Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Truss view of “British Workers” could be an electoral liability – politicalbetting.com

24567

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Nigelb said:

    Selebian said:

    Typo. She actually said more grift. The current incarnation of the Tory party know all about that :wink:

    Graft has a similar meaning.
    Both are not entirely uncharacteristic of the current Tory party.

    Graft being "bribery and other corrupt practices used to secure illicit advantages or gains in politics or business"; grift being the small time equivalent.
    We're not in the USA.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 251
    MrEd said:


    Very good point. And it's not just here. There have been a lot more articles recently (one in the Speccie) saying you're a fool if you do more than what you are contractually obliged to do because you will never be recognised by your bosses for it and you'll just be at risk of pay cuts / redundancy as everyone else.

    A rather cynical view but unfortunately borne out by events. Especially so when you have so many low quality CEOs running U.K. accompanies.

    Has Truss considered that there's no point working harder if there's nothing to be gained by so doing ?

    Worse still if the gain from harder work all goes to the 1% then harder work merely increases inequality.

    People might work harder if it allows them to go from a VW to a BMW but they will not if they still get the VW while the bosses go from a Bentley to a Rolls-Royce.

    I'm afraid that, cynically, my experience of 30 years of working is that what I am paid bears no relationship to how hard I actually work. In the previous company I worked for, over 15 years, there was actually an inverse correlation between my annual performance rating and my pay review.

    I eventually left for pastures new, and now earn a lot more for a lot less effort and stress, and in fact a couple of years ago when my performance was negatively affected by personal issues nobody noticed that either.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,048

    DavidL said:

    I am less confident than I was that Truss will get a bounce sufficiently large to give a Tory poll lead. Her novelty factor is being worn away before she even gets the job. Bringing a new sense of purpose to the government at this stage is going to be hard. Her cabinet and emergency budget are both possibilities but I am just not seeing it.

    Looking at the initial May and Johnson bounces, if they are currently 5 to 9 behind generally it should be enough to get a small lead in at least some polls, not anywhere near enough to risk an election. Both the others hit into a sweet spot about 2 to 3 months in and the lead accelerated. I think ths is where Truss will not go the same way, the headwinds will stall and eventually reverse the bounce and we buckle in for the long haul to late 2024
    The Tories are 5 points behind using an average of the latest 10 polls, not 5 to 9 points.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695
    edited August 17
    Like the clip very much; she's bang on the money.

    People [by implication: "idiots who have no idea about anything, are stupid, and deeply misguided] blame Europe and migrants and that's wrong".

    Go Liz!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,233
    January? WTF...

    Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi MP reacts to inflation hitting double figures.

    He says the government are working on two things; the £37 billion package and what more needs to be done for January so that the incoming PM can "hit the ground running".

    More here: https://trib.al/W3CnU1n
    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1559849119925125127/video/1

    Truss might be out by January...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695
    "IT manager", eh Nick.

    Methinks the article is being overly modest on your behalf. Or did you supply the deets?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,410
    PJH said:

    MrEd said:


    Very good point. And it's not just here. There have been a lot more articles recently (one in the Speccie) saying you're a fool if you do more than what you are contractually obliged to do because you will never be recognised by your bosses for it and you'll just be at risk of pay cuts / redundancy as everyone else.

    A rather cynical view but unfortunately borne out by events. Especially so when you have so many low quality CEOs running U.K. accompanies.

    Has Truss considered that there's no point working harder if there's nothing to be gained by so doing ?

    Worse still if the gain from harder work all goes to the 1% then harder work merely increases inequality.

    People might work harder if it allows them to go from a VW to a BMW but they will not if they still get the VW while the bosses go from a Bentley to a Rolls-Royce.

    I'm afraid that, cynically, my experience of 30 years of working is that what I am paid bears no relationship to how hard I actually work. In the previous company I worked for, over 15 years, there was actually an inverse correlation between my annual performance rating and my pay review.

    I eventually left for pastures new, and now earn a lot more for a lot less effort and stress, and in fact a couple of years ago when my performance was negatively affected by personal issues nobody noticed that either.
    This is so true, the hardest I ever worked was when I waited tables for £1.50/hour. Of course sweat and productivity are two different things, which Liz Truss might understand if she had done a proper economics degree.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,591
    I think Opinium know me so well that they designed this question just for me.


  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,812
    I didn't know you had risen to running the whole of CIWF?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,410

    I think Opinium know me so well that they designed this question just for me.


    French?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,591
    On topic, Liz is right.

    If you’re a Brit who can’t work the same hours as a foreigner who can hardly speak English then you’re a lazy parasite who should get on your bike.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
    Indeed, it is churlish to blame the party that has been in power for over a decade. The majority of the blame as always lies with Starmer, the rest shared between Corbyn, Clegg and Brown.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
    The Gov't has an 80 seat majority. Unlike 17-19, Starmer has sweet fanny adams influence over government.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695

    On topic, Liz is right.

    If you’re a Brit who can’t work the same hours as a foreigner who can hardly speak English then you’re a lazy parasite who should get on your bike.

    She puts the blame squarely on those who deserve it - idiots who blame Europe and migrants.

    Big fan of Liz, me.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    Janan Ganesh in the FT has Woken up



    "It is there, too, in the growing denial that something has gone very wrong with identity politics. When a liberal says, “There is no culture war,” what I hear is: “Please let there be no culture war. Otherwise, I shall have to fall out with my friends, stand up to my children, upset my employees. Or worse, go along with them and feel a coward.” Even if it is true that 2020 will turn out to be peak woke, it is because people — writers, comedians — took a stand. A conflict was recognised, and engaged. Those who looked away at the time don’t get to turn up now and pronounce the whole thing overblown. The poet Robert Frost once defined a liberal as someone who wouldn’t take their own side in a quarrel. It is increasingly a feat to recognise the quarrel.

    "Another liberal parry is to say that cancel culture is a distraction from the economic crisis. And perhaps it is. But then one novelist’s torment was a distraction in the not notably quiet year of 1989. There will always be a reason to dodge a subject. In the end, “salience” aside, what do you think about it?"


    https://www.ft.com/content/8700151d-eaff-44bd-a6ec-aea1895db361

    He is deluded in his forlorn hope that we might have passed Peak Woke. This psychological defence mechanism - a form of denial, because pain - was identified in the Spectator a year ago



    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

    Are you not remotely heartened by the Tavistock closure? Feels to me like Stalingrad or Maloyaroslavets.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Vaguely a **betting post** although I know nobody was especially interested at the weekend.

    I have discovered that the reason Sunak remains available to lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is that someone has failed to turn their market making API off (or something with the same effect) - so while it looks like only a small amount available, it gets replenished as soon as you take it. About £1.50 profit in it per £100 'invested', or £2 if you take all the profit on the Truss side.

    I am heading for £1k of exposure, about 50% of which is hedged against the 12 to back at Betfair. I may keep going though at some point my bank are going to phone me when their automated scam detection software gets triggered... so, anyway, if anyone else wants a share, it looks like there's plenty.

    I'm as deep as I'd like to go on this (And then some) - but whoever's holding the 9.8 on Smarkets is probably also preventing Rishi from drifting to his true price on Betfair also now (Must be at least 15) due to arbers like yourself. You'll rarely see a rick as big as this, whoever has left that 9.8 up is losing thousands.
    I thought I'd broken them at last (I'm into four figures now, I can't see any way the rules could differ but I do remember the Overround Fiasco) but after five minutes, the 9.8 was back.
    It'd be hilarious if that was Smarkets own house API.
    It might be sneakily profitable for them even if it is. Oddschecker is listing Smarkets as by far the better value odds that Betfair for Sunak but I wonder if its that £2 that's doing so.

    Lure people in seeing they've got the best odds for Sunak, get them to place a bet of which £2 is matched at decent odds and the rest is matched at real odds. That £2 might be a cheap promotional stunt for many bets and not something bet repeatedly upon.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075
    edited August 17
    Mortimer said:

    DavidL said:

    Liz Cheney lost by 37 points in her Primary. Thats an absolute monstering.

    Liz Cheney is the American Rishi Sunak, condemned for acting against their mafia don boss.
    Sunak is disliked for raising taxes following a commitment not to do so, long before he left the Cabinet. He's closer to George H W Bush than Liz Cheney.
    On that note, suspending the triple lock probably did not help his Rishiness. Some of us did wonder about the wisdom of breaking manifesto commitments, which Liz Truss is now throwing back at Sunak.
    To be honest his last budget was a disaster both for him and the country and it is going to be almost completely undone.
    I have no doubt that he was pressured by Treasury officials that this was the responsible thing to do after the Covid largesse but as a judgment call it was well off failing to recognise the weakness of the economy and other adverse developments.

    It is why, despite the fact that I would still have voted for him, I have become increasingly relaxed about PM Truss.
    Today's Times has an excellent series of excerpts from focus groups. Sunak was apparently riding high until the family tax affairs news broke. After the eyewatering tax rises in the last budget, that definitely stuck in my craw.

    As with partygate, the implication is hard to ignore. Brits hate hypocrisy.....
    I had no idea that at this moment in time he is spending over £400,000 on a swimming pool and gym complex at his home

    Really - what an out of touch image and at one time I had high hopes for him

    As for Truss I have no idea how she will fair but I expect this Autumn will provide some answers
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,149
    I've read the Guardian piece and I'm none the wiser. She blames poor productivity on working culture and suggests things are very different in China. Now China is a very strange example to pick. A country half way around the world with I presume much lower levels of productivity than we have. Do they have more graft? I think that is likely but all that shows is that graft and productivity are not that closely related. Amy Chua the Tiger mother has pointed out how the success of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants seems to dissipate among the 3rd and 4th generation. It makes sense. When you are escaping a hellhole to the land of opportunity of course you're going to graft like mad and instill that in your own children. The problem Truss identifies is one of the wealthy world in general.

    She could instead have used the example of our bordering countries in northern Europe, from France to the Netherlands Germany and Scandanavia who seem to do rather better on these productivity measures. But so far as I can tell she didn't. She also made the distinction between London and the rest of the UK. What did she have in mind. Goldman interns ready to graft for 20 hours a day whereas people in Hartlepool want a 5 minute cigarette break every hour? I'm sure if you are chasing a huge carrot you'll find people willing to do crazy hours in the hope of becoming a millionaire but most people don't see that kind of carrot dangling in front of them.

    I'd actually be prepared to take her at her word if she was applying the attitude across the board saying that senior managers need to set an example and are spending too much time on the golf course and having long lunches. That the culture is universal if you like. That's not the inference I'm getting.

    As a low ranking civil servant am I productive in what I do? I'd like to think I'm more productive than most of the people who do the same job, partly because I've been doing it for quite some time. I'm full time in the office and don't generally chat much so that helps. However whether I am actually productive depends on whether the tasks I have been given are worthwhile ones. That I would be less sure about. It's surely also dependent on things like the quality of IT. When I started my job one of the first things my manager asked me was how I thought we could work better. I made the point about IT to which he replied 'you aren't getting faster computers.' I suppose not. I won't bore you with the details of our latest attempt to develop our own internal software platform but needless to say it will have made me less productive but I'm confident in saying that has nothing to do with 'graft'.

    The irony of Truss's comments is that in trying to explain the productivity problem she has resorted to the laziest explanation. And what solution does she have?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,591
    TOPPING said:

    On topic, Liz is right.

    If you’re a Brit who can’t work the same hours as a foreigner who can hardly speak English then you’re a lazy parasite who should get on your bike.

    She puts the blame squarely on those who deserve it - idiots who blame Europe and migrants.

    Big fan of Liz, me.
    Same.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    edited August 17

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Vaguely a **betting post** although I know nobody was especially interested at the weekend.

    I have discovered that the reason Sunak remains available to lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is that someone has failed to turn their market making API off (or something with the same effect) - so while it looks like only a small amount available, it gets replenished as soon as you take it. About £1.50 profit in it per £100 'invested', or £2 if you take all the profit on the Truss side.

    I am heading for £1k of exposure, about 50% of which is hedged against the 12 to back at Betfair. I may keep going though at some point my bank are going to phone me when their automated scam detection software gets triggered... so, anyway, if anyone else wants a share, it looks like there's plenty.

    I'm as deep as I'd like to go on this (And then some) - but whoever's holding the 9.8 on Smarkets is probably also preventing Rishi from drifting to his true price on Betfair also now (Must be at least 15) due to arbers like yourself. You'll rarely see a rick as big as this, whoever has left that 9.8 up is losing thousands.
    I thought I'd broken them at last (I'm into four figures now, I can't see any way the rules could differ but I do remember the Overround Fiasco) but after five minutes, the 9.8 was back.
    It'd be hilarious if that was Smarkets own house API.
    It might be sneakily profitable for them even if it is. Oddschecker is listing Smarkets as by far the better value odds that Betfair for Sunak but I wonder if its that £2 that's doing so.

    Lure people in seeing they've got the best odds for Sunak, get them to place a bet of which £2 is matched at decent odds and the rest is matched at real odds. That £2 might be a cheap promotional stunt for many bets and not something bet repeatedly upon.
    *Backing Sunak at any price is loss making. *Backing Sunak at top price when there's an arb available with another exchange is suicidal.

    It's not something the average punter is going to find or be part of any promotion either.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,967
    edited August 17

    PJH said:

    MrEd said:


    Very good point. And it's not just here. There have been a lot more articles recently (one in the Speccie) saying you're a fool if you do more than what you are contractually obliged to do because you will never be recognised by your bosses for it and you'll just be at risk of pay cuts / redundancy as everyone else.

    A rather cynical view but unfortunately borne out by events. Especially so when you have so many low quality CEOs running U.K. accompanies.

    Has Truss considered that there's no point working harder if there's nothing to be gained by so doing ?

    Worse still if the gain from harder work all goes to the 1% then harder work merely increases inequality.

    People might work harder if it allows them to go from a VW to a BMW but they will not if they still get the VW while the bosses go from a Bentley to a Rolls-Royce.

    I'm afraid that, cynically, my experience of 30 years of working is that what I am paid bears no relationship to how hard I actually work. In the previous company I worked for, over 15 years, there was actually an inverse correlation between my annual performance rating and my pay review.

    I eventually left for pastures new, and now earn a lot more for a lot less effort and stress, and in fact a couple of years ago when my performance was negatively affected by personal issues nobody noticed that either.
    This is so true, the hardest I ever worked was when I waited tables for £1.50/hour. Of course sweat and productivity are two different things, which Liz Truss might understand if she had done a proper economics degree.
    Waiting tables tends to be a rare job which really significantly rewards hard workers over lazy colleagues in the same role though.

    If you worked hard and provided good service while waiting tables then you probably took home more money at the end of each night than any lazy colleagues who didn't.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,297
    edited August 17

    I think Opinium know me so well that they designed this question just for me.


    "French" would be my pick.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Vaguely a **betting post** although I know nobody was especially interested at the weekend.

    I have discovered that the reason Sunak remains available to lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is that someone has failed to turn their market making API off (or something with the same effect) - so while it looks like only a small amount available, it gets replenished as soon as you take it. About £1.50 profit in it per £100 'invested', or £2 if you take all the profit on the Truss side.

    I am heading for £1k of exposure, about 50% of which is hedged against the 12 to back at Betfair. I may keep going though at some point my bank are going to phone me when their automated scam detection software gets triggered... so, anyway, if anyone else wants a share, it looks like there's plenty.

    I'm as deep as I'd like to go on this (And then some) - but whoever's holding the 9.8 on Smarkets is probably also preventing Rishi from drifting to his true price on Betfair also now (Must be at least 15) due to arbers like yourself. You'll rarely see a rick as big as this, whoever has left that 9.8 up is losing thousands.
    I thought I'd broken them at last (I'm into four figures now, I can't see any way the rules could differ but I do remember the Overround Fiasco) but after five minutes, the 9.8 was back.
    It'd be hilarious if that was Smarkets own house API.
    It might be sneakily profitable for them even if it is. Oddschecker is listing Smarkets as by far the better value odds that Betfair for Sunak but I wonder if its that £2 that's doing so.

    Lure people in seeing they've got the best odds for Sunak, get them to place a bet of which £2 is matched at decent odds and the rest is matched at real odds. That £2 might be a cheap promotional stunt for many bets and not something bet repeatedly upon.
    Interesting theory but I don't see it.

    It's been appearing in chunks of £24 which feels like as much as most people would bet? I'm not sure. I don't see a random punter who doesn't quite get how things work somehow ending up on the lay side of an exchange for large numbers (also, there's no liquidity above 9.8, it stands alone).

    Someone put down £150 which has held it off for a while. Waiting to see if it comes back... it may not as for the first time the Truss price has also shifted.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,048
    edited August 17
    FPT

    In London cyclists just ignore red lights, why don't we do something about that?

    It's very annoying. I don't know why London cyclists think they're different to cyclists everywhere else who do obey red lights. When I'm walking in London I deliberately try to cross the street in a way that gets in the way of cyclists trying to do it.

    But I don't think cyclists everywhere else should be forced to have numberplates, insurance, etc, just because of the bad behaviour of London cyclists.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,860
    IanB2 said:

    I didn't know you had risen to running the whole of CIWF?
    The whole of CIWF UK - there are lots of other national offices in other countries.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,297

    I've read the Guardian piece and I'm none the wiser. She blames poor productivity on working culture and suggests things are very different in China. Now China is a very strange example to pick. A country half way around the world with I presume much lower levels of productivity than we have. Do they have more graft?...

    Undoubtedly so, given the need for anti-corruption campaigns every six months.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
    Indeed, it is churlish to blame the party that has been in power for over a decade. The majority of the blame as always lies with Starmer, the rest shared between Corbyn, Clegg and Brown.
    The point is labour supporters cannot moan about the triple lock as Starmer is 100% in favour of it
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922
    I think a lot of the Tory vote will agree with her comments about British workers being lazy, especially the ones who are not working themselves. It is one of the curious things about patriotic nostalgia that I struggle to understand.

    On the one hand, the UK is full of work shy woke spongers too busy enjoying their iphones and avocados. On the other hand we all need to say we are the best in the world at everything. It just can't be both.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
    Indeed, it is churlish to blame the party that has been in power for over a decade. The majority of the blame as always lies with Starmer, the rest shared between Corbyn, Clegg and Brown.
    The point is labour supporters cannot moan about the triple lock as Starmer is 100% in favour of it
    The people who moan about the triple lock are mostly workers supporting all parties. The people who support it are mostly the retired supporting all parties.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    On topic, Liz is right.

    If you’re a Brit who can’t work the same hours as a foreigner who can hardly speak English then you’re a lazy parasite who should get on your bike.

    Working extra hours doesn't solve productivity - it hides the lack of actual productivity by masking it...

    Give me Denmark where the everyone arrived by 9am and were out of the door well before 5 with all work done.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912
    edited August 17
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Vaguely a **betting post** although I know nobody was especially interested at the weekend.

    I have discovered that the reason Sunak remains available to lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is that someone has failed to turn their market making API off (or something with the same effect) - so while it looks like only a small amount available, it gets replenished as soon as you take it. About £1.50 profit in it per £100 'invested', or £2 if you take all the profit on the Truss side.

    I am heading for £1k of exposure, about 50% of which is hedged against the 12 to back at Betfair. I may keep going though at some point my bank are going to phone me when their automated scam detection software gets triggered... so, anyway, if anyone else wants a share, it looks like there's plenty.

    I'm as deep as I'd like to go on this (And then some) - but whoever's holding the 9.8 on Smarkets is probably also preventing Rishi from drifting to his true price on Betfair also now (Must be at least 15) due to arbers like yourself. You'll rarely see a rick as big as this, whoever has left that 9.8 up is losing thousands.
    I thought I'd broken them at last (I'm into four figures now, I can't see any way the rules could differ but I do remember the Overround Fiasco) but after five minutes, the 9.8 was back.
    It'd be hilarious if that was Smarkets own house API.
    Playing on their own markets? That couldn’t possibly go wrong… :lol:

    That could blow up faster than a Russian airbase in Crimea.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Vaguely a **betting post** although I know nobody was especially interested at the weekend.

    I have discovered that the reason Sunak remains available to lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is that someone has failed to turn their market making API off (or something with the same effect) - so while it looks like only a small amount available, it gets replenished as soon as you take it. About £1.50 profit in it per £100 'invested', or £2 if you take all the profit on the Truss side.

    I am heading for £1k of exposure, about 50% of which is hedged against the 12 to back at Betfair. I may keep going though at some point my bank are going to phone me when their automated scam detection software gets triggered... so, anyway, if anyone else wants a share, it looks like there's plenty.

    I'm as deep as I'd like to go on this (And then some) - but whoever's holding the 9.8 on Smarkets is probably also preventing Rishi from drifting to his true price on Betfair also now (Must be at least 15) due to arbers like yourself. You'll rarely see a rick as big as this, whoever has left that 9.8 up is losing thousands.
    I thought I'd broken them at last (I'm into four figures now, I can't see any way the rules could differ but I do remember the Overround Fiasco) but after five minutes, the 9.8 was back.
    It'd be hilarious if that was Smarkets own house API.
    It might be sneakily profitable for them even if it is. Oddschecker is listing Smarkets as by far the better value odds that Betfair for Sunak but I wonder if its that £2 that's doing so.

    Lure people in seeing they've got the best odds for Sunak, get them to place a bet of which £2 is matched at decent odds and the rest is matched at real odds. That £2 might be a cheap promotional stunt for many bets and not something bet repeatedly upon.
    Interesting theory but I don't see it.

    It's been appearing in chunks of £24 which feels like as much as most people would bet? I'm not sure. I don't see a random punter who doesn't quite get how things work somehow ending up on the lay side of an exchange for large numbers (also, there's no liquidity above 9.8, it stands alone).

    Someone put down £150 which has held it off for a while. Waiting to see if it comes back... it may not as for the first time the Truss price has also shifted.
    The £24 up now is to back Sunak though (Previously you could lay Sunak at 9.8) - if whoever has the errant API up can get it matched they'll start to repair some of the damage to their book. I guess they'll have to hope some sort of favourable (And almost certainly wrong) poll appears for Rishi along the lines of the original Techne poll.
    And as Sunak is now 12.5/13 on Betfair they're probably out of luck.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Vaguely a **betting post** although I know nobody was especially interested at the weekend.

    I have discovered that the reason Sunak remains available to lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is that someone has failed to turn their market making API off (or something with the same effect) - so while it looks like only a small amount available, it gets replenished as soon as you take it. About £1.50 profit in it per £100 'invested', or £2 if you take all the profit on the Truss side.

    I am heading for £1k of exposure, about 50% of which is hedged against the 12 to back at Betfair. I may keep going though at some point my bank are going to phone me when their automated scam detection software gets triggered... so, anyway, if anyone else wants a share, it looks like there's plenty.

    I'm as deep as I'd like to go on this (And then some) - but whoever's holding the 9.8 on Smarkets is probably also preventing Rishi from drifting to his true price on Betfair also now (Must be at least 15) due to arbers like yourself. You'll rarely see a rick as big as this, whoever has left that 9.8 up is losing thousands.
    I thought I'd broken them at last (I'm into four figures now, I can't see any way the rules could differ but I do remember the Overround Fiasco) but after five minutes, the 9.8 was back.
    It'd be hilarious if that was Smarkets own house API.
    Playing on their own markets? That couldn’t possibly go wrong… :lol:

    That could blow up faster than a Russian airbase in Crimea.
    They openly do that and make decent money from it.

    Another possibility is Sunaks campaign, probably informally through a donor supporting the back price. Think we have seen the same with some other rich outsiders like Bloomberg.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,582

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
    Indeed, it is churlish to blame the party that has been in power for over a decade. The majority of the blame as always lies with Starmer, the rest shared between Corbyn, Clegg and Brown.
    The point is labour supporters cannot moan about the triple lock as Starmer is 100% in favour of it
    I on the other hand despite being a beneficiary can moan its a disgrace that people like yourself think its right for those in work to take further real terms cuts whilst fully expecting to get 12% yourself.

    All leaders including Corbyn have supported the Triple Lock its completely wrong.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,343
    geoffw said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    I expect they may go down well with Tory members. They were also not necessarily wrong either if you compare our work rate to China's for example. However most British workers do not want to work as hard as the Chinese

    Most Tory Party members don't want to work at all. Lazy sods, expecting to keep their triple-lock pensions.
    You want to pensioners to go back to work?
    If I went back to work, presumably I would be in the same post as before , so all the youngsters would have to move down a grade or two. I suppose we could try that.....
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,659

    On topic, Liz is right.

    If you’re a Brit who can’t work the same hours as a foreigner who can hardly speak English then you’re a lazy parasite who should get on your bike.

    If you’re a Brit who can’t won't work the same hours as a foreigner who can hardly speak English then you’re a lazy parasite who should get on your bike.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,591
    Nigelb said:

    I think Opinium know me so well that they designed this question just for me.


    "French" would be my pick.
    I went for Surrender, collaboration, and beautiful.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Interestingly now, Truss is unbackable on Smarkets with under a pound available at 1.08 and the next at 1.02.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,591
    What does Zak Crawley do to get dropped?

    He’s been the batting Jade Dernbach.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,659

    Nigelb said:

    I think Opinium know me so well that they designed this question just for me.


    "French" would be my pick.
    I went for Surrender, collaboration, and beautiful.
    Why not "cheese-eating", "surrender" and "monkeys"
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,879

    I think a lot of the Tory vote will agree with her comments about British workers being lazy, especially the ones who are not working themselves. It is one of the curious things about patriotic nostalgia that I struggle to understand.

    On the one hand, the UK is full of work shy woke spongers too busy enjoying their iphones and avocados. On the other hand we all need to say we are the best in the world at everything. It just can't be both.

    We should be Top Nation, becuase "we" (for which read, our parents and grandparents) won World War Two. That's why it's so offensive that the losers of said war (Germany) and victims who we saved (France) are in charge of Europe and we aren't.

    Since we obviously aren't Top Nation, something has gone wrong and someone is to blame. The young people, with their university degrees, avacado toast and flat screen televisions, are an obvious target.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,591

    Nigelb said:

    I think Opinium know me so well that they designed this question just for me.


    "French" would be my pick.
    I went for Surrender, collaboration, and beautiful.
    Why not "cheese-eating", "surrender" and "monkeys"
    Goddamnit, I should have put that.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Vaguely a **betting post** although I know nobody was especially interested at the weekend.

    I have discovered that the reason Sunak remains available to lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is that someone has failed to turn their market making API off (or something with the same effect) - so while it looks like only a small amount available, it gets replenished as soon as you take it. About £1.50 profit in it per £100 'invested', or £2 if you take all the profit on the Truss side.

    I am heading for £1k of exposure, about 50% of which is hedged against the 12 to back at Betfair. I may keep going though at some point my bank are going to phone me when their automated scam detection software gets triggered... so, anyway, if anyone else wants a share, it looks like there's plenty.

    I'm as deep as I'd like to go on this (And then some) - but whoever's holding the 9.8 on Smarkets is probably also preventing Rishi from drifting to his true price on Betfair also now (Must be at least 15) due to arbers like yourself. You'll rarely see a rick as big as this, whoever has left that 9.8 up is losing thousands.
    I thought I'd broken them at last (I'm into four figures now, I can't see any way the rules could differ but I do remember the Overround Fiasco) but after five minutes, the 9.8 was back.
    It'd be hilarious if that was Smarkets own house API.
    It might be sneakily profitable for them even if it is. Oddschecker is listing Smarkets as by far the better value odds that Betfair for Sunak but I wonder if its that £2 that's doing so.

    Lure people in seeing they've got the best odds for Sunak, get them to place a bet of which £2 is matched at decent odds and the rest is matched at real odds. That £2 might be a cheap promotional stunt for many bets and not something bet repeatedly upon.
    Interesting theory but I don't see it.

    It's been appearing in chunks of £24 which feels like as much as most people would bet? I'm not sure. I don't see a random punter who doesn't quite get how things work somehow ending up on the lay side of an exchange for large numbers (also, there's no liquidity above 9.8, it stands alone).

    Someone put down £150 which has held it off for a while. Waiting to see if it comes back... it may not as for the first time the Truss price has also shifted.
    The £24 up now is to back Sunak though (Previously you could lay Sunak at 9.8) - if whoever has the errant API up can get it matched they'll start to repair some of the damage to their book. I guess they'll have to hope some sort of favourable (And almost certainly wrong) poll appears for Rishi along the lines of the original Techne poll.
    And as Sunak is now 12.5/13 on Betfair they're probably out of luck.
    I think the £24 just happens to be the residual of whoever dumped the £150 earlier though I agree it's a funny coincidence.

    Someone actually backed at 9.6 when the 9.8 was temporarily offline, earlier. Absolute malarkey!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Nigelb said:

    I think Opinium know me so well that they designed this question just for me.


    "French" would be my pick.
    I went for Surrender, collaboration, and beautiful.
    Have you heard of the Indian National Army? I would expect a student of ww2 collaboration to have done so.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,882
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Janan Ganesh in the FT has Woken up



    "It is there, too, in the growing denial that something has gone very wrong with identity politics. When a liberal says, “There is no culture war,” what I hear is: “Please let there be no culture war. Otherwise, I shall have to fall out with my friends, stand up to my children, upset my employees. Or worse, go along with them and feel a coward.” Even if it is true that 2020 will turn out to be peak woke, it is because people — writers, comedians — took a stand. A conflict was recognised, and engaged. Those who looked away at the time don’t get to turn up now and pronounce the whole thing overblown. The poet Robert Frost once defined a liberal as someone who wouldn’t take their own side in a quarrel. It is increasingly a feat to recognise the quarrel.

    "Another liberal parry is to say that cancel culture is a distraction from the economic crisis. And perhaps it is. But then one novelist’s torment was a distraction in the not notably quiet year of 1989. There will always be a reason to dodge a subject. In the end, “salience” aside, what do you think about it?"


    https://www.ft.com/content/8700151d-eaff-44bd-a6ec-aea1895db361

    He is deluded in his forlorn hope that we might have passed Peak Woke. This psychological defence mechanism - a form of denial, because pain - was identified in the Spectator a year ago



    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

    Saw this yesterday. He's getting a lot of stick in the comments section.

    The FT below-the-line commentariat skews very Remoaner, and centrist Lib Demmy liberal. And therefore quite Woke

    Ganesh at least perceives the problem. But I dunno where he gets the idea that in 2020 "comedians and writers" finally stood up to Wokeness. Who? When? What?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075
    edited August 17

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
    Indeed, it is churlish to blame the party that has been in power for over a decade. The majority of the blame as always lies with Starmer, the rest shared between Corbyn, Clegg and Brown.
    The point is labour supporters cannot moan about the triple lock as Starmer is 100% in favour of it
    I on the other hand despite being a beneficiary can moan its a disgrace that people like yourself think its right for those in work to take further real terms cuts whilst fully expecting to get 12% yourself.

    All leaders including Corbyn have supported the Triple Lock its completely wrong.
    I have no problem with the abolition of the triple lock and supported Sunak when he awarded a 3.1% rise this year

    As for next year it seems that all parties support the triple lock so I just do not see who is going to propose it's abolition
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,371

    Pulpstar said:

    Vaguely a **betting post** although I know nobody was especially interested at the weekend.

    I have discovered that the reason Sunak remains available to lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is that someone has failed to turn their market making API off (or something with the same effect) - so while it looks like only a small amount available, it gets replenished as soon as you take it. About £1.50 profit in it per £100 'invested', or £2 if you take all the profit on the Truss side.

    I am heading for £1k of exposure, about 50% of which is hedged against the 12 to back at Betfair. I may keep going though at some point my bank are going to phone me when their automated scam detection software gets triggered... so, anyway, if anyone else wants a share, it looks like there's plenty.

    I'm as deep as I'd like to go on this (And then some) - but whoever's holding the 9.8 on Smarkets is probably also preventing Rishi from drifting to his true price on Betfair also now (Must be at least 15) due to arbers like yourself. You'll rarely see a rick as big as this, whoever has left that 9.8 up is losing thousands.
    I thought I'd broken them at last (I'm into four figures now, I can't see any way the rules could differ but I do remember the Overround Fiasco) but after five minutes, the 9.8 was back.
    iirc Smarkets has some algorithmic traders playing their markets so I just wonder if this is a case of computer says no, Rishi is not quite dead in the water. Whether the in-house algo teams play politics is perhaps a little doubtful since the markets are thin and there is not the data-rich environment of many sports.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited August 17
    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
  • Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    In London cyclists just ignore red lights, why don't we do something about that?

    It's very annoying. I don't know why London cyclists think they're different to cyclists everywhere else who do obey red lights. When I'm walking in London I deliberately try to cross the street in a way that gets in the way of cyclists trying to do it.

    But I don't think cyclists everywhere else should be forced to have numberplates, insurance, etc, just because of the bad behaviour of London cyclists.
    It's not just London, but in general it's more common among London cyclists I think because of the very high number of London cyclist deaths which are caused by vehicles turning left across them at junctions. Get out ahead of them and you don't get crushed.

    A better and more legal solution would be for the cyclists to ride in the middle of the relevant lane to make the "left hook" manoeuvre harder to accomplish, but then people get furious about that too for some reason, and it's hard to do in a high-traffic city.

    A look at Google tells you a range of jurisdictions are looking at formalising the behaviour: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=trial+of+cyclists+proceeding+at+red
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,978
    At the Perth Hustings, I was told the entrance at the front barrier was safe.

    My coat was grabbed. I was called a Tory whore and spat on. I had abuse screamed in my face. Security did nothing.

    Truly disgusting behaviour. A very sad reflection on Scottish politics.


    https://twitter.com/hollymoscrop/status/1559833448528896001
  • I can moan, I said fuck you Starmer over this triple lock policy. Fuck him and fuck the pensioners, you do fuck all for society. We upset our lives for two years to protect you. You get an above inflation rise whilst we get a real terms cut, benefits cut, student fees up, massive house prices.

    Fuck this lot
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,882

    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    In London cyclists just ignore red lights, why don't we do something about that?

    It's very annoying. I don't know why London cyclists think they're different to cyclists everywhere else who do obey red lights. When I'm walking in London I deliberately try to cross the street in a way that gets in the way of cyclists trying to do it.

    But I don't think cyclists everywhere else should be forced to have numberplates, insurance, etc, just because of the bad behaviour of London cyclists.
    It's not just London, but in general it's more common among London cyclists I think because of the very high number of London cyclist deaths which are caused by vehicles turning left across them at junctions. Get out ahead of them and you don't get crushed.

    A better and more legal solution would be for the cyclists to ride in the middle of the relevant lane to make the "left hook" manoeuvre harder to accomplish, but then people get furious about that too for some reason, and it's hard to do in a high-traffic city.

    A look at Google tells you a range of jurisdictions are looking at formalising the behaviour: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=trial+of+cyclists+proceeding+at+red
    Yes, London cyclists have learned that aggressive cycling is safer cycling, and it probably is, in London traffic

    Unfortunately this has morphed into a cult of aggressive cycling at all times, even quiet empty roads, roads in parks with kids, etc
  • Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    In London cyclists just ignore red lights, why don't we do something about that?

    It's very annoying. I don't know why London cyclists think they're different to cyclists everywhere else who do obey red lights. When I'm walking in London I deliberately try to cross the street in a way that gets in the way of cyclists trying to do it.

    But I don't think cyclists everywhere else should be forced to have numberplates, insurance, etc, just because of the bad behaviour of London cyclists.
    It's not just London, but in general it's more common among London cyclists I think because of the very high number of London cyclist deaths which are caused by vehicles turning left across them at junctions. Get out ahead of them and you don't get crushed.

    A better and more legal solution would be for the cyclists to ride in the middle of the relevant lane to make the "left hook" manoeuvre harder to accomplish, but then people get furious about that too for some reason, and it's hard to do in a high-traffic city.

    A look at Google tells you a range of jurisdictions are looking at formalising the behaviour: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=trial+of+cyclists+proceeding+at+red
    Or actually more directly relevant to London:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/women-cyclists-risk-death-because-they-don-t-jump-red-lights-7178903.html
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922

    Pulpstar said:

    Vaguely a **betting post** although I know nobody was especially interested at the weekend.

    I have discovered that the reason Sunak remains available to lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is that someone has failed to turn their market making API off (or something with the same effect) - so while it looks like only a small amount available, it gets replenished as soon as you take it. About £1.50 profit in it per £100 'invested', or £2 if you take all the profit on the Truss side.

    I am heading for £1k of exposure, about 50% of which is hedged against the 12 to back at Betfair. I may keep going though at some point my bank are going to phone me when their automated scam detection software gets triggered... so, anyway, if anyone else wants a share, it looks like there's plenty.

    I'm as deep as I'd like to go on this (And then some) - but whoever's holding the 9.8 on Smarkets is probably also preventing Rishi from drifting to his true price on Betfair also now (Must be at least 15) due to arbers like yourself. You'll rarely see a rick as big as this, whoever has left that 9.8 up is losing thousands.
    I thought I'd broken them at last (I'm into four figures now, I can't see any way the rules could differ but I do remember the Overround Fiasco) but after five minutes, the 9.8 was back.
    iirc Smarkets has some algorithmic traders playing their markets so I just wonder if this is a case of computer says no, Rishi is not quite dead in the water. Whether the in-house algo teams play politics is perhaps a little doubtful since the markets are thin and there is not the data-rich environment of many sports.
    They recruited the head of politics from Ladbrokes. Presumably to get his trading experience, whether algo driven or not.
  • kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
    Indeed, it is churlish to blame the party that has been in power for over a decade. The majority of the blame as always lies with Starmer, the rest shared between Corbyn, Clegg and Brown.
    The true believers here who claim in a parallel universe they'd vote Labour if it wasn't the Labour Party are scared stiff and blaming Labour who hasn't been in power since 2010. They are done and finished. Get rid
  • kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    All politicians are pricks for wanting to protect pensioners, even you acknowledged that yesterday saying Fuck Starmer over it and credit to you for that.

    Truss at least is wanting to cut NI that you have to pay and pensioners don't. That at least makes her better than Sunak who wants to raise NI for you while protecting pensioners.

    Can you agree with that?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    Pulpstar said:

    Vaguely a **betting post** although I know nobody was especially interested at the weekend.

    I have discovered that the reason Sunak remains available to lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is that someone has failed to turn their market making API off (or something with the same effect) - so while it looks like only a small amount available, it gets replenished as soon as you take it. About £1.50 profit in it per £100 'invested', or £2 if you take all the profit on the Truss side.

    I am heading for £1k of exposure, about 50% of which is hedged against the 12 to back at Betfair. I may keep going though at some point my bank are going to phone me when their automated scam detection software gets triggered... so, anyway, if anyone else wants a share, it looks like there's plenty.

    I'm as deep as I'd like to go on this (And then some) - but whoever's holding the 9.8 on Smarkets is probably also preventing Rishi from drifting to his true price on Betfair also now (Must be at least 15) due to arbers like yourself. You'll rarely see a rick as big as this, whoever has left that 9.8 up is losing thousands.
    I thought I'd broken them at last (I'm into four figures now, I can't see any way the rules could differ but I do remember the Overround Fiasco) but after five minutes, the 9.8 was back.
    iirc Smarkets has some algorithmic traders playing their markets so I just wonder if this is a case of computer says no, Rishi is not quite dead in the water. Whether the in-house algo teams play politics is perhaps a little doubtful since the markets are thin and there is not the data-rich environment of many sports.
    I think whoever was laying it's API is now trying to zero out. £224 available at 9.8 - I expect that's just the tip of the iceberg Rishi green they've built up.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,552
    edited August 17
    Remember when the government said animal welfare standards would be protected. You can file that under another broken promise . British farmers have been bent over and banged mercilessly by this government who are happy to allow any old crap into the UK and who will be forced to lower standards in an effort to compete as the Maggie clone continues to sell them out with her alleged world beating trade deals .
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    What will sks do?
  • Carnyx said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    Not true. CB, you are being grossly unfair. They work very hard when the postal ballot comes round, writing the X against the name of the local brain-damaged chimpanzee with a blue rosette Araldited to his fur.
    I apologise.

    I am having my student loan wacked up, an inability to buy a house, all my money being taken so a load of lazy, arsing pricks can vote every five years for more of the same.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    What will sks do?
    Not much it seems, perhaps he should build some houses and sort out student debt.

    Still better than this lot that have had 13 years to do something and done fuck all for me.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    In London cyclists just ignore red lights, why don't we do something about that?

    It's very annoying. I don't know why London cyclists think they're different to cyclists everywhere else who do obey red lights. When I'm walking in London I deliberately try to cross the street in a way that gets in the way of cyclists trying to do it.

    But I don't think cyclists everywhere else should be forced to have numberplates, insurance, etc, just because of the bad behaviour of London cyclists.
    It's not just London, but in general it's more common among London cyclists I think because of the very high number of London cyclist deaths which are caused by vehicles turning left across them at junctions. Get out ahead of them and you don't get crushed.

    A better and more legal solution would be for the cyclists to ride in the middle of the relevant lane to make the "left hook" manoeuvre harder to accomplish, but then people get furious about that too for some reason, and it's hard to do in a high-traffic city.

    A look at Google tells you a range of jurisdictions are looking at formalising the behaviour: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=trial+of+cyclists+proceeding+at+red
    Yes, London cyclists have learned that aggressive cycling is safer cycling, and it probably is, in London traffic

    Unfortunately this has morphed into a cult of aggressive cycling at all times, even quiet empty roads, roads in parks with kids, etc
    I get annoyed by cyclists but to be fair they do now generally stop at red lights on cycle paths in London, just not at pedestrian crossings. Most obey other road junction lights, it is probably <15% who routinely jump lights when they consider it safe.
  • kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    All politicians are pricks for wanting to protect pensioners, even you acknowledged that yesterday saying Fuck Starmer over it and credit to you for that.

    Truss at least is wanting to cut NI that you have to pay and pensioners don't. That at least makes her better than Sunak who wants to raise NI for you while protecting pensioners.

    Can you agree with that?
    She's better than a mountain of shit yes, well done her. She's still a prick who voted through all of this crap.

    Where is she on student loans? House prices? She won't touch any of it.

    Labour BUILD MORE HOUSES
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,371

    On topic, Liz is right.

    If you’re a Brit who can’t work the same hours as a foreigner who can hardly speak English then you’re a lazy parasite who should get on your bike.

    British bikes are to be limited to 20 miles an hour so we'll still be outpedalled.
  • Let's have a triple lock if we're happy to have a student fee cut of 10% every year.

    Why not?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,659

    On topic, Liz is right.

    If you’re a Brit who can’t work the same hours as a foreigner who can hardly speak English then you’re a lazy parasite who should get on your bike.

    British bikes are to be limited to 20 miles an hour so we'll still be outpedalled.
    That's surely curtains for the British cycling team at the olympics as well.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    On topic, Liz is right.

    If you’re a Brit who can’t work the same hours as a foreigner who can hardly speak English then you’re a lazy parasite who should get on your bike.

    British bikes are to be limited to 20 miles an hour so we'll still be outpedalled.
    Also, this is a misunderstanding of the mythology. Tebbit pere got on his bike to go looking for a job, not to leave one.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    What will sks do?
    Not much it seems, perhaps he should build some houses and sort out student debt.

    Still better than this lot that have had 13 years to do something and done fuck all for me.
    The house price crisis was caused by Blair and Brown, the house price to earning ratio shot up under them.

    Under the current lot the ratio has stabilised but not reversed. Reversing the ratio in a low inflation environment is almost impossible though without negative equity which is why I've long been calling for either inflation or a house price crash. We finally have one of them. 👍
  • And then this lot have the absolute balls to tell me I eat too much avocado, or that I shouldn't pay for Netflix.

    Yeah that will help me get a house quicker, bunch of arrogant arses.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    Carnyx said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    Not true. CB, you are being grossly unfair. They work very hard when the postal ballot comes round, writing the X against the name of the local brain-damaged chimpanzee with a blue rosette Araldited to his fur.
    I apologise.

    I am having my student loan wacked up, an inability to buy a house, all my money being taken so a load of lazy, arsing pricks can vote every five years for more of the same.
    Hmm I thought you were on a decent whack ?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,694

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    What will sks do?
    Not much it seems, perhaps he should build some houses and sort out student debt.

    Still better than this lot that have had 13 years to do something and done fuck all for me.
    I don't really know what "sort out student debt" means in this context - presumably it is not the Corbyn approach of pretending to have a policy to forgive all outstanding loans, even those used to pay maintenance rather than fees.

    If it's a reference to reducing the sky high interest rates expected on loans from this year, anything Starmer does will most likely be regressive - as only the top earning graduates have any chance of paying the debt down to zero before it expires. For the vast majority of students, it makes no practical difference whether the rate their debt accumulates at is 4% or 4,000%.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,882
    edited August 17
    nico679 said:

    Remember when the government said animal welfare standards would be protected. You can file that under another broken promise . British farmers have been bent over and banged mercilessly by this government who are happy to allow any old crap into the UK and who will be forced to lower standards in an effort to compete as the Maggie clone continues to sell them out with her alleged world beating trade deals .

    Thankyou for that measured, insightful and coherent interjection
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,371

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
    Indeed, it is churlish to blame the party that has been in power for over a decade. The majority of the blame as always lies with Starmer, the rest shared between Corbyn, Clegg and Brown.
    The point is labour supporters cannot moan about the triple lock as Starmer is 100% in favour of it
    I on the other hand despite being a beneficiary can moan its a disgrace that people like yourself think its right for those in work to take further real terms cuts whilst fully expecting to get 12% yourself.

    All leaders including Corbyn have supported the Triple Lock its completely wrong.
    I have no problem with the abolition of the triple lock and supported Sunak when he awarded a 3.1% rise this year

    As for next year it seems that all parties support the triple lock so I just do not see who is going to propose it's abolition
    Oh do keep up. The triple lock rewarding greedy pensioners is so 2021. This year, the fuel and cost of living crises have reminded the government there are an awful lot of pensioners subsisting on a state pension of less than £10,000 a year.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,233
    EXCLUSIVE: Senior Green politicians Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater could be forced out of their roles under plans by party activists to distance leaders from the SNP government http://ow.ly/LnoT50KlIMc
  • Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    Not true. CB, you are being grossly unfair. They work very hard when the postal ballot comes round, writing the X against the name of the local brain-damaged chimpanzee with a blue rosette Araldited to his fur.
    I apologise.

    I am having my student loan wacked up, an inability to buy a house, all my money being taken so a load of lazy, arsing pricks can vote every five years for more of the same.
    Hmm I thought you were on a decent whack ?
    Yes and I still can't afford a house, how's that for property owning democracy eh Margaret?

    If somebody earning - I will not say how much - above £50K a year can't afford a house then the Tories have no chance. I should be a Tory voter, I am now more Labour than ever
  • kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    All politicians are pricks for wanting to protect pensioners, even you acknowledged that yesterday saying Fuck Starmer over it and credit to you for that.

    Truss at least is wanting to cut NI that you have to pay and pensioners don't. That at least makes her better than Sunak who wants to raise NI for you while protecting pensioners.

    Can you agree with that?
    She's better than a mountain of shit yes, well done her. She's still a prick who voted through all of this crap.

    Where is she on student loans? House prices? She won't touch any of it.

    Labour BUILD MORE HOUSES
    "Labour BUILD MORE HOUSES" - Citation very much needed!!!

    The house price to earnings ratio rise happened under Labour because they weren't building houses!!!

    The house price to earnings ratio has stabilised but not reversed under the Tories because they're building enough to keep price ratios stable (unlike Labour) but not enough to reverse them.

    If we revert back to Labour's policy then we'll see the price earnings ratio continue its upwards trend.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,474
    edited August 17

    On topic, Liz is right.

    If you’re a Brit who can’t work the same hours as a foreigner who can hardly speak English then you’re a lazy parasite who should get on your bike.

    British bikes are to be limited to 20 miles an hour so we'll still be outpedalled.
    Depending on how fat you are, it requires a lot of power to sustain 32km/h (on your own). I need 170W coz I'm a racing snake but not many people can sustain 170 for any meaningful duration.
  • Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    What will sks do?
    Not much it seems, perhaps he should build some houses and sort out student debt.

    Still better than this lot that have had 13 years to do something and done fuck all for me.
    I don't really know what "sort out student debt" means in this context - presumably it is not the Corbyn approach of pretending to have a policy to forgive all outstanding loans, even those used to pay maintenance rather than fees.

    If it's a reference to reducing the sky high interest rates expected on loans from this year, anything Starmer does will most likely be regressive - as only the top earning graduates have any chance of paying the debt down to zero before it expires. For the vast majority of students, it makes no practical difference whether the rate their debt accumulates at is 4% or 4,000%.
    Tuition should be free. Cut the number of degrees in half and make the remainder free - job done.

    Why do pensioners get a 10% rise whilst young people get debt and their money taken away? Fairness is off the agenda as long as we subsidise the client vote
  • And my conclusion is: anyone under the age of 40 needs to vote next time and vote big. Get rid of this lot
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    Not true. CB, you are being grossly unfair. They work very hard when the postal ballot comes round, writing the X against the name of the local brain-damaged chimpanzee with a blue rosette Araldited to his fur.
    I apologise.

    I am having my student loan wacked up, an inability to buy a house, all my money being taken so a load of lazy, arsing pricks can vote every five years for more of the same.
    Hmm I thought you were on a decent whack ?
    Yes and I still can't afford a house, how's that for property owning democracy eh Margaret?

    If somebody earning - I will not say how much - above £50K a year can't afford a house then the Tories have no chance. I should be a Tory voter, I am now more Labour than ever
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/80223438#/?channel=RES_BUY

    a commuter's dream as it is located within walking distance to Gravesend railway station that offers the fast train to London, via Ebbsfleet International, in just over 20 minutes.

    Any good for you ?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,160
    Leon said:

    Janan Ganesh in the FT has Woken up



    "It is there, too, in the growing denial that something has gone very wrong with identity politics. When a liberal says, “There is no culture war,” what I hear is: “Please let there be no culture war. Otherwise, I shall have to fall out with my friends, stand up to my children, upset my employees. Or worse, go along with them and feel a coward.” Even if it is true that 2020 will turn out to be peak woke, it is because people — writers, comedians — took a stand. A conflict was recognised, and engaged. Those who looked away at the time don’t get to turn up now and pronounce the whole thing overblown. The poet Robert Frost once defined a liberal as someone who wouldn’t take their own side in a quarrel. It is increasingly a feat to recognise the quarrel.

    "Another liberal parry is to say that cancel culture is a distraction from the economic crisis. And perhaps it is. But then one novelist’s torment was a distraction in the not notably quiet year of 1989. There will always be a reason to dodge a subject. In the end, “salience” aside, what do you think about it?"


    https://www.ft.com/content/8700151d-eaff-44bd-a6ec-aea1895db361

    He is deluded in his forlorn hope that we might have passed Peak Woke. This psychological defence mechanism - a form of denial, because pain - was identified in the Spectator a year ago



    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

    This article by the lawyer involved in the Forstater case is very well worth reading on its implications, why identity issues have become so toxic and also on how competing views can be sensibly managed. Long but essential reading.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,155
    edited August 17

    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    Not true. CB, you are being grossly unfair. They work very hard when the postal ballot comes round, writing the X against the name of the local brain-damaged chimpanzee with a blue rosette Araldited to his fur.
    I apologise.

    I am having my student loan wacked up, an inability to buy a house, all my money being taken so a load of lazy, arsing pricks can vote every five years for more of the same.
    Hmm I thought you were on a decent whack ?
    Yes and I still can't afford a house, how's that for property owning democracy eh Margaret?

    If somebody earning - I will not say how much - above £50K a year can't afford a house then the Tories have no chance. I should be a Tory voter, I am now more Labour than ever
    If you earn over £50k and live north of London and the Home counties you can certainly afford a house, even on your own
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,552
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Remember when the government said animal welfare standards would be protected. You can file that under another broken promise . British farmers have been bent over and banged mercilessly by this government who are happy to allow any old crap into the UK and who will be forced to lower standards in an effort to compete as the Maggie clone continues to sell them out with her alleged world beating trade deals .

    Thankyou for that measured, insightful and coherent interjection
    Thanks ! It’s pretty mild compared to what I could have written !
  • HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    Not true. CB, you are being grossly unfair. They work very hard when the postal ballot comes round, writing the X against the name of the local brain-damaged chimpanzee with a blue rosette Araldited to his fur.
    I apologise.

    I am having my student loan wacked up, an inability to buy a house, all my money being taken so a load of lazy, arsing pricks can vote every five years for more of the same.
    Hmm I thought you were on a decent whack ?
    Yes and I still can't afford a house, how's that for property owning democracy eh Margaret?

    If somebody earning - I will not say how much - above £50K a year can't afford a house then the Tories have no chance. I should be a Tory voter, I am now more Labour than ever
    If you earn over £50k and live north of Watford you can certainly afford a house, even on your own
    Just move two hours away from all the good jobs and my friends, cheers mate.

    This is why you lost London. It used to vote Tory!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075
    Bairstow clean bowled for 0

    55 - 4 -
  • Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    What will sks do?
    Not much it seems, perhaps he should build some houses and sort out student debt.

    Still better than this lot that have had 13 years to do something and done fuck all for me.
    I don't really know what "sort out student debt" means in this context - presumably it is not the Corbyn approach of pretending to have a policy to forgive all outstanding loans, even those used to pay maintenance rather than fees.

    If it's a reference to reducing the sky high interest rates expected on loans from this year, anything Starmer does will most likely be regressive - as only the top earning graduates have any chance of paying the debt down to zero before it expires. For the vast majority of students, it makes no practical difference whether the rate their debt accumulates at is 4% or 4,000%.
    Tuition should be free. Cut the number of degrees in half and make the remainder free - job done.

    Why do pensioners get a 10% rise whilst young people get debt and their money taken away? Fairness is off the agenda as long as we subsidise the client vote
    Because your beloved Labour introduced Tuition Fees and the Triple Lock and ensured not enough houses were built so that the house price to earnings ratio shot up to unprecedented levels under them, a rise thankfully stabilised but not reversed yet.

    I completely 100% agree with you on what the problems are. Regrettably though, Labour are not the solution to any of them, if they were I'd vote for them happily but they're not.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,099
    geoffw said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    I expect they may go down well with Tory members. They were also not necessarily wrong either if you compare our work rate to China's for example. However most British workers do not want to work as hard as the Chinese

    Most Tory Party members don't want to work at all. Lazy sods, expecting to keep their triple-lock pensions.
    You want to pensioners to go back to work?

    Not partticularly, unless they want to. I for one am too well occupied with voluntary work. But it feels decidedly ill-making for Ms Truss to go on about lazy British workers and for the party members to lap it up.
  • kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    All politicians are pricks for wanting to protect pensioners, even you acknowledged that yesterday saying Fuck Starmer over it and credit to you for that.

    Truss at least is wanting to cut NI that you have to pay and pensioners don't. That at least makes her better than Sunak who wants to raise NI for you while protecting pensioners.

    Can you agree with that?
    She's better than a mountain of shit yes, well done her. She's still a prick who voted through all of this crap.

    Where is she on student loans? House prices? She won't touch any of it.

    Labour BUILD MORE HOUSES
    "Labour BUILD MORE HOUSES" - Citation very much needed!!!

    The house price to earnings ratio rise happened under Labour because they weren't building houses!!!

    The house price to earnings ratio has stabilised but not reversed under the Tories because they're building enough to keep price ratios stable (unlike Labour) but not enough to reverse them.

    If we revert back to Labour's policy then we'll see the price earnings ratio continue its upwards trend.
    I am saying Labour need to BUILD MORE HOUSES
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    Not true. CB, you are being grossly unfair. They work very hard when the postal ballot comes round, writing the X against the name of the local brain-damaged chimpanzee with a blue rosette Araldited to his fur.
    I apologise.

    I am having my student loan wacked up, an inability to buy a house, all my money being taken so a load of lazy, arsing pricks can vote every five years for more of the same.
    Hmm I thought you were on a decent whack ?
    Yes and I still can't afford a house, how's that for property owning democracy eh Margaret?

    If somebody earning - I will not say how much - above £50K a year can't afford a house then the Tories have no chance. I should be a Tory voter, I am now more Labour than ever
    If you earn over £50k and live north of Watford you can certainly afford a house, even on your own
    Just move two hours away from all the good jobs and my friends, cheers mate.

    This is why you lost London. It used to vote Tory!
    Where's your work.
  • HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    Not true. CB, you are being grossly unfair. They work very hard when the postal ballot comes round, writing the X against the name of the local brain-damaged chimpanzee with a blue rosette Araldited to his fur.
    I apologise.

    I am having my student loan wacked up, an inability to buy a house, all my money being taken so a load of lazy, arsing pricks can vote every five years for more of the same.
    Hmm I thought you were on a decent whack ?
    Yes and I still can't afford a house, how's that for property owning democracy eh Margaret?

    If somebody earning - I will not say how much - above £50K a year can't afford a house then the Tories have no chance. I should be a Tory voter, I am now more Labour than ever
    If you earn over £50k and live north of London and the Home counties you can certainly afford a house, even on your own
    London, the Home Counties, and Oxbridge.

    That's quite a lot of the population though isn't it? It's probably a majority of those earning over £50k...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
    Indeed, it is churlish to blame the party that has been in power for over a decade. The majority of the blame as always lies with Starmer, the rest shared between Corbyn, Clegg and Brown.
    The point is labour supporters cannot moan about the triple lock as Starmer is 100% in favour of it
    I on the other hand despite being a beneficiary can moan its a disgrace that people like yourself think its right for those in work to take further real terms cuts whilst fully expecting to get 12% yourself.

    All leaders including Corbyn have supported the Triple Lock its completely wrong.
    I have no problem with the abolition of the triple lock and supported Sunak when he awarded a 3.1% rise this year

    As for next year it seems that all parties support the triple lock so I just do not see who is going to propose it's abolition
    Oh do keep up. The triple lock rewarding greedy pensioners is so 2021. This year, the fuel and cost of living crises have reminded the government there are an awful lot of pensioners subsisting on a state pension of less than £10,000 a year.
    My wife's pension is just £4,800 pa

    It is a nonsense that all pensioners are well off
  • kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    She'll protect pensioners and make people work suffer by cutting more of our services and letting house prices go up, let our student fees explode upwards too.

    The current Tories are pricks
    All politicians are pricks for wanting to protect pensioners, even you acknowledged that yesterday saying Fuck Starmer over it and credit to you for that.

    Truss at least is wanting to cut NI that you have to pay and pensioners don't. That at least makes her better than Sunak who wants to raise NI for you while protecting pensioners.

    Can you agree with that?
    She's better than a mountain of shit yes, well done her. She's still a prick who voted through all of this crap.

    Where is she on student loans? House prices? She won't touch any of it.

    Labour BUILD MORE HOUSES
    "Labour BUILD MORE HOUSES" - Citation very much needed!!!

    The house price to earnings ratio rise happened under Labour because they weren't building houses!!!

    The house price to earnings ratio has stabilised but not reversed under the Tories because they're building enough to keep price ratios stable (unlike Labour) but not enough to reverse them.

    If we revert back to Labour's policy then we'll see the price earnings ratio continue its upwards trend.
    I am saying Labour need to BUILD MORE HOUSES
    They do need to.

    If they come out with a plan to actually do so, then I'll be all ears.

    Unfortunately though twice the Tories have tried to abolish or suspend the Triple Lock that Labour introduced and both times Labour have cried murder about it. I would love to see Labour lead the way on proposing more homes and no Triple Lock, but it hasn't happened yet.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    @CorrectHorseBattery

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/85848489#/?channel=RES_BUY

    Remember at Boatshed our mantra is "Life's better on a boat" ;)
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,582
    My personal inflation rate 11.9%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62558817
  • HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    Not true. CB, you are being grossly unfair. They work very hard when the postal ballot comes round, writing the X against the name of the local brain-damaged chimpanzee with a blue rosette Araldited to his fur.
    I apologise.

    I am having my student loan wacked up, an inability to buy a house, all my money being taken so a load of lazy, arsing pricks can vote every five years for more of the same.
    Hmm I thought you were on a decent whack ?
    Yes and I still can't afford a house, how's that for property owning democracy eh Margaret?

    If somebody earning - I will not say how much - above £50K a year can't afford a house then the Tories have no chance. I should be a Tory voter, I am now more Labour than ever
    If you earn over £50k and live north of London and the Home counties you can certainly afford a house, even on your own
    If you earn over £50k and live north of London and the Home Counties then you'll be very much the exception and not the rule though.

    That's nearly double the median salary in the North West so it shows just how contemptibly out of touch you are.

    House prices in the entire country are too high.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922
    edited August 17

    kle4 said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    That's why Truss wants to cut the taxes of people like you. She's on your side. :smile:
    Lovely. And, just in case predictions of growth generation or yet more efficiency savings do not bear out, what will get cut?

    I'm not opposed to reductions, but there seems a lot of promises to meet.
    Why won't Truss do anything for people like me?

    She is, this is what she's doing for you.

    But she's promising things to other people too.


    Truss at least seems to understand that people who work should be able to benefit from it and keep more of their own money, rather than simply ratchetting taxes from those who work to give to the client vote who don't. For that she deserves a chance at least, the alternative does not.
    And yet she wants to keep rewarding the client vote as well. Now I have no particular objection to others doing well but only if it is sustainable. The Triple Lock is not sustainable.
    I commented on this last night

    Sunak cancelled the triple lock this year awarding an increase to pensioners of 3.1% as indeed was the rise in UC

    Starmer playing political games hit the roof and as a result the triple lock will be reinstated in 2023 but if you want to look for someone to blame, maybe look at Starmer's political games this spring

    'Grown up's would have greed to end it in April this year as Sunak proposed
    Indeed, it is churlish to blame the party that has been in power for over a decade. The majority of the blame as always lies with Starmer, the rest shared between Corbyn, Clegg and Brown.
    The point is labour supporters cannot moan about the triple lock as Starmer is 100% in favour of it
    I on the other hand despite being a beneficiary can moan its a disgrace that people like yourself think its right for those in work to take further real terms cuts whilst fully expecting to get 12% yourself.

    All leaders including Corbyn have supported the Triple Lock its completely wrong.
    I have no problem with the abolition of the triple lock and supported Sunak when he awarded a 3.1% rise this year

    As for next year it seems that all parties support the triple lock so I just do not see who is going to propose it's abolition
    Oh do keep up. The triple lock rewarding greedy pensioners is so 2021. This year, the fuel and cost of living crises have reminded the government there are an awful lot of pensioners subsisting on a state pension of less than £10,000 a year.
    My wife's pension is just £4,800 pa

    It is a nonsense that all pensioners are well off
    If as a society we want a triple lock on the poorest 10 or 20% incomes for a while to help them catch up, I would be all for it. Whereas we cut the real incomes of the poorest workers in order to boost the incomes of poor, rich and average pensioners. Why? Because they vote selfishly.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,978

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    What is the point in working harder, the Tories take my money and spend it on pensioners who do fuck all

    Not true. CB, you are being grossly unfair. They work very hard when the postal ballot comes round, writing the X against the name of the local brain-damaged chimpanzee with a blue rosette Araldited to his fur.
    I apologise.

    I am having my student loan wacked up, an inability to buy a house, all my money being taken so a load of lazy, arsing pricks can vote every five years for more of the same.
    Hmm I thought you were on a decent whack ?
    Yes and I still can't afford a house, how's that for property owning democracy eh Margaret?

    If somebody earning - I will not say how much - above £50K a year can't afford a house then the Tories have no chance. I should be a Tory voter, I am now more Labour than ever
    If you earn over £50k and live north of Watford you can certainly afford a house, even on your own
    Just move two hours away from all the good jobs and my friends, cheers mate.

    This is why you lost London. It used to vote Tory!
    It’s true though that you have options. If you value the London lifestyle more then just enjoy it.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited August 17
    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    I am less confident than I was that Truss will get a bounce sufficiently large to give a Tory poll lead. Her novelty factor is being worn away before she even gets the job. Bringing a new sense of purpose to the government at this stage is going to be hard. Her cabinet and emergency budget are both possibilities but I am just not seeing it.

    Looking at the initial May and Johnson bounces, if they are currently 5 to 9 behind generally it should be enough to get a small lead in at least some polls, not anywhere near enough to risk an election. Both the others hit into a sweet spot about 2 to 3 months in and the lead accelerated. I think ths is where Truss will not go the same way, the headwinds will stall and eventually reverse the bounce and we buckle in for the long haul to late 2024
    The Tories are 5 points behind using an average of the latest 10 polls, not 5 to 9 points.
    Fair comment but that is skewed by the absence of the less Tory friendly ComRes and Survation which both still sit in double digits last time out. Regardless, the point stands i think. Bouncette to neck and neck/small lead or deficit average but headwinds restraining the 2 to 3 month acceleration of lead seen in 16 and 19. Unless she pulls off an unlikely super popular energy save and the economy overperforms
This discussion has been closed.