It's actually terrifying to see the influence commodity traders and their views have. It's a form of capitalism which isn't perhaps what many imagine. Simple notions of supply and demand just don't apply and when you have the words of Trump driving markets, it's a recipe for all kinds of trouble.
Is there an argument for a wholly independent price setting mechansim or are we basically going to carry on with the digital version of unregulated open outcry?
A supply contraction of 8% yet prices were raised by as much as 60%?
I see there has been a discussion as to whether Gordon Brown's school was a Comprehensive or not. I have a bit of an insight here. My wife and her sister were at school with Gordon. My wife 5 years behind, her sister actually in Gordon's class.. When Gordon left it was still selective. It became a Comprehensive while my wife was attending.
So confirmed Liz Truss is the only UK PM to have attended a comprehensive school from 11 to 18
Not quite - she had a year in Canada.
At a state high school
which is not a comprehensive school
Still a non selective state school so in terms of this discussion the same thing
you can never admit to an error, no matter how minor, can you?
There was no error, this discussion is purely private school educated PMs compared to selective grammar school educated PMs or non selective comprehensive school educated PMs.
So in terms of this discussion your point was completely and utterly irrelevant, had Truss attended a private school in Canada you might have had a point but she didn't
Iran announced control of the strait of Hormuz has “reverted to its previous state” over the continuing row with the US over its naval blockade of Iranian ports.
In a statement carried by Iranian media, the Iranian military’s operational command, Khatam Al-Anbiya, described the ongoing US blockade as “piracy”, saying: “For this reason, control of the strait of Hormuz has reverted to its previous state, and this strategic waterway is under the strict management and control of the armed forces.
Guardian live blog
Presumably both the Iranians and members of the US government are trading in the capital markets
I see there has been a discussion as to whether Gordon Brown's school was a Comprehensive or not. I have a bit of an insight here. My wife and her sister were at school with Gordon. My wife 5 years behind, her sister actually in Gordon's class.. When Gordon left it was still selective. It became a Comprehensive while my wife was attending.
So confirmed Liz Truss is the only UK PM to have attended a comprehensive school from 11 to 18
Not quite - she had a year in Canada.
At a state high school
which is not a comprehensive school
Still a non selective state school so in terms of this discussion the same thing
you can never admit to an error, no matter how minor, can you?
I see there has been a discussion as to whether Gordon Brown's school was a Comprehensive or not. I have a bit of an insight here. My wife and her sister were at school with Gordon. My wife 5 years behind, her sister actually in Gordon's class.. When Gordon left it was still selective. It became a Comprehensive while my wife was attending.
So confirmed Liz Truss is the only UK PM to have attended a comprehensive school from 11 to 18
Not quite - she had a year in Canada.
At a state high school
which is not a comprehensive school
Still a non selective state school so in terms of this discussion the same thing
you can never admit to an error, no matter how minor, can you?
There was no error, this discussion is purely private school educated PMs compared to selective grammar school educated PMs or non selective comprehensive school educated PMs.
So in terms of this discussion your point was completely and utterly irrelevant, had Truss attended a private school in Canada you might have had a point but she didn't
QED
Demonstrated your point was completely irrelevant, as Truss attended another non selective state school in Canada NOT a private school or a selective state school. Canadian high schools are Canadian comprehensive schools
Edited extra bits: "Iran's military says it is resuming its control of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iranian state media.
The IRGC statement accuses the US of "piracy", saying that its "so-called blockade" amounts to maritime robbery. Iran previously said that it would shut the strait if the US continued its blockade of its ports."
That process appears to have taken weeks, with as many as a dozen officials and lawyers aware of Mandelson’s vetting failure. Starmer’s statement would suggest he was not formally notified by any of them until a few days ago.
Why is my spidey sense tingling. I detect weasel words
He stuck his head so far in official sand, there’s absolutely no way that he formally wasn’t an ostrich
It’s absurd and implausible to suggest that he didn’t really know
Implausible that Starmer did not really know what exactly?
Everyone knew Mandelson was iffy. He had previously been ousted twice for ethical failings of one sort of another.
Almost no-one knew Mandelson had failed vetting, not least because he was appointed first and vetted later, but also because from Number 10's standpoint, FO vetting cleared Mandelson by overriding UKSC.
So maybe Kemi and others are asking the wrong question. Rather than did the Prime Minister know Mandelson had been fingered by UKSC but whether Starmer, like everyone who had read a newspaper this millennium, already knew about the grounds that UKSC flagged up.
To discern the probabilities of what ministers knew, either by being told or working it out for themselves, you examine the sorts of language, formulaic uses and verbal evasions they were using in the House of Commons before last Tuesday. Is there a pattern? Is there something they try to imply but don't spell out?
I think we will find the pattern is that they don't want to say PeterM was in the clear vetting wise, and don't want to say he wasn't, and don't want to say it is not a matter for them (or us proles) to know anyway.
To a point.
It is also worth bearing in mind that what (so far as has been leaked to the press) was not uncovered by UKSV was the real scandal, that Mandelson was systematically leaking market-sensitive Cabinet discussions to his rich mates, which became public from the Epstein disclosures in America.
You don’t know that wasn’t uncovered by UKSV
The rumour (actually the leak) was that Mandelbrot was very “adjacent” to a number of Chinese billionaires and was involved in various… financial transactions with them.
I see there has been a discussion as to whether Gordon Brown's school was a Comprehensive or not. I have a bit of an insight here. My wife and her sister were at school with Gordon. My wife 5 years behind, her sister actually in Gordon's class.. When Gordon left it was still selective. It became a Comprehensive while my wife was attending.
So confirmed Liz Truss is the only UK PM to have attended a comprehensive school from 11 to 18
Not quite - she had a year in Canada.
At a state high school
which is not a comprehensive school
Still a non selective state school so in terms of this discussion the same thing
you can never admit to an error, no matter how minor, can you?
There was no error, this discussion is purely private school educated PMs compared to selective grammar school educated PMs or non selective comprehensive school educated PMs.
So in terms of this discussion your point was completely and utterly irrelevant, had Truss attended a private school in Canada you might have had a point but she didn't
QED
Demonstrated your point was completely irrelevant, as Truss attended another non selective state school in Canada NOT a private school or a selective state school. Canadian high schools are Canadian comprehensive schools
I'm still being bombarded by Youtube adverts telling me how @RochdalePioneers will be significantly upgrading the interior of "the car" by fitting the ultimate sexy rubber floor mats from a sponsor. If I don't turn it off, I am played the entire thing. It is very Kings Cross.
They apparently have angled spiked on the back to stop them moving the wrong way, just like one of those Brazilian candiru fish that allegedly swim up the gentleman sausages of unaware gentlemen who are peeing in the Amazon.
An ex-soldier who'd served in the jungle said they all had two condoms: one to stop nasties from entering their willies and the other served a similar purpose for their rifles.
Only on PB could I read a post that apparently tells me that soldiers used a condom to stop rifles from entering their willies.
An account (Guard the Lead) of a 20-year Green Card holding Canadian living in Florida catching up with taxes on an agreed arrangement, yanked by ICE at a routine appointment.
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
I think I believe it. But I'm sceptical of the claims that "this is just how the system works, so don't question it". The PM is entitled to know how a position has been arrived at and what factors were considered; indeed, he's entitled to overrule it. Applicants for a senior job should be informed that this may happen, and to decide not to apply if they object. The main criticism of Starmer appears to be that he didn't ask - perhaps because he was aware that the civil service would decline to answer?
It's actually terrifying to see the influence commodity traders and their views have. It's a form of capitalism which isn't perhaps what many imagine. Simple notions of supply and demand just don't apply and when you have the words of Trump driving markets, it's a recipe for all kinds of trouble.
Is there an argument for a wholly independent price setting mechansim or are we basically going to carry on with the digital version of unregulated open outcry?
A supply contraction of 8% yet prices were raised by as much as 60%?
I see there has been a discussion as to whether Gordon Brown's school was a Comprehensive or not. I have a bit of an insight here. My wife and her sister were at school with Gordon. My wife 5 years behind, her sister actually in Gordon's class.. When Gordon left it was still selective. It became a Comprehensive while my wife was attending.
So confirmed Liz Truss is the only UK PM to have attended a comprehensive school from 11 to 18
Not quite - she had a year in Canada.
At a state high school
which is not a comprehensive school
Still a non selective state school so in terms of this discussion the same thing
you can never admit to an error, no matter how minor, can you?
When he changes the question that’s his tell
I don’t see why people are so afraid of admitting when they’re wrong. It’s a sign of maturity and strength, not weakness.
Hopefully Badenoch will now do the decent thing. Anyone who heard her interview on Ch4 News calling the Prime Minister a liar in the terms she did must know she's less suitable for high office than even an ignoramus like Trump
You really do not get politics do you
Starmer was all over Johnson and made a promise to the electorate he would be differernt
On Monday all the opposition leaders and mps are going to make the case he is also not fit to remain in office
I see there has been a discussion as to whether Gordon Brown's school was a Comprehensive or not. I have a bit of an insight here. My wife and her sister were at school with Gordon. My wife 5 years behind, her sister actually in Gordon's class.. When Gordon left it was still selective. It became a Comprehensive while my wife was attending.
So confirmed Liz Truss is the only UK PM to have attended a comprehensive school from 11 to 18
Not quite - she had a year in Canada.
At a state high school
which is not a comprehensive school
Still a non selective state school so in terms of this discussion the same thing
you can never admit to an error, no matter how minor, can you?
There was no error, this discussion is purely private school educated PMs compared to selective grammar school educated PMs or non selective comprehensive school educated PMs.
So in terms of this discussion your point was completely and utterly irrelevant, had Truss attended a private school in Canada you might have had a point but she didn't
QED
Demonstrated your point was completely irrelevant, as Truss attended another non selective state school in Canada NOT a private school or a selective state school. Canadian high schools are Canadian comprehensive schools
I see there has been a discussion as to whether Gordon Brown's school was a Comprehensive or not. I have a bit of an insight here. My wife and her sister were at school with Gordon. My wife 5 years behind, her sister actually in Gordon's class.. When Gordon left it was still selective. It became a Comprehensive while my wife was attending.
So confirmed Liz Truss is the only UK PM to have attended a comprehensive school from 11 to 18
Not quite - she had a year in Canada.
At a state high school
which is not a comprehensive school
Still a non selective state school so in terms of this discussion the same thing
you can never admit to an error, no matter how minor, can you?
There was no error, this discussion is purely private school educated PMs compared to selective grammar school educated PMs or non selective comprehensive school educated PMs.
So in terms of this discussion your point was completely and utterly irrelevant, had Truss attended a private school in Canada you might have had a point but she didn't
QED
Demonstrated your point was completely irrelevant, as Truss attended another non selective state school in Canada NOT a private school or a selective state school. Canadian high schools are Canadian comprehensive schools
I have to say, who cares ?
Judge a person by their actions and ability not their education or poshness which seems a thing for you
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
Unfortunately for the hapless leader of the opposition we now do know. The story is in the Guardian. The interview with Badenoch and Chrishnan Guru Murthy is well worth watching. Her arrogance is embarrassing
I see there has been a discussion as to whether Gordon Brown's school was a Comprehensive or not. I have a bit of an insight here. My wife and her sister were at school with Gordon. My wife 5 years behind, her sister actually in Gordon's class.. When Gordon left it was still selective. It became a Comprehensive while my wife was attending.
So confirmed Liz Truss is the only UK PM to have attended a comprehensive school from 11 to 18
Not quite - she had a year in Canada.
At a state high school
which is not a comprehensive school
Still a non selective state school so in terms of this discussion the same thing
you can never admit to an error, no matter how minor, can you?
When he changes the question that’s his tell
I don’t see why people are so afraid of admitting when they’re wrong. It’s a sign of maturity and strength, not weakness.
I wasn't wrong, saying you are wrong when you are right is a sign of weakness.
Truss attended a non selective state school in Canada, not a private school or even a selective state school so she remains the only UK PM educated fully neither at a private school or non selective state school
Is there something weird going on with the twitterX algorythm? It seems to be putting the same tweets at the top of my feed no matter how many times you refresh it, makes for a somewhat samey experience. This is the 'Following' feed, dunno if it's going on in the cesspit of 'For you'.
It's actually terrifying to see the influence commodity traders and their views have. It's a form of capitalism which isn't perhaps what many imagine. Simple notions of supply and demand just don't apply and when you have the words of Trump driving markets, it's a recipe for all kinds of trouble.
Is there an argument for a wholly independent price setting mechansim or are we basically going to carry on with the digital version of unregulated open outcry?
A supply contraction of 8% yet prices were raised by as much as 60%?
Watch Trading Places (another Christmas film!).
Fun fact: What the Dukes were trying to do wasn't illegal at the time.
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
I think I believe it. But I'm sceptical of the claims that "this is just how the system works, so don't question it". The PM is entitled to know how a position has been arrived at and what factors were considered; indeed, he's entitled to overrule it. Applicants for a senior job should be informed that this may happen, and to decide not to apply if they object. The main criticism of Starmer appears to be that he didn't ask - perhaps because he was aware that the civil service would decline to answer?
You are very trusting. At best it was definitely don't tell me anything under any circumstances. The Indy reported this story months ago, they asked for comms director for comment on the story, they have the receipts.....and yet nobody, nobody, told Starmer anything, not even there is a story this has happened, should we ask about the FO what the bloody hell is going on.
He also has the slight issue of in the HoC he said he knew what was in the vetting and that it included relationship with Epstein.
And this is the same tale of I never knew Peties relationship carried on with Epstein as long as it did, despite an FT story saying so, despite the FT journalist asking him directly, then months later, I was never told nothing, I am shocked as anybody.
The thought at nobody in #10 isn't following the Indy and FT chief journalists, are getting messages from them about these stories, then not telling Starmer (and Starmer never sees them), is not an accident.
So he is doing a lot of lawyerly stuff about formally informed etc.
It's actually terrifying to see the influence commodity traders and their views have. It's a form of capitalism which isn't perhaps what many imagine. Simple notions of supply and demand just don't apply and when you have the words of Trump driving markets, it's a recipe for all kinds of trouble.
Is there an argument for a wholly independent price setting mechansim or are we basically going to carry on with the digital version of unregulated open outcry?
A supply contraction of 8% yet prices were raised by as much as 60%?
Sigh
Oil (and LNG) have low price elasticity in the short and medium term.
This is because usage tends not to be optional. You can use the car *a bit* less. But most oil and gas usage is already reduced as much as possible, due to higher prices (in Europe in general)
This means, in turn, that demand destruction takes really big price changes.
60% for 8% is probably a *low* number
As @TheScreamingEagles (and I) have repeatedly pointed out, the worst case for the current situation is that demand destruction won’t reduce the oil defect to zero. Countries are heading, right now to empty tanks.
As to controlling the price - the U.K. doesn’t. We don’t own the oil and gas. The oil companies don’t either - they are employed by the owners.
At this point someone suggests another mechanism than price for demand destruction. This has been tried over the centuries for many things. It has always failed. On an epic scale.
Iran announced control of the strait of Hormuz has “reverted to its previous state” over the continuing row with the US over its naval blockade of Iranian ports.
In a statement carried by Iranian media, the Iranian military’s operational command, Khatam Al-Anbiya, described the ongoing US blockade as “piracy”, saying: “For this reason, control of the strait of Hormuz has reverted to its previous state, and this strategic waterway is under the strict management and control of the armed forces.
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
Unfortunately for the hapless leader of the opposition we now do know. The story is in the Guardian. The interview with Badenoch and Chrishnan Guru Murthy is well worth watching. Her arrogance is embarrassing
We might know after Olly Robbins has been interrogated by the select committee.
Half time is for having a piss and buying a pint. Or a Bovril and a pie.
Have the World Cup organisers organised Bovril at the venues? No chance.
And for the TV audience a few adverts while they boil the kettle, some match highlights and discussion of contentious decisions. No one wants to watch a band and the sound quality is always awful.
Back in the day we used to have a display from our cheerleaders "The Foxy Ladies". It was hilariously lame with a combination of leering and mocking from the stands
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
Unfortunately for the hapless leader of the opposition we now do know. The story is in the Guardian. The interview with Badenoch and Chrishnan Guru Murthy is well worth watching. Her arrogance is embarrassing
We might know after Olly Robbins has been interrogated by the select committee.
Half time is for having a piss and buying a pint. Or a Bovril and a pie.
Have the World Cup organisers organised Bovril at the venues? No chance.
They've organised half time piss though.
eyes will still be watering at the $120 it cost to get the transport there.
The lower end of the parking spaces seem to be costing the normal price that we would expect for a B&B.
$111 for the train ticket from NY central to the stadium. This is going to be the DJ Trump World Cup with DJT levels of scalping.
I predict it will be a damp squib. He will want his big pay off and who would be shocked in a year or two times, arise Lord Robbins.
There won't have been anything in writing, nothing direct from Starmer, so it will be very much following procedure, can't tell you why he failed as top secret, but we (insert BS reason) passed him anyway, nobody asked anything further.
I am truly shocked that none of the Prime Ministers educated prior to the introduction of comprehensive schools was educated at a comprehensive school.
Hopefully Badenoch will now do the decent thing. Anyone who heard her interview on Ch4 News calling the Prime Minister a liar in the terms she did must know she's less suitable for high office than even an ignoramus like Trump
You really do not get politics do you
Starmer was all over Johnson and made a promise to the electorate he would be differernt
On Monday all the opposition leaders and mps are going to make the case he is also not fit to remain in office
You don't call someone a 'liar' unless you are pretty sure of your ground. Less so when the person you are accusing is the PM. She made a fool of herself. Guru Murthy gave her the opportunity to moderate her language because he could see she was going down a rabbit hole but she just blundered on. No one cares that Farage is a clown but the Tories expect a little more class from their leaders
It's actually terrifying to see the influence commodity traders and their views have. It's a form of capitalism which isn't perhaps what many imagine. Simple notions of supply and demand just don't apply and when you have the words of Trump driving markets, it's a recipe for all kinds of trouble.
Is there an argument for a wholly independent price setting mechansim or are we basically going to carry on with the digital version of unregulated open outcry?
A supply contraction of 8% yet prices were raised by as much as 60%?
Apologies if I came over harsh yesterday. For once that genuinely wasn't my intent. My eyes were opened to all of this in 2008 when the oil prices really peaked and I found out about how much oil was being traded compared to how much was/would be produced. When traders are selling and buying many times more oil than could ever be supplied you know there is something broken with the system.
And yes, there are many things we could and should do to improve this market - but I think Robert is better placed to discuss those given his previous experience.
Hopefully Badenoch will now do the decent thing. Anyone who heard her interview on Ch4 News calling the Prime Minister a liar in the terms she did must know she's less suitable for high office than even an ignoramus like Trump
You really do not get politics do you
Starmer was all over Johnson and made a promise to the electorate he would be differernt
On Monday all the opposition leaders and mps are going to make the case he is also not fit to remain in office
There are unparliamentary words that most politicians would avoid using, "lying" being one of them. In Parliament such language would be admonished by the speaker. Outside Parliament because of litigious jeopardy politicians do not use that particular word, except for Badenoch who throws it around freely.
Whether we think she has a point or not is not the issue. Only a foolish politician makes such accusations about an opponent on, albeit strong, supposition without concrete evidence.
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
I think I believe it. But I'm sceptical of the claims that "this is just how the system works, so don't question it". The PM is entitled to know how a position has been arrived at and what factors were considered; indeed, he's entitled to overrule it. Applicants for a senior job should be informed that this may happen, and to decide not to apply if they object. The main criticism of Starmer appears to be that he didn't ask - perhaps because he was aware that the civil service would decline to answer?
As others have said where Starmer will struggle is he appointed Mandelson before the vetting process was completed knowing Mandelson was a risk but wanted to take the risk because he hoped Mandelson would get on with Trump
What then transpired was Mandelson failed the vetting with both red boxes ticked but by this time Mandelson was in the US and the FCDO either were unwilling to compromise the appointment or decided to keep quiet though it is unlikely that, as is was a political appointment, someone in Downing Street wasn't told
Starmer may well have closed his ears to any suggestion that Mandelson had failed vetting and just kept repeating both at the despatch box and in public Mandelson had been vetted
For these reasons alone Starmer has effectively put himself into his own firing line.
I am truly shocked that none of the Prime Ministers educated prior to the introduction of comprehensive schools was educated at a comprehensive school.
Until 1964 most Prime Ministers were educated at private schools, between 1964 and 1997 most PMs were educated at grammar schools. Since 1997 most PMs have been educated at private schools again
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
Unfortunately for the hapless leader of the opposition we now do know. The story is in the Guardian. The interview with Badenoch and Chrishnan Guru Murthy is well worth watching. Her arrogance is embarrassing
We might know after Olly Robbins has been interrogated by the select committee.
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
I think I believe it. But I'm sceptical of the claims that "this is just how the system works, so don't question it". The PM is entitled to know how a position has been arrived at and what factors were considered; indeed, he's entitled to overrule it. Applicants for a senior job should be informed that this may happen, and to decide not to apply if they object. The main criticism of Starmer appears to be that he didn't ask - perhaps because he was aware that the civil service would decline to answer?
Someone on LBC yesterday observed that, as a lawyer, Starmer could be in the habit of making sure he didn’t find or wasn’t told various bits of potentially inconvenient information, to protect his own deniability. That’s a more credible scenario than the choice between dishonesty and incompetence that is obsessing the media.
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
I think I believe it. But I'm sceptical of the claims that "this is just how the system works, so don't question it". The PM is entitled to know how a position has been arrived at and what factors were considered; indeed, he's entitled to overrule it. Applicants for a senior job should be informed that this may happen, and to decide not to apply if they object. The main criticism of Starmer appears to be that he didn't ask - perhaps because he was aware that the civil service would decline to answer?
It is very telling that the Nick Gibb run BBC have admitted the fact that according to various ex very senior Civil Servants have all confirmed categorically that no PM or No 10 would ever be passed confidential referencing information of this kind.
The fact Starmer said he didn't know therefore is clearly factual.
The charge / allegations that he should have asked are reasonable enough, but clearly had he have asked he would not have been told.
This is not unusual in business, where an HR Dept are not obliged to disclose why they and not the employing department are telling senior management a person can't be hired. They just say he can't be hired.
So clearly Starmer has not lied Starmer didn't know.
Those accusing him of lying really need to both wind their necks I'm and apologise.
The biggest challenge now for Starmer that offers a golden opportunity is to do what the last 3 or 4 PMs have wanted to do
I see there has been a discussion as to whether Gordon Brown's school was a Comprehensive or not. I have a bit of an insight here. My wife and her sister were at school with Gordon. My wife 5 years behind, her sister actually in Gordon's class.. When Gordon left it was still selective. It became a Comprehensive while my wife was attending.
So confirmed Liz Truss is the only UK PM to have attended a comprehensive school from 11 to 18
Not quite - she had a year in Canada.
At a state high school
which is not a comprehensive school
Still a non selective state school so in terms of this discussion the same thing
you can never admit to an error, no matter how minor, can you?
When he changes the question that’s his tell
I don’t see why people are so afraid of admitting when they’re wrong. It’s a sign of maturity and strength, not weakness.
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
Unfortunately for the hapless leader of the opposition we now do know. The story is in the Guardian. The interview with Badenoch and Chrishnan Guru Murthy is well worth watching. Her arrogance is embarrassing
We might know after Olly Robbins has been interrogated by the select committee.
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
Doesn't mean we have to park our credulity function.
Starmer's "explanation" doesn't pass my credulity function. He is being squirly to the point where it is indistinguishable from lying.
Might I suggest that it doesn't pass your credulity test because you are predisposed to not believing him? If Badenoch were in an identical situation I suspect you would be inclined to believe her.
That process appears to have taken weeks, with as many as a dozen officials and lawyers aware of Mandelson’s vetting failure. Starmer’s statement would suggest he was not formally notified by any of them until a few days ago.
Why is my spidey sense tingling. I detect weasel words
He stuck his head so far in official sand, there’s absolutely no way that he formally wasn’t an ostrich
It’s absurd and implausible to suggest that he didn’t really know
Implausible that Starmer did not really know what exactly?
Everyone knew Mandelson was iffy. He had previously been ousted twice for ethical failings of one sort of another.
Almost no-one knew Mandelson had failed vetting, not least because he was appointed first and vetted later, but also because from Number 10's standpoint, FO vetting cleared Mandelson by overriding UKSC.
So maybe Kemi and others are asking the wrong question. Rather than did the Prime Minister know Mandelson had been fingered by UKSC but whether Starmer, like everyone who had read a newspaper this millennium, already knew about the grounds that UKSC flagged up.
To discern the probabilities of what ministers knew, either by being told or working it out for themselves, you examine the sorts of language, formulaic uses and verbal evasions they were using in the House of Commons before last Tuesday. Is there a pattern? Is there something they try to imply but don't spell out?
I think we will find the pattern is that they don't want to say PeterM was in the clear vetting wise, and don't want to say he wasn't, and don't want to say it is not a matter for them (or us proles) to know anyway.
To a point.
It is also worth bearing in mind that what (so far as has been leaked to the press) was not uncovered by UKSV was the real scandal, that Mandelson was systematically leaking market-sensitive Cabinet discussions to his rich mates, which became public from the Epstein disclosures in America.
You don’t know that wasn’t uncovered by UKSV
He also doesn't know that worse wasn't uncovered by them.
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
Unfortunately for the hapless leader of the opposition we now do know. The story is in the Guardian. The interview with Badenoch and Chrishnan Guru Murthy is well worth watching. Her arrogance is embarrassing
Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?
Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
You don't know, I don't know - so we all "believe" what suits our political prejudices.
I think I believe it. But I'm sceptical of the claims that "this is just how the system works, so don't question it". The PM is entitled to know how a position has been arrived at and what factors were considered; indeed, he's entitled to overrule it. Applicants for a senior job should be informed that this may happen, and to decide not to apply if they object. The main criticism of Starmer appears to be that he didn't ask - perhaps because he was aware that the civil service would decline to answer?
It is very telling that the Nick Gibb run BBC have admitted the fact that according to various ex very senior Civil Servants have all confirmed categorically that no PM or No 10 would ever be passed confidential referencing information of this kind.
The fact Starmer said he didn't know therefore is clearly factual.
The charge / allegations that he should have asked are reasonable enough, but clearly had he have asked he would not have been told.
This is not unusual in business, where an HR Dept are not obliged to disclose why they and not the employing department are telling senior management a person can't be hired. They just say he can't be hired.
So clearly Starmer has not lied Starmer didn't know.
Those accusing him of lying really need to both wind their necks I'm and apologise.
The biggest challenge now for Starmer that offers a golden opportunity is to do what the last 3 or 4 PMs have wanted to do
DESTROY the blob.
Bring the Civil Service under control.
Cummings was right in this regard.
Even if the above is true, we don't know that Starmer was informed "informally", soundings taken through no 10 etc
My Tory wife is very affronted. A letter from Reform today for the Welsh Elections and personally addressed to her from Nigel. Not a mistake they will make again.
My wife and I had the same and both were deposited in the recycling without a glance
Mine was returned without stamp to the Reform Freepost address.
Comments
This has helped:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qjvluMnyAw
It's actually terrifying to see the influence commodity traders and their views have. It's a form of capitalism which isn't perhaps what many imagine. Simple notions of supply and demand just don't apply and when you have the words of Trump driving markets, it's a recipe for all kinds of trouble.
Is there an argument for a wholly independent price setting mechansim or are we basically going to carry on with the digital version of unregulated open outcry?
A supply contraction of 8% yet prices were raised by as much as 60%?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cqxdg17yr2wt
Edited extra bits:
"Iran's military says it is resuming its control of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iranian state media.
The IRGC statement accuses the US of "piracy", saying that its "so-called blockade" amounts to maritime robbery. Iran previously said that it would shut the strait if the US continued its blockade of its ports."
It's still happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBBZKlcY5Tk
Starmer was all over Johnson and made a promise to the electorate he would be differernt
On Monday all the opposition leaders and mps are going to make the case he is also not fit to remain in office
Judge a person by their actions and ability not their education or poshness which seems a thing for you
Truss attended a non selective state school in Canada, not a private school or even a selective state school so she remains the only UK PM educated fully neither at a private school or non selective state school
This is the 'Following' feed, dunno if it's going on in the cesspit of 'For you'.
He also has the slight issue of in the HoC he said he knew what was in the vetting and that it included relationship with Epstein.
And this is the same tale of I never knew Peties relationship carried on with Epstein as long as it did, despite an FT story saying so, despite the FT journalist asking him directly, then months later, I was never told nothing, I am shocked as anybody.
The thought at nobody in #10 isn't following the Indy and FT chief journalists, are getting messages from them about these stories, then not telling Starmer (and Starmer never sees them), is not an accident.
So he is doing a lot of lawyerly stuff about formally informed etc.
Oil (and LNG) have low price elasticity in the short and medium term.
This is because usage tends not to be optional. You can use the car *a bit* less. But most oil and gas usage is already reduced as much as possible, due to higher prices (in Europe in general)
This means, in turn, that demand destruction takes really big price changes.
60% for 8% is probably a *low* number
As @TheScreamingEagles (and I) have repeatedly pointed out, the worst case for the current situation is that demand destruction won’t reduce the oil defect to zero. Countries are heading, right now to empty tanks.
As to controlling the price - the U.K. doesn’t. We don’t own the oil and gas. The oil companies don’t either - they are employed by the owners.
At this point someone suggests another mechanism than price for demand destruction. This has been tried over the centuries for many things. It has always failed. On an epic scale.
Back in the day we used to have a display from our cheerleaders "The Foxy Ladies". It was hilariously lame with a combination of leering and mocking from the stands
There won't have been anything in writing, nothing direct from Starmer, so it will be very much following procedure, can't tell you why he failed as top secret, but we (insert BS reason) passed him anyway, nobody asked anything further.
And yes, there are many things we could and should do to improve this market - but I think Robert is better placed to discuss those given his previous experience.
Whether we think she has a point or not is not the issue. Only a foolish politician makes such accusations about an opponent on, albeit strong, supposition without concrete evidence.
Starmer's "explanation" doesn't pass my credulity function. He is being squirly to the point where it is indistinguishable from lying.
What then transpired was Mandelson failed the vetting with both red boxes ticked but by this time Mandelson was in the US and the FCDO either were unwilling to compromise the appointment or decided to keep quiet though it is unlikely that, as is was a political appointment, someone in Downing Street wasn't told
Starmer may well have closed his ears to any suggestion that Mandelson had failed vetting and just kept repeating both at the despatch box and in public Mandelson had been vetted
For these reasons alone Starmer has effectively put himself into his own firing line.
NEW THREAD
(There's a video somewhere of what happened to someone ho tried to walk from his hotel ... within sight of the stadium ... to the stadium.)
The fact Starmer said he didn't know therefore is clearly factual.
The charge / allegations that he should have asked are reasonable enough, but clearly had he have asked he would not have been told.
This is not unusual in business, where an HR Dept are not obliged to disclose why they and not the employing department are telling senior management a person can't be hired. They just say he can't be hired.
So clearly Starmer has not lied
Starmer didn't know.
Those accusing him of lying really need to both wind their necks I'm and apologise.
The biggest challenge now for Starmer that offers a golden opportunity is to do what the last 3 or 4 PMs have wanted to do
DESTROY the blob.
Bring the Civil Service under control.
Cummings was right in this regard.
I genuinely don't know whether he knew or not.