Stop voting for fucking Tories

[_Os_]

A lot of the rest that followed I'd still think distinct from a legislative agenda, and whatever your bent you should have an agenda you want to follow else why are you even there to begin with?

They have a legislative programme connected to their real agenda, which is about self interest. There was a page in their manifesto that was extremely open ended and vague on constitutional change (page 42? 47?). The movement we've seen is all about entrenching executive power (changes to the electoral commission, boundary changes, attempts to change the standards during the Owen Paterson scandal), it's about removing any checks or seeking to control the checks which exist. Their programme is "Save Big Dog", and they all want to be "Big Dog".

But the part about the votes might be telling, for instance is Sunak something of the next George Osborne but cannot be fiscally conservative because Boris is worried about being popular? Indeed you could almost say their entire agenda, whatever the feck it might be, doesn't get off the ground because they have no over-arching principles that govern how they set budget, and so they don't have a financial position to start from and work towards. Does anyone know if they're actually fiscally conservative, for increases in tax, for a rise in public spending with an eye on investment?

There was a post I made last year on this thread (I think), when everyone was punting Sunak as Johnson's replacement. I stated he had no fucking chance, and part of that was because he had been setup to fail by Johnson. It was clear last year already that economic crisis was coming, Johnson would want to increase spending and Sunak would not want to, so Sunak would either have to stick to his guns and ended up hated, or cave spend and look weak. I also said Johnson will reshuffle Sunak away once he had weakened him sufficiently, Johnson wants to turn him into one of his creatures as he has done to other rivals (Gove, Raab).

I'm not sure that's all happened exactly as I thought, but close enough considering the post was around 6 months back.

I don't think Johnson cares about the economy or understands it, too many details, too complicated, too hard, couldn't be fucked with it. Just spray money everywhere.

Such that they mention things it can even be crazy like the bridge between Scotland and Ireland which doesn't join up with other areas of public policy.

The bridge to Ireland is/was just bullshit, no one believed it so it was dropped. "Leveling Up" will be dropped when that isn't believed. It's all Potemkin.

Yes there's been a pandemic, but they've 700 odd days out of the 1800 or so they were voted in for left. They're burning through those 700 days fast and they seemingly don't even know what they want to start to address. I rather suspect I wouldn't like what they might try and do, and one might argue a saving grace of Boris is like Trump he doesn't actually know what to do with the job once he'd got it, but on the legislative front it's an amateur shitshow. One might try and argue the Major and May governments were worse, but they operated with tiny (if any) majorities. Boris really should be able to set and drive an agenda, instead he's muddling along getting distracted by Operation Save Big Dog, and that's not governance

How much has his bank balance grown though (or will grow after he leaves office)?

[fishfoodie]

The Tories have two definite, & two possible By-Elections coming up, & the Standards Committee.

Odds are they've get obliterated in the first two, & then I think the Standards Committee will report, & that might be a convenient excuse for more MPs, to send in their letters. Given he's already got away with breaking the law, & not resigning; I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell that he'll do the decent thing & resign even if it's found that he misled Parliament, he's already started muddying the waters over whether or not he lied.

As others have said, his only asset is that he was considered to improve the Parties electability, but if the By-Elections are as bad as I expect, & the public stubbornly refuse to ignore his corruption of public office, & the catastrophic management of the Economy, then the equation for the MPs becomes very simple.The certainty of losing power, with him, versus the strong possibility of losing it with A.N.Other.

[Hal Jordan]

They have an agenda they're deeply committed to, it's just not one that will win them votes so isn't promoted.

A lot of the rest that followed I'd still think distinct from a legislative agenda, and whatever your bent you should have an agenda you want to follow else why are you even there to begin with?

But the part about the votes might be telling, for instance is Sunak something of the next George Osborne but cannot be fiscally conservative because Boris is worried about being popular? Indeed you could almost say their entire agenda, whatever the feck it might be, doesn't get off the ground because they have no over-arching principles that govern how they set budget, and so they don't have a financial position to start from and work towards. Does anyone know if they're actually fiscally conservative, for increases in tax, for a rise in public spending with an eye on investment?

Such that they mention things it can even be crazy like the bridge between Scotland and Ireland which doesn't join up with other areas of public policy.

Yes there's been a pandemic, but they've 700 odd days out of the 1800 or so they were voted in for left. They're burning through those 700 days fast and they seemingly don't even know what they want to start to address. I rather suspect I wouldn't like what they might try and do, and one might argue a saving grace of Boris is like Trump he doesn't actually know what to do with the job once he'd got it, but on the legislative front it's an amateur shitshow. One might try and argue the Major and May governments were worse, but they operated with tiny (if any) majorities. Boris really should be able to set and drive an agenda, instead he's muddling along getting distracted by Operation Save Big Dog, and that's not governance

They've got an awful lot done. An awful lot of awful things, mainly aimed at suppressing accountability and increasing their chances of reelection by any means necessary whilst we all react to Berlusconi Mk II's distraction cavalcade of cuntery.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

They have an agenda they're deeply committed to, it's just not one that will win them votes so isn't promoted.

A lot of the rest that followed I'd still think distinct from a legislative agenda, and whatever your bent you should have an agenda you want to follow else why are you even there to begin with?

But the part about the votes might be telling, for instance is Sunak something of the next George Osborne but cannot be fiscally conservative because Boris is worried about being popular? Indeed you could almost say their entire agenda, whatever the feck it might be, doesn't get off the ground because they have no over-arching principles that govern how they set budget, and so they don't have a financial position to start from and work towards. Does anyone know if they're actually fiscally conservative, for increases in tax, for a rise in public spending with an eye on investment?

Such that they mention things it can even be crazy like the bridge between Scotland and Ireland which doesn't join up with other areas of public policy.

Yes there's been a pandemic, but they've 700 odd days out of the 1800 or so they were voted in for left. They're burning through those 700 days fast and they seemingly don't even know what they want to start to address. I rather suspect I wouldn't like what they might try and do, and one might argue a saving grace of Boris is like Trump he doesn't actually know what to do with the job once he'd got it, but on the legislative front it's an amateur shitshow. One might try and argue the Major and May governments were worse, but they operated with tiny (if any) majorities. Boris really should be able to set and drive an agenda, instead he's muddling along getting distracted by Operation Save Big Dog, and that's not governance

They've got an awful lot done. An awful lot of awful things, mainly aimed at suppressing accountability and increasing their chances of reelection by any means necessary whilst we all react to Berlusconi Mk II's distraction cavalcade of cuntery.

These are the bills from last year:

Animals Abroad Bill

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill

Advance Research and Invention Agency Bill

Armed Forces BillToggle showing location of Column 11WS

Borders Bill

Building Safety Bill

Counter-State Threats Bill

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Dormant Assets Bill

Electoral Integrity Bill

Environment Bill

Health and Care Bill

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Judicial Review Bill

Kept Animals Bill

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill Legacy Bill

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill

Planning Bill

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Professional Qualifications Bill

Procurement Bill

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill

Subsidy Control Bill

Telecommunications (Security) Bill


With an 80 seat majority what they set out was scant, what they achieved was less. Yes they've passed some bills, and many will not like them, others perhaps will. But whether you like or dislike them they're actually doing very little, one might be pleased or not they don't seem to know what they're doing. Still, it is telling their planning and attention to detail are woeful, and they simply haven't got an awful lot done, even if you really dislike the stuff they have done

[Rinkals]

[_Os_]

I must've been unconsciously working on that Stewart anecdote about Johnson and the Kenyan elections when he was foreign secretary, because something suddenly came to me.

Cambridge Analytica worked closely with Kenyatta in polling, branding, speech and manifesto writing. Kenya had two elections in 2017, a disputed election and a rerun, Kenyatta won both. But the first 2017 election had violence in the run up and was ruled by Kenyan courts to be rigged, in the second 2017 rerun election the main opposition leader (Odinga) pulled out and Kenyatta won with some ridiculous percentage (95%+).

Why would the UK foreign secretary disregard the agreed position of the UK government, to congratulate the Kenyan candidate who was paying Cambridge Analytica for brand improvement services among other things?

[Rinkals]

I must've been unconsciously working on that Stewart anecdote about Johnson and the Kenyan elections when he was foreign secretary, because something suddenly came to me.

Cambridge Analytica worked closely with Kenyatta in polling, branding, speech and manifesto writing. Kenya had two elections in 2017, a disputed election and a rerun, Kenyatta won both. But the first 2017 election had violence in the run up and was ruled by Kenyan courts to be rigged, in the second 2017 rerun election the main opposition leader (Odinga) pulled out and Kenyatta won with some ridiculous percentage (95%+).

Why would the UK foreign secretary disregard the agreed position of the UK government, to congratulate the Kenyan candidate who was paying Cambridge Analytica for brand improvement services among other things?

I think the answer is obvious: because he's a fucking idiot.

I have close family members who think he's nothing short of a genius and I have been ridiculed for expressing the opposite view, but there are any number of recorded instances where he does, or says, something stupid. I'm a bit peeved that Stewart didn't mention the Zaghari-Ratcliffe incident when he thought he was defending her, but told the Iranians that she was lying in her defence.

[Biffer]

I must've been unconsciously working on that Stewart anecdote about Johnson and the Kenyan elections when he was foreign secretary, because something suddenly came to me.

Cambridge Analytica worked closely with Kenyatta in polling, branding, speech and manifesto writing. Kenya had two elections in 2017, a disputed election and a rerun, Kenyatta won both. But the first 2017 election had violence in the run up and was ruled by Kenyan courts to be rigged, in the second 2017 rerun election the main opposition leader (Odinga) pulled out and Kenyatta won with some ridiculous percentage (95%+).

Why would the UK foreign secretary disregard the agreed position of the UK government, to congratulate the Kenyan candidate who was paying Cambridge Analytica for brand improvement services among other things?

I think the answer is obvious: because he's a fucking idiot.

I have close family members who think he's nothing short of a genius and I have been ridiculed for expressing the opposite view, but there are any number of recorded instances where he does, or says, something stupid. I'm a bit peeved that Stewart didn't mention the Zaghari-Ratcliffe incident when he thought he was defending her, but told the Iranians that she was lying in her defence.

I've had similar conversations. People awill not believe they've been relentlessly conditioned all their lives to automatically think a posh accent and a private school mean someone must be smarter than them.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I've had similar conversations. People awill not believe they've been relentlessly conditioned all their lives to automatically think a posh accent and a private school mean someone must be smarter than them.

You still need to be saying what they want to hear. I could talk to those same people, daft posh accent and all, and they wouldn't suddenly be in favour of EU membership.

Presently we're still reeling form the 2008 crash, and we're still in the period of blaming foreign types and scroungers (basically poor people)

[_Os_]

I think the answer is obvious: because he's a fucking idiot.

No, that's not what I was getting at.

You're pulling the same move you did with Zuma. Don't like him so say he's a moron. Both men are intelligent but motivated by base considerations of self interest, both men have a truck load of charisma. Zuma had no formal education worth mentioning, Johnson had the best education money can buy but seems to have ignored it all (too much effort, too many details). They end up fairly similar, completely shameless cunning operators who act purely in their own self interest. The only thing limiting men like this is opportunity.

Cambridge Analytica worked on the Leave campaign the year before the Kenyan elections. Do you really think the foreign secretary would've spent probably multiple meetings spread over a few days working out a position (there's a large number of UK nationals in Kenya it wouldn't have been nonevent when anarchy descended and people were killed in the streets), he would've known full well the situation was a rigged election and mass violence, then out of nowhere he does a "gaffe"?

A "fucking idiot" doesn't get to where Johnson has, doesn't keep surviving, and probably many of the "gaffes" aren't that either.

[fishfoodie]

https://www.ft.com/content/37a5b18a-77d ... 802396ff36

[JM2K6]

I see the Windfall Tax contains an 80% investment allowance for new oil and gas extraction. Effectively 91p tax saving on every £1 invested, it would appear.

Let the world burn.

They really are reptilian scumbags.

Bit perplexed - I get the environmental angle but the gas and oil will get burnt as the demand is there - its just a case of whether it comes from UK fields or is bought in from overseas - in this sense encouraging domestic extraction makes sense.

Surely the demand is for energy? Encouraging companies to commit more to the exact things we should be encouraging companies to move away from (because, you know, looming ecological and environmental disaster that's already starting to to bite) is insane short-termism

[Slick]

They really are reptilian scumbags.

Bit perplexed - I get the environmental angle but the gas and oil will get burnt as the demand is there - its just a case of whether it comes from UK fields or is bought in from overseas - in this sense encouraging domestic extraction makes sense.

Surely the demand is for energy? Encouraging companies to commit more to the exact things we should be encouraging companies to move away from (because, you know, looming ecological and environmental disaster that's already starting to to bite) is insane short-termism

Well, yes, it is short termism, but there isn't much of a choice in the short term. Plus all the millions of other things that are made from oil derivatives or rely on it, like wind turbines

[I like neeps]

Energy firms surely can't complain as if they were going to use their massive profits for massive investments because the government levy allows that with very minimal tax then happy days?

Wait, what, the energy firms weren't going to use their taxis for massive investment. Well Bob is my uncle.

[Paddington Bear]

Oil and Gas investment can happen at the same time as meeting climate commitments - just ask the Norwegians. Buying foreign oil and gas because boo hiss is just a massive opportunity cost for the country.

[GogLais]

Well Sunak has said that “We will get through this” so that’s ok then. Spectacularly unfeeling.

[SaintK]

Well Sunak has said that “We will get through this” so that’s ok then. Spectacularly unfeeling.

But, but the nice multi-millionaire Chancellor Sunak is going to give all the £400's he receives for all the UK properties he owns to charity!!!

[Hal Jordan]

Another tax write off for him.

[Line6 HXFX]

The last 12 years of austerity was just all about intentionally hurting people, and very little else, wasn't it?
Taxing people for their spare bedrooms.cutting benefits across the board, punishing the poor sick their carers and unemployed.single mothers, their children...all just needless cruelty. The foodbanks, the daily threats..

Red meat for the backbenches.
No long term strategy, no real ryhme or reason to it.
No one actually believed that if you make people desperate, homeless and hopeless
and sick with anxiety, they are more employable.
Just dishing out pain and suffering on a industrial scale for fun.
Entertainment.
A spiteful bunch of cunts, just having a laugh.

[SaintK]

Ashcroft not too fussed where the advertising revenue comes from then?

[tabascoboy]

Well, she obviously thought this was a good idea

[SaintK]

Well, she obviously thought this was a good idea

Bloody hell!!! That is truly and appallingly embarrassing

[dpedin]

Well, she obviously thought this was a good idea

Bloody hell!!! That is truly and appallingly embarrassing

What the feck ... those eyes are really scary ... once you notice them they become strangely hypnotic ....

[Tichtheid]

Well, she obviously thought this was a good idea

Bloody hell!!! That is truly and appallingly embarrassing

What the feck ... those eyes are really scary ... once you notice them they become strangely hypnotic ....

DA5EC6AD-EB22-41A3-A870-7A87D0C83456_4_5005_c.jpeg (49.27 KiB) Viewed 1377 times

[Tichtheid]

Can someone talk me slowly through posting a gif, plz?

[robmatic]

They must have found out that when push comes to shove we all vote for the candidate that gives us the biggest laugh

Good old Boris.

[JM2K6]

Bit perplexed - I get the environmental angle but the gas and oil will get burnt as the demand is there - its just a case of whether it comes from UK fields or is bought in from overseas - in this sense encouraging domestic extraction makes sense.

Surely the demand is for energy? Encouraging companies to commit more to the exact things we should be encouraging companies to move away from (because, you know, looming ecological and environmental disaster that's already starting to to bite) is insane short-termism

Well, yes, it is short termism, but there isn't much of a choice in the short term. Plus all the millions of other things that are made from oil derivatives or rely on it, like wind turbines

To be clear, the choice being made here is to give companies a massive amount tax relief for oil and gas investments. I'm not talking about banning oil and gas. I'm saying that companies can very well afford to invest in this shit already without us bending over backwards to help them do it, and it's ridiculous for us to do so given a climate emergency and the point of the windfall tax in the first place. It is genuinely a horrible thing to do with an eye on the future. It's a massively retrograde step and an entirely unnecessary one.

It was literally a pledge they made at a climate summit, to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels, but at the first opportunity they bend over and spread their cheeks to the fossil fuel industry.

[JM2K6]

Also, fascists gonna fash I guess

[Tichtheid]

Surely the demand is for energy? Encouraging companies to commit more to the exact things we should be encouraging companies to move away from (because, you know, looming ecological and environmental disaster that's already starting to to bite) is insane short-termism

Well, yes, it is short termism, but there isn't much of a choice in the short term. Plus all the millions of other things that are made from oil derivatives or rely on it, like wind turbines

To be clear, the choice being made here is to give companies a massive amount tax relief for oil and gas investments. I'm not talking about banning oil and gas. I'm saying that companies can very well afford to invest in this shit already without us bending over backwards to help them do it, and it's ridiculous for us to do so given a climate emergency and the point of the windfall tax in the first place. It is genuinely a horrible thing to do with an eye on the future. It's a massively retrograde step and an entirely unnecessary one.

It was literally a pledge they made at a climate summit, to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels, but at the first opportunity they bend over and spread their cheeks to the fossil fuel industry.

"Shell and BP, which together produce more than 1.7bn tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, have not paid any corporation tax on oil and gas production in the North Sea for the last three years, company filings reveal.

The oil giants, which have an annual global footprint of greenhouse gases more than five times bigger than Britain’s, are benefiting from billions of pounds of tax breaks and reliefs for oil and gas production.

Shell and BP paid no corporation tax or production levies on North Sea oil operations between 2018 and 2020, and claimed tax reliefs of nearly £400m, according to annual “payments to governments” reports analysed by the Observer.

Over the same three-year period, they paid shareholders more than £44bn in dividends."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... hree-years

[dpedin]

Also, fascists gonna fash I guess

Of course he has and this is a good indicator that he thinks he will be found to have broken the code. He can't afford not to change the code as he is under investigation for breaking the feckin code! I wonder if this changes apply retrospectively - should he be found guilty then shouldn't the rules of the time of the offence ie resignation for misleading the house, apply? I suspect I know the answer to this question!

[PCPhil]

Couldn’t make it up could you.

[_Os_]

Isn't giving oil and as companies a free lunch, just the way the UK has done things since Thatcher? It's become completely ridiculous during this era of Tory rule though.

Oil and gas is one area of the UK economy that needs urgent reform, but it's probably already too late.

The comparison should be to Norway, which adopted the opposite strategy to the UK. The UK went with low tax and completely private ownership from the mid-1980s, the tax returns from that oil boom were used to fund tax cuts during the Thatcher era, it all went on consumption in a round about way. Norway chose the opposite direction, excessive taxes, huge state ownership which means a state oil company accounting for a lot of production in addition to privately owned assets being required to be in partnership with the state (50% of the asset state owned?), Norway then invested the revenue into a sovereign wealth fund that's now worth over $1 trillion (that will be shared for a long time among Norway's tiny population). From memory both countries have produced about that same amount but the value per barrel Norway's government has received is x3 what the UK has.

Huge tax cuts on oil and gas producers in the hope of creating another oil and gas boom, so that a low tax can be placed on the resulting production, which then all gets squandered on consumption. Is the Tory way.

[_Os_]

Of course he has and this is a good indicator that he thinks he will be found to have broken the code. He can't afford not to change the code as he is under investigation for breaking the feckin code! I wonder if this changes apply retrospectively - should he be found guilty then shouldn't the rules of the time of the offence ie resignation for misleading the house, apply? I suspect I know the answer to this question!

In the UK constitution if the ruling party has a majority and the PM can control their party, which is made easier by whips (which all parties have), purging the candidate list of difficult people pre-election (which Johnson did), and promoting the morons/incompetents/compromised to top positions so none can challenge the "Big Dog" (which Johnson did). Then under those conditions, the PM essentially has the powers of a dictator, none of the checks and balances (conventions/laws/parliament) really exist. The "Big Dog" makes all the rules.

Only the 1922 committee can take him down before an election. I have been wondering what happens if he just ignores/ends/"updates the remit of" the 1922 committee, it's just an internal Tory party process, I guess if Tory MPs still want him gone it goes to some parliamentary process/vote. They overwhelmingly keep backing Johnson though so it's not necessary (I suspect some of them only because they don't want to risk him telling them to get fucked and ignoring the 1922 committee).

The earliest he can be removed looks like the next general election, and the latest that can be held is the 24th of January 2025.

[Rinkals]

Can someone talk me slowly through posting a gif, plz?

2 ways.

The easiest is to use the site's own image repository. Underneath the 'Save draft" "Preview" and "Submit" buttons of your post, there are two tabs. One says "Options" and the other says "Attachments". Select "Attachments".

There is a button that says "Add files". Upload your gif with that. Note that there is a limit of 1M, and your gif may exceed that.

If the gif already is on the web, just click the image icon in the row of icons above the posting box and paste the URL into your post between the [img ][ /img] tags.

Otherwise google for a free image hosting repository https://imgbb.com/ is one.

[JM2K6]

Ah. Yet another major appointment process restarted because Boris wants a sycophant in place, at the expense of experienced alternatives (one of whom is non white and outspoken on race)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... tervention

[Tichtheid]

Can someone talk me slowly through posting a gif, plz?

2 ways.

The easiest is to use the site's own image repository. Underneath the 'Save draft" "Preview" and "Submit" buttons of your post, there are two tabs. One says "Options" and the other says "Attachments". Select "Attachments".

There is a button that says "Add files". Upload your gif with that. Note that there is a limit of 1M, and your gif may exceed that.

If the gif already is on the web, just click the image icon in the row of icons above the posting box and paste the URL into your post between the [img ][ /img] tags.

Otherwise google for a free image hosting repository https://imgbb.com/ is one.

Cheers, ta

[Biffer]

Also worth pointing out that we’ve given the oil and gas companies tax rebates in recent years - the only country in the world to pay them to extract natural resources.

Norway has extracted a similar amount from exactly the same geological, geographical and weather constraints, and has had more than 50% more government revenue out of it since the seventies.

[_Os_]

Ah. Yet another major appointment process restarted because Boris wants a sycophant in place, at the expense of experienced alternatives (one of whom is non white and outspoken on race)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... tervention

Clever to aim for deploying a supporter as head of the NCA, added bonus that they seem incompetent too. Clever also to set that process in motion at the same time as the Sue Gray report was released and he changed the ministerial code, which meant few focused on this. The NCA has been looking into some of the more egregious Covid corruption, it's unhelpful for him to have any arm of the state which views itself as above him or his network/supporters, he'll want to shut down Covid corruption investigations if possible which will end the reporting of Covid corruption and embolden his network/supporters. His next step could be quietly slashing the NCA's budget to cripple it.

[dpedin]

Also worth pointing out that we’ve given the oil and gas companies tax rebates in recent years - the only country in the world to pay them to extract natural resources.

Norway has extracted a similar amount from exactly the same geological, geographical and weather constraints, and has had more than 50% more government revenue out of it since the seventies.

Founded in 1996 the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, funded through oil and gas tax revenues, is the largest in the world and earned $177 billion in 2021. It is worth around $1.3 trillion to the 5.4 million inhabitants. The UK (or indeed Scotland pop 5.4 million), could have done exactly the same yet we allowed this money to be siphoned off by big oil and gas companies. No wonder the UK Gov has been desperate to avoid Scottish Independence at any costs.

[Biffer]

Also worth pointing out that we’ve given the oil and gas companies tax rebates in recent years - the only country in the world to pay them to extract natural resources.

Norway has extracted a similar amount from exactly the same geological, geographical and weather constraints, and has had more than 50% more government revenue out of it since the seventies.

Founded in 1996 the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, funded through oil and gas tax revenues, is the largest in the world and earned $177 billion in 2021. It is worth around $1.3 trillion to the 5.4 million inhabitants. The UK (or indeed Scotland pop 5.4 million), could have done exactly the same yet we allowed this money to be siphoned off by big oil and gas companies. No wonder the UK Gov has been desperate to avoid Scottish Independence at any costs.

I know that, and I’m making a different point.

The Norwegians chose to invest a lot more than the UK did with the money raised. That’s not all roses - infrastructure in part of the country isn’t that great and they don’t have any world leading universities for example. Uk chose to spend it. (This opinion came from a former Norwegian PM btw, not me).

My point is about the amount raised not what we did with it.