Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Betting on who’ll be PM after the next election – politicalbetting.com

12357

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044

    Iain Martin
    @iainmartin1
    ·
    17m
    Interesting how badly the PM's most fanatical supporters have misread today's events. Celebrating. Suggests have little understanding of how deep this has sunk in public opinion. Or when combined with the cost of living catastrophe, getting worse by the week, what it means.


    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1527347535391920130
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,748
    Cicero said:

    I think it is important not to be naive about how Russia is fighting this war. The squeeze on grain and other commodities is not a bug, it is a feature. Russia intends to use food security and energy inflation as weapons against us. This is on top of the kompromat, bribery and subversion that has been used against almost all free democracies. Public Russian financial support for such people as Marine Le Pen, Alex Salmond or Aaron Banks has been given with the prospect of upsetting conventional democratic norms. The Trumpian wing of American politics serves the same purpose in the United States. These are simple facts, but few have been prepared to understand that Russian subversion of democracy has been committed and ongoing for many years.

    Now that the Kleptocracy is facing increasing challenges at home their solution to growing domestic strife is now open war. This is not merely a war against democratic Ukraine, it is a war against all democratic states. The murders of British citizens with various poisons is just the hors d´oeuvres for a banquet of hatred that is served up every night on prime time Russian television. This is not some trivial regional conflict, it an attempt by a neo fascist state to break the will of free democracies. Those of us closest to Russia have recognised the nature of Putinism for several years, and if you have not understood us, now you should at least understand the deliberate horror and brutality unleashed by criminals on a peaceful neighbour.

    The only way to ensure that the political war of subversion and the economic war unleashed against the West fails, is to ensure that Russia is defeated in their kinetic war in Ukraine. The murderous neo fascist regime in Moscow must then be either contained or destroyed. There is no compromise that can possibly work against the mind set of genuine evil in Moscow and it is extremely dangerous to beleive that the tyrant and his henchmen are prepared to return to any kind of real peace. Any truce would simply allow Russia to continue their war against us by other, hybrid, means.

    The savage attack against Ukraine is not merely a crime, it is thankfully also a massive blunder, and it is not a mistake from that the Russian klepto-state should be allowed to recover from.

    Putin delenda est is the only motto that can stop the unfolding economic crisis.

    There aren't any easy answers. It is true that Putin's Russia is an awful regime, but the problems with Russia run deeper than the regime, as it is basically an issue of nationalism and imperial delusion. In the short term, I think they just need to just burn themselves out, at which point they may hopefully realise that invading other countries is not a good idea.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
  • Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    I think it is important not to be naive about how Russia is fighting this war. The squeeze on grain and other commodities is not a bug, it is a feature. Russia intends to use food security and energy inflation as weapons against us. This is on top of the kompromat, bribery and subversion that has been used against almost all free democracies. Public Russian financial support for such people as Marine Le Pen, Alex Salmond or Aaron Banks has been given with the prospect of upsetting conventional democratic norms. The Trumpian wing of American politics serves the same purpose in the United States. These are simple facts, but few have been prepared to understand that Russian subversion of democracy has been committed and ongoing for many years.

    Now that the Kleptocracy is facing increasing challenges at home their solution to growing domestic strife is now open war. This is not merely a war against democratic Ukraine, it is a war against all democratic states. The murders of British citizens with various poisons is just the hors d´oeuvres for a banquet of hatred that is served up every night on prime time Russian television. This is not some trivial regional conflict, it an attempt by a neo fascist state to break the will of free democracies. Those of us closest to Russia have recognised the nature of Putinism for several years, and if you have not understood us, now you should at least understand the deliberate horror and brutality unleashed by criminals on a peaceful neighbour.

    The only way to ensure that the political war of subversion and the economic war unleashed against the West fails, is to ensure that Russia is defeated in their kinetic war in Ukraine. The murderous neo fascist regime in Moscow must then be either contained or destroyed. There is no compromise that can possibly work against the mind set of genuine evil in Moscow and it is extremely dangerous to beleive that the tyrant and his henchmen are prepared to return to any kind of real peace. Any truce would simply allow Russia to continue their war against us by other, hybrid, means.

    The savage attack against Ukraine is not merely a crime, it is thankfully also a massive blunder, and it is not a mistake from that the Russian klepto-state should be allowed to recover from.

    Putin delenda est is the only motto that can stop the unfolding economic crisis.

    Russia's only route to any sort of victory is the blockade of Odesa. If that continues the economic pressure on Ukraine will become intolerable. The grain harvest cannot be exported, and this years harvest has no storage space left, so will rot. Starvation for the world but economically disasterous for Ukraine. A stalemate is no good if that blockade continues.
    As long as the world keeps supplying aid to Ukraine the economic pressure may be tolerable. It will be hardest potentially on the third world than Ukraine ironically. Ukraine will get the aid, the developed West will be hit with higher prices but can afford it ... shit will roll downhill to the third world which will go hungry due to Putin.

    So the only viable solution is to break the stalemate in Ukraine's favour.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,773
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    As so


    True, but let’s not ignore the training the U.K. has provided the Ukrainian military over the past 8 years…..8 years longer than almost anyone else…..
    Something about which we should be very proud, and which bring credit to both Johnson and Cameron.
    Don’t forget Theresa May - don’t want to be accused of being a female unfriendly site.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044

    With the headwinds, I reckon if anything happens that means the Tories get to a consistent 5% plus ahead for a bit they will cut and run any time from now to late 24

    I agree. I speculated here about 3 months ago that moment could be right now, going into June. There was a bit of change of mood with the war dominating the news, if that had shown up in a pretty decent local election night, added to the fact looking ahead to a period of cost of living crisis and technical or un technical recession that could live in voters minds and in the polling, this summer could have been a good chance before what looks a difficult 18 months to be in government.

    Obviously HYs immediate response was, what sort of a chump risks 80 seat majority with more than two years left for something better to turn up. Which is true. There are 30 months left of this parliament. I think Labour came in cropper summer on 1970 when they could have waited till 71, partly like I said above the local elections convinced them they were popular. 2017 is another example of that.

    Todays polling at least shows Tory’s preferred by quite some way on best party to grow the economy, behind on main poll by a little bit, but ahead on the economy in a cost of living crisis gives this moment a bit of early 90s feel about it doesn’t it?

    Another key measure is Best PM, as it’s known. The main reason I started with I agree with you, Labour currently have a tiny edge on Best PM, but despite initial bounce for new Lab Leader Wes or Nandy, they could soon look out of their depth “not ready yet” the voters will phrase it.

    So even in depth of recession, if they are long way ahead on Best PM, the Tories should think about going for it.
    The other thing about going early is, ok they have an 80 seat majority but what do they want to 'do' with it? There's no overarching plan of action.
    If they go in 6 months after some CoL giveaways/support saw them sneak ahead, say, and cling to nurse got them a small majority they have 5 years to ride out the headwinds, better than 2 years of doing nothing with 80 seats snd losing heavily as we are in deep recession or the difficult exit from one.
    And, If there’s any benefit at all from a short spell in opposition, you can cleanse your body, and rejuvenate your soul.
    The key words are "short spell in opposition". That kind of decadent thinking set in with the Conservatives in 1994ish, and it's one of the factors that turned a defeat into a rout that took three terms to overcome.

    On the Conservative side, it's another variation of "After you, Claude". Conservative MPs could ditch Johnson tomorrow, if only they could find some prosthetic backbones. Instead, they have waited for local elections or the Met to do it. Now, they are going to wait for the general public to do it. Pathetic doesn't begin to cover it.

    George Osborne
    @George_Osborne
    My observation a month ago - it’s never been about police fines or cabinet office reports; it’s always been about whether anyone wants it enough to try wresting the crown from Boris. The answer for now is a resounding ‘no’
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778

    northern_monkey how to create a 🦄 in 3 easy steps.

    Step 1: Leave Single Market
    Step 2: Don't enforce border in Irish Sea
    Step 3: Don't enforce land border

    Voila: 🦄 created. Move on.

    So simple, isn't it? We should get you on the Israel/Palestine question pronto. Then wider world peace.
    This will probably be an unpopular opinion but Ariel Sharon relatively resolved the Israel/Palestine question nearly twenty years ago by building a wall that terrorists struggled to get through. Unilateral action that helped end the second intifada in 2005. Not simple, but it worked, despite lots of outrage at the time. Its a shame that Sharon suffered that stroke as he was a far better statesman than Netanyahu.

    Sometimes creating facts on the ground works, even if the other side is pissed off about it. Just like Israel creating the wall to end the Intifada, we can create facts on the ground here.

    We have left the Single Market, that is already done. If we refuse to enforce a border in the Irish Sea nobody else has the jurisdiction or ability to do so. If we refuse to enforce a land border, nobody else has the willingness to do so. Therefore it is entirely within the UK's remit if we so choose to create your so-called 🦄 whether other people like it or not.
    Sharon - unlike Netanyahu - realised that Israel's lomg-term security requires a settled peace.

    Peace on his (Israel's) terms, for sure, but he was realistic enough to understand that a state of perpetual war was unsustainable and would end badly.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
    What about help to business though. This is the moment to help particularly with the energy costs? The economy will contract because of the cost of energy. You normally do a hundred, you can’t afford the energy for a hundred, you do thirty. Contraction. Stats we are seeing now is before predicted peak of costs, so more contraction on top this is built in, the remaining question, how long the coming UK downturn continues for.

    The government can manipulate the depth and length of downturn helping business with energy costs, starting right now can’t they? And that would be the smart move?
  • rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    In addition, the U.S. is actively working to organize the supply of long-range anti-ship missiles to Ukraine to lift the blockade of the Black Sea - Reuters, citing U.S. officials.

    Nexta TV
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    As so


    True, but let’s not ignore the training the U.K. has provided the Ukrainian military over the past 8 years…..8 years longer than almost anyone else…..
    Something about which we should be very proud, and which bring credit to both Johnson and Cameron.
    True, but training of UKR military is another area IIRC where USA investment in personnel and money has also exceeded UK, which is no knock against latter by any means.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    But cutting asset prices is the first step to reducing housing costs for ordinary people.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
    Da fing iz why would raising rates crash asset prices when *real* rates is more negative than any time in history? 9% inflation, doubling interest rates from 1 to 2 only knocks the real interest rate down from -8 to -7.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175
    Richardr said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Every day a new Nad-ir.

    https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1527293385089789953
    Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries claims 96% of consultation responses support the privatisation of Channel 4.

    @MrJohnNicolson points out that it's actually the other way around, with the government's own white paper stating 96% are against selling the broadcaster.


    I also love her implication that if you're politically motivated to respond to a public consultation, your opinion doesn't count.

    A major problem with consultations (ignoring the frequent number which are not genuine in being open to alternative views) is that they are not referendums of course, and you will often get one minority side much more motivated to respond, but neither can you just presume anyone who does not respond is in favour. Sheer numbers for and against is relevant, but may not be entirely persuasive, as reasoning is also relevant (but often not sought) and smaller numbers with a better argument may make sense to listen to more than a majority. But of course governments find that hard to say, and so the whole process is a bit of a mess.
    In addition to your very valid points, there is also the position that some issues, such as the ownership of Channel 4, are completely irrelevant to the vast majority of people.

    There is also the point that I doubt if (virtually) anyone who responded against the proposal would ever vote for this conservative party.
    Well, the point of a consultation is to determine what is the best policy for the nation, not what is the most popular policy among potential Tory voters. Does the former matter to anyone in Government any more?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,158
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    He will though. He will hold a Triumph and have a column carved
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    boulay said:

    algarkirk said:

    Has anyone got a view on who will win the Wagatha case or is it too simple to be worth discussing? or have I missed a discussion?

    Vardy will prob win on VAR technicality call but has absolutely obliterated her career options by the Suarez level antics…..

    I read something by a legal expert saying that Rooney cannot “prove” Vardy did it in a legal sense with actual evidence however common sense might view the fiasco differently.

    I can imagine the judge destroying her but having to award the win - maybe a £1 award….. a nice lesson to fame obsessed and money crazed celebs all over, I hope.

    The big winner however is Davey Jones whose career has been dragged up from the depths for a new generation.
    What career? Remind me again of the skill set and talent needed to be married to a footballer?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,158
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    He will though. He will hold a Triumph and have a column carved
    HYUFD will?! Oh, I see what you mean. So useful having a classical degree. Though I can't see him wearing red ochre paint all day. Never mind having someone remind him all day he's a mere mortal.
  • rcs1000 said:

    northern_monkey how to create a 🦄 in 3 easy steps.

    Step 1: Leave Single Market
    Step 2: Don't enforce border in Irish Sea
    Step 3: Don't enforce land border

    Voila: 🦄 created. Move on.

    So simple, isn't it? We should get you on the Israel/Palestine question pronto. Then wider world peace.
    This will probably be an unpopular opinion but Ariel Sharon relatively resolved the Israel/Palestine question nearly twenty years ago by building a wall that terrorists struggled to get through. Unilateral action that helped end the second intifada in 2005. Not simple, but it worked, despite lots of outrage at the time. Its a shame that Sharon suffered that stroke as he was a far better statesman than Netanyahu.

    Sometimes creating facts on the ground works, even if the other side is pissed off about it. Just like Israel creating the wall to end the Intifada, we can create facts on the ground here.

    We have left the Single Market, that is already done. If we refuse to enforce a border in the Irish Sea nobody else has the jurisdiction or ability to do so. If we refuse to enforce a land border, nobody else has the willingness to do so. Therefore it is entirely within the UK's remit if we so choose to create your so-called 🦄 whether other people like it or not.
    Sharon - unlike Netanyahu - realised that Israel's lomg-term security requires a settled peace.

    Peace on his (Israel's) terms, for sure, but he was realistic enough to understand that a state of perpetual war was unsustainable and would end badly.
    Completely agreed. But Sharon knew he could do so by setting the terms as you say. He decided what he wanted to be within Israel's borders and built a wall to protect it. The rest of the land he started the process of pulling out from.

    Those weren't the terms Palestinians wanted but in a way it worked and if he hadn't had the stroke it's entirely possible a Palestinian state could have been set up with the borders Sharon decreed.

    It's a rational but hard attitude. Control what's within your own borders, pull out of what is outside of your borders, and leave those you can't reach an agreement with no alternative but to accept your terms of go without.

    Sharon is hated by many but he is one of the greatest statesmen of the 21st century for what he achieved and is a sign that even so called intractable problems like Israel/Palestine can be at least improved upon if you're prepared to act and back yourself to do so.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    Westminster Voting Intention (18 May):

    Labour 39% (–)
    Conservative 33% (-2)
    Liberal Democrat 12% (–)
    Green 4% (-2)
    Scottish National Party 4% (–)
    Reform UK 5% (+2)
    Other 3% (+2)

    Changes +/- 15 May

    https://t.co/yczLJnzUAy https://t.co/JjPLJ22n8v

    Redfield new midweek poll
    Noise!

    Low green score there.

    Correct me where wrong, there’s a paramilitary wing of the Green Party burning cars around the country in nighttime raids costing the Green Party soft voters?
    Redfield tend to show green 4 to 7% usually about 6 so it's on the low end of their range, but they've had a few 4s with them before
    Reform seems ridiculously high
    It’s too simplistic to say two off Tory, two on reform after bad week of economic headlines?

    I haven’t looked it up, but off top my head, the leads Labour enjoyed in 2012 was partly a Farage bounce at Tory expense after budget flop? Ultimately, as 2015 shows, those softer votes went back to the Tories when it mattered.
    Just seems oddly high. I mean they get zero coverage. Literally zero. They won a pitiful 2 councillors and barely stood anywhere and they've been abject in by elections, and brexit is receeding and they have no Farage. Where is the 5% from? I'll eat my hat if they get above 2% in a GE even if they stand more than a few dozen candidates.
    I think the 2012 example I gave is strong, Tory budget unpopular, Farages UKIP got good poll bounce I recall, hence slightly bigger Labour lead.

    Or it might just be for me to quote back to you what you have been telling me all evening, it’s just a bit MORish bit of noise 😇
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    A NLAW 'Developed in 2002 as a single-soldier, short-range, anti-tank weapon system.'

    Yes we know you will use your anti British agenda to deny any British success stories but it was Britain who provided Ukraine with most anti tank weapons and therefore Britain who provided the key weaponary that halted the Russian tank led advance

    https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,158
    edited May 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    A NLAW 'Developed in 2002 as a single-soldier, short-range, anti-tank weapon system.'

    Yes we know you will use your anti British agenda to deny any British success stories but it was Britain who provided Ukraine with most anti tank weapons and therefore Britain who provided the key weaponary that halted the Russian tank led advance

    https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw
    NLAW is much shorter range than a Javelin, for instance. But much better than a rocket grenade from the old LAW.

    I'm not being anti-British. Quite the opposite. Pointing out your vacuous bollocks, to improve the quality of debate and intelligence in Britain. Including your doing the equivalent of claiming that FDR won the Battle of Britain.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I've been saying for ages Boris will win the next election with a reduced majority... I do think it'll be the last time for Con for this run though. Lab win a majority government in 2028/2029 with the 2030's probably a Labour decade.

    Majority governments all the way until 2040 at least. The public had quite enough of the "balanced parliament" experience from 2017-2019 lol!
    At the moment it looks like Starmer PM in a hung parliament with LD support, 2010 in reverse except with Starmer as Cameron and Boris as Brown.

    Starmer is not disliked enough unlike Kinnock or Corbyn for swing voters to vote Tory still to keep him out
    So it’s the position you just described, -Lab +Tory total for swing back figure we currently don’t know, though suspect swingback even just a little, minus tory total for possible anti tory tacticals in remainia, set against an early 90s backdrop of looking for green economic shoots whilst voters feel squeezed, and likely wait till the election campaign itself to decide whose best for putting money into their pockets?
    So swing back then. That always happens. But when does it start? Soon as we hit mid term of parliament we say, start the clock, swing back is now happening? In this oz election polls were static in Labours favour right up to about 2 months to go before they started to slide back to the government. UK 1992, swing back wasn’t really recorded in polls until about the last week or so of the actual campaign? 2010, we only recorded swingback to government when the votes cast and seats held was different than polls had been saying for two years?

    So there is always swing-back, but we might not be able to quantify it until after the election?

    The width and depth of tactical voting we could only have a good go at predicting from quite a bit of individual seat polling?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243
    edited May 2022
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    Strange, weren't we told, as Putin unleashed his Dogs of War, that Ukraine should just lie back and take it? And that the West should apologize for provoking the invasion in the first place?

    And now the fount of such wisdom is now not only trumpeting victory over the Ruskis, but appropriating credit for it?

    Really???
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981
    edited May 2022
    Liverpool's greatest ever player is leaving at the end of the season to join AC Milan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/may/19/divock-origi-agrees-to-join-milan-when-liverpool-contract-expires-this-summer

    He gave so many Liverpool fans literally* seminal moments with his goals.

    I am going to miss him.

    *Yes, literally, he was that good.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,630
    boulay said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    As so


    True, but let’s not ignore the training the U.K. has provided the Ukrainian military over the past 8 years…..8 years longer than almost anyone else…..
    Something about which we should be very proud, and which bring credit to both Johnson and Cameron.
    Don’t forget Theresa May - don’t want to be accused of being a female unfriendly site.
    As a figure of merit - the American economy is 10x the size of the U.K. economy, roughly.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,158

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    Strange, weren't we told, as Putin unleashed his Dogs of War, that Ukraine should just lie back and take it? And that the West should apologize for provoking the invasion in the first place?

    And now the fount of such wisdom is now not only trumpeting victory over the Ruskis, but appropriating credit for it?

    Really???
    Not me? You must mean someone else I think?
  • MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    But cutting asset prices is the first step to reducing housing costs for ordinary people.
    No. Letting inflation run is.

    The problem in the past two decades is we suppressed wage etc inflation too much so money went to assets instead of wages. We need to rebalance that.

    Seven years of 10% wage growth for ordinary people but assets frozen in value would see assets halve in real terms costs/value but without any negative equity and without squeezing the living standards of ordinary people.

    The myth was allowed to set in that inflation went away. It didn't, it just accumulated with assets, meaning wealth was transferred from earned to unearned income. Inflation in the rest of the economy now can rebalance society away from unearned incomes back to earners benefitting instead.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Liverpool's greatest ever player is leaving at the end of the season to join AC Milan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/may/19/divock-origi-agrees-to-join-milan-when-liverpool-contract-expires-this-summer

    He gave so many Liverpool literally* seminal moments with his goals.

    I am going to miss him.

    *Yes, literally, he was that good.

    Well, yes, harder to come over somebody when they're in Milan...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,158
    ydoethur said:

    Liverpool's greatest ever player is leaving at the end of the season to join AC Milan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/may/19/divock-origi-agrees-to-join-milan-when-liverpool-contract-expires-this-summer

    He gave so many Liverpool literally* seminal moments with his goals.

    I am going to miss him.

    *Yes, literally, he was that good.

    Well, yes, harder to come over somebody when they're in Milan...
    There's a word seemingly missing after 'Liverpool'. Trying not to think what that miight be ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited May 2022

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    Strange, weren't we told, as Putin unleashed his Dogs of War, that Ukraine should just lie back and take it? And that the West should apologize for provoking the invasion in the first place?

    And now the fount of such wisdom is now not only trumpeting victory over the Ruskis, but appropriating credit for it?

    Really???
    Britain provided plenty of weaponry to Ukraine even before the invasion and was warning of it as Russia's buildup continued.

    We have correctly not sent troops or fighter jets to take on the Russians in non NATO Ukraine but that does not mean our military weapons and supplies and anti tank missiles in particular were not pivotal to containing the Russian advance
  • MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Liverpool's greatest ever player is leaving at the end of the season to join AC Milan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/may/19/divock-origi-agrees-to-join-milan-when-liverpool-contract-expires-this-summer

    He gave so many Liverpool literally* seminal moments with his goals.

    I am going to miss him.

    *Yes, literally, he was that good.

    Well, yes, harder to come over somebody when they're in Milan...
    There's a word seemingly missing after 'Liverpool'. Trying not to think what that miight be ...
    Fans.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,944
    Applicant said:

    With the headwinds, I reckon if anything happens that means the Tories get to a consistent 5% plus ahead for a bit they will cut and run any time from now to late 24

    I agree. I speculated here about 3 months ago that moment could be right now, going into June. There was a bit of change of mood with the war dominating the news, if that had shown up in a pretty decent local election night, added to the fact looking ahead to a period of cost of living crisis and technical or un technical recession that could live in voters minds and in the polling, this summer could have been a good chance before what looks a difficult 18 months to be in government.

    Obviously HYs immediate response was, what sort of a chump risks 80 seat majority with more than two years left for something better to turn up. Which is true. There are 30 months left of this parliament. I think Labour came in cropper summer on 1970 when they could have waited till 71, partly like I said above the local elections convinced them they were popular. 2017 is another example of that.

    Todays polling at least shows Tory’s preferred by quite some way on best party to grow the economy, behind on main poll by a little bit, but ahead on the economy in a cost of living crisis gives this moment a bit of early 90s feel about it doesn’t it?

    Another key measure is Best PM, as it’s known. The main reason I started with I agree with you, Labour currently have a tiny edge on Best PM, but despite initial bounce for new Lab Leader Wes or Nandy, they could soon look out of their depth “not ready yet” the voters will phrase it.

    So even in depth of recession, if they are long way ahead on Best PM, the Tories should think about going for it.
    I still wouldn't expect an election before autumn 2023, as that's the earliest that it could be contested on the new boundaries.
    Perhaps but as noted before, the rest of this year includes a number of feel-good events, from the jubilee in a couple of weeks, through Emma "sicknote" Raducanu at Wimbledon, then we host two major sporting events, the Commonwealth Games and Rugby League World Cup, leading up to *the* World Cup. If there is an uplift in the national mood then Boris might be tempted.

    Katy Balls on this week's Spectator TV has some interesting thoughts about HMG's new-found enthusiasm for wedge issues. Among other things, she suggests there are complications now the Conservatives face a pincer movement from Labour and the LibDems.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzZ11ucO4v8&t=1804s

    But why now if the government is convinced it will stay another 18 months or more, which it can easily do with its 80-seat majority?

    And that is betting without the cost of living crisis, a possible trade war with Europe over something most voters do not understand but that risks reopening Brexit tensions, and, well, events.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    Hmm, that seems an unlikely outcome to me. With ultra low interest rates baked in why wouldn't the asset rich continue to accumulate more assets?

    Pushing interest rates up is the only way to push asset prices down and create a more equal society. The government clearly doesn't have the cojones to put non primary housing asset surcharges up to punishing levels to dissuade BTL so interest rates will need to be the way to do it.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    ydoethur said:

    Liverpool's greatest ever player is leaving at the end of the season to join AC Milan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/may/19/divock-origi-agrees-to-join-milan-when-liverpool-contract-expires-this-summer

    He gave so many Liverpool literally* seminal moments with his goals.

    I am going to miss him.

    *Yes, literally, he was that good.

    Well, yes, harder to come over somebody when they're in Milan...
    He was a striker it seems. He clearly wasn’t great at shooting as he didn’t get many goals.

    Did Liverpool fans see him shoot and miss a lot ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    Strange, weren't we told, as Putin unleashed his Dogs of War, that Ukraine should just lie back and take it? And that the West should apologize for provoking the invasion in the first place?

    And now the fount of such wisdom is now not only trumpeting victory over the Ruskis, but appropriating credit for it?

    Really???
    Britain provided plenty of weaponry to Ukraine even before the invasion and was warning of it as Russia's buildup continued.

    We have correctly not sent troops or fighter jets to take on the Russians in non NATO Ukraine but that does not mean our military weapons and supplies and anti tank missiles in particular were not pivotal to containing the Russian advance
    Those who will be responsible for defeating Putin's invasion are those who are fighting and dying to defend their country.

    Any claim that we, or Boris 'won it' is pretty pathetic.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited May 2022
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    Hmm, that seems an unlikely outcome to me. With ultra low interest rates baked in why wouldn't the asset rich continue to accumulate more assets?

    Pushing interest rates up is the only way to push asset prices down and create a more equal society. The government clearly doesn't have the cojones to put non primary housing asset surcharges up to punishing levels to dissuade BTL so interest rates will need to be the way to do it.
    I agree. If you have cash, rampant inflation and low borrowing costs, the smart move is to borrow money to put into assets. The value of the debt will drop like a proverbial stone but the asset will at least hold its value.

    Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to see house prices spiral further for that reason.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,630
    No
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    A NLAW 'Developed in 2002 as a single-soldier, short-range, anti-tank weapon system.'

    Yes we know you will use your anti British agenda to deny any British success stories but it was Britain who provided Ukraine with most anti tank weapons and therefore Britain who provided the key weaponary that halted the Russian tank led advance

    https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw
    NLAW is much shorter range than a Javelin, for instance. But much better than a rocket grenade from the old LAW.

    I'm not being anti-British. Quite the opposite. Pointing out your vacuous bollocks, to improve the quality of debate and intelligence in Britain. Including your doing the equivalent of claiming that FDR won the Battle of Britain.
    As I understand it, NLAW and Javelin or complimentary. For example, NLAW has shorter max range, but has a very short minimum range. Javelin has a longer minimum range and a longer overall range.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    "I and Azov commanders are on the territory of Azovstal. Certain operation is underway, I will not disclose the details. Thank you world & thank you Ukraine for your support. See you," deputy commander of Azov Sviatoslav Palamar said in a short address...
    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1527350839203217409
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,305
    edited May 2022
    boulay said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    It’s been a salutary reminder to the world of the absolute size and power of the US. For years people have been talking about it (wrongly IMHO) being in decline but it’s not - only China could pull that kind of spending out of its backside and provide the sheer volume of weaponry. America is not finished it’s been resting.

    I do think in the UK’s defence it’s allowed others such as the US to do everything they can as if the UK can do what it has done with a relatively (to the US) small military it would have been shaming to others if they hadn’t done anything. Same applies of course to a number of Baltic/east European countries.

    The UK and friends probably greased the wheels - the US provided the locomotive.
    Are you denying America is in RELATIVE decline? That’s fatuous. Of course it is. At the end of World War 2 the USA alone constituted 50% of global GDP, even in the Clinton years it was well over 30%. Now it is about 20% and dropping, inexorably

    That is a pretty huge fall, in just 70 years; the upside is that this has happened because so many other countries have lifted billions out of poverty, especially in Asia, especially in China. It’s good news for Homo Sapiens

    So America is in relative decline, that is undoubted, and that affects its ability to influence the world - as we see from Iraq to Afghanistan. But is America in ASBOLUTE decline?

    Absolute decline is fairly rare, at least in modern times. The UK never experienced it, properly, even as it fell from global supremacy.

    But there is an argument that America is, in some ways, facing absolute decline. Drugs, race, culture wars, BLM, homelessness, and so on. Much of it superbly stoked via the Chinese and Russians on social media
  • IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
    Da fing iz why would raising rates crash asset prices when *real* rates is more negative than any time in history? 9% inflation, doubling interest rates from 1 to 2 only knocks the real interest rate down from -8 to -7.
    Indeed.

    Plus the problematic parasites that Max has accurately identified in the past tend to not be highly leveraged. The overwhelming majority of first time buyers need a mortgage but most BTL landlords are cash purchasers. So raising rates aids cash buyers but hurts borrowers. Indeed many BTL purchasers struggle to get a mortgage as they're old and don't have an income.

    Inflation on the other hand aids borrowers like first time buyers, but hurts the cash rich cash purchasers.

    If the purchasing with cash BTL types on a fixed income find their income squeezed then they may not be able to afford assets even if real interest rates are negative.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    The minor economic blip of the 90
    stodge said:

    One of the problems of trying to work out what will happen at the next GE is the propensity to see the future through the prism of the past. The "it happened before so it will happen again" school of thought - unfortunately life and politics are rarely symmetrical unless you are a supporter of either Norwich City or Fulham in which case there is a perverse symmetry to the seasons.

    This Parliament has been unique - we've had a pandemic and we now have a war on the edge of Europe. Within three months of winning a substantial victory, the Government faced arguably the biggest crisis outside war for decades.

    That in itself froze normal political life for the thick end of 18 months and the ramifications of what happened in that period are still playing out.

    This Government had a honeymoon and at the same time didn't - it led the polls as we were in lockdown often by wide margins but there was no "glad confident morning".

    The virus distorted life at all levels in different ways and at different times. The economic life of the country was hugely disrupted and remains so but political life was less changed until recently. Now, the economics drive the politics as economic uncertainty of a kind not seen in perhaps 50 years threatens us all.

    How will this all play out? Only a fool can be dogmatic about the next election - the economic upheavals of the 1970s destroyed the Butskellite concensus and ushered in a new political era. Might not the 2020s be similar with the emergence of new political alignments challenging the status quo and the orthodoxy?

    Well indeed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    After all that… The Senate just passed the $40 billion Ukraine aid package, 86-11. All “no” votes were Republicans.

    It now goes to Biden’s desk — just in time to replenish key funds that had been exhausted from the first aid package.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1527338365011386377
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,630
    Nigelb said:

    After all that… The Senate just passed the $40 billion Ukraine aid package, 86-11. All “no” votes were Republicans.

    It now goes to Biden’s desk — just in time to replenish key funds that had been exhausted from the first aid package.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1527338365011386377

    Perhaps worth noting that this aid package, alone, is probably bigger than the Russian conventional weapon military budget.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,305

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    I think it is important not to be naive about how Russia is fighting this war. The squeeze on grain and other commodities is not a bug, it is a feature. Russia intends to use food security and energy inflation as weapons against us. This is on top of the kompromat, bribery and subversion that has been used against almost all free democracies. Public Russian financial support for such people as Marine Le Pen, Alex Salmond or Aaron Banks has been given with the prospect of upsetting conventional democratic norms. The Trumpian wing of American politics serves the same purpose in the United States. These are simple facts, but few have been prepared to understand that Russian subversion of democracy has been committed and ongoing for many years.

    Now that the Kleptocracy is facing increasing challenges at home their solution to growing domestic strife is now open war. This is not merely a war against democratic Ukraine, it is a war against all democratic states. The murders of British citizens with various poisons is just the hors d´oeuvres for a banquet of hatred that is served up every night on prime time Russian television. This is not some trivial regional conflict, it an attempt by a neo fascist state to break the will of free democracies. Those of us closest to Russia have recognised the nature of Putinism for several years, and if you have not understood us, now you should at least understand the deliberate horror and brutality unleashed by criminals on a peaceful neighbour.

    The only way to ensure that the political war of subversion and the economic war unleashed against the West fails, is to ensure that Russia is defeated in their kinetic war in Ukraine. The murderous neo fascist regime in Moscow must then be either contained or destroyed. There is no compromise that can possibly work against the mind set of genuine evil in Moscow and it is extremely dangerous to beleive that the tyrant and his henchmen are prepared to return to any kind of real peace. Any truce would simply allow Russia to continue their war against us by other, hybrid, means.

    The savage attack against Ukraine is not merely a crime, it is thankfully also a massive blunder, and it is not a mistake from that the Russian klepto-state should be allowed to recover from.

    Putin delenda est is the only motto that can stop the unfolding economic crisis.

    Russia's only route to any sort of victory is the blockade of Odesa. If that continues the economic pressure on Ukraine will become intolerable. The grain harvest cannot be exported, and this years harvest has no storage space left, so will rot. Starvation for the world but economically disasterous for Ukraine. A stalemate is no good if that blockade continues.
    As long as the world keeps supplying aid to Ukraine the economic pressure may be tolerable. It will be hardest potentially on the third world than Ukraine ironically. Ukraine will get the aid, the developed West will be hit with higher prices but can afford it ... shit will roll downhill to the third world which will go hungry due to Putin.

    So the only viable solution is to break the stalemate in Ukraine's favour.
    Sri Lanka defaulted today. The first Asian country to default this century

    So much is happening, major news stories are going untold

    I fear for Sri Lanka. Their history of violence is incredible and this could tip them back
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Liverpool's greatest ever player is leaving at the end of the season to join AC Milan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/may/19/divock-origi-agrees-to-join-milan-when-liverpool-contract-expires-this-summer

    He gave so many Liverpool fans literally* seminal moments with his goals.

    I am going to miss him.

    *Yes, literally, he was that good.

    Are you a Scouse thug? If not why do you affect to give a fuck about Scouse kickball? Leaving aside the point that Divock's Origins don't seem awfully Merseyside. It's really all about murdering people in Europe one year, Yorkshire the next, from what I can make out. How does that get fun?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    But cutting asset prices is the first step to reducing housing costs for ordinary people.
    But only the first step. It isn't prices alone that count in housing costs, so much as affordability. If interest rates go up in parallel to inflation, or become positive again, then financing those housing costs is more out of reach than ever.

    Combine that with a hike in food and fuel prices and many won't be able to finance their mortgages. House prices may crash relative to incomes, as it would force distress sales due to mortgage arrears, but this would only benefit cash buyers and there won't be many of those. It won't do much for the retired house owner either as the paper value of their assets halve.

    Inflation is good for no-one. Stable prices and sound money make for much better financial decision making. If it is seen as desireable to redistribute from the asset rich to the workers then do it by tax policy, not by inflation.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Awks...
    WaPo has verified 2014 emails in which Tucker Carlson and his wife asked Hunter Biden for help in getting their son into Georgetown.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1527332036100251648
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    Hmm, that seems an unlikely outcome to me. With ultra low interest rates baked in why wouldn't the asset rich continue to accumulate more assets?

    Pushing interest rates up is the only way to push asset prices down and create a more equal society. The government clearly doesn't have the cojones to put non primary housing asset surcharges up to punishing levels to dissuade BTL so interest rates will need to be the way to do it.
    And why should it?
    Literally hundreds of MP's are BTL landlords.
    Not to mention Tory Party members.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    Christ almighty!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Nigelb said:

    After all that… The Senate just passed the $40 billion Ukraine aid package, 86-11. All “no” votes were Republicans.

    It now goes to Biden’s desk — just in time to replenish key funds that had been exhausted from the first aid package.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1527338365011386377

    Perhaps worth noting that this aid package, alone, is probably bigger than the Russian conventional weapon military budget.
    In 1981 Ronald Reagan made the decision to spend the USSR into the ground. Cost a fortune, but hastened the end of both the USSR and the Cold War.

    In 1942, the combined economic power of the USA, USSR and UK was something like nine times that of Nazi Germany and its allies.

    Putin has the same problem magnified a thousandfold. I wonder when it will occur to him that having failed to break Ukraine quickly he's now in the worst imaginable situation - a long war while his economy is contracting rapidly?

    I've always been pessimistic about Ukraine's chances of actually winning, or even forcing a stalemate. But I am beginning to hope.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
    Da fing iz why would raising rates crash asset prices when *real* rates is more negative than any time in history? 9% inflation, doubling interest rates from 1 to 2 only knocks the real interest rate down from -8 to -7.
    Indeed.

    Plus the problematic parasites that Max has accurately identified in the past tend to not be highly leveraged. The overwhelming majority of first time buyers need a mortgage but most BTL landlords are cash purchasers. So raising rates aids cash buyers but hurts borrowers. Indeed many BTL purchasers struggle to get a mortgage as they're old and don't have an income.

    Inflation on the other hand aids borrowers like first time buyers, but hurts the cash rich cash purchasers.

    If the purchasing with cash BTL types on a fixed income find their income squeezed then they may not be able to afford assets even if real interest rates are negative.
    BTL purchasers are definitely not majority cash buyers. They're usually leveraged up to the eyeballs and very sensitive to falls in house prices as it also has a knock on effect in their rental value. For those few cash buyers out there, yes there's a big gain from falling asset prices but I've said plenty of times the stamp duty surcharge should be raised until it reaches 3-5 years of investment yield so something like 10-15% rather than the pathetic 3% the government has been too scared to raise.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,305

    No

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    A NLAW 'Developed in 2002 as a single-soldier, short-range, anti-tank weapon system.'

    Yes we know you will use your anti British agenda to deny any British success stories but it was Britain who provided Ukraine with most anti tank weapons and therefore Britain who provided the key weaponary that halted the Russian tank led advance

    https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw
    NLAW is much shorter range than a Javelin, for instance. But much better than a rocket grenade from the old LAW.

    I'm not being anti-British. Quite the opposite. Pointing out your vacuous bollocks, to improve the quality of debate and intelligence in Britain. Including your doing the equivalent of claiming that FDR won the Battle of Britain.
    As I understand it, NLAW and Javelin or complimentary. For example, NLAW has shorter max range, but has a very short minimum range. Javelin has a longer minimum range and a longer overall range.
    NLAW is also cheaper and simpler (fire and forget) and can be carried and launched by one man. This, apparently, has been crucial
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    I think it is important not to be naive about how Russia is fighting this war. The squeeze on grain and other commodities is not a bug, it is a feature. Russia intends to use food security and energy inflation as weapons against us. This is on top of the kompromat, bribery and subversion that has been used against almost all free democracies. Public Russian financial support for such people as Marine Le Pen, Alex Salmond or Aaron Banks has been given with the prospect of upsetting conventional democratic norms. The Trumpian wing of American politics serves the same purpose in the United States. These are simple facts, but few have been prepared to understand that Russian subversion of democracy has been committed and ongoing for many years.

    Now that the Kleptocracy is facing increasing challenges at home their solution to growing domestic strife is now open war. This is not merely a war against democratic Ukraine, it is a war against all democratic states. The murders of British citizens with various poisons is just the hors d´oeuvres for a banquet of hatred that is served up every night on prime time Russian television. This is not some trivial regional conflict, it an attempt by a neo fascist state to break the will of free democracies. Those of us closest to Russia have recognised the nature of Putinism for several years, and if you have not understood us, now you should at least understand the deliberate horror and brutality unleashed by criminals on a peaceful neighbour.

    The only way to ensure that the political war of subversion and the economic war unleashed against the West fails, is to ensure that Russia is defeated in their kinetic war in Ukraine. The murderous neo fascist regime in Moscow must then be either contained or destroyed. There is no compromise that can possibly work against the mind set of genuine evil in Moscow and it is extremely dangerous to beleive that the tyrant and his henchmen are prepared to return to any kind of real peace. Any truce would simply allow Russia to continue their war against us by other, hybrid, means.

    The savage attack against Ukraine is not merely a crime, it is thankfully also a massive blunder, and it is not a mistake from that the Russian klepto-state should be allowed to recover from.

    Putin delenda est is the only motto that can stop the unfolding economic crisis.

    Russia's only route to any sort of victory is the blockade of Odesa. If that continues the economic pressure on Ukraine will become intolerable. The grain harvest cannot be exported, and this years harvest has no storage space left, so will rot. Starvation for the world but economically disasterous for Ukraine. A stalemate is no good if that blockade continues.
    As long as the world keeps supplying aid to Ukraine the economic pressure may be tolerable. It will be hardest potentially on the third world than Ukraine ironically. Ukraine will get the aid, the developed West will be hit with higher prices but can afford it ... shit will roll downhill to the third world which will go hungry due to Putin.

    So the only viable solution is to break the stalemate in Ukraine's favour.
    Sri Lanka defaulted today. The first Asian country to default this century

    So much is happening, major news stories are going untold

    I fear for Sri Lanka. Their history of violence is incredible and this could tip them back
    USA, Turkey, Greece.
    Financial markets should track your movements carefully.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,862
    Nigelb said:

    Awks...
    WaPo has verified 2014 emails in which Tucker Carlson and his wife asked Hunter Biden for help in getting their son into Georgetown.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1527332036100251648

    I'd quite like to see Tucker Carlson 'Replaced'.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    Hmm, that seems an unlikely outcome to me. With ultra low interest rates baked in why wouldn't the asset rich continue to accumulate more assets?

    Pushing interest rates up is the only way to push asset prices down and create a more equal society. The government clearly doesn't have the cojones to put non primary housing asset surcharges up to punishing levels to dissuade BTL so interest rates will need to be the way to do it.
    And why should it?
    Literally hundreds of MP's are BTL landlords.
    Not to mention Tory Party members.
    Osborne had the balls to do it and voters responded in 2015. Taking action against landlords is unpopular with a few hundred thousand landlords but extremely popular with millions of people trapped in the private rental sector pissing their money away paying off someone else's mortgage or someone else's retirement.

    Fuck the members, because these are election winning policies.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    I think it is important not to be naive about how Russia is fighting this war. The squeeze on grain and other commodities is not a bug, it is a feature. Russia intends to use food security and energy inflation as weapons against us. This is on top of the kompromat, bribery and subversion that has been used against almost all free democracies. Public Russian financial support for such people as Marine Le Pen, Alex Salmond or Aaron Banks has been given with the prospect of upsetting conventional democratic norms. The Trumpian wing of American politics serves the same purpose in the United States. These are simple facts, but few have been prepared to understand that Russian subversion of democracy has been committed and ongoing for many years.

    Now that the Kleptocracy is facing increasing challenges at home their solution to growing domestic strife is now open war. This is not merely a war against democratic Ukraine, it is a war against all democratic states. The murders of British citizens with various poisons is just the hors d´oeuvres for a banquet of hatred that is served up every night on prime time Russian television. This is not some trivial regional conflict, it an attempt by a neo fascist state to break the will of free democracies. Those of us closest to Russia have recognised the nature of Putinism for several years, and if you have not understood us, now you should at least understand the deliberate horror and brutality unleashed by criminals on a peaceful neighbour.

    The only way to ensure that the political war of subversion and the economic war unleashed against the West fails, is to ensure that Russia is defeated in their kinetic war in Ukraine. The murderous neo fascist regime in Moscow must then be either contained or destroyed. There is no compromise that can possibly work against the mind set of genuine evil in Moscow and it is extremely dangerous to beleive that the tyrant and his henchmen are prepared to return to any kind of real peace. Any truce would simply allow Russia to continue their war against us by other, hybrid, means.

    The savage attack against Ukraine is not merely a crime, it is thankfully also a massive blunder, and it is not a mistake from that the Russian klepto-state should be allowed to recover from.

    Putin delenda est is the only motto that can stop the unfolding economic crisis.

    Russia's only route to any sort of victory is the blockade of Odesa. If that continues the economic pressure on Ukraine will become intolerable. The grain harvest cannot be exported, and this years harvest has no storage space left, so will rot. Starvation for the world but economically disasterous for Ukraine. A stalemate is no good if that blockade continues.
    As long as the world keeps supplying aid to Ukraine the economic pressure may be tolerable. It will be hardest potentially on the third world than Ukraine ironically. Ukraine will get the aid, the developed West will be hit with higher prices but can afford it ... shit will roll downhill to the third world which will go hungry due to Putin.

    So the only viable solution is to break the stalemate in Ukraine's favour.
    Sri Lanka defaulted today. The first Asian country to default this century

    So much is happening, major news stories are going untold

    I fear for Sri Lanka. Their history of violence is incredible and this could tip them back
    USA, Turkey, Greece.
    Financial markets should track your movements carefully.
    If the US defaults, it does not matter about the rest of us...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    All your bases are belong to me. And the few that don't are about to inflate beyond your wildest nightmares because what matters is real interest rates which are plunging through the floor. It only works how you want it to work if 10% inflation is countered by 15% interest rates. 9% inflation and 2% interest rates, assets including houses are heading for the sky.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited May 2022
    MaxPB said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    Hmm, that seems an unlikely outcome to me. With ultra low interest rates baked in why wouldn't the asset rich continue to accumulate more assets?

    Pushing interest rates up is the only way to push asset prices down and create a more equal society. The government clearly doesn't have the cojones to put non primary housing asset surcharges up to punishing levels to dissuade BTL so interest rates will need to be the way to do it.
    And why should it?
    Literally hundreds of MP's are BTL landlords.
    Not to mention Tory Party members.
    Osborne had the balls to do it and voters responded in 2015. Taking action against landlords is unpopular with a few hundred thousand landlords but extremely popular with millions of people trapped in the private rental sector pissing their money away paying off someone else's mortgage or someone else's retirement.

    Fuck the members, because these are election winning policies.
    Too many honourable members have been doing too much fucking recently. Don't give them any more ideas...

    More seriously, you may be right, but I suspect all that would happen instead is you would see a proliferation of small limited liability companies being set up to hold the asset (house/flat) instead.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,773
    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    It’s been a salutary reminder to the world of the absolute size and power of the US. For years people have been talking about it (wrongly IMHO) being in decline but it’s not - only China could pull that kind of spending out of its backside and provide the sheer volume of weaponry. America is not finished it’s been resting.

    I do think in the UK’s defence it’s allowed others such as the US to do everything they can as if the UK can do what it has done with a relatively (to the US) small military it would have been shaming to others if they hadn’t done anything. Same applies of course to a number of Baltic/east European countries.

    The UK and friends probably greased the wheels - the US provided the locomotive.
    Are you denying America is in RELATIVE decline? That’s fatuous. Of course it is. At the end of World War 2 the USA alone constituted 50% of global GDP, even in the Clinton years it was well over 30%. Now it is about 20% and dropping, inexorably

    That is a pretty huge fall, in just 70 years; the upside is that this has happened because so many other countries have lifted billions out of poverty, especially in Asia, especially in China. It’s good news for Homo Sapiens

    So America is in relative decline, that is undoubted, and that affects its ability to influence the world - as we see from Iraq to Afghanistan. But is America in ASBOLUTE decline?

    Absolute decline is fairly rare, at least in modern times. The UK never experienced it, properly, even as it fell from global supremacy.

    But there is an argument that America is, in some ways, facing absolute decline. Drugs, race, culture wars, BLM, homelessness, and so on. Much of it superbly stoked via the Chinese and Russians on social media
    You are probably absolutely correct however I have a belief in the US - which the Japanese should have done (and about the UK Liverpool fans and denizens of Hartlepool) that there is something inherently great in their cultures.

    We can be boorish, fat, lazy, complacent, smug, whatever, but…… when the chips are down those tools at US college football matches are the guys who go and storm Iwo Jima and the guys booing abide with me at wenbley are the guys who will be brewing up tea in between fighting whoever they need.

    A lot of people after WW1 wanted the US to assume it’s mantle and it retreated to an element of isolationalism and people thought they didn’t really have it in them - and then the US eventually showed it did and by god it did.

    So it might not be the hegemon it was for actually a short period in time but bugger me no other country can turn it on when it needs to at the moment.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243
    Nigelb said:

    After all that… The Senate just passed the $40 billion Ukraine aid package, 86-11. All “no” votes were Republicans.

    It now goes to Biden’s desk — just in time to replenish key funds that had been exhausted from the first aid package.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1527338365011386377

    Voted NAY in Senate against H.R. 7691Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022 Blackburn (R-TN)
    Boozman (R-AR)
    Braun (R-IN)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    Hagerty (R-TN)
    Hawley (R-MO)
    Lee (R-UT)
    Lummis (R-WY)
    Marshall (R-KS)
    Paul (R-KY)
    Tuberville (R-AL)
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    dixiedean said:

    Christ almighty!

    Indeed.

    Praise the Lord.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,305
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    I think it is important not to be naive about how Russia is fighting this war. The squeeze on grain and other commodities is not a bug, it is a feature. Russia intends to use food security and energy inflation as weapons against us. This is on top of the kompromat, bribery and subversion that has been used against almost all free democracies. Public Russian financial support for such people as Marine Le Pen, Alex Salmond or Aaron Banks has been given with the prospect of upsetting conventional democratic norms. The Trumpian wing of American politics serves the same purpose in the United States. These are simple facts, but few have been prepared to understand that Russian subversion of democracy has been committed and ongoing for many years.

    Now that the Kleptocracy is facing increasing challenges at home their solution to growing domestic strife is now open war. This is not merely a war against democratic Ukraine, it is a war against all democratic states. The murders of British citizens with various poisons is just the hors d´oeuvres for a banquet of hatred that is served up every night on prime time Russian television. This is not some trivial regional conflict, it an attempt by a neo fascist state to break the will of free democracies. Those of us closest to Russia have recognised the nature of Putinism for several years, and if you have not understood us, now you should at least understand the deliberate horror and brutality unleashed by criminals on a peaceful neighbour.

    The only way to ensure that the political war of subversion and the economic war unleashed against the West fails, is to ensure that Russia is defeated in their kinetic war in Ukraine. The murderous neo fascist regime in Moscow must then be either contained or destroyed. There is no compromise that can possibly work against the mind set of genuine evil in Moscow and it is extremely dangerous to beleive that the tyrant and his henchmen are prepared to return to any kind of real peace. Any truce would simply allow Russia to continue their war against us by other, hybrid, means.

    The savage attack against Ukraine is not merely a crime, it is thankfully also a massive blunder, and it is not a mistake from that the Russian klepto-state should be allowed to recover from.

    Putin delenda est is the only motto that can stop the unfolding economic crisis.

    Russia's only route to any sort of victory is the blockade of Odesa. If that continues the economic pressure on Ukraine will become intolerable. The grain harvest cannot be exported, and this years harvest has no storage space left, so will rot. Starvation for the world but economically disasterous for Ukraine. A stalemate is no good if that blockade continues.
    As long as the world keeps supplying aid to Ukraine the economic pressure may be tolerable. It will be hardest potentially on the third world than Ukraine ironically. Ukraine will get the aid, the developed West will be hit with higher prices but can afford it ... shit will roll downhill to the third world which will go hungry due to Putin.

    So the only viable solution is to break the stalemate in Ukraine's favour.
    Sri Lanka defaulted today. The first Asian country to default this century

    So much is happening, major news stories are going untold

    I fear for Sri Lanka. Their history of violence is incredible and this could tip them back
    USA, Turkey, Greece.
    Financial markets should track your movements carefully.
    Genuine lol

    Actually there is a logical pattern here, which you have identified

    For multiple reasons I am free to go where I like (Covid and wars permitting etc), when I am not being paid for everything I do my research and find the cheapest places, often this cheapness is due to exceptional currency depreciation and general touristic depseration. In January that was Sri Lanka, you could get a 5 star hotel in Galle for about £80 a night when it should cost £300, so I took up the offer

    Then it was Turkey and the Turkish lira; the same bargains were available in Izmir hotels

    This was NOT the case in the Deep South. The dollar is insanely strong and hotel prices in the States have gone mad, luckily I wasn’t paying for any of that
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,851
    edited May 2022
    Bettingish post
    Boz looks safe, letters have been withdrawn by some apparently.
    Given his initial strong stance and then u turn 'during ukraine' I can see this whole thing costing Douglas Ross his job as scot tory leader, or him quitting as unable to work under Boris.
    I've not seen a replacement market but Jamie Greene maybe and watch Meghan Gallacher, just installed as deputy, she seems extremely ambitious and they might try and redo the Ruth effect
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    I think it is important not to be naive about how Russia is fighting this war. The squeeze on grain and other commodities is not a bug, it is a feature. Russia intends to use food security and energy inflation as weapons against us. This is on top of the kompromat, bribery and subversion that has been used against almost all free democracies. Public Russian financial support for such people as Marine Le Pen, Alex Salmond or Aaron Banks has been given with the prospect of upsetting conventional democratic norms. The Trumpian wing of American politics serves the same purpose in the United States. These are simple facts, but few have been prepared to understand that Russian subversion of democracy has been committed and ongoing for many years.

    Now that the Kleptocracy is facing increasing challenges at home their solution to growing domestic strife is now open war. This is not merely a war against democratic Ukraine, it is a war against all democratic states. The murders of British citizens with various poisons is just the hors d´oeuvres for a banquet of hatred that is served up every night on prime time Russian television. This is not some trivial regional conflict, it an attempt by a neo fascist state to break the will of free democracies. Those of us closest to Russia have recognised the nature of Putinism for several years, and if you have not understood us, now you should at least understand the deliberate horror and brutality unleashed by criminals on a peaceful neighbour.

    The only way to ensure that the political war of subversion and the economic war unleashed against the West fails, is to ensure that Russia is defeated in their kinetic war in Ukraine. The murderous neo fascist regime in Moscow must then be either contained or destroyed. There is no compromise that can possibly work against the mind set of genuine evil in Moscow and it is extremely dangerous to beleive that the tyrant and his henchmen are prepared to return to any kind of real peace. Any truce would simply allow Russia to continue their war against us by other, hybrid, means.

    The savage attack against Ukraine is not merely a crime, it is thankfully also a massive blunder, and it is not a mistake from that the Russian klepto-state should be allowed to recover from.

    Putin delenda est is the only motto that can stop the unfolding economic crisis.

    Russia's only route to any sort of victory is the blockade of Odesa. If that continues the economic pressure on Ukraine will become intolerable. The grain harvest cannot be exported, and this years harvest has no storage space left, so will rot. Starvation for the world but economically disasterous for Ukraine. A stalemate is no good if that blockade continues.
    As long as the world keeps supplying aid to Ukraine the economic pressure may be tolerable. It will be hardest potentially on the third world than Ukraine ironically. Ukraine will get the aid, the developed West will be hit with higher prices but can afford it ... shit will roll downhill to the third world which will go hungry due to Putin.

    So the only viable solution is to break the stalemate in Ukraine's favour.
    Sri Lanka defaulted today. The first Asian country to default this century

    So much is happening, major news stories are going untold

    I fear for Sri Lanka. Their history of violence is incredible and this could tip them back
    There already has been violent protests there over the cost of fuel and the cost of food. Their transition to wholly organic farming cannot be said to have been an overwhelming success.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    MaxPB said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    Hmm, that seems an unlikely outcome to me. With ultra low interest rates baked in why wouldn't the asset rich continue to accumulate more assets?

    Pushing interest rates up is the only way to push asset prices down and create a more equal society. The government clearly doesn't have the cojones to put non primary housing asset surcharges up to punishing levels to dissuade BTL so interest rates will need to be the way to do it.
    And why should it?
    Literally hundreds of MP's are BTL landlords.
    Not to mention Tory Party members.
    Osborne had the balls to do it and voters responded in 2015. Taking action against landlords is unpopular with a few hundred thousand landlords but extremely popular with millions of people trapped in the private rental sector pissing their money away paying off someone else's mortgage or someone else's retirement.

    Fuck the members, because these are election winning policies.
    FWIW I happen to agree with you.
    However. The long term plan of the PM seems to be dependent on who he last spoke to.
    Say what you like about the Coalition. They had an economic strategy, and everyone knew what it was.
    Does anyone know what the economic strategy is?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,862

    IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
    Da fing iz why would raising rates crash asset prices when *real* rates is more negative than any time in history? 9% inflation, doubling interest rates from 1 to 2 only knocks the real interest rate down from -8 to -7.
    Indeed.

    Plus the problematic parasites that Max has accurately identified in the past tend to not be highly leveraged. The overwhelming majority of first time buyers need a mortgage but most BTL landlords are cash purchasers. So raising rates aids cash buyers but hurts borrowers. Indeed many BTL purchasers struggle to get a mortgage as they're old and don't have an income.

    Inflation on the other hand aids borrowers like first time buyers, but hurts the cash rich cash purchasers.

    If the purchasing with cash BTL types on a fixed income find their income squeezed then they may not be able to afford assets even if real interest rates are negative.
    Higher rates can discourage putting cash into property though. Lots of factors in play but that is one of them.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    Hmm, that seems an unlikely outcome to me. With ultra low interest rates baked in why wouldn't the asset rich continue to accumulate more assets?

    Pushing interest rates up is the only way to push asset prices down and create a more equal society. The government clearly doesn't have the cojones to put non primary housing asset surcharges up to punishing levels to dissuade BTL so interest rates will need to be the way to do it.
    Because the asset rich aren't leveraged. Most BTL purchases are with cash not a mortgage.

    If you're cash rich but have no regular income then in a low inflation environment your costs are under control and you can use your cash to chase assets like buying BTL properties.

    Raising interest rates doesn't hurt BTL cash purchasers, since they aren't leveraged, it only hurts those who need a mortgage.

    Inflation DOES hurt cash purchasers. It devalues their cash and means they need to spend more of their cash looking after themselves and less of it chasing assets.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,630
    Leon said:

    No

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    A NLAW 'Developed in 2002 as a single-soldier, short-range, anti-tank weapon system.'

    Yes we know you will use your anti British agenda to deny any British success stories but it was Britain who provided Ukraine with most anti tank weapons and therefore Britain who provided the key weaponary that halted the Russian tank led advance

    https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw
    NLAW is much shorter range than a Javelin, for instance. But much better than a rocket grenade from the old LAW.

    I'm not being anti-British. Quite the opposite. Pointing out your vacuous bollocks, to improve the quality of debate and intelligence in Britain. Including your doing the equivalent of claiming that FDR won the Battle of Britain.
    As I understand it, NLAW and Javelin or complimentary. For example, NLAW has shorter max range, but has a very short minimum range. Javelin has a longer minimum range and a longer overall range.
    NLAW is also cheaper and simpler (fire and forget) and can be carried and launched by one man. This, apparently, has been crucial
    It’s the combination that is important - there were reports early on that the US, U.K. and others were coordinating weapons deliveries off a list rather than everyone randomly sending stuff.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
    Da fing iz why would raising rates crash asset prices when *real* rates is more negative than any time in history? 9% inflation, doubling interest rates from 1 to 2 only knocks the real interest rate down from -8 to -7.
    Indeed.

    Plus the problematic parasites that Max has accurately identified in the past tend to not be highly leveraged. The overwhelming majority of first time buyers need a mortgage but most BTL landlords are cash purchasers. So raising rates aids cash buyers but hurts borrowers. Indeed many BTL purchasers struggle to get a mortgage as they're old and don't have an income.

    Inflation on the other hand aids borrowers like first time buyers, but hurts the cash rich cash purchasers.

    If the purchasing with cash BTL types on a fixed income find their income squeezed then they may not be able to afford assets even if real interest rates are negative.
    You have lost me there. Cash rich cash purchasers just gonna purchase even quicker, and become cash poor asset rich.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,351

    The Vardy/Rooney case may turn on the question of whether the judge can make a legitimate and defensible inference, from both the missing evidence (which is a gigantic black hole at the heart of the case, consisting of Sun journalists, Vardy's agent and the lost digital records and maybe more) and the propensity of Vardy to leak, that you can join the dots from Vardy having exclusive access to false stories (if Rooney has managed to prove that) to them appearing in the Sun and conclude that on balance of probability it is true that Vardy leaked them.

    Prediction FWIW: Rooney wins............

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243
    edited May 2022
    AND here is list of all 57 US House members who voted against final passage of HR 7691 Ukraine supplimental appropriation. (Please note - no US Represenative from WA State is on this list.)

    Arrington Republican Texas NAY
    Babin Republican Texas NAY
    Banks Republican Indiana NAY
    Biggs Republican Arizona NAY
    Bilirakis Republican Florida NAY
    Bishop (NC) Republican North Carolina NAY
    Boebert Republican Colorado NAY
    Buck Republican Colorado NAY
    Burchett Republican Tennessee NAY
    Cammack Republican Florida NAY
    Cawthorn Republican North Carolina NAY
    Cloud Republican Texas NAY
    Clyde Republican Georgia NAY
    Comer Republican Kentucky NAY
    Davidson Republican Ohio NAY
    DesJarlais Republican Tennessee NAY
    Donalds Republican Florida NAY
    Duncan Republican South Carolina NAY
    Estes Republican Kansas NAY
    Fulcher Republican Idaho NAY
    Gaetz Republican Florida NAY
    Gibbs Republican Ohio NAY
    Gohmert Republican Texas NAY
    Good (VA) Republican Virginia NAY
    Gosar Republican Arizona NAY
    Graves (LA) Republican Louisiana NAY
    Greene (GA) Republican Georgia NAY
    Harshbarger Republican Tennessee NAY
    Hartzler Republican Missouri NAY
    Hern Republican Oklahoma NAY
    Herrell Republican New Mexico NAY
    Hice (GA) Republican Georgia NAY
    Higgins (LA) Republican Louisiana NAY
    Huizenga Republican Michigan NAY
    Jackson Republican Texas NAY
    Johnson (LA) Republican Louisiana NAY
    Jordan Republican Ohio NAY
    Lesko Republican Arizona NAY
    Long Republican Missouri NAY
    Mann Republican Kansas NAY
    Massie Republican Kentucky NAY
    Mast Republican Florida NAY
    Miller (IL) Republican Illinois NAY
    Moore (AL) Republican Alabama NAY
    Nehls Republican Texas NAY
    Norman Republican South Carolina NAY
    Perry Republican Pennsylvania NAY
    Rose Republican Tennessee NAY
    Rosendale Republican Montana NAY
    Roy Republican Texas NAY
    Sessions Republican Texas NAY
    Steube Republican Florida NAY
    Tiffany Republican Wisconsin NAY
    Van Drew Republican New Jersey NAY
    Van Duyne Republican Texas NAY
    Westerman Republican Arkansas NAY
    Williams (TX) Republican Texas NAY

    Sorry for how this is formatted, just cut & pasted from US House website
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    After all that… The Senate just passed the $40 billion Ukraine aid package, 86-11. All “no” votes were Republicans.

    It now goes to Biden’s desk — just in time to replenish key funds that had been exhausted from the first aid package.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1527338365011386377

    Perhaps worth noting that this aid package, alone, is probably bigger than the Russian conventional weapon military budget.
    In 1981 Ronald Reagan made the decision to spend the USSR into the ground. Cost a fortune, but hastened the end of both the USSR and the Cold War.

    In 1942, the combined economic power of the USA, USSR and UK was something like nine times that of Nazi Germany and its allies.

    Putin has the same problem magnified a thousandfold. I wonder when it will occur to him that having failed to break Ukraine quickly he's now in the worst imaginable situation - a long war while his economy is contracting rapidly?

    I've always been pessimistic about Ukraine's chances of actually winning, or even forcing a stalemate. But I am beginning to hope.
    Ultimately prolonged wars are won by economic power, as the war of material and consumption of expensive weapon systems is a function of economic power.

    The only real exception is when countries are willing to suffer enormous casualties to keep fighting in an existential war, Afghanistan, Vietnam, USSR in WW2, China in WW2 etc

    As Ukraine has the economic backing of the West and is fighting that existential war, it is likely to win over Russia, but the cost for both in blood and treasure will be huge. War is the great destroyer of everything.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    Hmm, that seems an unlikely outcome to me. With ultra low interest rates baked in why wouldn't the asset rich continue to accumulate more assets?

    Pushing interest rates up is the only way to push asset prices down and create a more equal society. The government clearly doesn't have the cojones to put non primary housing asset surcharges up to punishing levels to dissuade BTL so interest rates will need to be the way to do it.
    And why should it?
    Literally hundreds of MP's are BTL landlords.
    Not to mention Tory Party members.
    Osborne had the balls to do it and voters responded in 2015. Taking action against landlords is unpopular with a few hundred thousand landlords but extremely popular with millions of people trapped in the private rental sector pissing their money away paying off someone else's mortgage or someone else's retirement.

    Fuck the members, because these are election winning policies.
    Too many honourable members have been doing too much fucking recently. Don't give them any more ideas...

    More seriously, you may be right, but I suspect all that would happen instead is you would see a proliferation of small limited liability companies being set up to hold the asset (house/flat) instead.
    Ah but then you can create stamp duty for that too and on transfer into a company.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    Hmm, that seems an unlikely outcome to me. With ultra low interest rates baked in why wouldn't the asset rich continue to accumulate more assets?

    Pushing interest rates up is the only way to push asset prices down and create a more equal society. The government clearly doesn't have the cojones to put non primary housing asset surcharges up to punishing levels to dissuade BTL so interest rates will need to be the way to do it.
    Because the asset rich aren't leveraged. Most BTL purchases are with cash not a mortgage.

    If you're cash rich but have no regular income then in a low inflation environment your costs are under control and you can use your cash to chase assets like buying BTL properties.

    Raising interest rates doesn't hurt BTL cash purchasers, since they aren't leveraged, it only hurts those who need a mortgage.

    Inflation DOES hurt cash purchasers. It devalues their cash and means they need to spend more of their cash looking after themselves and less of it chasing assets.
    No, because they put their cash into assets.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,305
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    It’s been a salutary reminder to the world of the absolute size and power of the US. For years people have been talking about it (wrongly IMHO) being in decline but it’s not - only China could pull that kind of spending out of its backside and provide the sheer volume of weaponry. America is not finished it’s been resting.

    I do think in the UK’s defence it’s allowed others such as the US to do everything they can as if the UK can do what it has done with a relatively (to the US) small military it would have been shaming to others if they hadn’t done anything. Same applies of course to a number of Baltic/east European countries.

    The UK and friends probably greased the wheels - the US provided the locomotive.
    Are you denying America is in RELATIVE decline? That’s fatuous. Of course it is. At the end of World War 2 the USA alone constituted 50% of global GDP, even in the Clinton years it was well over 30%. Now it is about 20% and dropping, inexorably

    That is a pretty huge fall, in just 70 years; the upside is that this has happened because so many other countries have lifted billions out of poverty, especially in Asia, especially in China. It’s good news for Homo Sapiens

    So America is in relative decline, that is undoubted, and that affects its ability to influence the world - as we see from Iraq to Afghanistan. But is America in ASBOLUTE decline?

    Absolute decline is fairly rare, at least in modern times. The UK never experienced it, properly, even as it fell from global supremacy.

    But there is an argument that America is, in some ways, facing absolute decline. Drugs, race, culture wars, BLM, homelessness, and so on. Much of it superbly stoked via the Chinese and Russians on social media
    You are probably absolutely correct however I have a belief in the US - which the Japanese should have done (and about the UK Liverpool fans and denizens of Hartlepool) that there is something inherently great in their cultures.

    We can be boorish, fat, lazy, complacent, smug, whatever, but…… when the chips are down those tools at US college football matches are the guys who go and storm Iwo Jima and the guys booing abide with me at wenbley are the guys who will be brewing up tea in between fighting whoever they need.

    A lot of people after WW1 wanted the US to assume it’s mantle and it retreated to an element of isolationalism and people thought they didn’t really have it in them - and then the US eventually showed it did and by god it did.

    So it might not be the hegemon it was for actually a short period in time but bugger me no other country can turn it on when it needs to at the moment.
    I’d love to think you are right. But my head says no, not at all

    America is now in absolute cultural decline, to my mind. It has immense power, still, but the trajectory is set. It feels like it is the Roman Empire but it is *Rome* moving into its decadent, Eastern, Byzantine era (which, to be fair, continued for a LONG time, and Byzantium was powerful centuries after Rome was rubble)

    The poignancy is that this cultural decline has been greatly accelerated by the internet and social media, which are, largely, American inventions, turned on America


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited May 2022
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    The US provided 5,000 anti tank missiles, the UK over 10,000

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220422-military-aid-and-arms-for-ukraine
    Read that document again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

    'missile' could also include unguided rockets, from a translated document such as this.
    The US provided more than 5,500 Javelin antitank missiles but the UK provided more than 10,000 antitank missiles

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104
    That's not consistent with your other source.

    In any case, an anti-tank missile (especially once translators and journalists have been at it) could be anything from a bazooka rocket to a very expensive TOW. There's a whole range of them. This sort of stat is like counting 23 half-pints, 4 pints and a barrel of beer as 27 beers. NLAW, for instance, is much lighter and shorter range than Javelin.

    Yes it is.

    They are all anti tank missiles and the UK provided more of them than any other nation and they were pivotal in Ukraine slowing the initial stages of the Russian advance
    Look at your sources again. And do some research. Even a NLAW is not equal to a Javelin.

    And you still hjaven't justified your claim that Boris Johnson will have won the Ukrainian war. Yes, you said, "won it".
    Strange, weren't we told, as Putin unleashed his Dogs of War, that Ukraine should just lie back and take it? And that the West should apologize for provoking the invasion in the first place?

    And now the fount of such wisdom is now not only trumpeting victory over the Ruskis, but appropriating credit for it?

    Really???
    Britain provided plenty of weaponry to Ukraine even before the invasion and was warning of it as Russia's buildup continued.

    We have correctly not sent troops or fighter jets to take on the Russians in non NATO Ukraine but that does not mean our military weapons and supplies and anti tank missiles in particular were not pivotal to containing the Russian advance
    Those who will be responsible for defeating Putin's invasion are those who are fighting and dying to defend their country.

    Any claim that we, or Boris 'won it' is pretty pathetic.
    Happy and honoured for the UK to be a footnote.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    Holy Mother of God!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    AND here is list of all 57 US House members who voted against final passage of HR 7691 Ukraine supplimental appropriation. (Please note - no US Represenative from WA State is on this list.)

    Arrington Republican Texas NAY
    Babin Republican Texas NAY
    Banks Republican Indiana NAY
    Biggs Republican Arizona NAY
    Bilirakis Republican Florida NAY
    Bishop (NC) Republican North Carolina NAY
    Boebert Republican Colorado NAY
    Buck Republican Colorado NAY
    Burchett Republican Tennessee NAY
    Cammack Republican Florida NAY
    Cawthorn Republican North Carolina NAY
    Cloud Republican Texas NAY
    Clyde Republican Georgia NAY
    Comer Republican Kentucky NAY
    Davidson Republican Ohio NAY
    DesJarlais Republican Tennessee NAY
    Donalds Republican Florida NAY
    Duncan Republican South Carolina NAY
    Estes Republican Kansas NAY
    Fulcher Republican Idaho NAY
    Gaetz Republican Florida NAY
    Gibbs Republican Ohio NAY
    Gohmert Republican Texas NAY
    Good (VA) Republican Virginia NAY
    Gosar Republican Arizona NAY
    Graves (LA) Republican Louisiana NAY
    Greene (GA) Republican Georgia NAY
    Harshbarger Republican Tennessee NAY
    Hartzler Republican Missouri NAY
    Hern Republican Oklahoma NAY
    Herrell Republican New Mexico NAY
    Hice (GA) Republican Georgia NAY
    Higgins (LA) Republican Louisiana NAY
    Huizenga Republican Michigan NAY
    Jackson Republican Texas NAY
    Johnson (LA) Republican Louisiana NAY
    Jordan Republican Ohio NAY
    Lesko Republican Arizona NAY
    Long Republican Missouri NAY
    Mann Republican Kansas NAY
    Massie Republican Kentucky NAY
    Mast Republican Florida NAY
    Miller (IL) Republican Illinois NAY
    Moore (AL) Republican Alabama NAY
    Nehls Republican Texas NAY
    Norman Republican South Carolina NAY
    Perry Republican Pennsylvania NAY
    Rose Republican Tennessee NAY
    Rosendale Republican Montana NAY
    Roy Republican Texas NAY
    Sessions Republican Texas NAY
    Steube Republican Florida NAY
    Tiffany Republican Wisconsin NAY
    Van Drew Republican New Jersey NAY
    Van Duyne Republican Texas NAY
    Westerman Republican Arkansas NAY
    Williams (TX) Republican Texas NAY

    Sorry for how this is formatted, just cut & pasted from US House website

    What an even spread, there's Republicans for every letter but I, K, O, Q, U, X, Y and Z.

    No, I don't know why that struck me either.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    NEW: Sue Gray's full partygtae report is unlikely to be the "nail in the coffin" for Boris Johnson, according to senior Whitehall officials.

    The report, due next week, is expected to be highly critical. But officials say it won't be a "killer blow"


    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1527364093149171712
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    dixiedean said:

    Holy Mother of God!

    Line of Duty back on ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    NEW: Sue Gray's full partygtae report is unlikely to be the "nail in the coffin" for Boris Johnson, according to senior Whitehall officials.

    The report, due next week, is expected to be highly critical. But officials say it won't be a "killer blow"


    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1527364093149171712

    Stunning. It's almost as if there was plenty already known that was enough to decide whether or not one felt Boris should go, and a lot people decided to defer their own judgement in hope that someone else could effectively make the hard choice for them.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
    Da fing iz why would raising rates crash asset prices when *real* rates is more negative than any time in history? 9% inflation, doubling interest rates from 1 to 2 only knocks the real interest rate down from -8 to -7.
    Indeed.

    Plus the problematic parasites that Max has accurately identified in the past tend to not be highly leveraged. The overwhelming majority of first time buyers need a mortgage but most BTL landlords are cash purchasers. So raising rates aids cash buyers but hurts borrowers. Indeed many BTL purchasers struggle to get a mortgage as they're old and don't have an income.

    Inflation on the other hand aids borrowers like first time buyers, but hurts the cash rich cash purchasers.

    If the purchasing with cash BTL types on a fixed income find their income squeezed then they may not be able to afford assets even if real interest rates are negative.
    You have lost me there. Cash rich cash purchasers just gonna purchase even quicker, and become cash poor asset rich.
    Inflation makes the cash rich cash poorer though. If you're on a fixed income and inflation goes up you need to reserve more cash for goods and services and have less for assets.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    Was shocked to see it's the Aussie election Saturday.
    Little comment on here.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,397
    As far as aid to Ukraine goes, it seems to me that the West should follow that old rule "From each according to his abilities . . ." -- and that mostly, so far, Western nations have done just that, supplying what they could. The leaders of those nations deserve more than a little credit for those timely supplies, and the training.

    Incidentally, the aid will mean, in the United States, and probably in other nations, more jobs in the factories that produce those weapons, at least for the next year or two.

    (In World War II, that rule meant that, the US supplied Spam, among other things, because that fit our abilities at the time. And that Spam was appreciated by, among others, Nikita Khrushchev and Margaret Thatcher.)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,944
    dixiedean said:

    Was shocked to see it's the Aussie election Saturday.
    Little comment on here.

    There has been a fair amount of discussion below the line.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    dixiedean said:

    Was shocked to see it's the Aussie election Saturday.
    Little comment on here.

    I get told off for commenting on it. I called it for the government after this weeks swingback.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    I don't like Boris Johnson, but I could forgive him a triumphal party conference in the autumn if it followed a Ukrainian victory.
    It would be Boris wot won it then, not the geriatric Biden or the too hesitant of offending Putin Macron and Scholz
    Without wishing to denegrate the UK contribution to Ukraine, the US contribution under the "geriatric Biden" as you put it is just VASTLY more than everyone else in the world put together.

    You'd expect that as a military superpower which remains very wealthy with a huge arms industry. And, as I say, not knocking the UK contribution. But there is simply no comparison between anyone else and the US.
    In terms of anti tank missiles for instance, pivotal for the Ukranians containing the Russian advance, it was the UK which supplied the most
    Aside from cherry picking an admittedly important type of military equipment, this is simply untrue. The US has been pumping Javelins into Ukraine at a vast rate - about one-third of its own (massive) stock.

    Again, no wish to denegrate the UK contribution, but you're just living in an absolute John Bull fantasy world in terms of numbers.
    It’s been a salutary reminder to the world of the absolute size and power of the US. For years people have been talking about it (wrongly IMHO) being in decline but it’s not - only China could pull that kind of spending out of its backside and provide the sheer volume of weaponry. America is not finished it’s been resting.

    I do think in the UK’s defence it’s allowed others such as the US to do everything they can as if the UK can do what it has done with a relatively (to the US) small military it would have been shaming to others if they hadn’t done anything. Same applies of course to a number of Baltic/east European countries.

    The UK and friends probably greased the wheels - the US provided the locomotive.
    Are you denying America is in RELATIVE decline? That’s fatuous. Of course it is. At the end of World War 2 the USA alone constituted 50% of global GDP, even in the Clinton years it was well over 30%. Now it is about 20% and dropping, inexorably

    That is a pretty huge fall, in just 70 years; the upside is that this has happened because so many other countries have lifted billions out of poverty, especially in Asia, especially in China. It’s good news for Homo Sapiens

    So America is in relative decline, that is undoubted, and that affects its ability to influence the world - as we see from Iraq to Afghanistan. But is America in ASBOLUTE decline?

    Absolute decline is fairly rare, at least in modern times. The UK never experienced it, properly, even as it fell from global supremacy.

    But there is an argument that America is, in some ways, facing absolute decline. Drugs, race, culture wars, BLM, homelessness, and so on. Much of it superbly stoked via the Chinese and Russians on social media
    You are probably absolutely correct however I have a belief in the US - which the Japanese should have done (and about the UK Liverpool fans and denizens of Hartlepool) that there is something inherently great in their cultures.

    We can be boorish, fat, lazy, complacent, smug, whatever, but…… when the chips are down those tools at US college football matches are the guys who go and storm Iwo Jima and the guys booing abide with me at wenbley are the guys who will be brewing up tea in between fighting whoever they need.

    A lot of people after WW1 wanted the US to assume it’s mantle and it retreated to an element of isolationalism and people thought they didn’t really have it in them - and then the US eventually showed it did and by god it did.

    So it might not be the hegemon it was for actually a short period in time but bugger me no other country can turn it on when it needs to at the moment.
    I’d love to think you are right. But my head says no, not at all

    America is now in absolute cultural decline, to my mind. It has immense power, still, but the trajectory is set. It feels like it is the Roman Empire but it is *Rome* moving into its decadent, Eastern, Byzantine era (which, to be fair, continued for a LONG time, and Byzantium was powerful centuries after Rome was rubble)

    The poignancy is that this cultural decline has been greatly accelerated by the internet and social media, which are, largely, American inventions, turned on America


    I just thought that I'd point out that you have been saying that in several personae for years.

    Lacking a crystal ball I can't make an authoritative prediction.

    But I know what I want.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339
    dixiedean said:

    Was shocked to see it's the Aussie election Saturday.
    Little comment on here.

    Some discussion the other night - it does seem to have tightened a bit and got more interesting.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    In response to @Northern_Al (fpt) -

    "I would imagine a lot of thought has been given; the Speaker receives wise counsel from various aides. Let's imagine the evidence against this MP is fairly compelling (too early for us to know, I recognise). You mention safeguarding in schools; does the Speaker not have a similar obligation to protect female staff (of whom there are hundreds, I don't mean MPs) in the HoC from a potentially predatory male?"

    This is a fair point.

    But we've been told that there are allegations against ca. 50 MPs.

    If the Speaker is concerned about the protection of staff from potentially predatory MPs, why aren't all these MPs being asked to stay away from the Commons?
  • MaxPB said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
    Da fing iz why would raising rates crash asset prices when *real* rates is more negative than any time in history? 9% inflation, doubling interest rates from 1 to 2 only knocks the real interest rate down from -8 to -7.
    Indeed.

    Plus the problematic parasites that Max has accurately identified in the past tend to not be highly leveraged. The overwhelming majority of first time buyers need a mortgage but most BTL landlords are cash purchasers. So raising rates aids cash buyers but hurts borrowers. Indeed many BTL purchasers struggle to get a mortgage as they're old and don't have an income.

    Inflation on the other hand aids borrowers like first time buyers, but hurts the cash rich cash purchasers.

    If the purchasing with cash BTL types on a fixed income find their income squeezed then they may not be able to afford assets even if real interest rates are negative.
    BTL purchasers are definitely not majority cash buyers. They're usually leveraged up to the eyeballs and very sensitive to falls in house prices as it also has a knock on effect in their rental value. For those few cash buyers out there, yes there's a big gain from falling asset prices but I've said plenty of times the stamp duty surcharge should be raised until it reaches 3-5 years of investment yield so something like 10-15% rather than the pathetic 3% the government has been too scared to raise.
    65% of purchases were for cash in 2017: https://www.theempirepropertygroup.co.uk/news/cash-buyers-make-up-record-65-of-buy-to-let-purchasers/#:~:text=The proportion of landlords acquiring,to fresh data from Countrywide.

    Not seen more recent figures but I'd expect its still majority cash. Indeed the trend is more and more to cash.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    edited May 2022

    dixiedean said:

    Was shocked to see it's the Aussie election Saturday.
    Little comment on here.

    There has been a fair amount of discussion below the line.
    OK.
    Must have been when I wasn't about.
    Would anyone care to post the consensus view?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    edited May 2022
    ...

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    I’ll say it again. I think this site routinely underestimates the chances of Boris winning a majority at the next election. It’s not a certain (depends how far down the shitter of inflation the economy goes before correcting) but I think it’s more likely than not.

    I think Boris Johnson's chances are almost entirely in the hands of the Russian leadership and the Ukrainian people.

    If Putin falls, Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and the oil and gas starts flowing again, the cost of living crisis will rapidly dissipate, and Boris will be a hero. In this scenario, I agree completely that Boris is highly likely to be reelected.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, people's utility bills rise sharply, cutting disposable spending, and pushing the UK into a recession, then I suspect he will be lucky to avoid a drubbing.
    Just to follow up on this one, it's the second order effects that are the killer.

    Right now, people are secure in their jobs, with record vacancies. Rising utility bills (for now) are merely an annoyance that necessitates some lifestyle changes. Maybe go out a little less; or wait on the purchase of that PS5; or choose Tesco Value instead of Finest.

    People react to lower disposable income by maybe dipping into their savings a bit, and by spending a little less.

    That lower spending is the problem, because it means Joes' Diner, which only barely survived Covid, is now getting less traffic in through the door. And that monthly rent isn't going anywhere. And take out orders are now down 20% too. If they're lucky, they'll be able to get by by just losing one of the waiting staff and someone from the kitchen. If things are tighter, then maybe Joe's has to shut, and everyone has lost their job.

    Suddenly those record job vacancies (and is there any more lagging market than employment?) aren't there any more.

    But as I said, so long as Ukraine is resolved (i.e. Putin falls), then Boris will be fine. People understand a little transient discomfort, and this isn't as bad as Covid.

    If it does not, however, and the sanctions drag on, then the UK economy (and most of the West) will fall into recession, and that will have consequences.
    Hopefully those consequences will fall politically on those who are prosecuting this war with not a shred of concern for the British economy or public.
    You mean Putin? 🤔
    It's not Putin's job to be concerned about the British economy or public. It should be the concern of Boris and his Government. We are being manoeuvred into a scenario where absolute victory as defined by those setting this agenda must be won 'whatever the cost'. I'm sorry but that is patently absurd. We choose whether policing a given corner of the world is more important than British people struggling to eat well or heat their houses. We're constantly told that Putin is struggling to gain small stretches of Ukraine - so why is unseating him so essential to British security interests as to spend billions and cut off chunks of our economy in this way?
    Simple Putinguy, the reason your long term idle Putin is struggling is in no small part because of the aid our allies are giving to Ukraine which is working. Cutting what is working is not smart.

    Oh and the cost of living rises the war is causing would still be getting caused whether we gave aid or not. Even if we cut and ran today abandoning our allies to support this on their own the cost of living crisis would still be there as Ukraine still won't be able to export it's food etc - only an end to the war, which means Putin defeated, will end the crisis.

    The sooner Putin fails, the sooner we can move on and the crisis ends and the cost of living will come back down. Failing to give aid will just result in the crisis dragging on for even longer, costing us far, far more.

    PS the few billion we are giving to Ukraine are an utter pittance compared to the amount spent on welfare etc. It is an utter bargain value for money.
    This is a false conflation of three very distinct things, the armed conflict in Ukraine ending, the Russian military leaving all of Ukraine including Crimea, and now most ambitiously, the removal of Putin from office. The former does not require the second, and it certainly doesn't require the third. In fact, the latter two ambitions may actually oppose the first, because Ukraine's Western sponsors are probably opposing Zelenskyy entering into any peace agreement that doesn't fulfill their other desired criteria. Meanwhile, Ukrainians (and of course Russians) continue to die, Ukraine becomes a morass, food prices rise, fuel prices rise, sanctions harm the economies of Russia and the West, etc.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    Agreed. Getting asset price falls like that is a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face. The asset rich will lose some asset value but will still have the cash they had etc. The cash poor will be made even poorer and will struggle the most.

    Inflation is a self correcting way the economy takes money out of the economy. By devaluing assets via inflation real money is taken out, without needing to physically take any out. That process has already begun and needs to run its course.

    A few years of prices and wages growing 10% but unearned incomes and asset prices frozen in value would very rapidly see a rebalancing of the economy away from unearned wealth and assets towards those who earn incomes.
    But we've still got ultra low rates so there's no guarantee that asset prices won't keep rising and keep up with inflation.
    If inflation spikes then unearned incomes struggle to keep up with earned incomes. Those with earned incomes get pay rises to meet their obligations, but unearned or fixed incomes see their incomes devalue in real terms which means they can't afford to buy assets anymore.

    Workers buying assets isn't a problem, we want working people to be able to afford their own homes. The problem is non working parasites taking and accumulating all the wealth for themselves and pulling up the ladder after they'd finished working, not wanting to pay what they owe for goods and services.
    Hmm, that seems an unlikely outcome to me. With ultra low interest rates baked in why wouldn't the asset rich continue to accumulate more assets?

    Pushing interest rates up is the only way to push asset prices down and create a more equal society. The government clearly doesn't have the cojones to put non primary housing asset surcharges up to punishing levels to dissuade BTL so interest rates will need to be the way to do it.
    Because the asset rich aren't leveraged. Most BTL purchases are with cash not a mortgage.

    If you're cash rich but have no regular income then in a low inflation environment your costs are under control and you can use your cash to chase assets like buying BTL properties.

    Raising interest rates doesn't hurt BTL cash purchasers, since they aren't leveraged, it only hurts those who need a mortgage.

    Inflation DOES hurt cash purchasers. It devalues their cash and means they need to spend more of their cash looking after themselves and less of it chasing assets.
    No, because they put their cash into assets.
    They're already doing that, but inflation devalues their cash while workers get a pay rise. 👍
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    dixiedean said:

    Holy Mother of God!

    Is it to be 1994 v Wimbledon redux?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
    Da fing iz why would raising rates crash asset prices when *real* rates is more negative than any time in history? 9% inflation, doubling interest rates from 1 to 2 only knocks the real interest rate down from -8 to -7.
    Indeed.

    Plus the problematic parasites that Max has accurately identified in the past tend to not be highly leveraged. The overwhelming majority of first time buyers need a mortgage but most BTL landlords are cash purchasers. So raising rates aids cash buyers but hurts borrowers. Indeed many BTL purchasers struggle to get a mortgage as they're old and don't have an income.

    Inflation on the other hand aids borrowers like first time buyers, but hurts the cash rich cash purchasers.

    If the purchasing with cash BTL types on a fixed income find their income squeezed then they may not be able to afford assets even if real interest rates are negative.
    You have lost me there. Cash rich cash purchasers just gonna purchase even quicker, and become cash poor asset rich.
    Inflation makes the cash rich cash poorer though. If you're on a fixed income and inflation goes up you need to reserve more cash for goods and services and have less for assets.
    Yeah but that's why they'll push their money into assets rather than keep it in cash, whatever they get from rising asset prices will be better than -7% they get from keeping it in cash.
  • MaxPB said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I believe the idiotic way HMG are dealing (or not dealing) with the cost of living crisis is becoming far more toxic then partygate and unless they step up to the plate quickly they will have scored an own goal of immense consequences to their electoral hopes

    This seems confirmed by Savanta in this tweet where partygate is nowhere to be seen

    https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1527300862636199937?t=WSdQDeIOyY_MwAkHUxmCrQ&s=19

    There will be a crisis budget before end of June, won’t there?
    No chance

    We have full employment, discretionary spending is still happpening big time, house prices continue upwards.

    Money needs to be taken out of the economy.
    I disagree.

    Over the next six months, pretty much every household in the UK will see their gas and electricity bills rise - in some cases as much as 150 or 200%.

    People in the bottom two income deciles will see enormous drops in their disposable income. And even people in the next two or three will see pretty significant ones.

    Raising interest rates will do little to reduce energy imported inflation, and would take money out of exactly those people most on the edge.
    Raising rates would cause asset prices to fall which surely hits the wealthy asset rich more than it does the asset poor.
    From an asset wealth perspective, you are absolutely right.

    From a disposable income perspective, I'm not sure you are.
    I'm not sure the bottom deciles are most leveraged. One example is pensioners, on low nominal incomes but usually nil debt. I'd imagine the decile 3-9 homebuyers will be most affected, and especially higher earners in frothy markets.
    Da fing iz why would raising rates crash asset prices when *real* rates is more negative than any time in history? 9% inflation, doubling interest rates from 1 to 2 only knocks the real interest rate down from -8 to -7.
    Indeed.

    Plus the problematic parasites that Max has accurately identified in the past tend to not be highly leveraged. The overwhelming majority of first time buyers need a mortgage but most BTL landlords are cash purchasers. So raising rates aids cash buyers but hurts borrowers. Indeed many BTL purchasers struggle to get a mortgage as they're old and don't have an income.

    Inflation on the other hand aids borrowers like first time buyers, but hurts the cash rich cash purchasers.

    If the purchasing with cash BTL types on a fixed income find their income squeezed then they may not be able to afford assets even if real interest rates are negative.
    You have lost me there. Cash rich cash purchasers just gonna purchase even quicker, and become cash poor asset rich.
    Inflation makes the cash rich cash poorer though. If you're on a fixed income and inflation goes up you need to reserve more cash for goods and services and have less for assets.
    Yeah but that's why they'll push their money into assets rather than keep it in cash, whatever they get from rising asset prices will be better than -7% they get from keeping it in cash.
    They're already doing that.

    Inflation will devalue their cash though. They'll have higher costs but no more cash, while workers will have more.
This discussion has been closed.