Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
The immediate future, but little beyond that, probably. I can see what might have prompted you to mention it on this particular thread.
The friends' dogs I occasionally take for walkies when I am staying with them have a very definite logical chain thus:
1. I pick up the leash and get my jacket down. 2. Therefore walkies in the near future. 3. Joyful reaction.
Admittedly not necessarily very abstract, or very far into the future. But saying 'walk' has a similar effect, as does the sign language equivalent if the hound is deaf (one would want to observe numerous instances, of course, in a serious study, with double blind tests):
Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
Yup. They live in the present. Any dog owner knows that.
Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
The immediate future, but little beyond that, probably. I can see what might have prompted you to mention it on this particular thread.
The friends' dogs I occasionally take for walkies when I am staying with them have a very definite logical chain thus:
1. I pick up the leash and get my jacket down. 2. Therefore walkies in the near future. 3. Joyful reaction.
Admittedly not necessarily very abstract, or very far into the future. But saying 'walk' has a similar effect, as does the sign language equivalent if the hound is deaf (one would want to observe numerous instances, of course, in a serious study, with double blind tests):
Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
Interesting
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think that, all other things being equal, higher tax will result in lower inflation and vice versa, but in this case we also have high government spending - so the government is running a deficit even with historically high tax - and a huge amount of money was pumped into the economy via QE (which the BoE have said they will now start to reverse).
So this means that all other things are not equal when comparing to previous years.
If Truss cuts taxes, and does nothing else, that will be inflationary, because in that situation all other things would be equal.
I think after this new, err, policy from Rishi he may not even make the Cabinet.
I still think he'd make for a good health secretary because the NHS needs a bean counter in charge and to cut waste and costs so there's headroom for doing better elsewhere in the service.
I also think he's the most likely to take an actuarial approach to healthcare rather than the current approach of unlimited negative return investment in life lengthening treatments for very old people. Simply because he seems hard hearted enough to push it and not care about the consequences to his personal reputation (it's already smashed beyond repair IMO).
As we were talking about yesterday, a whole new discussion around healthcare provision in the UK needs to be had. We're entering a 20-30 year period of exponentially rising healthcare demand from people who are refusing to pay their own way and have the divine belief that only they worked hard so deserve millions spent on their healthcare and care needs while not wanting to pay any additional tax on their incomes or wealth. That means services need to be curtailed because there is no unlimited pot of cash from working age people, the UK just becomes an uncompetitive place to do business as corporate and personal taxes rise to meet this need from that generation to retire at 60 and live to 100 while taking no income hit or taxes on their wealth.
Rishi, to me, seems like exactly the kind of guy who could blunder into that discussion and make those changes. 2024 looks lost either way given the economic circumstances, a change to healthcare provision for over 85s in terms of life lengthening treatment (even something as technically simple as making a DNR opt-out after 85) would pay very, very good long term dividends for the nation and he'd eventually restore his reputation off the back of it as the man who saved the economy from certain ruin.
I’d make it 80. Let the selfish old fucks croak it
I hereby nominate myself for the leadership of the Conservative and Unionist Party
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Cutting taxes or increasing spending usually leads to stronger aggregate demand, which if supply is constrained will generate more inflation. The BOE will respond by raising interest rates by more. Taxes are high now but they are matched by high spending so on net are not disinflationary. There is no link between the level of taxes per se and inflation (except that raising indirect taxes leads to temporary inflation) if taxes are matched by spending, but unfunded tax cuts will be inflationary and lead to higher interest rates, Sunak is not wrong about that. If the economy wasn't supply constrained then Truss's argument would be valid but that is self-evidently not the case, since current high inflation is a result of a series of negative supply shocks (including Brexit of course).
Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
Yup. They live in the present. Any dog owner knows that.
From one meal to the next, and the next meal can be immediately after the last.
Their body clocks are well honed too. 6pm means its meal time even if the last meal was at 5.30pm
Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
Interesting
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
Arguably, that’s a more accurate depiction of life. We exist in the present, doing what we are doing at the minute. The past is a story we tell ourselves based on fallible memories, and so are any plans or predictions we have for the future.
There is only “now”. And Einstein shows us even that is a strictly personal concept.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think that, all other things being equal, higher tax will result in lower inflation and vice versa, but in this case we also have high government spending - so the government is running a deficit even with historically high tax - and a huge amount of money was pumped into the economy via QE (which the BoE have said they will now start to reverse).
So this means that all other things are not equal when comparing to previous years.
If Truss cuts taxes, and does nothing else, that will be inflationary, because in that situation all other things would be equal.
Interesting. Neither Sunak nor Truss are advocating cutting spending as a way to dial down inflationary pressures, as some former tory chancellors might, although I guess this is an electoral ploy.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Cutting taxes or increasing spending usually leads to stronger aggregate demand, which if supply is constrained will generate more inflation. The BOE will respond by raising interest rates by more. Taxes are high now but they are matched by high spending so on net are not disinflationary. There is no link between the level of taxes per se and inflation (except that raising indirect taxes leads to temporary inflation) if taxes are matched by spending, but unfunded tax cuts will be inflationary and lead to higher interest rates, Sunak is not wrong about that. If the economy wasn't supply constrained then Truss's argument would be valid but that is self-evidently not the case, since current high inflation is a result of a series of negative supply shocks (including Brexit of course).
Yes but the primary tools for controlling inflation are monetary and not fiscal. Minford's case is that cutting taxes allows the Bank of England to be more aggressive on rates and other forms of tightening. Much more aggressive.
IF (and it is a big IF) inflation unwinds quickly next year as the Covid hangover dissipates globally and Ukraine wins, then a one year period of 10-15% inflation should at least take the edge off the Government’s debt mountain (provided we aren’t an outlier the bond markets can target).
Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
Interesting
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
Arguably, that’s a more accurate depiction of life. We exist in the present, doing what we are doing at the minute. The past is a story we tell ourselves based on fallible memories, and so are any plans or predictions we have for the future.
There is only “now”. And Einstein shows us even that is a strictly personal concept.
I would guess this is “Don't Sleep, There are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian” by Daniel Everett? It is an excellent book. The précis above is poor. Everett is not saying that the people he lived with have no conception of time at all.
IF (and it is a big IF) inflation unwinds quickly next year as the Covid hangover dissipates globally and Ukraine wins, then a one year period of 10-15% inflation should at least take the edge off the Government’s debt mountain (provided we aren’t an outlier the bond markets can target).
Well, except for the minor matter of the likely new PM, Liz Truss, having a policy of massively increasing the debt mountain…
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Cutting taxes or increasing spending usually leads to stronger aggregate demand, which if supply is constrained will generate more inflation. The BOE will respond by raising interest rates by more. Taxes are high now but they are matched by high spending so on net are not disinflationary. There is no link between the level of taxes per se and inflation (except that raising indirect taxes leads to temporary inflation) if taxes are matched by spending, but unfunded tax cuts will be inflationary and lead to higher interest rates, Sunak is not wrong about that. If the economy wasn't supply constrained then Truss's argument would be valid but that is self-evidently not the case, since current high inflation is a result of a series of negative supply shocks (including Brexit of course).
Yes but the primary tools for controlling inflation are monetary and not fiscal. Minford's case is that cutting taxes allows the Bank of England to be more aggressive on rates and other forms of tightening. Much more aggressive.
It doesn't "allow" them to be more aggressive, it forces them to be. The reality is that both fiscal and monetary policy impact aggregate demand and hence inflation. If fiscal policy is looser, monetary policy has to be tighter. So if Truss cuts taxes without cutting spending, then either inflation or interest rates will be higher than otherwise. That doesn't seem a great outcome to me.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think that, all other things being equal, higher tax will result in lower inflation and vice versa, but in this case we also have high government spending - so the government is running a deficit even with historically high tax - and a huge amount of money was pumped into the economy via QE (which the BoE have said they will now start to reverse).
So this means that all other things are not equal when comparing to previous years.
If Truss cuts taxes, and does nothing else, that will be inflationary, because in that situation all other things would be equal.
Interesting. Neither Sunak nor Truss are advocating cutting spending as a way to dial down inflationary pressures, as some former tory chancellors might, although I guess this is an electoral ploy.
Right, that was explicitly Osborne's policy. Cut public spending as a deflationary measure, allowing the Bank of England to set interest rates lower.
We can argue about how they managed to do this and still win reelection, or whether there was a better option, but it's an interesting contrast even before going into that detail.
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
I would imagine he is getting paid by someone in the HF/PE universe to provide his insights.
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
Well, since he is neither a scholar nor a gentleman, I'm sure he does as well!
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
On the first half of the sentence "writing inane blog posts of inordinate length", I fit the profile!
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
I would imagine he is getting paid by someone in the HF/PE universe to provide his insights.
Not so sure. He’s recently proven he’s unwilling to keep the confidence of former employers if he falls out with them. And he falls out with a lot of people. That’s not a good way to get advisory work.
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
“Gentleman”? Cummings?…
I did say how he sees himself.
We know he has difficulties seeing.
True, but I don’t think even he is that deluded.
He still thinks he was a big success as an education reformer. How could he possibly be more deluded than that?
Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
Interesting
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
Arguably, that’s a more accurate depiction of life. We exist in the present, doing what we are doing at the minute. The past is a story we tell ourselves based on fallible memories, and so are any plans or predictions we have for the future.
There is only “now”. And Einstein shows us even that is a strictly personal concept.
I would guess this is “Don't Sleep, There are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian” by Daniel Everett? It is an excellent book. The précis above is poor. Everett is not saying that the people he lived with have no conception of time at all.
It’s not that book. I read this book years ago, I’ve forgotten the title
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
1. If a dog wags its tail as it smells/senses that its owner is returning home then that is anticipating a future event. If the owner comes home every day at the same time then, say, an hour before they return does the dog think somehow that shortly my owner will return.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.
It should be noted Tunbridge Wells, where Rishi spoke and I was born and raised, is 46th on the LD target list and has a LD led council. It is very much bluewall.
I don't there was anything wrong with what he said, there are parts of Tunbridge Wells that are not that well off, Sherwood ward for instance. Yes the redwall needs support but there are parts of the country elsewhere that do too.
It should also be noted that the last 2 general election winners for the Tories, Johnson and Cameron, were both elected by the membership. The last general election winner for Labour, Tony Blair, was elected by Labour members. Starmer was also elected by Labour members and Davey by LD members
Jo Swinson was elected by the members.
Jeremy Corbyn was elected by the members.
Hell, IDS was elected by the members.
The record of member voting is, at best, patchy.
William Hague, John Major, Theresa May, Michael Foot were elected solely by MPs. Their record is at least as patchy.
In 2017 Corbyn deprived the Tories of their majority
In 2017, Theresa May deprived the Tories of their majority. A campaign of taking heavy calibre weaponry to her kitten heels.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?
Is it? Inner city areas are all massively Labour anyway.
No, but the allusion is the transfer of resources out of poorer areas to more affluent areas. I don't suppose "inner city" or suburban s***hole is a diffential to be considered by the voters of Heanor or Hartlepool.
Edit: "Deprived urban areas" was the term he used, and in Tunbridge Wells.
Zac Goldsmith and Jake Berry find it a remarkably daft statement to make.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Cutting taxes or increasing spending usually leads to stronger aggregate demand, which if supply is constrained will generate more inflation. The BOE will respond by raising interest rates by more. Taxes are high now but they are matched by high spending so on net are not disinflationary. There is no link between the level of taxes per se and inflation (except that raising indirect taxes leads to temporary inflation) if taxes are matched by spending, but unfunded tax cuts will be inflationary and lead to higher interest rates, Sunak is not wrong about that. If the economy wasn't supply constrained then Truss's argument would be valid but that is self-evidently not the case, since current high inflation is a result of a series of negative supply shocks (including Brexit of course).
Yes but the primary tools for controlling inflation are monetary and not fiscal. Minford's case is that cutting taxes allows the Bank of England to be more aggressive on rates and other forms of tightening. Much more aggressive.
It doesn't "allow" them to be more aggressive, it forces them to be. The reality is that both fiscal and monetary policy impact aggregate demand and hence inflation. If fiscal policy is looser, monetary policy has to be tighter. So if Truss cuts taxes without cutting spending, then either inflation or interest rates will be higher than otherwise. That doesn't seem a great outcome to me.
IF what you say is true, then the bank of England should not need to raise rates much, because fiscal policy is already the tightest in 70 years, and has been for a while.
If anything, the BoE's comments yesterday were an admission that very tight fiscal policy was not controlling inflation, because if it were inflation would be falling. It isn't. It is accelerating.
1. If a dog wags its tail as it smells/senses that its owner is returning home then that is anticipating a future event. If the owner comes home every day at the same time then, say, an hour before they return does the dog think somehow that shortly my owner will return.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.
Book of Mormon absolutely seconded.
If “Straight Line Crazy” is still on at the Bridge theatre then I very much recommend it, and it will appeal to the political nerd in most of us on this site, since Ralph Fiennes plays a town planner.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
He has a point though. Councils in leafy areas still need to spend money, eg on roads, and if they do not get government grants there is little they can do. You would hope that funding for roads, for example, is at a fixed rate per km across the country, with a suitable adjustment for contractor and material costs if they vary geographically
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday. Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
He has a point though. Councils in leafy areas still need to spend money, eg on roads, and if they do not get government grants there is little they can do. You would hope that funding for roads, for example, is at a fixed rate per km across the country, with a suitable adjustment for contractor and material costs if they vary geographically
I disagree. I think we should spend more on roads that I use and less on roads I do not.
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
The key difference might be that the client vote in this case was a genuinely (un)deserving recipient. Anyway, you are wrong, everybody knows the (un)deserving poor don't vote, and the deserving poor vote Tory.
1. If a dog wags its tail as it smells/senses that its owner is returning home then that is anticipating a future event. If the owner comes home every day at the same time then, say, an hour before they return does the dog think somehow that shortly my owner will return.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.
Book of Mormon absolutely seconded.
If “Straight Line Crazy” is still on at the Bridge theatre then I very much recommend it, and it will appeal to the political nerd in most of us on this site, since Ralph Fiennes plays a town planner.
Fiennes is brilliant as ever but must admit I struggled to stay awake! Nothing happens!
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?
Is it? Inner city areas are all massively Labour anyway.
No, but the allusion is the transfer of resources out of poorer areas to more affluent areas. I don't suppose "inner city" or suburban s***hole is a diffential to be considered by the voters of Heanor or Hartlepool.
Edit: "Deprived urban areas" was the term he used, and in Tunbridge Wells.
Zac Goldsmith and Jake Berry find it a remarkably daft statement to make.
Ben Houchen tying himself in knots over this one. Claims Teesside is "very rural". Well. It isn't a big city, no.
1. If a dog wags its tail as it smells/senses that its owner is returning home then that is anticipating a future event. If the owner comes home every day at the same time then, say, an hour before they return does the dog think somehow that shortly my owner will return.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.
Book of Mormon absolutely seconded.
If “Straight Line Crazy” is still on at the Bridge theatre then I very much recommend it, and it will appeal to the political nerd in most of us on this site, since Ralph Fiennes plays a town planner.
Fiennes is brilliant as ever but must admit I struggled to stay awake! Nothing happens!
To be fair that was my wife’s reaction. I was sucked in to the concept. Might be a bit marmite.
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday. Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?
Is it? Inner city areas are all massively Labour anyway.
No, but the allusion is the transfer of resources out of poorer areas to more affluent areas. I don't suppose "inner city" or suburban s***hole is a diffential to be considered by the voters of Heanor or Hartlepool.
Edit: "Deprived urban areas" was the term he used, and in Tunbridge Wells.
Zac Goldsmith and Jake Berry find it a remarkably daft statement to make.
It really depends on whether those in deprived rural and small town areas see it as them getting access to the money labour splurged on inner cities or somehow not getting the money they already don't get in favour of a new bandstand in Tunny town centre.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?
Is it? Inner city areas are all massively Labour anyway.
No, but the allusion is the transfer of resources out of poorer areas to more affluent areas. I don't suppose "inner city" or suburban s***hole is a diffential to be considered by the voters of Heanor or Hartlepool.
Edit: "Deprived urban areas" was the term he used, and in Tunbridge Wells.
Zac Goldsmith and Jake Berry find it a remarkably daft statement to make.
Ben Houchen tying himself in knots over this one. Claims Teesside is "very rural". Well. It isn't a big city, no.
Tbh I'll always associate the name "Houchen" with the best ever FA cup final goal. Bit like the economist David Dean and your username. Another bod that always makes me think of someone else is David Allen Green the Irish comedian twitter lawyer.
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday. Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.
Its not ideal politics no, but as always the outrage is exquisitely manufactured
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday. Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.
True. Imagine him and Starmer facing off against each other at the next election - two political duds competing to be the least inspiring.
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday. Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.
What the comment does do is to refute absolutely, in his own words, that the government he was Chancellor of really did any "levelling up". It in fact shows the ex-Chancellor claiming credit for doing the opposite. If Sunak was not running in the leadership election it would still be absolute dynamite.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
He has a point though. Councils in leafy areas still need to spend money, eg on roads, and if they do not get government grants there is little they can do. You would hope that funding for roads, for example, is at a fixed rate per km across the country, with a suitable adjustment for contractor and material costs if they vary geographically
Fixed rates for roads wouldn't be a good idea. Some roads are used far more than others and require far higher levels of maintenance. On the flip side there are widely varying ability to raise money from Parking (which is supposed to be ringfenced for Highways expenditure).
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
And suspension of the green levy.
And reform: apparently you pay green levy on green electricity tariffs, for some reason.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
Tesla Powerwalls Create Huge 'Distributed Battery' For Grid Reliability Tesla has invited some 25,000 PG&E customers with Powerwalls to join the program. https://insideevs.com/news/602480/tesla-powerwall-pge-worlds-largest-distributed-battery/ ...Through the collaboration, Tesla will participate in PG&E’s Emergency Load Reduction Program (ELRP) pilot by combining residential Powerwalls into a virtual power plant to discharge power back to the California grid during times of high electricity demand. Participating customers will receive $2 for every incremental kilowatt-hour of electricity their Powerwall discharges during an event. They can use the Tesla app to set their backup power needs or to opt out of a particular event, as necessary....
While not massive in terms of power, imagine ubiquitous EV* usage. Even if only around 20% of vehicles' better capacity was available, it would give you a virtual distributed battery with multiple GWh capacity.
UK drivers do an average of around 20 miles a day, so there's plenty of headroom.
(* two way chargers are already being planned for electric vehicles, so the ability to discharge back to the grid will be designed in.)
The Tesla scheme was mentioned a while back.
The various companies planing superchargers are looking at building in storage to time shift/spread the load. Several are looking at over sizing the storage and using that to time shift larger amount of electricity for ££££. For reference, you can put 3/4GWh of storage in a shipping container sized installation.
QE - there is of course (I think ) a problem with unwinding this, for a reason entirely of George Osborne's "being clever" making. Namely that the Government decided to "bank" all the interest earned against the debt received by the BoE bond purchase programme (which of course is mostly Govt bonds).
Unwinding the debt involves selling those bonds to the private markets, which will as a result reduce Government income whilst retaining the otherwise circular expenditure.
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday. Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.
True. Imagine him and Starmer facing off against each other at the next election - two political duds competing to be the least inspiring.
Whichever way this contest goes, 2024 is either a borefest between Starmer and Sunak or Starmer and Truss.
As I commented yesterday the Conservative USP of "Labour will be as useless as the Conservatives" isn't going to be an easy sell.
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday. Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.
Its not ideal politics no, but as always the outrage is exquisitely manufactured
Like Sunak you don't seem to understand that presenting one's opponents with an open goal and a noose with which to hang oneself is not clever politics.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
Brent Crude is $94.59 atm. Well below its peak but still high.
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday. Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.
True. Imagine him and Starmer facing off against each other at the next election - two political duds competing to be the least inspiring.
Whichever way this contest goes, 2024 is either a borefest between Starmer and Sunak or Starmer and Truss.
As I commented yesterday the Conservative USP of "Labour will be as useless as the Conservatives" isn't going to be an easy sell.
I suspect the next election will not be about which party is more or less useless, but about which party leader is more or less honest. And at the moment I think Starmer wins over Truss but I'm not sure about Starmer over Sunak. Although I suspect Starmer could beat Sunak on overall competence.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.
Today's NFP upside surprise not great for GBP I guess.
Got mine in the post yesterday, voted online yesterday. Got an email confirmation yesterday from Graham reminding me it's an offence to vote more than once, and if I haven't actually voted yet to contact them immediately.
Are you going to declare how you voted? I'm keeping score.
I voted Truss, being a late convert from Sunak, primarily due to his desperate policy announcements. Should have stuck to his guns if he wanted to appear the sensible one. Plus I was never convinced he'd be strong enough on China/Russia. Also not convinced there's much difference between them on the economy, despite all the chatter, and I could imagine Kwarteng doing a good job as Chancellor, more so than a Sunak minion.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.
As one who grew up in the 40s and 50s I find the concept of 'pre-war' as being about six months ago quite difficult to come to terms with!
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday. Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.
Its not ideal politics no, but as always the outrage is exquisitely manufactured
Like Sunak you don't seem to understand that presenting one's opponents with an open goal and a noose with which to hang oneself is not clever politics.
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
The key difference might be that the client vote in this case was a genuinely (un)deserving recipient. Anyway, you are wrong, everybody knows the (un)deserving poor don't vote, and the deserving poor vote Tory.
First time I've heard white van man called the deserving poor. The Tories don't bother campaigning among the poor. They'd get bricked if they tried.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.
Today's NFP upside surprise not great for GBP I guess.
Ah. I did wonder why GBP suddenly lost half a cent. That would explain it alright.
It should be noted Tunbridge Wells, where Rishi spoke and I was born and raised, is 46th on the LD target list and has a LD led council. It is very much bluewall.
I don't there was anything wrong with what he said, there are parts of Tunbridge Wells that are not that well off, Sherwood ward for instance. Yes the redwall needs support but there are parts of the country elsewhere that do too.
It should also be noted that the last 2 general election winners for the Tories, Johnson and Cameron, were both elected by the membership. The last general election winner for Labour, Tony Blair, was elected by Labour members. Starmer was also elected by Labour members and Davey by LD members
Jo Swinson was elected by the members.
Jeremy Corbyn was elected by the members.
Hell, IDS was elected by the members.
The record of member voting is, at best, patchy.
William Hague, John Major, Theresa May, Michael Foot were elected solely by MPs. Their record is at least as patchy.
In 2017 Corbyn deprived the Tories of their majority
Surely the point Mark is making is the evidence points to it being inclusive, whereas you were trying to imply it wasn't. It clearly is from the evidence Mark provided.
Personally I think members should elect leaders whilst in opposition and the public can decide on the party's members wisdom in a GE. However if you are appointing a PM of an already elected governing party it should be left to those who have the detailed knowledge i.e. the MPs to mitigate the risk of appointing a loony as PM (although the MPs might manage that also).
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.
As one who grew up in the 40s and 50s I find the concept of 'pre-war' as being about six months ago quite difficult to come to terms with!
Still means before 1939 to me and I'm ... well never mind what I am but I'm no spring chicken.
It should be noted Tunbridge Wells, where Rishi spoke and I was born and raised, is 46th on the LD target list and has a LD led council. It is very much bluewall.
I don't there was anything wrong with what he said, there are parts of Tunbridge Wells that are not that well off, Sherwood ward for instance. Yes the redwall needs support but there are parts of the country elsewhere that do too.
It should also be noted that the last 2 general election winners for the Tories, Johnson and Cameron, were both elected by the membership. The last general election winner for Labour, Tony Blair, was elected by Labour members. Starmer was also elected by Labour members and Davey by LD members
Jo Swinson was elected by the members.
Jeremy Corbyn was elected by the members.
Hell, IDS was elected by the members.
The record of member voting is, at best, patchy.
William Hague, John Major, Theresa May, Michael Foot were elected solely by MPs. Their record is at least as patchy.
In 2017 Corbyn deprived the Tories of their majority
Rishi continues his slow drift. Remember he was around 11before winning yesterday's debate and 8.4 this morning. How long has Team Truss been sitting on that video?
Betfair next prime minister 1.12 Liz Truss 89% 9 Rishi Sunak 11%
1. If a dog wags its tail as it smells/senses that its owner is returning home then that is anticipating a future event. If the owner comes home every day at the same time then, say, an hour before they return does the dog think somehow that shortly my owner will return.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.
Sister Act is on at the Hammersmith Apollo through August. A friend went to see it yesterday and loved it.
I saw Jerusalem a couple of weeks ago (but yes, sold out, cancellations only) - I was worried that it'd be tediously Private Eye stuff about a robust English hero standing up to council bureaucrats) but that's a tiny fraction of it and it's really good. An f***/c*** swear count making TSE and Leon sound like Edwardian vicars, but clever multi-level characterisation - we spent an hour after the performance dissecting what we'd seen.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.
As one who grew up in the 40s and 50s I find the concept of 'pre-war' as being about six months ago quite difficult to come to terms with!
Yes, I can imagine that.
I wonder whether the dividing line will look as sharp in five years time.
IF (and it is a big IF) inflation unwinds quickly next year as the Covid hangover dissipates globally and Ukraine wins, then a one year period of 10-15% inflation should at least take the edge off the Government’s debt mountain (provided we aren’t an outlier the bond markets can target).
Well, except for the minor matter of the likely new PM, Liz Truss, having a policy of massively increasing the debt mountain…
Except it's not the policy. No other major economy is hiking taxes like Sunak is for very good reason. Let alone hiking them to a 74 year high while planning to slash income tax on unearned incomes.
Reversing those unjustified tax hikes is a rounding error in our national accounts, especially relative to the inflationary write off of debts.
It should be noted Tunbridge Wells, where Rishi spoke and I was born and raised, is 46th on the LD target list and has a LD led council. It is very much bluewall.
I don't there was anything wrong with what he said, there are parts of Tunbridge Wells that are not that well off, Sherwood ward for instance. Yes the redwall needs support but there are parts of the country elsewhere that do too.
It should also be noted that the last 2 general election winners for the Tories, Johnson and Cameron, were both elected by the membership. The last general election winner for Labour, Tony Blair, was elected by Labour members. Starmer was also elected by Labour members and Davey by LD members
Jo Swinson was elected by the members.
Jeremy Corbyn was elected by the members.
Hell, IDS was elected by the members.
The record of member voting is, at best, patchy.
William Hague, John Major, Theresa May, Michael Foot were elected solely by MPs. Their record is at least as patchy.
In 2017 Corbyn deprived the Tories of their majority
Surely the point Mark is making is the evidence points to it being inclusive, whereas you were trying to imply it wasn't. It clearly is from the evidence Mark provided.
Personally I think members should elect leaders whilst in opposition and the public can decide on the party's members wisdom in a GE. However if you are appointing a PM of an already elected governing party it should be left to those who have the detailed knowledge i.e. the MPs to mitigate the risk of appointing a loony as PM (although the MPs might manage that also).
No it clearly isn't, of the last 4 Tory leaders elected solely by MPs, May, Howard, Hague and Major, none of them apart from Major won a general election majority and he also led the party to its worst defeat since 1832 in 1997.
If members get a say in electing the party leader then that applies in government as much as opposition. MPs select the final 2 anyway and members then choose from them, so MPs have plenty of opportunity to exclude an extremist. Braverman or Badenoch may well have won the leadership amongst members and were probably the most hardline of the candidates standing but MPs put neither in the final 2.
Labour also let members choose their leader so they equally could choose the PM in power. Had John McDonnell got enough MP nominations to take on Gordon Brown in 2007 that would certainly have been the case
Re the thread topic, I don't know if it has been noticed on here that someone has conveniently unearthed a clip of Mr S saying he'd managed to change fuinding in favour of Kent etc. (No idea if this is a fair interpretation or not, myself.)
Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
Interesting
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
Those plus the tendency to tell anthropologists (amateur and expert) stuff that -
(a) people think they want to hear (b) troll the stupid foreigner
Arguably, that’s a more accurate depiction of life. We exist in the present, doing what we are doing at the minute. The past is a story we tell ourselves based on fallible memories, and so are any plans or predictions we have for the future.
There is only “now”. And Einstein shows us even that is a strictly personal concept.
Reminds me of the joke under Stalin: "The future is certain. Only the past needs revision."
"Auxilione’s forecast comes less than a day after analysts at Investec forecast that October’s price cap will be £3,523, with bills rising to an eye-watering £4,210 in January."
There’s not much they can do. I would probably keep the cap fixed at the current level and compensation the energy companies for the difference. That would eat up the entire headroom they might or might not have, but is the kind of last resort insurance that only the government can do.
Got mine in the post yesterday, voted online yesterday. Got an email confirmation yesterday from Graham reminding me it's an offence to vote more than once, and if I haven't actually voted yet to contact them immediately.
Are you going to declare how you voted? I'm keeping score.
I voted Truss, being a late convert from Sunak, primarily due to his desperate policy announcements. Should have stuck to his guns if he wanted to appear the sensible one. Plus I was never convinced he'd be strong enough on China/Russia. Also not convinced there's much difference between them on the economy, despite all the chatter, and I could imagine Kwarteng doing a good job as Chancellor, more so than a Sunak minion.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.
A litre of unleaded presently is about £1.77 Vs a pre-war typical £1.25, +42% (+46% accounting for duty changes)
So there's still more than just sterling or crude prices in play presumably?
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
The key difference might be that the client vote in this case was a genuinely (un)deserving recipient. Anyway, you are wrong, everybody knows the (un)deserving poor don't vote, and the deserving poor vote Tory.
First time I've heard white van man called the deserving poor. The Tories don't bother campaigning among the poor. They'd get bricked if they tried.
The fantasy that Labour is the party of the poorer classes is just that. They turned their back on them a while ago when they became obsessed with middle class privilege.
Are there multiple wars that North Korean soldiers have been engaged in over the last several decades (to gain this 'wealth of experience' that i am unaware of?
It’s specifically experience of “counter battery” warfare ie firing rockets at South Koreans
Re dog's view of the world. We have a Sproodle. It is bonkers. I have never come across a dog so excitable. It definitely has triggers that tell it something is happening and therefore it should do stuff, but I think it only has a limited measure of time, say 1 hour at most.
Our dog suffers from separation anxiety (of course he does!). He would go mad if left. We can leave him for up to an hour now. My wife wants to keep paying a fortune to trainers. I reckon he is fixed and we could leave him longer, but that isn't so profitable for the trainer.
PS as a puppy he was expelled from dog training classes for being belligerent. He basically got all the other dogs to misbehave en mass. He is actually well trained provided another human or dog is not in sight.
It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.
Doesn't a lot depend on both the tax cut, and the nature of the inflation?
The present inflation is mostly imported inflation in the price of petrol, diesel and gas. This is increasing costs for businesses which in turn are having to raise prices to remain profitable. If the government was to abolish fuel duty, that would act against this driver of inflation - businesses wouldn't raise prices as much, and as a result a wage-price spiral is less likely to be triggered. Because the market for petrol and diesel is global, and demand is very inelastic, cutting tax on fuel is unlikely to cause a noticable demand and thus price increase for fuel.
On the other hand cutting say stamp duty just releases more cash to fight over scarce resources, and will just accelerate the rate of house price inflation.
Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....
The key difference might be that the client vote in this case was a genuinely (un)deserving recipient. Anyway, you are wrong, everybody knows the (un)deserving poor don't vote, and the deserving poor vote Tory.
First time I've heard white van man called the deserving poor. The Tories don't bother campaigning among the poor. They'd get bricked if they tried.
The fantasy that Labour is the party of the poorer classes is just that. They turned their back on them a while ago when they became obsessed with middle class privilege.
Exactly, a public sector employed graduate manager who voted Remain is less likely to vote Tory now than even someone living on a council estate if they voted Leave
Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
Interesting
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
Those plus the tendency to tell anthropologists (amateur and expert) stuff that -
(a) people think they want to hear (b) troll the stupid foreigner
Yes, and on thinking about it, I believe @bondegezou is right, and it is this book I am referring to
"The Pirahã have no socially lubricating "hello" and "thank you" and "sorry". They have no words for colours, no words for numbers and no way of expressing any history beyond that experienced in their lifetimes"
Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.
Comments
"Hearing the word 'walk' is our cocaine, dogs confirm."
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
So this means that all other things are not equal when comparing to previous years.
If Truss cuts taxes, and does nothing else, that will be inflationary, because in that situation all other things would be equal.
I hereby nominate myself for the leadership of the Conservative and Unionist Party
Taxes are high now but they are matched by high spending so on net are not disinflationary. There is no link between the level of taxes per se and inflation (except that raising indirect taxes leads to temporary inflation) if taxes are matched by spending, but unfunded tax cuts will be inflationary and lead to higher interest rates, Sunak is not wrong about that.
If the economy wasn't supply constrained then Truss's argument would be valid but that is self-evidently not the case, since current high inflation is a result of a series of negative supply shocks (including Brexit of course).
Their body clocks are well honed too. 6pm means its meal time even if the last meal was at 5.30pm
There is only “now”. And Einstein shows us even that is a strictly personal concept.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
We can argue about how they managed to do this and still win reelection, or whether there was a better option, but it's an interesting contrast even before going into that detail.
We know he has difficulties seeing.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.
Edit: "Deprived urban areas" was the term he used, and in Tunbridge Wells.
Zac Goldsmith and Jake Berry find it a remarkably daft statement to make.
IF what you say is true, then the bank of England should not need to raise rates much, because fiscal policy is already the tightest in 70 years, and has been for a while.
If anything, the BoE's comments yesterday were an admission that very tight fiscal policy was not controlling inflation, because if it were inflation would be falling. It isn't. It is accelerating.
If “Straight Line Crazy” is still on at the Bridge theatre then I very much recommend it, and it will appeal to the political nerd in most of us on this site, since Ralph Fiennes plays a town planner.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/MATE-KING-KONG-Shifter-beastman-ebook/dp/B097LTTSRX/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3TJ2PHMPZDPOU&keywords=Bride+Kong&qid=1659702333&sprefix=bride+king,aps,271&sr=8-2
Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
Very Conservative rural areas and very Labour inner cities are unlikely to alter voting patterns. How do market town floating voters view it?
Claims Teesside is "very rural".
Well. It isn't a big city, no.
During stagflation you don't get to choose which out of inflation or a stagnant economy or public debt is a problem.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
https://twitter.com/thefigen/status/1554865683900649476?s=21&t=yQBeq3WXEBZQL7cXN8ZHgA
And reform: apparently you pay green levy on green electricity tariffs, for some reason.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
The various companies planing superchargers are looking at building in storage to time shift/spread the load. Several are looking at over sizing the storage and using that to time shift larger amount of electricity for ££££. For reference, you can put 3/4GWh of storage in a shipping container sized installation.
Unwinding the debt involves selling those bonds to the private markets, which will as a result reduce Government income whilst retaining the otherwise circular expenditure.
As I commented yesterday the Conservative USP of "Labour will be as useless as the Conservatives" isn't going to be an easy sell.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.
Although I suspect Starmer could beat Sunak on overall competence.
The Tories don't bother campaigning among the poor. They'd get bricked if they tried.
Personally I think members should elect leaders whilst in opposition and the public can decide on the party's members wisdom in a GE. However if you are appointing a PM of an already elected governing party it should be left to those who have the detailed knowledge i.e. the MPs to mitigate the risk of appointing a loony as PM (although the MPs might manage that also).
1.11 Liz Truss 90%
9.4 Rishi Sunak 11%
Next Conservative leader
1.11 Liz Truss 90%
9.6 Rishi Sunak 10%
I saw Jerusalem a couple of weeks ago (but yes, sold out, cancellations only) - I was worried that it'd be tediously Private Eye stuff about a robust English hero standing up to council bureaucrats) but that's a tiny fraction of it and it's really good. An f***/c*** swear count making TSE and Leon sound like Edwardian vicars, but clever multi-level characterisation - we spent an hour after the performance dissecting what we'd seen.
I wonder whether the dividing line will look as sharp in five years time.
Reversing those unjustified tax hikes is a rounding error in our national accounts, especially relative to the inflationary write off of debts.
If members get a say in electing the party leader then that applies in government as much as opposition. MPs select the final 2 anyway and members then choose from them, so MPs have plenty of opportunity to exclude an extremist. Braverman or Badenoch may well have won the leadership amongst members and were probably the most hardline of the candidates standing but MPs put neither in the final 2.
Labour also let members choose their leader so they equally could choose the PM in power. Had John McDonnell got enough MP nominations to take on Gordon Brown in 2007 that would certainly have been the case
(a) people think they want to hear
(b) troll the stupid foreigner
I feel a Temptations classic coming on.
So there's still more than just sterling or crude prices in play presumably?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
The fantasy that Labour is the party of the poorer classes is just that. They turned their back on them a while ago when they became obsessed with middle class privilege.
Our dog suffers from separation anxiety (of course he does!). He would go mad if left. We can leave him for up to an hour now. My wife wants to keep paying a fortune to trainers. I reckon he is fixed and we could leave him longer, but that isn't so profitable for the trainer.
PS as a puppy he was expelled from dog training classes for being
belligerent. He basically got all the other dogs to misbehave en mass. He is actually well trained provided another human or dog is not in sight.
The present inflation is mostly imported inflation in the price of petrol, diesel and gas. This is increasing costs for businesses which in turn are having to raise prices to remain profitable. If the government was to abolish fuel duty, that would act against this driver of inflation - businesses wouldn't raise prices as much, and as a result a wage-price spiral is less likely to be triggered. Because the market for petrol and diesel is global, and demand is very inelastic, cutting tax on fuel is unlikely to cause a noticable demand and thus price increase for fuel.
On the other hand cutting say stamp duty just releases more cash to fight over scarce resources, and will just accelerate the rate of house price inflation.
"The Pirahã have no socially lubricating "hello" and "thank you" and "sorry". They have no words for colours, no words for numbers and no way of expressing any history beyond that experienced in their lifetimes"
Which is not quite how I recalled it, as he says
Great book, however
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/10/daniel-everett-amazon
https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/07/26/oneweb-to-merge-with-eutelsat-needs-five-more-launches-to-complete-first-gen-network/
While offering a more limited service (mostly back haul) than Starlink, this is the first LEO data provision constellation that will be completed.