Best Of

Is activists a new euphemism for twats?

..

Another post that has me longing for an 'Eh?' button.

It's a meme. The first character discovers the truth of something that has been kept secret for a long time. The second character, who knew the secret all along, pulls out a gun to shoot him and preserve the secret.

Example:

• Character 1: "You mean the cops are committing the murders?"
  
• Character 2: "Always have been" (shoots character 1, frames him for the murder)
  

The origin of the meme, and why they are depicted as astronauts, is outside scope.

Updates from Neo North Korea on Trump's "deal" starting to come in:


Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
·
17m
Burgum: "President Trump won the war militarily. Then he won the war economically ... diplomatically, militarily, economically -- three ways to win a war. Trump won all three of them."

https://x.com/atrupar/status/2065852772835033538

If you have to explain how you won, you probably haven't won.

And there is the small matter of not actually having a deal. Again.

No deal is better than a bad deal.

Is activists a new euphemism for twats?

..

Another post that has me longing for an 'Eh?' button.

• Character 1: "You mean the cops are committing the murders?"
  
• Character 2: "Always have been" (shoots character 1, frames him for the murder)
  

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
16m
One thing a lot of people are missing from the current Makerfield analysis. The polls are interesting. But by this stage a large amount of people have already voted.

https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2065856483661639911


Edit: of course that is incorrect as it is "large number of people" not "amount"

I'm not really sure what point Dan Hodges is trying to make, unless it is that postal voters will not be influenced by Wednesday night's football result. What he should be saying but does not seem to be is that people who have already voted will respond more reliably to opinion pollsters (since they cannot change their minds).

It would be interesting to know just how many of the electorate in Makerfield use a postal vote

I think the "bond market" is used as a bogeyman.

Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.

If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation."
And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."

The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.

I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.

Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.

If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.

That's not how it works.
There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves.
The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.

It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.

I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.

You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."

I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.

The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments.
Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.

I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.

The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.

Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.

I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.

I lost a quarter of the value of one of my pensions, on supposedly low risk investments, thanks to Liz Truss.

I don't feel warm and fuzzy towards her.

Nobody is asking you to feel warm and fuzzy.
, just to stay vaguely in touch with the facts.

The facts are that Liz Truss willfully did a stupid thing, which had bad consequences. Why should anyone afford her the benefit of the tiniest doubt? She deserves every bit of blame in her direction, and to the extent she involved the Conservative Party in her shenanigans, so do they.

Dear Lord in heaven above, sorry to shout, but BOND YIELDS ARE HIGHER NOW THAN THEY WERE DURING THE WORST OF THE LDI/MINIBUDGET CRISIS.

I am really struggling to see what part of this you don't understand. There is a higher premium for lending to Starmer and Reeves than there was for lending to Truss and Kwarteng. And that's without an energy price shock, or the Bank of England deciding to flog off £80bn bonds.

I don't particularly wish to relitigate the minibudget - by all means think as you wish, I am merely saying that the borrowing position is worse now.

Isn't is more intellectually honest than to compare the premium (or discount!) that investors demand for holding UK assets relative to peers?

And on that score again the UK is in a worse position than any of the other G7 countries.

Japan, Canada and Germany have Bond Yields below 4% (Germany is a whole 2% points lower than the UK)
France, Italy and the USA are below 5%.

So there is a clear Premium being demanded for UK assets. And it is getting worse, not better.

Which is why anyone claiming Reeves has been anything short of a disaster really doesn't know what they are talking about. She is costing us serious money.

Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?

Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.

He's a decent shout.

When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.

What's happened? Maybe Dyson?

I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.

(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)

National Treasures

Dr Alice Roberts

Robert Plant

John Craven

Jules Holland

Twiggy

David Blunkett

Whispering Bob Harris

Gary Lineker

Lenny Henry

Tom Jones

Mo Farrah

Martin Brundle

John Craven is a good spot- though consistent with the "it was easier to accumulate sufficient trust in the old days" theory. Lineker probably ought to qualify, but clearly doesn't. Maybe Gareth Southgate? I also wonder if Jeremy Clarkson is wiser than his public persona suggests.

Jeremy Clarkson is cleverer than his public persona, but he's willfully done immense damage with his public persona for the sake of enriching himself. That marks him out as deeply immoral and not one to be trusted on any subject, unless you could be assured of his complete disinterest. I wouldn't describe that as wisdom.

Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?

Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.

He's a decent shout.

When I was young there were a whole host of not exactly national heroes, but along those lines. Now there is one. DA.

What's happened? Maybe Dyson?

I guess the scale of things has diminished the prominence of the individual, but there still seems to be an inexplicable gap.

(Obviously it would have been me, but somehow...)

National Treasures

Dr Alice Roberts

Robert Plant

John Craven

Jules Holland

Twiggy

David Blunkett

Whispering Bob Harris

Gary Lineker

Lenny Henry

Tom Jones

Mo Farrah

Martin Brundle

Really?

I mean, really?

Public intellectuals rather than national treasures would currently include Brian Cox and Lucy Worsley and on radio, Mary Beard. David Starkey used to be one before he went political. People who would look at a camera and say clever stuff. Older PBers will remember AJP Taylor, Kenneth Clark, James Burke, Magnus Pyke, Peter Jay among others. Television turned away – too boring; too elitist – but podcasts show the demand is still there.

I'd add Brian Walden to that list and Melvyn Bragg

I think the "bond market" is used as a bogeyman.

Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.

If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation."
And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."

The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.

I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.

Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.

If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.

That's not how it works.
There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves.
The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.

It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.

I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.

You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."

I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.

The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments.
Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.

I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.

The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.

Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.

I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.

I lost a quarter of the value of one of my pensions, on supposedly low risk investments, thanks to Liz Truss.

I don't feel warm and fuzzy towards her.

Nobody is asking you to feel warm and fuzzy.
, just to stay vaguely in touch with the facts.

The facts are that Liz Truss willfully did a stupid thing, which had bad consequences. Why should anyone afford her the benefit of the tiniest doubt? She deserves every bit of blame in her direction, and to the extent she involved the Conservative Party in her shenanigans, so do they.

Dear Lord in heaven above, sorry to shout, but BOND YIELDS ARE HIGHER NOW THAN THEY WERE DURING THE WORST OF THE LDI/MINIBUDGET CRISIS.

I am really struggling to see what part of this you don't understand. There is a higher premium for lending to Starmer and Reeves than there was for lending to Truss and Kwarteng. And that's without an energy price shock, or the Bank of England deciding to flog off £80bn bonds.

I don't particularly wish to relitigate the minibudget - by all means think as you wish, I am merely saying that the borrowing position is worse now.

Isn't is more intellectually honest than to compare the premium (or discount!) that investors demand for holding UK assets relative to peers?

And on that score again the UK is in a worse position than any of the other G7 countries.

Japan, Canada and Germany have Bond Yields below 4% (Germany is a whole 2% points lower than the UK)
France, Italy and the USA are below 5%.

So there is a clear Premium being demanded for UK assets. And it is getting worse, not better.