Questions Of The Day (Politics)

[Wile E. Coyote]

The last Yougov poll just before Kemi was eliminated had Tory Party members opting for Kemi over Sunak 56/34, that is at roughly the same rate as Truss over Sunak 54/35.

If Kemi had gone through she would probably be about the current level of Truss.

The members who overwhemingly used to love their "Dishy Rishi" have simply got over their holiday romance.

[Mick Harper]

No, they specifically said it was after it had been whittled down to Die Grosse Zwei. Though how YouGove managed in the twenty minutes available is why I said our new non-lord and master will have to wait for a couple more.

I don't dispute the Tory members might have gone for Kemiklogs. Their incipient racism (and I have to say mine) is less as regards her. He just pushes all the wrong buttons.

[Mick Harper]

Even so the political correspondents of the FT and the Daily Telegraph managed to discuss the forthcoming election for ten minutes on Newsnight in terms of detailed campaign strategies until

Mark Urban: (exasperated) But isn't it a foregone conclusion?
Daily Telegraph: By no means. In fact the Sunak camp told me they prefer being underdogs, they can portray themselves as insurgents.

Sunak camp: If only we were fifty points behind but you have to work with what you've got.
Editor, Daily Telegraph: You're fired for being a soft-brained twit who'll believe anything you're told.

Some of these conversations only appeared in later editions.

[Grant]

Sunak was finished when the photo of Johnson’s garden party was published. Rumours abounded that it was taken from number 11. No idea if that was true, but it had to be explained away or refuted for Sunak to have a chance.

[Mick Harper]

According to YouGov only forty-seven per cent of respondents gave this as the main reason they were not supporting Sunak.

[Mick Harper]

Before we all go ape-shit congratulating ourselves on the Ukrainian Wheat Agreement, permit your war correspondent to put you in the picture

1. This solution has been available since Day One of the conflict. Ships have been escorted through minefields since 1914 with scarcely a ship being lost. It is unknown minefields that do the sinking.

2. Sweeping paths through minefields is done by fishermen working in fishing boats after a couple of weeks converting both. In fact most mines were detonated by people with Lee Enfields taking potshots at them. It all really is the most basic of technologies.

3. Attack by other Russian means would have been obviated by re-flagging the vessels with Turkish, UN or even NATO flags. Not that the Russians have much by way of anti-shipping capability.

4. But in any case grain carriers are virtually unsinkable because of their compartmentalisation. Blowing a big hole in the side of one would result in no more than reducing the speed from twelve knots to eight knots (or whatever).

5. Now they're talking about the time it will take to arrange insurance. For God's sake, haven't they heard of War Insurance? Don't they know even sky high rates represent nothing in the overall value of a grain cargo?

6. Because it's taken them six months to get their act together, grain prices are at precisely the levels they were before the war. Now, tens of thousands of tons are going to be dumped onto grain markets so the price will collapse and grain farmers ruined. Goodbye to the harvest after next.

Well done, world. Next problem...

[Mick Harper]

Poor old Rishi. Being twenty-eight points behind in the poll means he has to be aggressive. So he gets slaughtered for bringing the Tory Party into disrepute being aggressive. He'll be lucky to come second at this rate.

Though I have to say this Truss woman is coming over more and more prime-ministerial. The magic is taking effect. I will soon be craving the lash of firm government from her as I generally do. For an extreme radical, I make a model citizen.

Maybe she'll even do something about striking unionists. There was a golden opportunity to ban strikes temporarily during the Age of Lockdown (you won't remember it but it was when nobody would have noticed a ban on strikes because no-one was working) and then keep the temporary ban in place until... er... it's a question of finding the parliamentary time... why or why didn't we put in a sunset clause?

Now we'll have to wait for Keir Starmer to do it. It'll be his Clause Four. Don't forget to forget to invade Iraq, Keir.

[Mick Harper]

The EU's gyrations over fuel policy get ever more gyratory. They (we, most of the world actually) are determined that everyone suffers sky-high fuel prices which are benefiting only fuel-producers eg Russia. Of course what they should do is take the corny line

"OK, guys, export all you've got so the world doesn't suffer from the Ukraine war, thereby demanding it be called to a halt with Russia holding everything she wants."
"But won't we be giving money to the Russian bear if we don't ban their oil and gas?"
"We already are. It may be a bit more, it may be a bit less, but it's irrelevant anyway. Russia's got enough dosh to be bombing ahead for years."
"But won't we be admitting we got this relatively minor aspect of our overall determinedly anti-Russian stance wrong?"
"Yes."
"Oh, well, carry on then."

[Mick Harper]

That ten point EU communique in full

1. Scrape the barrel of nearly-exhausted gas fields
2. Extend the lives of aging nuclear plants
3. Build vastly expensive gas storage facilities
4. Start building the infrastructure required to import LNG
5. Start sucking up to repellent oil-rich regimes
6. Make the EU a repellent regime in the eyes of a fuel-hungry world
7. Exacerbate fissures within the various countries of the EU
8. Shut down gas-hungry industries
9. Inconvenience the citizenry with every kind of fuel-saving measure we can think of.

When everything is in place
10. Rip it all up and go back to importing oil and gas from Russia cos it's cheap and reliable and the war's over.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

Everyone knew all this before the war when everyone was happy to be 90% dependent on Russian energy. There is no such thing as a reliable energy supply except having your own and nobody in Europe has that. Russia has, in fact, always been a reliable source -- even for Ukraine so long as Ukraine payed its bills properly.

It is Europe that has forced Russia into being unreliable.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Agreed. Gazprom was "reliable", as it had previously not weaponised supplies, now it is not seen in this way. Existing large customers like Germany have now had to iniate emergency energy plans. What exactly has Germany done to force Russia into these actions?

[Mick Harper]

Are ye serious? Let me count the ways

1. held up the certification of Nordstream 2
2. supported the freezing of Russian (and Gazprom) dollar assets
3. refused to pay in roubles now the dollar accounts were frozen
4. proposed the EU policy of reducing Russian energy imports this year
5. proposed the EU policy of stopping all Russian energy imports next year
6. demanded all Russian companies must hand over energy storage facilities in Germany as soon as possible
7. and a bunch of other stuff I haven't thought of off the top of ma heid.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]