illegal immigrants.
She is making the same mistake as Enoch Powell who refused to give any ground to his critics even when the criticism was justified. The latest episode of The Rest is History is very good on this and how his utter refusal to show or express any empathy for those harmed by his words, even in the face of clear evidence of such harm, damned him even more. He didn't simply make criticisms. He deliberately used inflammatory language and then tried to claim the consequences of his choice of words had nothing to do with him.
This is irresponsible dangerous politics. It is as bad as those marchers shouting Arab slogans from the 8th century about killing Jews and then pretending this has nothing to do with creating a climate of fear.
Tory politicians should not be behaving like this.
All good fun, for everyone except Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community