You've got to be kidding. Do you know how much that would fuck up consumers with mortgages, especially lower-income ones who now also face the energy price cap being reviewed four times a year not twice? On a wider macro front, it would send consumer confidence into a tailspin.
The current inflation rate is a mixture of demand and supply issues. You can't fix the supply issues by interest rate rises and, if you want to target the demand side issues, you are better off targeting the wealthy who have benefited from large asset inflation / wage increases, largely caused by the QE programme.
One other point. The BoE this week loosened the lending criteria for mortgages. You could read that either way as a signal to what they will do with rates
Are we all expecting 50 base points today, then? And are we in agreement on that? I'd like to see a full percent. But 75 would be OK as politically acceptable. I fear we may get a 25 however.
Everyone is expecting 50 basis points. 25 would be a shocker given how it has been trailed.
I reckon they can't possibly go higher than 50 basis points because they're too worried about admitting how far behind the curve they are.
What's interesting about this trailing is that they are widely predicted to have two more 50 point rises to follow. That makes little sense. If that's the correct figure in three months, why not now? Other than for the reason you suggest.
Indeed, it would be better to do two 75bp rises. Hopefully we get one today.
If you are interested, Lilico is spending the morning on twitter explaining how an interest rate rise would work.
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In terms of charisma and political talent, Boris remains the outstanding figure of this batch of Conservatives. Unless his successor manages him very carefullly, he is going to oushine them as King over the water. And Truss, who is basically Norfolk's third best Boris Johnson tribute act, looks like she has most of his downsides with few of his skills.
I can see why Boris in a dress is attractive to some Conservatives, but electing her would be doubling down on the choice of 2019, which really looks like a mistake.
Because, ultimately, Boris had to go. Look what happened in the May elections; whoever was the not-Conservative candidate did well. His conduct was well below the standards the public expect from their leaders. On top of all the individual scandals, the fact that he has left his party choosing between Tweedlebankers and Tweedlebonkers shows what a terrible leader he has been.
Right now, the Conservatives don't seem to have any good moves, only differently bad ones. The same could well be true of the country, looking at our economic and European situations. And as in chess, that can be traced back to choices made, perhaps unwittingly, several moves ago.
But like it or not, there is still a need to choose the best move, even if it's not very good.
If you are losing a chess game, you have to make choices that complicate the position.
The theoretically best move might well just lead to an obvious slow decline.
You need something potentially unsound which might well lose you the game quicker, but gives your opponent a chance to go wrong. Something where the outcome isn't immediately obvious.
I fear both Sunak and Truss are poor choices in that regard.
This final choice of poor moves is really down to MPs, not the party at large.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
Thanks for the figures. Rather bears out my suspicion. Since the Republicans have nailed their colours to the anti-abortion mast it it does suggest that the Independents might break largely for the Democrats.
Aren’t you making the big assumption that it will be a driver of voting behaviour?
Kansas was more about telling politicians it was off limits as a topic and that’s not necessary a party line issue
You've got to be kidding. Do you know how much that would fuck up consumers with mortgages, especially lower-income ones who now also face the energy price cap being reviewed four times a year not twice? On a wider macro front, it would send consumer confidence into a tailspin.
The current inflation rate is a mixture of demand and supply issues. You can't fix the supply issues by interest rate rises and, if you want to target the demand side issues, you are better off targeting the wealthy who have benefited from large asset inflation / wage increases, largely caused by the QE programme.
One other point. The BoE this week loosened the lending criteria for mortgages. You could read that either way as a signal to what they will do with rates
Are we all expecting 50 base points today, then? And are we in agreement on that? I'd like to see a full percent. But 75 would be OK as politically acceptable. I fear we may get a 25 however.
Everyone is expecting 50 basis points. 25 would be a shocker given how it has been trailed.
I reckon they can't possibly go higher than 50 basis points because they're too worried about admitting how far behind the curve they are.
What's interesting about this trailing is that they are widely predicted to have two more 50 point rises to follow. That makes little sense. If that's the correct figure in three months, why not now? Other than for the reason you suggest.
Indeed, it would be better to do two 75bp rises. Hopefully we get one today.
Yes but. A 50 point today and two more to come is what is being widely trailed. If it correct for three months time, then why not now? Plus. It's entirely plausible to argue as you do. But the BofE remit is to control inflation. Which has a demand component, even if most of it is supply driven. Not deal with consumer confidence, nor mortgages. It's for politicians to alter that if they don't like it.
You've got to be kidding. Do you know how much that would fuck up consumers with mortgages, especially lower-income ones who now also face the energy price cap being reviewed four times a year not twice? On a wider macro front, it would send consumer confidence into a tailspin.
The current inflation rate is a mixture of demand and supply issues. You can't fix the supply issues by interest rate rises and, if you want to target the demand side issues, you are better off targeting the wealthy who have benefited from large asset inflation / wage increases, largely caused by the QE programme.
One other point. The BoE this week loosened the lending criteria for mortgages. You could read that either way as a signal to what they will do with rates
Are we all expecting 50 base points today, then? And are we in agreement on that? I'd like to see a full percent. But 75 would be OK as politically acceptable. I fear we may get a 25 however.
Everyone is expecting 50 basis points. 25 would be a shocker given how it has been trailed.
I reckon they can't possibly go higher than 50 basis points because they're too worried about admitting how far behind the curve they are.
What's interesting about this trailing is that they are widely predicted to have two more 50 point rises to follow. That makes little sense. If that's the correct figure in three months, why not now? Other than for the reason you suggest.
Indeed, it would be better to do two 75bp rises. Hopefully we get one today.
This is what, from my limited understanding, modern monetary theory would suggest taxation is good for, right?
Are we all expecting 50 base points today, then? And are we in agreement on that? I'd like to see a full percent. But 75 would be OK as politically acceptable. I fear we may get a 25 however.
Everyone is expecting 50 basis points. 25 would be a shocker given how it has been trailed.
I reckon they can't possibly go higher than 50 basis points because they're too worried about admitting how far behind the curve they are.
It's an interesting one for the media. The cynic in me thinks that those with power in the media will have quite big mortgages and therefore won't want to hold the BoE's feet to the fire.
The line from the Guardian is to make a big thing of how the BoE hasn't increased rates by more than 25 basis points since it was given its independence.
Why would they? There hasn't been an inflation spike.
The point is that it's being used to deflect from the question of whether there should be an even higher increase now.
Braverman gives perhaps the definitive performance of "politician talking about something they don't understand in the slightest". Still, I am intrigued by the idea that the BOJ, which has failed to deliver on its inflation mandate for decades and now owns more than half of Japan's public debt, offers a model for the BOE to follow. I have a feeling that UK economic policy is about to get very "interesting".
Braverman is just riffing on Liz Truss's campaign pledges — review the Bank of England's mandate in some unspecified way; think about copying the Bank of Japan in some aspect or other. Braverman is struggling because Liz Truss is just throwing out slogans and not policies.
Japan was a very poor choice. There are several other currencies which didn't turn on the printing taps during Covid and have significantly lower inflation now. All choices come with pros and cons and the bill have to be paid somewhere so perhaps the way things are playing out is the least worst options.
But foolish to believe you can respond to a temporary reduction in the velocity of money by a permanent increase in supply, and then when velocity reverts just mouth off about Ukraine and deny any responsibility like Bailey wants to do.
I think Bailey was generally considered a non-entity when he was hired. There weren't many obvious alternatives though.
The issue with the Bank of England job is that there are so few plausible jobs beneath it - it's almost "Buggin's Turn". Once you've made it to the head of FCA chances are you are next BoE head because there is nowhere else to recruit you from.
At least the Met can pick from the head of 40 other Constabularies
Mark Carney?
Brought in because no-one immediately below Sir Mervyn King was deemed good enough
David Blanchflower, who is a bit eccentric, called King a tyrant. Whether that explains a dearth of talent in the BofE I don't know.
King's problem is that because he is almost always the smartest person in the room he thinks he is right about everything. This is an extremely common affliction amount top rate economists - perhaps this is true more generally among top academics in any field but economists are my tribe. I've met him on many occasions and he's always been very charming and pleasant, but I've never worked with him and know from those who have that he can be very hard to work with. A tyrant may well be fairly accurate, although Blanchflower (who I have never met) is someone who almost nobody associated with the BOE has a good word for so I don't know if he is a neutral observer. From a monetary policy perspective I think King did a great job at the BOE, but from a financial regulation point of view I think he was less successful. He is a macroeconomist not a finance guy. And like a lot of ex central bankers he is guilty of presenting things as a lot more black and white than when he was in the job. He was better than either of his successors, I think.
I thought this was interesting. It reminded me of an encounter with a couple we got chatting to by the beach at Cawsand a couple of days ago. They must have been in their sixties, they were down for their grandson's passing out ceremony at the nearby naval academy. They would have been labelled "white working class" by PB Tories - she was a retired school dinner lady. Like us they live in South London - from his accent I would guess he was a native Londoner, she was from Sunderland. She did most of the talking, but he got very animated talking about Brixton, telling us it was his favourite place because "the whole world is there." You can't generalise about people and their opinions, they will always be more interesting than the tabloid clichés.
I'm intrigued by the implication there is something even less interesting than a tabloid cliche. What would that be? Perhaps the Hundred?
I'm more impressed in the truly tortuous path to throw in a PB Tories Always Wrong.
I'm off to flagellate myself with a laminated Ed Balls.
You've got to be kidding. Do you know how much that would fuck up consumers with mortgages, especially lower-income ones who now also face the energy price cap being reviewed four times a year not twice? On a wider macro front, it would send consumer confidence into a tailspin.
The current inflation rate is a mixture of demand and supply issues. You can't fix the supply issues by interest rate rises and, if you want to target the demand side issues, you are better off targeting the wealthy who have benefited from large asset inflation / wage increases, largely caused by the QE programme.
One other point. The BoE this week loosened the lending criteria for mortgages. You could read that either way as a signal to what they will do with rates
Are we all expecting 50 base points today, then? And are we in agreement on that? I'd like to see a full percent. But 75 would be OK as politically acceptable. I fear we may get a 25 however.
Everyone is expecting 50 basis points. 25 would be a shocker given how it has been trailed.
I reckon they can't possibly go higher than 50 basis points because they're too worried about admitting how far behind the curve they are.
What's interesting about this trailing is that they are widely predicted to have two more 50 point rises to follow. That makes little sense. If that's the correct figure in three months, why not now? Other than for the reason you suggest.
Indeed, it would be better to do two 75bp rises. Hopefully we get one today.
Yes but. A 50 point today and two more to come is what is being widely trailed. If it correct for three months time, then why not now? Plus. It's entirely plausible to argue as you do. But the BofE remit is to control inflation. Which has a demand component, even if most of it is supply driven. Not deal with consumer confidence, nor mortgages. It's for politicians to alter that if they don't like it.
The Bank of England have to set interest rates to meet their inflation target, taking into account the effect of government fiscal policy. If the government were to take deflationary fiscal moves, by increasing tax on the asset wealthy, or other steps, then the BoE could go less hard on interest rates. But the BoE don't set taxation policy.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
I made a quick comparison of the swing between the 2020 Trump vote and the Yes vote and it looked like the swing was largest the more GOP a county was.
There's certainly a significant number of GOP voters who don't want a total ban on abortion.
Is the issue important enough for them to vote Democrat despite all the other reasons that mean they normally vote Republican?
Not sure, but if forced to guess I'd say not. At least, not yet.
If you think about it, Kansas creates odd incentives that may mislead
Say you are a committed Republican who doesn’t care strongly about abortion (IIRC it’s only a third or so of GOP voters who are fixated).
If you have an election which is focus on abortion you fear the Democrats will walk it
Isn’t your incentive to get out and vote for something that reduces the chance of the election being about abortion, ie keeping the current constitutional protections?
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
I made a quick comparison of the swing between the 2020 Trump vote and the Yes vote and it looked like the swing was largest the more GOP a county was.
There's certainly a significant number of GOP voters who don't want a total ban on abortion.
Is the issue important enough for them to vote Democrat despite all the other reasons that mean they normally vote Republican?
Not sure, but if forced to guess I'd say not. At least, not yet.
If you think about it, Kansas creates odd incentives that may mislead
Say you are a committed Republican who doesn’t care strongly about abortion (IIRC it’s only a third or so of GOP voters who are fixated).
If you have an election which is focus on abortion you fear the Democrats will walk it
Isn’t your incentive to get out and vote for something that reduces the chance of the election being about abortion, ie keeping the current constitutional protections?
No. This line of thinking is like Labour voters who rate Boris as doing a good job on the basis he might make a Labour Gov't more likely whilst he's lieing and fucking up. Just doesn't happen in real life.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
I made a quick comparison of the swing between the 2020 Trump vote and the Yes vote and it looked like the swing was largest the more GOP a county was.
There's certainly a significant number of GOP voters who don't want a total ban on abortion.
Is the issue important enough for them to vote Democrat despite all the other reasons that mean they normally vote Republican?
Not sure, but if forced to guess I'd say not. At least, not yet.
If you think about it, Kansas creates odd incentives that may mislead
Say you are a committed Republican who doesn’t care strongly about abortion (IIRC it’s only a third or so of GOP voters who are fixated).
If you have an election which is focus on abortion you fear the Democrats will walk it
Isn’t your incentive to get out and vote for something that reduces the chance of the election being about abortion, ie keeping the current constitutional protections?
No. This line of thinking is like Labour voters who rate Boris as doing a good job on the basis he might make a Labour Gov't more likely whilst he's lieing and fucking up. Just doesn't happen in real life.
And yet we know from SSI's reports that Dems in some places were boosting MAGA candidates in GOP primaries on the grounds that they think they will be easier to beat.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
I made a quick comparison of the swing between the 2020 Trump vote and the Yes vote and it looked like the swing was largest the more GOP a county was.
There's certainly a significant number of GOP voters who don't want a total ban on abortion.
Is the issue important enough for them to vote Democrat despite all the other reasons that mean they normally vote Republican?
Not sure, but if forced to guess I'd say not. At least, not yet.
If you think about it, Kansas creates odd incentives that may mislead
Say you are a committed Republican who doesn’t care strongly about abortion (IIRC it’s only a third or so of GOP voters who are fixated).
If you have an election which is focus on abortion you fear the Democrats will walk it
Isn’t your incentive to get out and vote for something that reduces the chance of the election being about abortion, ie keeping the current constitutional protections?
No. This line of thinking is like Labour voters who rate Boris as doing a good job on the basis he might make a Labour Gov't more likely whilst he's lieing and fucking up. Just doesn't happen in real life.
And yet we know from SSI's reports that Dems in some places were boosting MAGA candidates in GOP primaries on the grounds that they think they will be easier to beat.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
I made a quick comparison of the swing between the 2020 Trump vote and the Yes vote and it looked like the swing was largest the more GOP a county was.
There's certainly a significant number of GOP voters who don't want a total ban on abortion.
Is the issue important enough for them to vote Democrat despite all the other reasons that mean they normally vote Republican?
Not sure, but if forced to guess I'd say not. At least, not yet.
If you think about it, Kansas creates odd incentives that may mislead
Say you are a committed Republican who doesn’t care strongly about abortion (IIRC it’s only a third or so of GOP voters who are fixated).
If you have an election which is focus on abortion you fear the Democrats will walk it
Isn’t your incentive to get out and vote for something that reduces the chance of the election being about abortion, ie keeping the current constitutional protections?
No. This line of thinking is like Labour voters who rate Boris as doing a good job on the basis he might make a Labour Gov't more likely whilst he's lieing and fucking up. Just doesn't happen in real life.
And yet we know from SSI's reports that Dems in some places were boosting MAGA candidates in GOP primaries on the grounds that they think they will be easier to beat.
On April 23, 2015, two weeks after Hillary Clinton officially declared her presidential campaign, her staff sent out a group message with information for a "strategy call."... At the time, there were more than a dozen Republican presidential candidates. The "variety of candidates is a positive here," the Clinton campaign said... "In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party," the Clinton campaign wrote. As examples of these "pied piper" candidates, the memo named Donald Trump
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
I made a quick comparison of the swing between the 2020 Trump vote and the Yes vote and it looked like the swing was largest the more GOP a county was.
There's certainly a significant number of GOP voters who don't want a total ban on abortion.
Is the issue important enough for them to vote Democrat despite all the other reasons that mean they normally vote Republican?
Not sure, but if forced to guess I'd say not. At least, not yet.
If you think about it, Kansas creates odd incentives that may mislead
Say you are a committed Republican who doesn’t care strongly about abortion (IIRC it’s only a third or so of GOP voters who are fixated).
If you have an election which is focus on abortion you fear the Democrats will walk it
Isn’t your incentive to get out and vote for something that reduces the chance of the election being about abortion, ie keeping the current constitutional protections?
I don't think voters are that sophisticated, and the GOP was clearly campaigning in favour of overturning the status quo. I just think SCOTUS overplayed their hand - the only group in the US where a majority are against abortion in the first trimester and in the case of rape, incest or threat of life to the mother are white evangelicals; even white catholics are split three ways (in favour, against and unsure). It is possible that an issue like this that crosses class and race in favour of gender may mean that suburban women, who were integral to Democrats beating the GOP during the Trump era and were looking like they may go back to the GOP due to the moral panic over schools and CRT, lean more Democratic still.
I would also be surprised if the GOP moderate their position at all, though. I think what is more likely is increased anti democratic structural change; SCOTUS tearing up the voting rights act and possibly allowing the state legislature supremacy theory to take hold, more voter suppression, more cries of stolen elections, more obstructionism. It is clear that that the victimhood the GOP posses, and the increasingly vile smears they use against Democrats and anyone on the centre - left of centre in general, is just a way to justify any action. If all LGBT+ people are groomers, it's fine to threaten them back into the closet. If all Dems steal elections or, if we go full Qanon, are sex traffickers, then it's fine to steal elections in response or violently overthrow the government. If liberals are all secret marxist communist fifth columnists, their votes shouldn't really count.
Braverman gives perhaps the definitive performance of "politician talking about something they don't understand in the slightest". Still, I am intrigued by the idea that the BOJ, which has failed to deliver on its inflation mandate for decades and now owns more than half of Japan's public debt, offers a model for the BOE to follow. I have a feeling that UK economic policy is about to get very "interesting".
Braverman is just riffing on Liz Truss's campaign pledges — review the Bank of England's mandate in some unspecified way; think about copying the Bank of Japan in some aspect or other. Braverman is struggling because Liz Truss is just throwing out slogans and not policies.
Japan was a very poor choice. There are several other currencies which didn't turn on the printing taps during Covid and have significantly lower inflation now. All choices come with pros and cons and the bill have to be paid somewhere so perhaps the way things are playing out is the least worst options.
But foolish to believe you can respond to a temporary reduction in the velocity of money by a permanent increase in supply, and then when velocity reverts just mouth off about Ukraine and deny any responsibility like Bailey wants to do.
I think Bailey was generally considered a non-entity when he was hired. There weren't many obvious alternatives though.
The issue with the Bank of England job is that there are so few plausible jobs beneath it - it's almost "Buggin's Turn". Once you've made it to the head of FCA chances are you are next BoE head because there is nowhere else to recruit you from.
At least the Met can pick from the head of 40 other Constabularies
Mark Carney?
I don't get why Bailey is getting attacked when Carney was even worse. The BoE kept rates low at a time when things were going reasonably well. The first thing he did was say that rates wouldn't go up as long as unemployment remained above 7%. Of course, unemployment fell through the floor and they carried on anyway. Rates should have risen slowly from 2013 through to 2017/2018. We should have gone into COVID with the base rate at around 3%.
Because Bailey is still very bad. A good proportion of the MPC are similar, if not worse, and that is on the Treasury and I am afraid Rishi who continued to appoint one track groupthinkers.
Interesting take, but actually quite revealing that an Express sub (under 40?) has so little of a clue what interest rates are that they can make that mistake.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
I made a quick comparison of the swing between the 2020 Trump vote and the Yes vote and it looked like the swing was largest the more GOP a county was.
There's certainly a significant number of GOP voters who don't want a total ban on abortion.
Is the issue important enough for them to vote Democrat despite all the other reasons that mean they normally vote Republican?
Not sure, but if forced to guess I'd say not. At least, not yet.
If you think about it, Kansas creates odd incentives that may mislead
Say you are a committed Republican who doesn’t care strongly about abortion (IIRC it’s only a third or so of GOP voters who are fixated).
If you have an election which is focus on abortion you fear the Democrats will walk it
Isn’t your incentive to get out and vote for something that reduces the chance of the election being about abortion, ie keeping the current constitutional protections?
No. This line of thinking is like Labour voters who rate Boris as doing a good job on the basis he might make a Labour Gov't more likely whilst he's lieing and fucking up. Just doesn't happen in real life.
And yet we know from SSI's reports that Dems in some places were boosting MAGA candidates in GOP primaries on the grounds that they think they will be easier to beat.
I doubt that'll end well for them.
Exactly my instinct when I read about it. But it does show that in the US there are cases of people voting in one election with an eye on the next one.
It happened here, too, with the Tories for Corbyn paying their £3.
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
I agree with your 2nd paragraph and they could have picked someone better, in fact most of the other runners.
But Boris had to go. The Tories should not have kept him even if he was a winner. This has nothing to do with politics, or who you support. He is a liar and immoral and had to go. And credit to all the Tories who recognised this.
Interesting take, but actually quite revealing that an Express sub (under 40?) has so little of a clue what interest rates are that they can make that mistake.
Also...
If this were to be implemented, the base rate would increase from 1.25 percent to 1.75 percent, which is the highest level in 27 years since 1995 before the Bank of England gained independence under then-Chancellor Gordon Brown.
The 0.5 pp rise will be largest since 1995, but rates went as high as 7.5% in June 1998:
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
I made a quick comparison of the swing between the 2020 Trump vote and the Yes vote and it looked like the swing was largest the more GOP a county was.
There's certainly a significant number of GOP voters who don't want a total ban on abortion.
Is the issue important enough for them to vote Democrat despite all the other reasons that mean they normally vote Republican?
Not sure, but if forced to guess I'd say not. At least, not yet.
I'd say it depends upon what the abortion choices are.
If its an outright ban more will switch to Dem than if its, for example, a restriction to 13 weeks.
It will be interesting to see if the anti-abortionists overreach and go for maximalist restrictions.
90-98% or so of abortions are cat C or D with ~ 2-10% being for truly medical reasons in the UK I think. The argument always seems to swing round to the 2-10% or so - mother dieing, rape, genetic abnormality whereas the 90-98% are "choice". There's a huge amount of "lives to save" (If you want the anti-abortion lobby's words) whilst still allowing strictly medically neccesary abortions.
The problem with this view is that, historically at least, a big chunk of those in the 90% group have strong motivations to have an abortion (social, economic, etc etc) & will seek abortions without medical support if the medical establishment refuses to treat them, with all the negative outcomes that result from taking that path.
I imagine the “moral purity” end of the anti-abortion lobby quietly views this as these women receiving their just deserts, but personally I find it abominable to force women into making these choices.
Interesting take, but actually quite revealing that an Express sub (under 40?) has so little of a clue what interest rates are that they can make that mistake.
Also...
If this were to be implemented, the base rate would increase from 1.25 percent to 1.75 percent, which is the highest level in 27 years since 1995 before the Bank of England gained independence under then-Chancellor Gordon Brown.
The 0.5 pp rise will be largest since 1995, but rates went as high as 7.5% in June 1998:
Golly, spectacular and frightening. not just the subs.
poor buggers - no mortgages, no experience of being paid interest on savings, about to discover the new normal. Which is why Why not just whack them up 150 bps at one go is a bad idea.
Braverman gives perhaps the definitive performance of "politician talking about something they don't understand in the slightest". Still, I am intrigued by the idea that the BOJ, which has failed to deliver on its inflation mandate for decades and now owns more than half of Japan's public debt, offers a model for the BOE to follow. I have a feeling that UK economic policy is about to get very "interesting".
Braverman is just riffing on Liz Truss's campaign pledges — review the Bank of England's mandate in some unspecified way; think about copying the Bank of Japan in some aspect or other. Braverman is struggling because Liz Truss is just throwing out slogans and not policies.
Japan was a very poor choice. There are several other currencies which didn't turn on the printing taps during Covid and have significantly lower inflation now. All choices come with pros and cons and the bill have to be paid somewhere so perhaps the way things are playing out is the least worst options.
But foolish to believe you can respond to a temporary reduction in the velocity of money by a permanent increase in supply, and then when velocity reverts just mouth off about Ukraine and deny any responsibility like Bailey wants to do.
Who on earth appointed Bailey ?
One look at his FCA job should have been disqualificating. Just seems there's a merry-go-round of top state jobs once you reach a certain level no matter how atrocious your performance in the previous job.
Ken Clarke should have been brought in.
Bailey epitomises cronyism at it’s worst.
Spielman, first at OFQUAL and now at OFSTED, was probably still more damaging. At least Andrew Bailey is a banker, albeit a rather rubbish one who can't stay awake in meetings.
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In terms of charisma and political talent, Boris remains the outstanding figure of this batch of Conservatives. Unless his successor manages him very carefullly, he is going to oushine them as King over the water. And Truss, who is basically Norfolk's third best Boris Johnson tribute act, looks like she has most of his downsides with few of his skills.
I can see why Boris in a dress is attractive to some Conservatives, but electing her would be doubling down on the choice of 2019, which really looks like a mistake.
Because, ultimately, Boris had to go. Look what happened in the May elections; whoever was the not-Conservative candidate did well. His conduct was well below the standards the public expect from their leaders. On top of all the individual scandals, the fact that he has left his party choosing between Tweedlebankers and Tweedlebonkers shows what a terrible leader he has been.
Right now, the Conservatives don't seem to have any good moves, only differently bad ones. The same could well be true of the country, looking at our economic and European situations. And as in chess, that can be traced back to choices made, perhaps unwittingly, several moves ago.
But like it or not, there is still a need to choose the best move, even if it's not very good.
If you are losing a chess game, you have to make choices that complicate the position.
The theoretically best move might well just lead to an obvious slow decline.
You need something potentially unsound which might well lose you the game quicker, but gives your opponent a chance to go wrong. Something where the outcome isn't immediately obvious.
I fear both Sunak and Truss are poor choices in that regard.
This final choice of poor moves is really down to MPs, not the party at large.
The 1922 Committee has screwed the pooch. The rushed parliamentary stage which went from a dozen contenders to two inside a week gave no time for consideration of policy or even electability. The final two then have a full six weeks of being asked the same questions over and over again because no-one told the 1922 about streaming.
Although after so many big beasts had been purged by Boris, maybe the 1922 would prefer not to have started from here.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
I made a quick comparison of the swing between the 2020 Trump vote and the Yes vote and it looked like the swing was largest the more GOP a county was.
There's certainly a significant number of GOP voters who don't want a total ban on abortion.
Is the issue important enough for them to vote Democrat despite all the other reasons that mean they normally vote Republican?
Not sure, but if forced to guess I'd say not. At least, not yet.
If you think about it, Kansas creates odd incentives that may mislead
Say you are a committed Republican who doesn’t care strongly about abortion (IIRC it’s only a third or so of GOP voters who are fixated).
If you have an election which is focus on abortion you fear the Democrats will walk it
Isn’t your incentive to get out and vote for something that reduces the chance of the election being about abortion, ie keeping the current constitutional protections?
No. This line of thinking is like Labour voters who rate Boris as doing a good job on the basis he might make a Labour Gov't more likely whilst he's lieing and fucking up. Just doesn't happen in real life.
And yet we know from SSI's reports that Dems in some places were boosting MAGA candidates in GOP primaries on the grounds that they think they will be easier to beat.
Interest rates rise by 0.5%, biggest rise for 27 years.
Will be interesting to see if it has any impact on house prices
It will, of course, but probably counter balanced by removing the stress test part of mortage affordability earlier in the week. Can't let the client vote lose out!
Which raises the question of whether control of interest rates should be returned back to the Government. It's a classic case of a the chances of a potentially sub-optimal outcome being actioned because different decision making bodies have different, fragmented aims and are not looking at the wider whole.
The independence of central Banks is from the 1990s playbook when we all thought economic prosperity would come to Russia as well as democracy to both it and China. Maybe time to recognise that Central Bank independence is not the panacea to all ills.
You've got to be kidding. Do you know how much that would fuck up consumers with mortgages, especially lower-income ones who now also face the energy price cap being reviewed four times a year not twice? On a wider macro front, it would send consumer confidence into a tailspin.
The current inflation rate is a mixture of demand and supply issues. You can't fix the supply issues by interest rate rises and, if you want to target the demand side issues, you are better off targeting the wealthy who have benefited from large asset inflation / wage increases, largely caused by the QE programme.
One other point. The BoE this week loosened the lending criteria for mortgages. You could read that either way as a signal to what they will do with rates
Are we all expecting 50 base points today, then? And are we in agreement on that? I'd like to see a full percent. But 75 would be OK as politically acceptable. I fear we may get a 25 however.
Everyone is expecting 50 basis points. 25 would be a shocker given how it has been trailed.
I reckon they can't possibly go higher than 50 basis points because they're too worried about admitting how far behind the curve they are.
What's interesting about this trailing is that they are widely predicted to have two more 50 point rises to follow. That makes little sense. If that's the correct figure in three months, why not now? Other than for the reason you suggest.
Indeed, it would be better to do two 75bp rises. Hopefully we get one today.
Yes but. A 50 point today and two more to come is what is being widely trailed. If it correct for three months time, then why not now? Plus. It's entirely plausible to argue as you do. But the BofE remit is to control inflation. Which has a demand component, even if most of it is supply driven. Not deal with consumer confidence, nor mortgages. It's for politicians to alter that if they don't like it.
The Bank of England have to set interest rates to meet their inflation target, taking into account the effect of government fiscal policy. If the government were to take deflationary fiscal moves, by increasing tax on the asset wealthy, or other steps, then the BoE could go less hard on interest rates. But the BoE don't set taxation policy.
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
I agree with your 2nd paragraph and they could have picked someone better, in fact most of the other runners.
But Boris had to go. The Tories should not have kept him even if he was a winner. This has nothing to do with politics, or who you support. He is a liar and immoral and had to go. And credit to all the Tories who recognised this.
But all the Tories did not recognise that. Boris was dumped because the party kept getting stuffed at the ballot box. While the party was winning, MPs were happy to overlook partygate, wallpapergate, Arcurigate and all the rest. Perhaps they should have driven to Barnard Castle to get their eyes tested.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
There were c 470k votes in the Rep primary. Around 260k in the Dem. And about 920k in the abortion vote. Since only registered Party voters can vote in the Primaries in Kansas it suggests a pretty good Independent turnout. Also notable the Rep. total vote significantly higher that the Yes vote (376k).
I made a quick comparison of the swing between the 2020 Trump vote and the Yes vote and it looked like the swing was largest the more GOP a county was.
There's certainly a significant number of GOP voters who don't want a total ban on abortion.
Is the issue important enough for them to vote Democrat despite all the other reasons that mean they normally vote Republican?
Not sure, but if forced to guess I'd say not. At least, not yet.
If you think about it, Kansas creates odd incentives that may mislead
Say you are a committed Republican who doesn’t care strongly about abortion (IIRC it’s only a third or so of GOP voters who are fixated).
If you have an election which is focus on abortion you fear the Democrats will walk it
Isn’t your incentive to get out and vote for something that reduces the chance of the election being about abortion, ie keeping the current constitutional protections?
I don't think voters are that sophisticated, and the GOP was clearly campaigning in favour of overturning the status quo. I just think SCOTUS overplayed their hand - the only group in the US where a majority are against abortion in the first trimester and in the case of rape, incest or threat of life to the mother are white evangelicals; even white catholics are split three ways (in favour, against and unsure). It is possible that an issue like this that crosses class and race in favour of gender may mean that suburban women, who were integral to Democrats beating the GOP during the Trump era and were looking like they may go back to the GOP due to the moral panic over schools and CRT, lean more Democratic still.
I would also be surprised if the GOP moderate their position at all, though. I think what is more likely is increased anti democratic structural change; SCOTUS tearing up the voting rights act and possibly allowing the state legislature supremacy theory to take hold, more voter suppression, more cries of stolen elections, more obstructionism. It is clear that that the victimhood the GOP posses, and the increasingly vile smears they use against Democrats and anyone on the centre - left of centre in general, is just a way to justify any action. If all LGBT+ people are groomers, it's fine to threaten them back into the closet. If all Dems steal elections or, if we go full Qanon, are sex traffickers, then it's fine to steal elections in response or violently overthrow the government. If liberals are all secret marxist communist fifth columnists, their votes shouldn't really count.
40% of Hispanics in America think abortion should be mostly illegal. Slightly higher than the 39% of Whites in America who think abortion should be mostly illegal.
Interest rates rise by 0.5%, biggest rise for 27 years.
Will be interesting to see if it has any impact on house prices
While interest rates remain below inflation and mortgages being easier to get, I would expect house prices to kick off and soar even higher.
The bigger issue is energy bills. Some first time buyers (not sure how many do the sums to be honest) might actually look at how much they can allocate to mortgage repayments.
This does of course raise interest rates to their highest level in not 27 but 14 years, which is still rather noteworthy. If only for showing how much the crash crippled the world economy far more badly than a superficial reading would suggest.
Interesting take, but actually quite revealing that an Express sub (under 40?) has so little of a clue what interest rates are that they can make that mistake.
Also...
If this were to be implemented, the base rate would increase from 1.25 percent to 1.75 percent, which is the highest level in 27 years since 1995 before the Bank of England gained independence under then-Chancellor Gordon Brown.
The 0.5 pp rise will be largest since 1995, but rates went as high as 7.5% in June 1998:
Having (tried) to run a business when interest rates were in double figures and we needed to borrow I do not regard the current situation as disastrous! Even in the late 40s or early 50s interest rates of around 4% were not considered punitive!
This does of course raise interest rates to their highest level in not 27 but 14 years, which is still rather noteworthy. If only for showing how much the crash crippled the world economy far more badly than a superficial reading would suggest.
During the 2010-2015 parliament, I kept saying that Ed Miliband should focus on interest rates. Cameron used to talk about low rates as though they were a good thing. Miliband should have been asking "if the economy is doing so well, why are rates still at rock bottom?"
The base rate is now higher than my five year fixed mortgage rate. Fixed just six months ago.
Do you get the feeling the entire banking industry was asleep at the wheel? I couldn't believe it when I got that rate for five whole years.
I managed to get a five year fix that was cheaper than my base rate tracker this spring! A perfect piece of financial timing for once.
Presumbly it wasn‘t so much the banking industry asleep at the wheel, but bond buyers snapping up low rate bonds to try and lock in some positive yield?
(IIRC, banks generally don’t keep fixed rate mortgages on their books - they‘ve either sold matching bonds or traded interest rate swaps on the open market. It’s the counterparties of the high street banks who are going to get shellacked on these trades.)
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In terms of charisma and political talent, Boris remains the outstanding figure of this batch of Conservatives. Unless his successor manages him very carefullly, he is going to oushine them as King over the water. And Truss, who is basically Norfolk's third best Boris Johnson tribute act, looks like she has most of his downsides with few of his skills.
I can see why Boris in a dress is attractive to some Conservatives, but electing her would be doubling down on the choice of 2019, which really looks like a mistake.
Because, ultimately, Boris had to go. Look what happened in the May elections; whoever was the not-Conservative candidate did well. His conduct was well below the standards the public expect from their leaders. On top of all the individual scandals, the fact that he has left his party choosing between Tweedlebankers and Tweedlebonkers shows what a terrible leader he has been.
Right now, the Conservatives don't seem to have any good moves, only differently bad ones. The same could well be true of the country, looking at our economic and European situations. And as in chess, that can be traced back to choices made, perhaps unwittingly, several moves ago.
But like it or not, there is still a need to choose the best move, even if it's not very good.
In the South and London Boris did not do so well in May but in the North and Midlands the Tory vote held up reasonably well.
Policy wise Truss is little different to Boris except a bit more Thatcherite economically with a more leftwing past.
Yes there was the issue of Boris' partygate fine etc but the candidate put up against Truss by Tory MPs, Sunak, was also fined.
There is a chance Truss not only gets a bounce but sustains it, more likely however I fear she leads the party to a bigger defeat and worse general election result than Boris would have got
With Boris, it would have been one scandal after another. Because, he simply does not believe that the law of the land applies to him.. That's why he had to go.
Interest rates rise by 0.5%, biggest rise for 27 years.
Will be interesting to see if it has any impact on house prices
While interest rates remain below inflation and mortgages being easier to get, I would expect house prices to kick off and soar even higher.
The bigger issue is energy bills. Some first time buyers (not sure how many do the sums to be honest) might actually look at how much they can allocate to mortgage repayments.
I have 'liked' that, because it is a pertinent point, but remember mortgage payments are often cheaper than rent. My mortgage is less than half the cost of renting the identical house two doors down I used to live in.
Moreover, it's much harder to repossesses a house with a mortgage than to evict a tenant in arrears - especially with the court system in its current state. Default on a mortgage and it might be 3-4 years before an eviction. Get behind with the rent and if you're lucky you might have six months.
So if you have cash for a deposit, a mortgage actually makes more sense in a cost of living crisis.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
The Dems often suffer from lower turnout in the mid terms , they managed to come out though in 2020 as Trump was in the WH .
The abortion issue is though likely to help their turnout, and the January 6 hearings will have some bearing as the Dems will hope to force GOP candidates to go on record as to where they stand .
The mid terms seem to be less a record on Biden which is somewhat unusual and the polling shows his job approval isn’t make or break for their chances .
The Manchin Schumer deal would help if it got through Congress but a lot will depend on inflation and the overall state of the economy .
It’s pretty clear though that the SCOTUS decision was a gift to the Dems , even though there was a lot of outrage behind the scenes the Dems were celebrating as it puts the GOP in a difficult position and could prove crucial in the more competitive states.
It will help the Democrats, but it won't be decisive. Biden's low ratings, and the economic situation are bigger factors.
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In terms of charisma and political talent, Boris remains the outstanding figure of this batch of Conservatives. Unless his successor manages him very carefullly, he is going to oushine them as King over the water. And Truss, who is basically Norfolk's third best Boris Johnson tribute act, looks like she has most of his downsides with few of his skills.
I can see why Boris in a dress is attractive to some Conservatives, but electing her would be doubling down on the choice of 2019, which really looks like a mistake.
Because, ultimately, Boris had to go. Look what happened in the May elections; whoever was the not-Conservative candidate did well. His conduct was well below the standards the public expect from their leaders. On top of all the individual scandals, the fact that he has left his party choosing between Tweedlebankers and Tweedlebonkers shows what a terrible leader he has been.
Right now, the Conservatives don't seem to have any good moves, only differently bad ones. The same could well be true of the country, looking at our economic and European situations. And as in chess, that can be traced back to choices made, perhaps unwittingly, several moves ago.
But like it or not, there is still a need to choose the best move, even if it's not very good.
In the South and London Boris did not do so well in May but in the North and Midlands the Tory vote held up reasonably well.
Policy wise Truss is little different to Boris except a bit more Thatcherite economically with a more leftwing past.
Yes there was the issue of Boris' partygate fine etc but the candidate put up against Truss by Tory MPs, Sunak, was also fined.
There is a chance Truss not only gets a bounce but sustains it, more likely however I fear she leads the party to a bigger defeat and worse general election result than Boris would have got
With Boris, it would have been one scandal after another. Because, he simply does not believe that the law of the land applies to him.. That's why he had to go.
Boris was impossible to sustain because on the doorsteps, there was no answer to "Why do you think I would vote for a liar?"
The worry with Truss is there is no answer to "Why do you think I would vote for an idiot"
On a crude basis, Tesco own baked beans are up 30% over six months. £1 for a pack of 4 in January, £1.30 yesterday.
We can talk about headline figures, but the things I'm seeing at the lower end are considerably more alarming. That's where the worst effects will be. Most people on this board have at least some kind of cushion, even people like me without a permanent job (I can do supply teaching if I have to). For many, the money just won't be there to absorb these shocks.
Interest rates rise by 0.5%, biggest rise for 27 years.
Will be interesting to see if it has any impact on house prices
While interest rates remain below inflation and mortgages being easier to get, I would expect house prices to kick off and soar even higher.
The bigger issue is energy bills. Some first time buyers (not sure how many do the sums to be honest) might actually look at how much they can allocate to mortgage repayments.
I have 'liked' that, because it is a pertinent point, but remember mortgage payments are often cheaper than rent. My mortgage is less than half the cost of renting the identical house two doors down I used to live in.
Moreover, it's much harder to repossesses a house with a mortgage than to evict a tenant in arrears - especially with the court system in its current state. Default on a mortgage and it might be 3-4 years before an eviction. Get behind with the rent and if you're lucky you might have six months.
So if you have cash for a deposit, a mortgage actually makes more sense in a cost of living crisis.
The answer is not consistent across the country, it really depends where you are and the type of property.
My landlord makes about a 2.5-3% yield then has to pay taxes, estate agent fees and a not insignificant service charge, plus ad-hoc repairs. I doubt he is getting much above 2%.
Other places where yields might be 7%+, of course the balance is very different.
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In terms of charisma and political talent, Boris remains the outstanding figure of this batch of Conservatives. Unless his successor manages him very carefullly, he is going to oushine them as King over the water. And Truss, who is basically Norfolk's third best Boris Johnson tribute act, looks like she has most of his downsides with few of his skills.
I can see why Boris in a dress is attractive to some Conservatives, but electing her would be doubling down on the choice of 2019, which really looks like a mistake.
Because, ultimately, Boris had to go. Look what happened in the May elections; whoever was the not-Conservative candidate did well. His conduct was well below the standards the public expect from their leaders. On top of all the individual scandals, the fact that he has left his party choosing between Tweedlebankers and Tweedlebonkers shows what a terrible leader he has been.
Right now, the Conservatives don't seem to have any good moves, only differently bad ones. The same could well be true of the country, looking at our economic and European situations. And as in chess, that can be traced back to choices made, perhaps unwittingly, several moves ago.
But like it or not, there is still a need to choose the best move, even if it's not very good.
In the South and London Boris did not do so well in May but in the North and Midlands the Tory vote held up reasonably well.
Policy wise Truss is little different to Boris except a bit more Thatcherite economically with a more leftwing past.
Yes there was the issue of Boris' partygate fine etc but the candidate put up against Truss by Tory MPs, Sunak, was also fined.
There is a chance Truss not only gets a bounce but sustains it, more likely however I fear she leads the party to a bigger defeat and worse general election result than Boris would have got
With Boris, it would have been one scandal after another. Because, he simply does not believe that the law of the land applies to him.. That's why he had to go.
Boris was impossible to sustain because on the doorsteps, there was no answer to "Why do you think I would vote for a liar?"
The worry with Truss is there is no answer to "Why do you think I would vote for an idiot"
Have you filled in your ballot yet? Have a feeling yours might be spoiled or become bird/moth food - I plumped for Sunak despite his having run a lamentable campaign.
On a crude basis, Tesco own baked beans are up 30% over six months. £1 for a pack of 4 in January, £1.30 yesterday.
We can talk about headline figures, but the things I'm seeing at the lower end are considerably more alarming. That's where the worst effects will be. Most people on this board have at least some kind of cushion, even people like me without a permanent job (I can do supply teaching if I have to). For many, the money just won't be there to absorb these shocks.
This is what people like Martin Lewis / Jack Monroe have been (rightly) banging on about at length. Inflation for the bottom end of the income scale is currently much. much higher than the headline rate. Fuel, food & rent form a much larger portion of their outgoings and all of those have been going up by double digit inflation rates, with the very cheapest food options often going up the most of all.
If the situation doesn’t ease then either the government raises benefits before the winter or we’re going to have civil unrest: People need to eat.
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In terms of charisma and political talent, Boris remains the outstanding figure of this batch of Conservatives. Unless his successor manages him very carefullly, he is going to oushine them as King over the water. And Truss, who is basically Norfolk's third best Boris Johnson tribute act, looks like she has most of his downsides with few of his skills.
I can see why Boris in a dress is attractive to some Conservatives, but electing her would be doubling down on the choice of 2019, which really looks like a mistake.
Because, ultimately, Boris had to go. Look what happened in the May elections; whoever was the not-Conservative candidate did well. His conduct was well below the standards the public expect from their leaders. On top of all the individual scandals, the fact that he has left his party choosing between Tweedlebankers and Tweedlebonkers shows what a terrible leader he has been.
Right now, the Conservatives don't seem to have any good moves, only differently bad ones. The same could well be true of the country, looking at our economic and European situations. And as in chess, that can be traced back to choices made, perhaps unwittingly, several moves ago.
But like it or not, there is still a need to choose the best move, even if it's not very good.
In the South and London Boris did not do so well in May but in the North and Midlands the Tory vote held up reasonably well.
Policy wise Truss is little different to Boris except a bit more Thatcherite economically with a more leftwing past.
Yes there was the issue of Boris' partygate fine etc but the candidate put up against Truss by Tory MPs, Sunak, was also fined.
There is a chance Truss not only gets a bounce but sustains it, more likely however I fear she leads the party to a bigger defeat and worse general election result than Boris would have got
With Boris, it would have been one scandal after another. Because, he simply does not believe that the law of the land applies to him.. That's why he had to go.
Though I still think the Tories may face a worse defeat under Truss in the end than they would have got under Boris, after her initial poll bounce subsides
Bof E also forecasting 13% inflation in Q4. A figure which seems to climb with every prediction from anyone.
That is GRIM.
On the plus side, it has risen so fast so quickly there is every chance it will fall equally fast.
Unless of course wage inflation replaces commodity inflation.
There was an economist on R4 this morning indicating that inflation might not peak until Q1 next year now and might reach 15%. The BoE has let this get so out of control that they really should be getting their jotters. Other countries have had the supply shock but have not had as much inflation. Our monetary policy has been far too loose for far too long.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
The Dems often suffer from lower turnout in the mid terms , they managed to come out though in 2020 as Trump was in the WH .
The abortion issue is though likely to help their turnout, and the January 6 hearings will have some bearing as the Dems will hope to force GOP candidates to go on record as to where they stand .
The mid terms seem to be less a record on Biden which is somewhat unusual and the polling shows his job approval isn’t make or break for their chances .
The Manchin Schumer deal would help if it got through Congress but a lot will depend on inflation and the overall state of the economy .
It’s pretty clear though that the SCOTUS decision was a gift to the Dems , even though there was a lot of outrage behind the scenes the Dems were celebrating as it puts the GOP in a difficult position and could prove crucial in the more competitive states.
It will help the Democrats, but it won't be decisive. Biden's low ratings, and the economic situation are bigger factors.
In the House maybe but it might help the Democrats keep the Senate and win key governors races
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In terms of charisma and political talent, Boris remains the outstanding figure of this batch of Conservatives. Unless his successor manages him very carefullly, he is going to oushine them as King over the water. And Truss, who is basically Norfolk's third best Boris Johnson tribute act, looks like she has most of his downsides with few of his skills.
I can see why Boris in a dress is attractive to some Conservatives, but electing her would be doubling down on the choice of 2019, which really looks like a mistake.
Because, ultimately, Boris had to go. Look what happened in the May elections; whoever was the not-Conservative candidate did well. His conduct was well below the standards the public expect from their leaders. On top of all the individual scandals, the fact that he has left his party choosing between Tweedlebankers and Tweedlebonkers shows what a terrible leader he has been.
Right now, the Conservatives don't seem to have any good moves, only differently bad ones. The same could well be true of the country, looking at our economic and European situations. And as in chess, that can be traced back to choices made, perhaps unwittingly, several moves ago.
But like it or not, there is still a need to choose the best move, even if it's not very good.
In the South and London Boris did not do so well in May but in the North and Midlands the Tory vote held up reasonably well.
Policy wise Truss is little different to Boris except a bit more Thatcherite economically with a more leftwing past.
Yes there was the issue of Boris' partygate fine etc but the candidate put up against Truss by Tory MPs, Sunak, was also fined.
There is a chance Truss not only gets a bounce but sustains it, more likely however I fear she leads the party to a bigger defeat and worse general election result than Boris would have got
With Boris, it would have been one scandal after another. Because, he simply does not believe that the law of the land applies to him.. That's why he had to go.
Boris was impossible to sustain because on the doorsteps, there was no answer to "Why do you think I would vote for a liar?"
The worry with Truss is there is no answer to "Why do you think I would vote for an idiot"
Poor Liz her fantasy economic plans look even more delusional now . The 30 billion fiscal headroom she keeps droning on about look like pie in the sky .
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In terms of charisma and political talent, Boris remains the outstanding figure of this batch of Conservatives. Unless his successor manages him very carefullly, he is going to oushine them as King over the water. And Truss, who is basically Norfolk's third best Boris Johnson tribute act, looks like she has most of his downsides with few of his skills.
I can see why Boris in a dress is attractive to some Conservatives, but electing her would be doubling down on the choice of 2019, which really looks like a mistake.
Because, ultimately, Boris had to go. Look what happened in the May elections; whoever was the not-Conservative candidate did well. His conduct was well below the standards the public expect from their leaders. On top of all the individual scandals, the fact that he has left his party choosing between Tweedlebankers and Tweedlebonkers shows what a terrible leader he has been.
Right now, the Conservatives don't seem to have any good moves, only differently bad ones. The same could well be true of the country, looking at our economic and European situations. And as in chess, that can be traced back to choices made, perhaps unwittingly, several moves ago.
But like it or not, there is still a need to choose the best move, even if it's not very good.
In the South and London Boris did not do so well in May but in the North and Midlands the Tory vote held up reasonably well.
Policy wise Truss is little different to Boris except a bit more Thatcherite economically with a more leftwing past.
Yes there was the issue of Boris' partygate fine etc but the candidate put up against Truss by Tory MPs, Sunak, was also fined.
There is a chance Truss not only gets a bounce but sustains it, more likely however I fear she leads the party to a bigger defeat and worse general election result than Boris would have got
With Boris, it would have been one scandal after another. Because, he simply does not believe that the law of the land applies to him.. That's why he had to go.
Though I still think the Tories may face a worse defeat under Truss in the end than they would have got under Boris, after her initial poll bounce subsides
If the Conservative Party don't put upholding the law of the land ahead of their narrow political interests, then not only do they deserve to lose next time but they don't deserve ever to win again.
On a crude basis, Tesco own baked beans are up 30% over six months. £1 for a pack of 4 in January, £1.30 yesterday.
We can talk about headline figures, but the things I'm seeing at the lower end are considerably more alarming. That's where the worst effects will be. Most people on this board have at least some kind of cushion, even people like me without a permanent job (I can do supply teaching if I have to). For many, the money just won't be there to absorb these shocks.
This is what people like Martin Lewis / Jack Monroe have been (rightly) banging on about at length. Inflation for the bottom end of the income scale is currently much. much higher than the headline rate. Fuel, food & rent form a much larger portion of their outgoings and all of those have been going up by double digit inflation rates, with the very cheapest food options often going up the most of all.
If the situation doesn’t ease then either the government raises benefits before the winter or we’re going to have civil unrest: People need to eat.
Driving yesterday along the A12 saw two people begging at different traffic lights between the North Circular and M25. Normally only see this right in the middle of London, never so far out. We are in for significant increases in homelessness and crime this winter.
No wonder the BofE is a target for booster Liz with forecasts like that. 13% inflation and 5 quarters of recession won't yield easily to a good talking to.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
The Dems often suffer from lower turnout in the mid terms , they managed to come out though in 2020 as Trump was in the WH .
The abortion issue is though likely to help their turnout, and the January 6 hearings will have some bearing as the Dems will hope to force GOP candidates to go on record as to where they stand .
The mid terms seem to be less a record on Biden which is somewhat unusual and the polling shows his job approval isn’t make or break for their chances .
The Manchin Schumer deal would help if it got through Congress but a lot will depend on inflation and the overall state of the economy .
It’s pretty clear though that the SCOTUS decision was a gift to the Dems , even though there was a lot of outrage behind the scenes the Dems were celebrating as it puts the GOP in a difficult position and could prove crucial in the more competitive states.
It will help the Democrats, but it won't be decisive. Biden's low ratings, and the economic situation are bigger factors.
Biden's ratings has improved recently. If Manchin and Sinema can find common ground to get the current bill passed, then they might improve further.
And it's still possible that the US might shrug off inflation in a way we can't.
The main thing I'm taking from this contest is that while I had stated I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives if they retained the jester as PM, it's increasingly possible, based on the campaigns to date, I won't be voting for them anyway.
Sunak's desperate thrashing about is not edifying. If Truss does win we shall see what she does in office, but I may end up either voting elsewhere or decorating my ballot paper with a splendid drawing of a dragon.
Hence as I said the Tories should have kept Boris.
Instead they will end up with Truss, who is basically Boris without the charisma
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In terms of charisma and political talent, Boris remains the outstanding figure of this batch of Conservatives. Unless his successor manages him very carefullly, he is going to oushine them as King over the water. And Truss, who is basically Norfolk's third best Boris Johnson tribute act, looks like she has most of his downsides with few of his skills.
I can see why Boris in a dress is attractive to some Conservatives, but electing her would be doubling down on the choice of 2019, which really looks like a mistake.
Because, ultimately, Boris had to go. Look what happened in the May elections; whoever was the not-Conservative candidate did well. His conduct was well below the standards the public expect from their leaders. On top of all the individual scandals, the fact that he has left his party choosing between Tweedlebankers and Tweedlebonkers shows what a terrible leader he has been.
Right now, the Conservatives don't seem to have any good moves, only differently bad ones. The same could well be true of the country, looking at our economic and European situations. And as in chess, that can be traced back to choices made, perhaps unwittingly, several moves ago.
But like it or not, there is still a need to choose the best move, even if it's not very good.
In the South and London Boris did not do so well in May but in the North and Midlands the Tory vote held up reasonably well.
Policy wise Truss is little different to Boris except a bit more Thatcherite economically with a more leftwing past.
Yes there was the issue of Boris' partygate fine etc but the candidate put up against Truss by Tory MPs, Sunak, was also fined.
There is a chance Truss not only gets a bounce but sustains it, more likely however I fear she leads the party to a bigger defeat and worse general election result than Boris would have got
With Boris, it would have been one scandal after another. Because, he simply does not believe that the law of the land applies to him.. That's why he had to go.
Though I still think the Tories may face a worse defeat under Truss in the end than they would have got under Boris, after her initial poll bounce subsides
If the Conservative Party don't put upholding the law of the land ahead of their narrow political interests, then not only do they deserve to lose next time but they don't deserve ever to win again.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
The Dems often suffer from lower turnout in the mid terms , they managed to come out though in 2020 as Trump was in the WH .
The abortion issue is though likely to help their turnout, and the January 6 hearings will have some bearing as the Dems will hope to force GOP candidates to go on record as to where they stand .
The mid terms seem to be less a record on Biden which is somewhat unusual and the polling shows his job approval isn’t make or break for their chances .
The Manchin Schumer deal would help if it got through Congress but a lot will depend on inflation and the overall state of the economy .
It’s pretty clear though that the SCOTUS decision was a gift to the Dems , even though there was a lot of outrage behind the scenes the Dems were celebrating as it puts the GOP in a difficult position and could prove crucial in the more competitive states.
It will help the Democrats, but it won't be decisive. Biden's low ratings, and the economic situation are bigger factors.
Biden's ratings has improved recently. If Manchin and Sinema can find common ground to get the current bill passed, then they might improve further.
And it's still possible that the US might shrug off inflation in a way we can't.
How much are these inflation rates deflating away government debt?
Must be substantial.
Massively boosting the income tax take too. Even if wages only go up by 10%, so there's a sharp decline in living standards, Sunak's freeze of the tax thresholds means there's a large increase in income tax paid.
I wonder, how significant was the Kansas vote on abortion yesterday? One feature of American elections is the relatively low turnout; if a lot of previously non-voters were repelled by Trumps attitude to the attack on the Capitol, might they turn out and give a different result to that normally expected?
The Dems often suffer from lower turnout in the mid terms , they managed to come out though in 2020 as Trump was in the WH .
The abortion issue is though likely to help their turnout, and the January 6 hearings will have some bearing as the Dems will hope to force GOP candidates to go on record as to where they stand .
The mid terms seem to be less a record on Biden which is somewhat unusual and the polling shows his job approval isn’t make or break for their chances .
The Manchin Schumer deal would help if it got through Congress but a lot will depend on inflation and the overall state of the economy .
It’s pretty clear though that the SCOTUS decision was a gift to the Dems , even though there was a lot of outrage behind the scenes the Dems were celebrating as it puts the GOP in a difficult position and could prove crucial in the more competitive states.
It will help the Democrats, but it won't be decisive. Biden's low ratings, and the economic situation are bigger factors.
Biden's ratings has improved recently. If Manchin and Sinema can find common ground to get the current bill passed, then they might improve further.
And it's still possible that the US might shrug off inflation in a way we can't.
It won't shrug it off by all that much. US inflation is now at 9%.
No wonder the BofE is a target for booster Liz with forecasts like that. 13% inflation and 5 quarters of recession won't yield easily to a good talking to.
No wonder the BofE is a target for booster Liz with forecasts like that. 13% inflation and 5 quarters of recession won't yield easily to a good talking to.
State pension going up by 10% not bad for the client vote though.
Bof E also forecasting 13% inflation in Q4. A figure which seems to climb with every prediction from anyone.
That is GRIM.
On the plus side, it has risen so fast so quickly there is every chance it will fall equally fast.
Unless of course wage inflation replaces commodity inflation.
There was an economist on R4 this morning indicating that inflation might not peak until Q1 next year now and might reach 15%. The BoE has let this get so out of control that they really should be getting their jotters. Other countries have had the supply shock but have not had as much inflation. Our monetary policy has been far too loose for far too long.
Other countries have not had Brexit either. France for one is limiting inflation by capping fuel price rises. I should expect in tonight's debate that Liz Truss will return to suspending the green levy and allowing BOGOF, and perhaps also proposals to cut VAT.
The largest rate rise in a quarter of a century, in an attempt to temper even higher peaks in inflation of an incredible 13% are what the Bank of England actually did today.
But it is its prediction of a recession as long as the great financial crisis and as deep as that seen in the early 1990s that is the big shock here.
Bof E also forecasting 13% inflation in Q4. A figure which seems to climb with every prediction from anyone.
That is GRIM.
On the plus side, it has risen so fast so quickly there is every chance it will fall equally fast.
Unless of course wage inflation replaces commodity inflation.
There was an economist on R4 this morning indicating that inflation might not peak until Q1 next year now and might reach 15%. The BoE has let this get so out of control that they really should be getting their jotters. Other countries have had the supply shock but have not had as much inflation. Our monetary policy has been far too loose for far too long.
In part because of the BoE's response to you-know-what...
Bof E also forecasting 13% inflation in Q4. A figure which seems to climb with every prediction from anyone.
That is GRIM.
On the plus side, it has risen so fast so quickly there is every chance it will fall equally fast.
Unless of course wage inflation replaces commodity inflation.
There was an economist on R4 this morning indicating that inflation might not peak until Q1 next year now and might reach 15%. The BoE has let this get so out of control that they really should be getting their jotters. Other countries have had the supply shock but have not had as much inflation. Our monetary policy has been far too loose for far too long.
Other countries have not had Brexit either. France for one is limiting inflation by capping fuel price rises. I should expect in tonight's debate that Liz Truss will return to suspending the green levy and allowing BOGOF, and perhaps also proposals to cut VAT.
I am very much in favour of environmental taxes in principle but not sure why they are needed in the current scenario?
If we thought they were sufficiently dampening demand last year, then with this years prices already higher without the additional taxes, is that not sufficient now?
No wonder the BofE is a target for booster Liz with forecasts like that. 13% inflation and 5 quarters of recession won't yield easily to a good talking to.
No wonder the BofE is a target for booster Liz with forecasts like that. 13% inflation and 5 quarters of recession won't yield easily to a good talking to.
State pension going up by 10% not bad for the client vote though.
Not much use when the biggest part of their expenditure goes up 100% in price.
No wonder the BofE is a target for booster Liz with forecasts like that. 13% inflation and 5 quarters of recession won't yield easily to a good talking to.
No wonder the BofE is a target for booster Liz with forecasts like that. 13% inflation and 5 quarters of recession won't yield easily to a good talking to.
State pension going up by 10% not bad for the client vote though.
Not much use when the biggest part of their expenditure goes up 100% in price.
I did not know the Mail and Express have gone up so much! They will have to make do with the woke BBC I am afraid.
Comments
He thinks we need 0.75.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1555117750774792197
The theoretically best move might well just lead to an obvious slow decline.
You need something potentially unsound which might well lose you the game quicker, but gives your opponent a chance to go wrong. Something where the outcome isn't immediately obvious.
I fear both Sunak and Truss are poor choices in that regard.
This final choice of poor moves is really down to MPs, not the party at large.
Kansas was more about telling politicians it was off limits as a topic and that’s not necessary a party line issue
If it correct for three months time, then why not now?
Plus.
It's entirely plausible to argue as you do. But the BofE remit is to control inflation. Which has a demand component, even if most of it is supply driven.
Not deal with consumer confidence, nor mortgages. It's for politicians to alter that if they don't like it.
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1555105235042975744?s=20&t=ptuD3YGskOVPh1jChRnEZQ
From a monetary policy perspective I think King did a great job at the BOE, but from a financial regulation point of view I think he was less successful. He is a macroeconomist not a finance guy. And like a lot of ex central bankers he is guilty of presenting things as a lot more black and white than when he was in the job. He was better than either of his successors, I think.
I'm off to flagellate myself with a laminated Ed Balls.
Say you are a committed Republican who doesn’t care strongly about abortion (IIRC it’s only a third or so of GOP voters who are fixated).
If you have an election which is focus on abortion you fear the Democrats will walk it
Isn’t your incentive to get out and vote for something that reduces the chance of the election being about abortion, ie keeping the current constitutional protections?
Just doesn't happen in real life.
On April 23, 2015, two weeks after Hillary Clinton officially declared her presidential campaign, her staff sent out a group message with information for a "strategy call."... At the time, there were more than a dozen Republican presidential candidates. The "variety of candidates is a positive here," the Clinton campaign said... "In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party," the Clinton campaign wrote. As examples of these "pied piper" candidates, the memo named Donald Trump
I would also be surprised if the GOP moderate their position at all, though. I think what is more likely is increased anti democratic structural change; SCOTUS tearing up the voting rights act and possibly allowing the state legislature supremacy theory to take hold, more voter suppression, more cries of stolen elections, more obstructionism. It is clear that that the victimhood the GOP posses, and the increasingly vile smears they use against Democrats and anyone on the centre - left of centre in general, is just a way to justify any action. If all LGBT+ people are groomers, it's fine to threaten them back into the closet. If all Dems steal elections or, if we go full Qanon, are sex traffickers, then it's fine to steal elections in response or violently overthrow the government. If liberals are all secret marxist communist fifth columnists, their votes shouldn't really count.
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/1649531/interest-rate-rates-rise-increase-bank-of-england-savings-misery
Interesting take, but actually quite revealing that an Express sub (under 40?) has so little of a clue what interest rates are that they can make that mistake.
It happened here, too, with the Tories for Corbyn paying their £3.
But Boris had to go. The Tories should not have kept him even if he was a winner. This has nothing to do with politics, or who you support. He is a liar and immoral and had to go. And credit to all the Tories who recognised this.
If this were to be implemented, the base rate would increase from 1.25 percent to 1.75 percent, which is the highest level in 27 years since 1995 before the Bank of England gained independence under then-Chancellor Gordon Brown.
The 0.5 pp rise will be largest since 1995, but rates went as high as 7.5% in June 1998:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Bank-Rate.asp
I imagine the “moral purity” end of the anti-abortion lobby quietly views this as these women receiving their just deserts, but personally I find it abominable to force women into making these choices.
poor buggers - no mortgages, no experience of being paid interest on savings, about to discover the new normal. Which is why Why not just whack them up 150 bps at one go is a bad idea.
Although after so many big beasts had been purged by Boris, maybe the 1922 would prefer not to have started from here.
Will be interesting to see if it has any impact on house prices
Do you get the feeling the entire banking industry was asleep at the wheel? I couldn't believe it when I got that rate for five whole years.
The independence of central Banks is from the 1990s playbook when we all thought economic prosperity would come to Russia as well as democracy to both it and China. Maybe time to recognise that Central Bank independence is not the panacea to all ills.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/
Having (tried) to run a business when interest rates were in double figures and we needed to borrow I do not regard the current situation as disastrous!
Even in the late 40s or early 50s interest rates of around 4% were not considered punitive!
Presumbly it wasn‘t so much the banking industry asleep at the wheel, but bond buyers snapping up low rate bonds to try and lock in some positive yield?
(IIRC, banks generally don’t keep fixed rate mortgages on their books - they‘ve either sold matching bonds or traded interest rate swaps on the open market. It’s the counterparties of the high street banks who are going to get shellacked on these trades.)
Moreover, it's much harder to repossesses a house with a mortgage than to evict a tenant in arrears - especially with the court system in its current state. Default on a mortgage and it might be 3-4 years before an eviction. Get behind with the rent and if you're lucky you might have six months.
So if you have cash for a deposit, a mortgage actually makes more sense in a cost of living crisis.
A figure which seems to climb with every prediction from anyone.
The worry with Truss is there is no answer to "Why do you think I would vote for an idiot"
Must be substantial.
We can talk about headline figures, but the things I'm seeing at the lower end are considerably more alarming. That's where the worst effects will be. Most people on this board have at least some kind of cushion, even people like me without a permanent job (I can do supply teaching if I have to). For many, the money just won't be there to absorb these shocks.
Unless of course wage inflation replaces commodity inflation.
My landlord makes about a 2.5-3% yield then has to pay taxes, estate agent fees and a not insignificant service charge, plus ad-hoc repairs. I doubt he is getting much above 2%.
Other places where yields might be 7%+, of course the balance is very different.
Just to lighten the mood.
If the situation doesn’t ease then either the government raises benefits before the winter or we’re going to have civil unrest: People need to eat.
13% inflation and 5 quarters of recession won't yield easily to a good talking to.
If Manchin and Sinema can find common ground to get the current bill passed, then they might improve further.
And it's still possible that the US might shrug off inflation in a way we can't.
But it is its prediction of a recession as long as the great financial crisis and as deep as that seen in the early 1990s that is the big shock here.
Faisal Islam
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-62406689
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/04/bank-of-england-all-action-response-brexit-qe-interest-rate-cut
If we thought they were sufficiently dampening demand last year, then with this years prices already higher without the additional taxes, is that not sufficient now?