Howdy, Stranger!

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

LAB analysis suggests a double-digit bounce for PM Truss – politicalbetting.com

123468

Comments

  • eek said:

    The absolute state of business banking in this country. It largely shut down during Covid - weight of workload issuing government loans under wfh conditions. You couldn't open an account with high street banks barely at all.

    It hasn't recovered much either. Need to open an account for a client's new entity,. Would prefer HSBC - who I have personal accounts and good history with. Website says you have to call to open an account. Phone number says you have to use live chat to open an account. Live chat offers a virtual appointment to start the opening process. At the end of September...

    You end up going to Starling or Tide and then moving things round later...
    Yup. None of the 'high street' banks seem to want to run small business accounts and we have just had to close one, although strangely for an account type they are abolishing, the person at the counter didn't actually know how to close it. They'll get around to it eventually, no doubt.

    Starling it is. They don't give me great vibes but any port in a storm.
    We're ineligible for Starling...
    Oh dear. Starling are rather fussy, I hear, even for businesses that are supposedly eligible.

    Is there some money laundering regulation that is causing this trouble, or is there some Covid loan related storm coming? I'd have thought that business accounts would be more profitable.

    You have to think that all these bank-in-a-box companies are a bit here today, gone tomorrow.
    Its money laundering regs. The problem is that its impossible to keep up with what they need. An example. Customer has two accounts for the same company with the same fintech "bank". "We need to validate your ownership" comes up randomly for both accounts.

    Submit the same paperwork showing the same ownership structure for both accounts. Paperwork is accepted in a few days for 1. Rejected a few days later for the other as not being acceptable. Can you speak to anyone? No.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,818

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,415

    kyf_100 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    narrator: inflation is now expected to reach 18.6% by January https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1445364929905758212

    I am calling peak UK inflation panic.
    Except every month we keep getting told it's peaking, and it will be going down again soon.

    Here's an 11% prediction from *checks notes* June

    https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1537900989172158465

    And another one from *checks notes* two weeks ago predicting a peak of 13%

    https://twitter.com/HousePriceMania/status/1555291236298366976

    What makes you think it's going to peak any time soon?

    Buy shares in wheelbarrows. And bitcoin. And gold.
    I just don't see where Citi get their 18.6% forecast from to be honest. I am not saying inflation has peaked already - I reckon it will probably be around 16% next January and that will be the peak - but I think this 18.6% forecast may be peak inflation panic. Apart from anything else, the higher the gas price spike, the more likely the government is to intervene and cap it. And if they institute general measures to cap the price rather than targeted transfers to poorer households - which is more likely the higher prices go and the more people can't afford the increase - then the ONS will record that in the CPI numbers.
    A fair point, but I don't suppose we will know until January. At the moment, the direction is up only.

    However, I've been thinking about it - the energy cost to business is going to be what kills inflation. Imagine a pub or restaurant or takeaway trying to stay open this winter. They're going to need to double their prices to stay in business.

    But of course if they double their prices, their customer base (already squeezed by higher costs at home) falls off a cliff. Net result, business shuts. This, repeated at thousands of businesses over the winter, will lead to a dramatic spike in unemployment - making it hard for anyone to put prices up at all.

    We will all be a lot poorer in real terms, but it is hard to see inflation continuing beyond a certain point once the economy falls off the cliff.

    At the moment we have shot over the edge of the cliff and are frantically spinning our legs, wil-e-coyote style. But the reality of the situation will catch up with prices soon, as discretionary spending contracts at an unprecedented rate.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,811
    Cookie said:

    Not sure if this has been noted, but Euro has dropped well below parity with dollar today. Gas, presumably.

    Probably also expectations of US interest rate rises given the ridiculously generous stimulus packages Biden has been introducing.

    Few people probably realise it, but America's debt to GDP ratio, at almost 140%, is now similar to Italy's, at 146%, while ours is 96%. Unbelievable.
  • Fishing said:

    ...

    Scott_xP said:

    narrator: inflation is now expected to reach 18.6% by January https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1445364929905758212

    What we have here is Boris Johnson, World beating inflation. Be proud, be very proud!
    Not quite

    It is already higher in some Baltic states
    And the Netherlands and Spain.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate

    How they must be regretting leaving the EU, just as Japan and Switzerland are lucky they stayed in.
    It's not 18% plus inflation in Netherlands and Spain is it? If it is and in France, Germany and Italy too, thank goodness we left. 10% doesn't seem so bad when all other EU states are worse. Sorry I dissed you Boris.
    It’s not January 2023 in the Netherlands either, is it?

    Changing topic completely, was a conclusion arrived at on who among the G7 leaders Trump was briefed enjoyed bum sex?
    Trump?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    edited August 2022
    ...

    Fishing said:

    ...

    Scott_xP said:

    narrator: inflation is now expected to reach 18.6% by January https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1445364929905758212

    What we have here is Boris Johnson, World beating inflation. Be proud, be very proud!
    Not quite

    It is already higher in some Baltic states
    And the Netherlands and Spain.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate

    How they must be regretting leaving the EU, just as Japan and Switzerland are lucky they stayed in.
    It's not 18% plus inflation in Netherlands and Spain is it? If it is and in France, Germany and Italy too, thank goodness we left. 10% doesn't seem so bad when all other EU states are worse. Sorry I dissed you Boris.
    It’s not January 2023 in the Netherlands either, is it?

    Changing topic completely, was a conclusion arrived at on who among the G7 leaders Trump was briefed enjoyed bum sex?
    No it isn't. Nor in France or Germany. Time enough for them to catch up and overtake us.

    And yes. I assume you have arrived at the same conclusion as the rest of us. Quite frankly should we care? No we shouldn't. Good luck to him.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    edited August 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.

    Surely the global price is less important if you are a surplus provider. Governments always take their cut of hydrocarbon production (Our own dear treasury is making off like a bandit from what we do produce right now).

    IF the UK was exploiting its status as a giant lump of coal, oil and gas floating off Europe to the full, we'd be making so much money from exports we could afford to subsidise domestic hydrocarbon prices if we wanted. We wouldn't need to pray solar and wind iron out intermittency in a decade or so.

    What's the reason we aren't in a position to do this?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    ...

    Scott_xP said:

    narrator: inflation is now expected to reach 18.6% by January https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1445364929905758212

    What we have here is Boris Johnson, World beating inflation. Be proud, be very proud!
    Not quite

    It is already higher in some Baltic states
    And the Netherlands and Spain.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate

    How they must be regretting leaving the EU, just as Japan and Switzerland are lucky they stayed in.
    It's not 18% plus inflation in Netherlands and Spain is it? If it is and in France, Germany and Italy too, thank goodness we left. 10% doesn't seem so bad when all other EU states are worse. Sorry I dissed you Boris.
    Not yet in those countries though it is in the Baltic States but nor is it here either and there's no reason at all to think it will be any different in a few months when we're there.

    Oh, yes and the French have only kept their rate down by dumping the loss into EdF's balance sheet.
    Sure; but France is still far less dependent on gas for either household heating or power generation. EDF's net losses in the first half of the year were €1.4bn. Even if you triple that, and add that entirely to the French prices, it'd only have a 0.1% impact on inflation there.

    Simply, France is much less affected by commodity price inflation that the UK, Germany, etc.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    narrator: inflation is now expected to reach 18.6% by January https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1445364929905758212

    I am calling peak UK inflation panic.
    Except every month we keep getting told it's peaking, and it will be going down again soon.

    Here's an 11% prediction from *checks notes* June

    https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1537900989172158465

    And another one from *checks notes* two weeks ago predicting a peak of 13%

    https://twitter.com/HousePriceMania/status/1555291236298366976

    What makes you think it's going to peak any time soon?

    Buy shares in wheelbarrows. And bitcoin. And gold.
    I just don't see where Citi get their 18.6% forecast from to be honest. I am not saying inflation has peaked already - I reckon it will probably be around 16% next January and that will be the peak - but I think this 18.6% forecast may be peak inflation panic. Apart from anything else, the higher the gas price spike, the more likely the government is to intervene and cap it. And if they institute general measures to cap the price rather than targeted transfers to poorer households - which is more likely the higher prices go and the more people can't afford the increase - then the ONS will record that in the CPI numbers.
    A fair point, but I don't suppose we will know until January. At the moment, the direction is up only.

    However, I've been thinking about it - the energy cost to business is going to be what kills inflation. Imagine a pub or restaurant or takeaway trying to stay open this winter. They're going to need to double their prices to stay in business.

    But of course if they double their prices, their customer base (already squeezed by higher costs at home) falls off a cliff. Net result, business shuts. This, repeated at thousands of businesses over the winter, will lead to a dramatic spike in unemployment - making it hard for anyone to put prices up at all.

    We will all be a lot poorer in real terms, but it is hard to see inflation continuing beyond a certain point once the economy falls off the cliff.

    At the moment we have shot over the edge of the cliff and are frantically spinning our legs, wil-e-coyote style. But the reality of the situation will catch up with prices soon, as discretionary spending contracts at an unprecedented rate.
    Yes I agree with this, business utility bills aren't capped at all and some are seeing their bills going up 6x. Many will indeed close, while others will pass the costs on. This actually means more inflation in the short term - although this isn't what is driving the Citi forecast. Their core inflation forecast looks too low, if anything. Still, everyone is talking about their forecast which is what matters (investment bank research is marketing material).
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,265
    Paul Goodman on Truss’s arithmetic problems from the off. https://twitter.com/fifisyms/status/1561741966915911684/photo/1
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,827
    Sandpit said:

    Different day, same story…

    “Ukraine war: Fiery explosion as Himars halt repairs to key supply bridge in occupied Kherson”
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/22/ukraine-russia-news-war-latest-live-updates-putin/

    Who’d want to be in a Russian engineering brigade, trying desparately to get a bridge open across the river near Kherson?

    The rumour is that the Ukrainians waited until there were some ammo trucks trying to cross, hence the large fire.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Fishing said:

    ...

    Scott_xP said:

    narrator: inflation is now expected to reach 18.6% by January https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1445364929905758212

    What we have here is Boris Johnson, World beating inflation. Be proud, be very proud!
    Not quite

    It is already higher in some Baltic states
    And the Netherlands and Spain.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate

    How they must be regretting leaving the EU, just as Japan and Switzerland are lucky they stayed in.
    It's not 18% plus inflation in Netherlands and Spain is it? If it is and in France, Germany and Italy too, thank goodness we left. 10% doesn't seem so bad when all other EU states are worse. Sorry I dissed you Boris.
    It’s not January 2023 in the Netherlands either, is it?

    Changing topic completely, was a conclusion arrived at on who among the G7 leaders Trump was briefed enjoyed bum sex?
    Trump?
    The irony meter has just exploded in flames.
  • How is Truss going to solve inflation and CoL?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    How is Truss going to solve inflation and CoL?

    Tax cuts for the wealthy.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036

    How is Truss going to solve inflation and CoL?

    By giving tax cuts to people who don't need them, I think.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    edited August 2022

    Fishing said:

    ...

    Scott_xP said:

    narrator: inflation is now expected to reach 18.6% by January https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1445364929905758212

    What we have here is Boris Johnson, World beating inflation. Be proud, be very proud!
    Not quite

    It is already higher in some Baltic states
    And the Netherlands and Spain.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate

    How they must be regretting leaving the EU, just as Japan and Switzerland are lucky they stayed in.
    It's not 18% plus inflation in Netherlands and Spain is it? If it is and in France, Germany and Italy too, thank goodness we left. 10% doesn't seem so bad when all other EU states are worse. Sorry I dissed you Boris.
    It’s not January 2023 in the Netherlands either, is it?

    Changing topic completely, was a conclusion arrived at on who among the G7 leaders Trump was briefed enjoyed bum sex?
    Trump?
    Well, we all know he likes a lot of arseholes...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    MISTY said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.

    Surely the global price is less important if you are a surplus provider. Governments always take their cut of hydrocarbon production (Our own dear treasury is making off like a bandit from what we do produce right now).

    IF the UK was exploiting its status as a giant lump of coal, oil and gas floating off Europe to the full, we'd be making so much money from exports we could afford to subsidise domestic hydrocarbon prices if we wanted. We wouldn't need to pray solar and wind iron out intermittency in a decade or so.

    What's the reason we aren't in a position to do this?
    Two reasons:

    1. We've been far too aggressive in removing money from energy companies, which has discouraged investment
    2. There's not that much cheap energy left to exploit in the UK

    And 2 is the bigger factor. There is very little commercial coal in the UK. The shale gas formations have not been anywhere near as productive as we would have hoped. And offshore has very long lead times.

    Could we produce more? Sure we could. But the reality is that for the executives at E&P companies, there are massively better opportunities around the world for gas production. Mozambique LNG will produce gas at -fully loaded- $5.50-6.00/mcf. Leviathan in Israel will only be a little worse. There are massive fields on the North West Shelf off Australia that we've only just scratched the surface of. Saudi Arabia doesn't export any natural gas - they are about to do their first ever gas field for export project.

    By contrast, shale gas in the UK is probably $100/mcf to extract right now, and there's a path down to $20. But that's still 3x the price of gas from fields in politically stable exporters.

    Now, maybe there's a path there. But even before the government (stupidly) imposed a ban on fracking in the UK, iGas shares had lost 95% of their value, because the wells simply weren't looking that good.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    Don't worry, just ANOTHER outlier!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,052

    Banking wise I switched to First Direct a few months ago. They've been excellent.

    I’ve been with them for decades and that has (almost) invariably been the case. Good choice.
    I've been with them for years, but I joined in order to use my laptop to bank, and find their focus on phone-based banking annoying - you have to call up the app on the phone and then deny that you want to access it, then get a code to use on the laptop, then get another code to use for any actual transactions. By contrast, RBS require a few letters and numbers from passwords and then you're free to proceed.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,941
    Dura_Ace said:

    Selebian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Aside from the oddity of holding an international tank wrangling competition in the middle of a war you started, it hasn't been a great advert for its arms customers' facility with the kit:
    https://twitter.com/ConflictsW/status/1561408446422999047

    I can't help feeling @Dura_Ace should have been given a crack.

    Given he's currently absent, are we sure he's not driving the Iranian entry? The whole Arabic course thing could easily be a cover story.
    J'y suis. J'y reste.
    Ah... French course then, not Arabic? :wink:
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,510
    Fishing said:

    Cookie said:

    Not sure if this has been noted, but Euro has dropped well below parity with dollar today. Gas, presumably.

    Probably also expectations of US interest rate rises given the ridiculously generous stimulus packages Biden has been introducing.

    Few people probably realise it, but America's debt to GDP ratio, at almost 140%, is now similar to Italy's, at 146%, while ours is 96%. Unbelievable.
    Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places (eg https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S ), but I'm seeing about 124% (down from 128% or so when Biden took over)
  • The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    Fishing said:

    Cookie said:

    Not sure if this has been noted, but Euro has dropped well below parity with dollar today. Gas, presumably.

    Probably also expectations of US interest rate rises given the ridiculously generous stimulus packages Biden has been introducing.

    Few people probably realise it, but America's debt to GDP ratio, at almost 140%, is now similar to Italy's, at 146%, while ours is 96%. Unbelievable.
    Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places (eg https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S ), but I'm seeing about 124% (down from 128% or so when Biden took over)
    It depends if you include the money the government owes to its own Social Security fund.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,510
    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Cookie said:

    Not sure if this has been noted, but Euro has dropped well below parity with dollar today. Gas, presumably.

    Probably also expectations of US interest rate rises given the ridiculously generous stimulus packages Biden has been introducing.

    Few people probably realise it, but America's debt to GDP ratio, at almost 140%, is now similar to Italy's, at 146%, while ours is 96%. Unbelievable.
    Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places (eg https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S ), but I'm seeing about 124% (down from 128% or so when Biden took over)
    It depends if you include the money the government owes to its own Social Security fund.
    Oh, right. Where do we find those on comparable figures? Would be interested in checking out a few countries on that.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,155
    Cookie said:

    Not sure if this has been noted, but Euro has dropped well below parity with dollar today. Gas, presumably.

    Yup - America is looking at a gas surplus and exporting it at high prices.

    Europe is looking at a gas shortage combined with high prices for what they can get.

    One option for Germany, for example, will be a forced shutdown of selected industries to preserve gas supplies for domestic heating.
  • Definitely a trend now @wooliedyed.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    edited August 2022
    Starmer ahead of Truss by 1 point now. Interestingly she is -6 on this, same as opinium. Looks like her graft comments etc have had an impact
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    rcs1000 said:

    MISTY said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.

    Surely the global price is less important if you are a surplus provider. Governments always take their cut of hydrocarbon production (Our own dear treasury is making off like a bandit from what we do produce right now).

    IF the UK was exploiting its status as a giant lump of coal, oil and gas floating off Europe to the full, we'd be making so much money from exports we could afford to subsidise domestic hydrocarbon prices if we wanted. We wouldn't need to pray solar and wind iron out intermittency in a decade or so.

    What's the reason we aren't in a position to do this?
    Two reasons:

    1. We've been far too aggressive in removing money from energy companies, which has discouraged investment
    2. There's not that much cheap energy left to exploit in the UK

    And 2 is the bigger factor. There is very little commercial coal in the UK. The shale gas formations have not been anywhere near as productive as we would have hoped. And offshore has very long lead times.

    Could we produce more? Sure we could. But the reality is that for the executives at E&P companies, there are massively better opportunities around the world for gas production. Mozambique LNG will produce gas at -fully loaded- $5.50-6.00/mcf. Leviathan in Israel will only be a little worse. There are massive fields on the North West Shelf off Australia that we've only just scratched the surface of. Saudi Arabia doesn't export any natural gas - they are about to do their first ever gas field for export project.

    By contrast, shale gas in the UK is probably $100/mcf to extract right now, and there's a path down to $20. But that's still 3x the price of gas from fields in politically stable exporters.

    Now, maybe there's a path there. But even before the government (stupidly) imposed a ban on fracking in the UK, iGas shares had lost 95% of their value, because the wells simply weren't looking that good.
    It would surely help the government's case with solar and wind if they explained this more clearly to the voters.

    Maybe they will, going forward.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    The Tories have lost all of the ground they recovered after the July 7 resignation and 'chaos dip'
  • Starmer ahead of Truss by 1 point now. Interestingly she is -6 on this, same as opinium. Looks like her graft comments etc have had an impact

    She is going down.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 105,491
    edited August 2022

    Starmer ahead of Truss by 1 point now. Interestingly she is -6 on this, same as opinium. Looks like her graft comments etc have had an impact

    She’s the modern day Sir Keith Joseph without the intellect.

    Or the female Sir Gavin Williamson.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Fishing said:

    ...

    Scott_xP said:

    narrator: inflation is now expected to reach 18.6% by January https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1445364929905758212

    What we have here is Boris Johnson, World beating inflation. Be proud, be very proud!
    Not quite

    It is already higher in some Baltic states
    And the Netherlands and Spain.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate

    How they must be regretting leaving the EU, just as Japan and Switzerland are lucky they stayed in.
    It's not 18% plus inflation in Netherlands and Spain is it? If it is and in France, Germany and Italy too, thank goodness we left. 10% doesn't seem so bad when all other EU states are worse. Sorry I dissed you Boris.
    It’s not January 2023 in the Netherlands either, is it?

    Changing topic completely, was a conclusion arrived at on who among the G7 leaders Trump was briefed enjoyed bum sex?
    Trump?
    Thinking logically, there are two reasons why one would steal kompromat. One is to use as leverage against the participant, the other is to flush compromising pictures down the lavatory to prevent others from viewing.

    I am not aware that anyone has flushed anything other that organic matter down a toilet in Mar A Lago so it must be the former.
  • Labour at 1997 level and Tories almost at 1997. This poll would see Keir Starmer as the best Labour seat winner in a long time
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    Cookie said:

    Not sure if this has been noted, but Euro has dropped well below parity with dollar today. Gas, presumably.

    Yup - America is looking at a gas surplus and exporting it at high prices.

    Europe is looking at a gas shortage combined with high prices for what they can get.

    One option for Germany, for example, will be a forced shutdown of selected industries to preserve gas supplies for domestic heating.
    Also the Americans can hike up interest rates to fight inflation.

    The ECB is in a much more difficult position.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 8,689
    edited August 2022

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Since you asked so nicely:



    The question is how much this is a response to Starmer saying the popular thing about energy prices, and how much this is a response to the British public finding out who Liz Truss is.
  • The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Since you asked so nicely:


    The question is how much this is a response to Starmer saying the popular thing about energy prices, and how much this is a response to the British public finding out who Liz Truss is.
    Starmer can never be responsible because he is crap. That is how this goes
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    Definitely a trend now @wooliedyed.

    Oh very much, it was after Opinium frankly, about a 3% swing on the back of that policy. Shows how ridiculous it is the Tories are silent. 2 more weeks of drifting downwards to come
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    edited August 2022

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Lab majority of 120 with Electoral Calculus and a tactical Voting margin B)

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&scotshow=Y&tvcontrol=Y&CON=31&LAB=43&LIB=13&Reform=2&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=10&TVLAB=25&TVLIB=50&TVReform=50&TVGreen=50&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=18.5&SCOTLAB=24&SCOTLIB=8&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=0&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=46.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,941

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    Hey! The big news is the over 8% surge in LD support. The Lab increase of under 5% pales in comparison :wink:
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,947

    Labour at 1997 level and Tories almost at 1997. This poll would see Keir Starmer as the best Labour seat winner in a long time

    But he isn't going to get the chance to do that. A week is a long time in politics..
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Since you asked so nicely:


    The question is how much this is a response to Starmer saying the popular thing about energy prices, and how much this is a response to the British public finding out who Liz Truss is.
    Its imo mostly the former. However the latter is a factor, her figures have cratered this week
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,241

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,818

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Since you asked so nicely:



    The question is how much this is a response to Starmer saying the popular thing about energy prices, and how much this is a response to the British public finding out who Liz Truss is.
    I think Starmer's underwhelming, but it would be hilarious if he got a bigger majority than Boris's much-vaunted 80 seats.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,265
    Reports of windows being blown out by huge blasts in Sevastopol, in Ukraine's Russian-occupied Crimea. Explosions "heard all over the city" according to reports, and in town of Inkerman about 10 km to the east. https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1561736276369358848
  • The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Since you asked so nicely:



    The question is how much this is a response to Starmer saying the popular thing about energy prices, and how much this is a response to the British public finding out who Liz Truss is.
    I think Starmer's underwhelming, but it would be hilarious if he got a bigger majority than Boris's much-vaunted 80 seats.
    Would that be the biggest majority to biggest majority in the last hundred years?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,265
    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-21-august-2022 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1561745018997526529/photo/1
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,143

    Banking wise I switched to First Direct a few months ago. They've been excellent.

    I’ve been with them for decades and that has (almost) invariably been the case. Good choice.
    I've been with them for years, but I joined in order to use my laptop to bank, and find their focus on phone-based banking annoying - you have to call up the app on the phone and then deny that you want to access it, then get a code to use on the laptop, then get another code to use for any actual transactions. By contrast, RBS require a few letters and numbers from passwords and then you're free to proceed.
    I've used First Direct since 1997. Always been fairly pleased with them, and I like their accessiblity on the phone. They keep trying to push their app on me, but I'm reluctant to use my phone for stuff. Quite happy with banking online with them on a laptop though - never had any problems.

    I sometimes have some qualms about HSBC's closeness to the CCP and wonder if I should look elsewhere, but not enough yet to overcome inertia.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    Labour at 1997 level and Tories almost at 1997. This poll would see Keir Starmer as the best Labour seat winner in a long time

    I reckon a Comres or Survation might stress test the '20' lead about now.........
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Since you asked so nicely:



    The question is how much this is a response to Starmer saying the popular thing about energy prices, and how much this is a response to the British public finding out who Liz Truss is.
    I think Starmer's underwhelming, but it would be hilarious if he got a bigger majority than Boris's much-vaunted 80 seats.
    Would that be the biggest majority to biggest majority in the last hundred years?
    It would (discouting national government) but Cameron was getting 200 majorities in 2007/8 from Browns 66...........
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,818

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
    There *is* a path to Russia gaining all of Ukraine, although IMV it is weak and diminishes every day. And what you are saying about western weaponry is also true about Russian: they are getting through their kit at a vast rate. They've already lost more people than during ten years in Afghanistan; and more of certain types of equipment as well. When they were the much-larger USSR, with a more capable industrial-military base.

    But the question remains: how does Russia come out of this stronkier than they were when they entered? Even if they win all of Ukraine (and that's unlikely) then they'll be much weaker than they were back in January.

    It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Cookie said:

    Not sure if this has been noted, but Euro has dropped well below parity with dollar today. Gas, presumably.

    Probably also expectations of US interest rate rises given the ridiculously generous stimulus packages Biden has been introducing.

    Few people probably realise it, but America's debt to GDP ratio, at almost 140%, is now similar to Italy's, at 146%, while ours is 96%. Unbelievable.
    Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places (eg https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S ), but I'm seeing about 124% (down from 128% or so when Biden took over)
    It depends if you include the money the government owes to its own Social Security fund.
    Oh, right. Where do we find those on comparable figures? Would be interested in checking out a few countries on that.
    Genuinely comparable figures aren't really available, because governments in different countries have different levels of obligations.

    Plus, there's another layer: in some countries, local government has lots of liabilities that are either implicitly (or explicitly) backed by the government; in others, the debt is almost all sits at central government. And, of course, there are also pseudo-governmental institutions in many countries which have large quantities of debt.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,241

    How is Truss going to solve inflation and CoL?

    She isn't, but she aims to win the next election by convincing the voters Starmer and Labour will be even worse.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Cookie said:

    Not sure if this has been noted, but Euro has dropped well below parity with dollar today. Gas, presumably.

    Probably also expectations of US interest rate rises given the ridiculously generous stimulus packages Biden has been introducing.

    Few people probably realise it, but America's debt to GDP ratio, at almost 140%, is now similar to Italy's, at 146%, while ours is 96%. Unbelievable.
    Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places (eg https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S ), but I'm seeing about 124% (down from 128% or so when Biden took over)
    It depends if you include the money the government owes to its own Social Security fund.
    Oh, right. Where do we find those on comparable figures? Would be interested in checking out a few countries on that.
    Genuinely comparable figures aren't really available, because governments in different countries have different levels of obligations.

    Plus, there's another layer: in some countries, local government has lots of liabilities that are either implicitly (or explicitly) backed by the government; in others, the debt is almost all sits at central government. And, of course, there are also pseudo-governmental institutions in many countries which have large quantities of debt.
    In Germany, for example, Nordrhein-Westfalen had a staggering €167bn of debt at the end of 2018. (I haven't seen more recent numbers, but I'm willing to bet they will be worse.)
  • Scott_xP said:
    They can see what is coming?

    Sunak has just announced he will not serve in Truss's cabinet

    Frankly, they do not deserve to be in government at present
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,054
    edited August 2022
    Cookie said:

    Banking wise I switched to First Direct a few months ago. They've been excellent.

    I’ve been with them for decades and that has (almost) invariably been the case. Good choice.
    I've been with them for years, but I joined in order to use my laptop to bank, and find their focus on phone-based banking annoying - you have to call up the app on the phone and then deny that you want to access it, then get a code to use on the laptop, then get another code to use for any actual transactions. By contrast, RBS require a few letters and numbers from passwords and then you're free to proceed.
    I've used First Direct since 1997. Always been fairly pleased with them, and I like their accessiblity on the phone. They keep trying to push their app on me, but I'm reluctant to use my phone for stuff. Quite happy with banking online with them on a laptop though - never had any problems.

    I sometimes have some qualms about HSBC's closeness to the CCP and wonder if I should look elsewhere, but not enough yet to overcome inertia.
    Moving banks is extremely rare. Almost no one does it.

    That said, I did move banks, to FD as I realised I was paying a premium for an oversized chequebook I never used and that calling up the bank and saying: "will you please transfer £X to Y person/business" was antiquated to say the least. I was once with a (younger) colleague and did just that and his face was one of complete and utter incredulity and incomprehension that someone could bank in such a way. And a mere three years after that epiphany I finally moved.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Since you asked so nicely:



    The question is how much this is a response to Starmer saying the popular thing about energy prices, and how much this is a response to the British public finding out who Liz Truss is.
    And how much is it to do with it being August, when the Tories always do worse in the polls.
  • Another big swing to Lab with Red&Wilt here. The last three polls released, with the lead and change on the pollster's previous (where that previous was within a month), are:

    Red&Wilt: Lab+12 (up 5)
    Opinium: Lab+8 (up 5)
    YouGov: Lab+15 (up 6)
  • Driver said:

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Since you asked so nicely:



    The question is how much this is a response to Starmer saying the popular thing about energy prices, and how much this is a response to the British public finding out who Liz Truss is.
    And how much is it to do with it being August, when the Tories always do worse in the polls.
    Siri please describe straw clutching
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
    There *is* a path to Russia gaining all of Ukraine, although IMV it is weak and diminishes every day. And what you are saying about western weaponry is also true about Russian: they are getting through their kit at a vast rate. They've already lost more people than during ten years in Afghanistan; and more of certain types of equipment as well. When they were the much-larger USSR, with a more capable industrial-military base.

    But the question remains: how does Russia come out of this stronkier than they were when they entered? Even if they win all of Ukraine (and that's unlikely) then they'll be much weaker than they were back in January.

    It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best.
    They would not only have to win all of Ukraine but hold it against the Ukranian resistance
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    Cookie said:

    Not sure if this has been noted, but Euro has dropped well below parity with dollar today. Gas, presumably.

    Yup - America is looking at a gas surplus and exporting it at high prices.

    Europe is looking at a gas shortage combined with high prices for what they can get.

    One option for Germany, for example, will be a forced shutdown of selected industries to preserve gas supplies for domestic heating.
    The US can't export much gas - not because it doesn't have gas, but because the number of LNG vessels available is so small. That's why it's still trading at below $10/mmcf.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357
    Scott_xP said:

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-21-august-2022 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1561745018997526529/photo/1

    Starmer now leads Truss as preferred PM even with RedfieldWilton 37% to 35%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1561752640022781952?s=20&t=Gw_Ss7IWTPzePyLSqkrkNA
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,643

    How is Truss going to solve inflation and CoL?

    She isn't, but she aims to win the next election by convincing the voters Starmer and Labour will be even worse.
    Not sure that line works now . You’d have to be a complete moron to fall for that guff and I’m sure the Daily Hate will do its very best to support the Maggie Clone but I just can’t see her getting away with that .
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,355
    edited August 2022
    Driver said:

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Since you asked so nicely:



    The question is how much this is a response to Starmer saying the popular thing about energy prices, and how much this is a response to the British public finding out who Liz Truss is.
    And how much is it to do with it being August, when the Tories always do worse in the polls.
    When the government goes awol for 6 weeks and descends into internal civil war, plus Starmer energy policy, then of course they will crater and deserve to

    I listen to the chorus of noises saying Truss is going to be a disaster, but at present I am not joining in as I have no idea but more importantly I do not know what will be in the emergency budget nor how she will handle Starmer at PMQ's

    However it won't be long now and by the end of September the polling should reflect the impact or otherwise of Truss
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,947
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-21-august-2022 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1561745018997526529/photo/1

    Starmer now leads Truss as preferred PM even with RedfieldWilton 37% to 35%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1561752640022781952?s=20&t=Gw_Ss7IWTPzePyLSqkrkNA
    This is Redfield Wilton...
  • The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    The prevailing wisdom used to be that August opinion polls were prone to lower Conservative votes due to more Conservatives taking foreign holidays. Have the polling companies properly corrected for that in more recent times?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127

    Driver said:

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.

    Since you asked so nicely:



    The question is how much this is a response to Starmer saying the popular thing about energy prices, and how much this is a response to the British public finding out who Liz Truss is.
    And how much is it to do with it being August, when the Tories always do worse in the polls.
    When the government goes awol for 6 weeks and descends into internal civil war, plus Starmer energy policy, then of course they will crater and deserve to

    I listen to the chorus of noises saying Truss is going to be a disaster, but at present I am not joining in as I have no idea but more importantly I do not know what will in the emergency budget nor how she will handle Starmer at PMQ's

    However it won't be long now and by the end of September the polling should reflect the impact or otherwise of Truss
    Indeed. It's been obvious from the moment Boris resigned that polling would be irrelevant until the new leader had taken office, even more so than summer recess polling usually is.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
    There *is* a path to Russia gaining all of Ukraine, although IMV it is weak and diminishes every day. And what you are saying about western weaponry is also true about Russian: they are getting through their kit at a vast rate. They've already lost more people than during ten years in Afghanistan; and more of certain types of equipment as well. When they were the much-larger USSR, with a more capable industrial-military base.

    But the question remains: how does Russia come out of this stronkier than they were when they entered? Even if they win all of Ukraine (and that's unlikely) then they'll be much weaker than they were back in January.

    It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best.
    They would not only have to win all of Ukraine but hold it against the Ukranian resistance
    Spot on. And it's worth dwelling on this for a second.

    Russia has been successful at holding Chechnya, albeit at huge cost.

    Chechnya has a population of 1.4 million.

    Ukraine a population of 44 million.

    Imagine if Northern Ireland had been 10x bigger and had been 80% Catholic, rather than 40% Catholic? Rough maths suggest it would be 20x harder for the UK government to hold it.

    That is the rough scale of the difficulty for Russia in holding all of Ukraine.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,980

    Another big swing to Lab with Red&Wilt here. The last three polls released, with the lead and change on the pollster's previous (where that previous was within a month), are:

    Red&Wilt: Lab+12 (up 5)
    Opinium: Lab+8 (up 5)
    YouGov: Lab+15 (up 6)

    Best to keep expectations in check but a Labour majority is no longer unthinkable.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 861
    Not what I'd consider to be an aphrodisiac, but it's a niche kink I guess. How come Johnny Mercer didn't get a look in though? Or indeed 'Rubber Up For Raab'?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62633463

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,241

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
    There *is* a path to Russia gaining all of Ukraine, although IMV it is weak and diminishes every day. And what you are saying about western weaponry is also true about Russian: they are getting through their kit at a vast rate. They've already lost more people than during ten years in Afghanistan; and more of certain types of equipment as well. When they were the much-larger USSR, with a more capable industrial-military base.

    But the question remains: how does Russia come out of this stronkier than they were when they entered? Even if they win all of Ukraine (and that's unlikely) then they'll be much weaker than they were back in January.

    It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best.
    It would have been at a high cost, but if they are victorious they will have won a lot of prestige and respect (outside of the West). Although China will strike advantageous terms of trade, Russia will find buyers for its oil and gas and a supplier for the components it requires to rebuild its armed forces.

    If they then learn from done of the mistakes they have made, if there is an effective crackdown on corruption, then Russia might well be a lot stronger relative to a West in disarray. China will have gained more, but I think it's complacent to think that Russia has already lost. It's incredibly important that we finish the job.
  • kinabalu said:

    Another big swing to Lab with Red&Wilt here. The last three polls released, with the lead and change on the pollster's previous (where that previous was within a month), are:

    Red&Wilt: Lab+12 (up 5)
    Opinium: Lab+8 (up 5)
    YouGov: Lab+15 (up 6)

    Best to keep expectations in check but a Labour majority is no longer unthinkable.
    Wise words
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
    The West has much greater ability to ramp up production than does Russia. Firstly, we're not struggling with sanctions. Secondly, we've got 20-30x the economic base to exploit.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,827
    Scott_xP said:

    Reports of windows being blown out by huge blasts in Sevastopol, in Ukraine's Russian-occupied Crimea. Explosions "heard all over the city" according to reports, and in town of Inkerman about 10 km to the east. https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1561736276369358848

    Airdefence, it seems. Probably being taunted by cheap drones.

    It was admitted that Ukrainian Migs have actually been adapted to take HARM missiles, so at some point anything turning on a radar is going to get hit.

    It would be quite amusing to release a load of mylar coated helium baloons when the wind is in the right direction.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,980
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-21-august-2022 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1561745018997526529/photo/1

    Starmer now leads Truss as preferred PM even with RedfieldWilton 37% to 35%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1561752640022781952?s=20&t=Gw_Ss7IWTPzePyLSqkrkNA
    My view was that ditching Johnson - whilst being the right thing to do - would actually *decrease* the chances of a Conservative win at the next election. I think I was probably correct.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,241
    nico679 said:

    How is Truss going to solve inflation and CoL?

    She isn't, but she aims to win the next election by convincing the voters Starmer and Labour will be even worse.
    Not sure that line works now . You’d have to be a complete moron to fall for that guff and I’m sure the Daily Hate will do its very best to support the Maggie Clone but I just can’t see her getting away with that .
    It's a strategy that always runs out of road eventually, but I'm still surprised that it worked in 1992. Labour have a job to convince people they can be trusted.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-21-august-2022 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1561745018997526529/photo/1

    Starmer now leads Truss as preferred PM even with RedfieldWilton 37% to 35%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1561752640022781952?s=20&t=Gw_Ss7IWTPzePyLSqkrkNA
    My view was that ditching Johnson - whilst being the right thing to do - would actually *decrease* the chances of a Conservative win at the next election. I think I was probably correct.
    Chance of Tory majority did not change much, but volatility did. Bozo could have had another big majority or been completely disastrous for the Tories if left unchallenged. If Truss gets a majority it will be be sub 40.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,370

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.
    There was a time, many years ago, when the PB community lost all faith in Baxter.

    Has he now become trustworthy? When was this, and why?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    edited August 2022
    Redfirld finds 16% direct switch up from 13% last time according to Chris Curtis. Thats what is driving things, the energy policy has finally provoked some more switch. And whilst there are ca 30% 2019 Tories not voting or unsure, the gap will remain.
    The Tories will need a solution that wins these voters back
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,980

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.
    Hyufd used to do that every time. Seems to have stopped for some reason.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    edited August 2022

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    The prevailing wisdom used to be that August opinion polls were prone to lower Conservative votes due to more Conservatives taking foreign holidays. Have the polling companies properly corrected for that in more recent times?
    Given the changing demographics of the party voters i suspect the August holiday deficit is now complete bollocks
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322
    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    Banking wise I switched to First Direct a few months ago. They've been excellent.

    I’ve been with them for decades and that has (almost) invariably been the case. Good choice.
    I've been with them for years, but I joined in order to use my laptop to bank, and find their focus on phone-based banking annoying - you have to call up the app on the phone and then deny that you want to access it, then get a code to use on the laptop, then get another code to use for any actual transactions. By contrast, RBS require a few letters and numbers from passwords and then you're free to proceed.
    I've used First Direct since 1997. Always been fairly pleased with them, and I like their accessiblity on the phone. They keep trying to push their app on me, but I'm reluctant to use my phone for stuff. Quite happy with banking online with them on a laptop though - never had any problems.

    I sometimes have some qualms about HSBC's closeness to the CCP and wonder if I should look elsewhere, but not enough yet to overcome inertia.
    Moving banks is extremely rare. Almost no one does it.

    That said, I did move banks, to FD as I realised I was paying a premium for an oversized chequebook I never used and that calling up the bank and saying: "will you please transfer £X to Y person/business" was antiquated to say the least. I was once with a (younger) colleague and did just that and his face was one of complete and utter incredulity and incomprehension that someone could bank in such a way. And a mere three years after that epiphany I finally moved.
    Loads of Martin Lewis fans do regularly. £150ish a pop. Luvvly jubbly. First Direct are the best of the mainstream banks. Metro for those wanting old school branch service and to be able to actually talk to a decision maker.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    Redfirld finds 16% direct switch up from 13% last time according to Chris Curtis. Thats what is driving things, the energy policy has finally provoked some more switch. And whilst there are ca 30% 2019 Tories not voting or unsure, the gap will remain.
    The Tories will need a solution that wins these voters back

    Note that even at these levels its still the Tory voter strike that is decisive. Get the non voters back and its even stevens
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,818

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
    There *is* a path to Russia gaining all of Ukraine, although IMV it is weak and diminishes every day. And what you are saying about western weaponry is also true about Russian: they are getting through their kit at a vast rate. They've already lost more people than during ten years in Afghanistan; and more of certain types of equipment as well. When they were the much-larger USSR, with a more capable industrial-military base.

    But the question remains: how does Russia come out of this stronkier than they were when they entered? Even if they win all of Ukraine (and that's unlikely) then they'll be much weaker than they were back in January.

    It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best.
    It would have been at a high cost, but if they are victorious they will have won a lot of prestige and respect (outside of the West). Although China will strike advantageous terms of trade, Russia will find buyers for its oil and gas and a supplier for the components it requires to rebuild its armed forces.

    If they then learn from done of the mistakes they have made, if there is an effective crackdown on corruption, then Russia might well be a lot stronger relative to a West in disarray. China will have gained more, but I think it's complacent to think that Russia has already lost. It's incredibly important that we finish the job.
    " but if they are victorious they will have won a lot of prestige and respect "

    Their supposedly 'world-beating' military kit, which they have been selling internationally for years, has been shown to be fairly ordinary at best. Due to their behaviour, they will be seen as an unreliable supplier of petrochemicals, a core plank in their economy. They will be seen by much of the world as child-raping fascists - and much of that world will be rich.

    Also, if they gain Ukraine only because the west stops providing kit, it will not be seen as a great victory for them. Ukraine should have been a push-over. They told themselves it would be a push-over. And aside from a little help from Britain and some valuable intelligence work, Ukraine pretty much blunted the attack on Kyiv on their own.

    " but I think it's complacent to think that Russia has already lost. It's incredibly important that we finish the job."

    I agree with the latter sentence, but my point is people need to state what their definition of 'win' and 'lose' is.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,241
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
    There *is* a path to Russia gaining all of Ukraine, although IMV it is weak and diminishes every day. And what you are saying about western weaponry is also true about Russian: they are getting through their kit at a vast rate. They've already lost more people than during ten years in Afghanistan; and more of certain types of equipment as well. When they were the much-larger USSR, with a more capable industrial-military base.

    But the question remains: how does Russia come out of this stronkier than they were when they entered? Even if they win all of Ukraine (and that's unlikely) then they'll be much weaker than they were back in January.

    It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best.
    They would not only have to win all of Ukraine but hold it against the Ukranian resistance
    Spot on. And it's worth dwelling on this for a second.

    Russia has been successful at holding Chechnya, albeit at huge cost.

    Chechnya has a population of 1.4 million.

    Ukraine a population of 44 million.

    Imagine if Northern Ireland had been 10x bigger and had been 80% Catholic, rather than 40% Catholic? Rough maths suggest it would be 20x harder for the UK government to hold it.

    That is the rough scale of the difficulty for Russia in holding all of Ukraine.
    If Ukraine falls to Russia its population will not be 44 million. Millions more refugees will join those who have already fled, and the lack of infrastructure (particularly heating), work, and food (as the Russians export grain) will lead to a massive population decline. Many Ukrainians will be forced to accept resettlement across Russia in order to survive.

    I don't think for a moment that an occupation would be easy for Russia, but Ukrainians would find sustaining a resistance incredibly difficult. There's a reason we haven't seen any videos of street protests from Kherson for ages
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    The prevailing wisdom used to be that August opinion polls were prone to lower Conservative votes due to more Conservatives taking foreign holidays. Have the polling companies properly corrected for that in more recent times?
    Do the retired take more overseas holidays during school holidays still? If so why? It is lovely weather back home, too hot in the countries they tend to visit and three times the price to go away!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    edited August 2022
    Wrote a note on the way here.

    Simply said, bugger.
  • The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    The prevailing wisdom used to be that August opinion polls were prone to lower Conservative votes due to more Conservatives taking foreign holidays. Have the polling companies properly corrected for that in more recent times?
    Given the changing demographics of the party voters i suspect the August holiday deficit is now complete bollocks
    And if it happens, I'm confident that it gets processed out. If there's a demographic that's harder-to-reach, the pollsters just work harder to locate them, right?

    Let's take 2010-15 as the last relatively calm period;



    Nope, not really seeing an August effect there. Still, if that's the copium to get through the day...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,980

    kinabalu said:

    Another big swing to Lab with Red&Wilt here. The last three polls released, with the lead and change on the pollster's previous (where that previous was within a month), are:

    Red&Wilt: Lab+12 (up 5)
    Opinium: Lab+8 (up 5)
    YouGov: Lab+15 (up 6)

    Best to keep expectations in check but a Labour majority is no longer unthinkable.
    Wise words
    Thanks. But not wise betting. I'm short of it at double today's price. Did that back in ye olde political world of a year ago when I was of the view Johnson would keep getting away with things and his Brexit voting coalition was too solid for Labour to jump from where they are to an outright majority. It's the worst long range position in my (otherwise not too shabby) portfolio.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,241
    edited August 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
    The West has much greater ability to ramp up production than does Russia. Firstly, we're not struggling with sanctions. Secondly, we've got 20-30x the economic base to exploit.
    Sure, but we have to actually do so. Six months in and there's not much sign of it. The vast majority of equipment and ammunition being supplied is still from prior stocks.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,594

    Wrote a note on the way here.

    Simply said, bugger.

    Hello, Darling.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
    There *is* a path to Russia gaining all of Ukraine, although IMV it is weak and diminishes every day. And what you are saying about western weaponry is also true about Russian: they are getting through their kit at a vast rate. They've already lost more people than during ten years in Afghanistan; and more of certain types of equipment as well. When they were the much-larger USSR, with a more capable industrial-military base.

    But the question remains: how does Russia come out of this stronkier than they were when they entered? Even if they win all of Ukraine (and that's unlikely) then they'll be much weaker than they were back in January.

    It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best.
    They would not only have to win all of Ukraine but hold it against the Ukranian resistance
    Spot on. And it's worth dwelling on this for a second.

    Russia has been successful at holding Chechnya, albeit at huge cost.

    Chechnya has a population of 1.4 million.

    Ukraine a population of 44 million.

    Imagine if Northern Ireland had been 10x bigger and had been 80% Catholic, rather than 40% Catholic? Rough maths suggest it would be 20x harder for the UK government to hold it.

    That is the rough scale of the difficulty for Russia in holding all of Ukraine.
    If Ukraine falls to Russia its population will not be 44 million. Millions more refugees will join those who have already fled, and the lack of infrastructure (particularly heating), work, and food (as the Russians export grain) will lead to a massive population decline. Many Ukrainians will be forced to accept resettlement across Russia in order to survive.

    I don't think for a moment that an occupation would be easy for Russia, but Ukrainians would find sustaining a resistance incredibly difficult. There's a reason we haven't seen any videos of street protests from Kherson for ages
    As long as they still have weapons supplies from us the Ukrainian resistance could continue indefinitely killing Russian soldiers until eventually Russia gets fed up of the casualties. Though Kyiv would have to fall to Russia first which they have failed to achieve
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    FF43 said:

    MISTY said:

    Resolution Foundation
    @resfoundation
    ·
    37m
    In summary? There is no escaping the cost-of-living crisis. It will take many months, and much more living standards pain, before inflation starts to ease. The number one priority for the next PM is to offer significant support to help families through a brutal winter and beyond.

    https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1561673277604597760


    The government's first priority should be cheap, plentiful energy and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Liz targets.

    No doubt Truss will "target" it, although it doesn't seem to be a priority. But platitudes from her about supply-side won't get us cheap and plentiful energy. She would be a lot more useful if she helped people deal with energy being not at all cheap or plentiful.

    If the default position of the main parties is that cheap plentiful energy is essentially impossible from now until doomsday, I would suggest they will not be main parties for that long.

    I agree there is a medium to long term need for cheap non-carbon energy, which is wind and solar - that for bizarre reasons Truss and parts of the Conservative Party are adamantly opposed to. Maybe also tidal

    In the meantime we have to learn how to get off Russian fossil fuels.
    Well if you think that message is going to stand through this winter, best of British.

    Truss is apparently looking at unwinding the mechanism whereby rising electricity prices must lift all boats, netting green producers big profits.

    Let the green producers supply cheaply, if they can.
    As I say there is a medium to long term need for cheap green energy, so no dispute there.

    The immediate need is for energy. At any price.
    Ultimately, the amount of gas available globally that is available to import has dropped about 15%. Part of this is because Russia has dramatically reduced flows to Europe, part is because most countries aren't buying Russian LNG. And part is because global LNG capacity has effectively dropped because distances have increased (and therefore so have transit times).

    The world needs to reduce their usage of imported gas by 15%.

    We in the West can afford to pay up (somewhat). But what of Pakistan or Turkey? Those countries were poor before.

    Right now, the reduction in gas usage is falling predominantly on the very poorest countries. One of the reasons why Pakistan is really struggling is because we - and Germany and Spain etc. - are outbidding it for LNG cargoes.
    The only positive in all this is Putin has fecked his country for a generation. No one will trust their energy or commodities from RU for a very long time after this. As this is all they have they are screwed.
    There are a few people on here who thought Russia are 'winning' this war. My question to them was, and is (if they still hold that view): "What is your definition of winning?"

    The longer this goes on, the harder it is for me to see any way realistic way Russia comes out of this stronger in the next decade than if they had not launched this evil war. They are demeaning themselves in every way, including their beloved stronk military.
    I mostly agree, and yet... They haven't lost yet. If Western support for Ukraine falters then Russia will prevail and the West would have been defeated.

    I'm not sure the West has a realistic sense of how much effort it will take to last the course longer than the Russians. Stocks of Western equipment and ammunition are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being manufactured. What happens when the cupboard is bare, if the Russians are still fighting at that point?
    There *is* a path to Russia gaining all of Ukraine, although IMV it is weak and diminishes every day. And what you are saying about western weaponry is also true about Russian: they are getting through their kit at a vast rate. They've already lost more people than during ten years in Afghanistan; and more of certain types of equipment as well. When they were the much-larger USSR, with a more capable industrial-military base.

    But the question remains: how does Russia come out of this stronkier than they were when they entered? Even if they win all of Ukraine (and that's unlikely) then they'll be much weaker than they were back in January.

    It'll be a pyrrhic victory at best.
    They would not only have to win all of Ukraine but hold it against the Ukranian resistance
    Spot on. And it's worth dwelling on this for a second.

    Russia has been successful at holding Chechnya, albeit at huge cost.

    Chechnya has a population of 1.4 million.

    Ukraine a population of 44 million.

    Imagine if Northern Ireland had been 10x bigger and had been 80% Catholic, rather than 40% Catholic? Rough maths suggest it would be 20x harder for the UK government to hold it.

    That is the rough scale of the difficulty for Russia in holding all of Ukraine.
    If it had been 80% Catholic, the UK wouldn't have tried to hold it.

    Not that they could even hold the 26 counties which were, what, 4 times the size of Northern Ireland?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    edited August 2022
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    FPT @HYUFD in reply to your 2 posts:

    a) I did not say I did not support building a deterrent against Putin. You have tried that one on me twice now. How you are capable of jumping to these illogical conclusions is beyond me. What I said (as did everyone else) is you can not build these big capital items in days and weeks by throwing resources at them. There is always a critical path and something like an aircraft carrier or submarine takes years no matter what resources you have.

    b) Re your link to a stat (oh what a surprise) showing Asian kids doing better in UK schools than white and African kids just shows your usual nonsense. What on earth has that got to do with the point being made:

    i) You were claiming African kids had the IQ of imbeciles based upon a flawed IQ stat and claimed that was why African countries were poorer. That is clearly nonsense and not borne out by the latest stat you produced.

    ii) I am not claiming there isn't a difference between IQ levels of different races. I don't know, but clearly the average African does not have an IQ of a 5 - 7 year old which is what your stat showed and which I was arguing against. Don't change what I am saying because you are losing the argument.

    iii) Again you show a stat and jump to an unfounded conclusion. Just because it shows Indian and Asian kids do better than white kids does not show they have higher IQs. It might do but it also might be due to cultural differences, which I believe is a very well believed premise. In the same way posh white kids are likely to do better than poor white kids which is clearly not race dependent.

    a) It was already shown to you by Jim Miller in a year which would have to be on the cards if the US withdrew from NATO and we had no effective defence against Putin who has the largest nuclear missiles arsenal in the world

    b) If it was solely down to class you would expect posh Asian children to have as big a gap over working class Asians as posh whites do over working class whites but there isn't that gap.

    So now you are saying there are iq differences between different races, I assume you also say there is a huge gap between average results of Chinese pupils and Roma pupils, presumably again due to average iq. Or otherwise because Chinese culture is apparently inherently intellectually and educationally superior to other cultures based on your argument

    I have already responded to your reference to Jim Miller. That refers to 1945 plus where you could have airborne deterents. That doesn't apply now. Any aircraft is shot down. It has to be submarine delivered which has the other disadvantage which is size of the warhead. Keep up.

    No I didn't say there was an IQ difference between races. How do you misinterpret this stuff. I said I didn't know. Generally I think it is accepted there is little difference between most races and most differences is down to cultural and educational differences. What is beyond dispute is your assertion that Africans have an IQ of a 5 - 7 year old, which is clearly complete nonsense. All because you can't accept a web site you linked to is rubbish.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357
    kinabalu said:

    The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    I miss the days of people Baxtering polls.
    Hyufd used to do that every time. Seems to have stopped for some reason.
    Well it is irrelevant if Labour is heading for a clear majority as on the main poll.

    Though put in the Truss and Starmer preferred PM numbers and you get Con 283, Lab 279, LD 12. Which would be the closest general election since February 1974

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35&LAB=37&LIB=12&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=18.5&SCOTLAB=24&SCOTLIB=8&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=0&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=46.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
  • The move to Lab continues

    Labour leads by 12%, largest lead since Boris Johnson's resignation.

    Westminster Voting Intention (21 August):

    Labour 43% (+2)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (–)
    SNP 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (-1)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    https://t.co/Pt3WwEIMHQ https://t.co/jDq52ETFns

    The prevailing wisdom used to be that August opinion polls were prone to lower Conservative votes due to more Conservatives taking foreign holidays. Have the polling companies properly corrected for that in more recent times?
    Do the retired take more overseas holidays during school holidays still? If so why? It is lovely weather back home, too hot in the countries they tend to visit and three times the price to go away!
    Since the children left the family home 30 years ago we always went on holiday out of the school holidays, apart from one year when I rented a Tuscany villa for all 10 of us in July
  • Keir Starmer Approval Rating (21 August):

    Disapprove: 30% (-3)
    Approve: 29% (–)
    Net: -1% (+3)

    Changes +/- 14 August

    Just the worst Labour leader in history
  • Rejoice.

This discussion has been closed.