Howdy, Stranger!

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

The support of Tory MPs – Truss’s biggest challenge – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Oh god. The dear old queen looks terrible

    A well placed friend told me to expect London Bridge soon, just the other day
    Hardly the rashest of predictions for an elderly 96 year old lady, recently bereaved, and clearly in poor health. And also not the first such prediction. @Foxy seems likely to be on the money - spinal issues hence back ache leading to reduced mobility.
    Of all the certainties and uncertainties in this world - aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, whether Radiohead is the best band in the world (or not), the most certain is that @Leon does not have a "well placed friend" who would be in a position to comment on this.
    What a peculiar remark

    Without revealing too much of my identity I can tell you I’m a man in his later 50s who has, over the years, been everywhere and met all sorts of people, and gathered all kinds of friends and acquaintances - from the guy who broke into the queens bedroom - no, really, Michael fagan, I know him - to billionaires in fancy castles just like the queens
    I'm sure. But you absolutely 100% don't know anyone who is close enough to HMQ who would know and who would tell you.
    You haven’t met Michael fagan have you? Let’s face it. In your narrow and sheltered life it is quite unlikely you’ve regularly sat in a flat in Seven Sisters AND DONE HEROIN WITH THE GUY WHO BROKE INTO THE QUEEN’S BEDROOM AS FEATURED IN NETFLIX SERIES THE CROWN

    At the same time I am good friends with the guy who actually writes… The Crown. And so on and so forth
    As I said, I have no doubt you know Michael Fagan and perhaps even Peter Morgan.

    But you do not know someone who is close enough to HMQ who would know about her medical condition and who would tell you about it.
    The saddest thing is that all these opportunities and such a diversity of experience both geographical and human have all washed over him and he ends up a narrow-minded and frequently unpleasant alt-right culture warrior.
    If ever there was a proof needed that travel doesn't broaden the mind we need look no further.
    Perhaps it is a bell curve. There comes a point where you have so much travel that you start to be no longer enlightened by it. A kind of diminishing return of cultural over-consumption.
    I think travel broadens the kind in proportion to the flexibility of the mind.

    In a walking trip across Nepal, I found it interesting to see the effect of meeting the locals on others in the group - and compare it to my own. The ability to see absolutely nothing, in other than the most superficial sense, is not a rare skill.
    I travel extensively, you are a tourist, he is a grockle...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has the Queen shrunk even more? She was never tall but even so.
    Perspective is distorting the relative heights - Truss is closer to the camera.
    Yes, you can see the effect of perspective by comparing the apparent height of each end of the sofas.
    The sofas/chairs are different, anyway, however.
    Compare the near end with the far end of the *same* sofa.
    It's not a sofa bvut a markedly higher armchair. Look at the positions in relation to the whitish carpet.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Oh god. The dear old queen looks terrible

    A well placed friend told me to expect London Bridge soon, just the other day
    Hardly the rashest of predictions for an elderly 96 year old lady, recently bereaved, and clearly in poor health. And also not the first such prediction. @Foxy seems likely to be on the money - spinal issues hence back ache leading to reduced mobility.
    Of all the certainties and uncertainties in this world - aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, whether Radiohead is the best band in the world (or not), the most certain is that @Leon does not have a "well placed friend" who would be in a position to comment on this.
    My late mother (pb.com passim) claimed to be able to predict, with some fidelity, when people would die from looking at the back of their necks.

    About four months before my father died she looked at his neck while they were watching Pointless and said, "Well, you haven't got long."

    It's a pity she's not around to tell us when Brenda will go in off the black.
    Did your mum have an Irish background? And have there been others in her family who can do the same thing? I am guessing yes and yes.

    Some have no clue and can only scoff...
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214
    edited September 2022

    Foxy said:

    First names of the last four finance ministers—
    France: Bruno, Michel, Pierre, François
    Germany: Christian, Olaf, Peter, Wolfgang
    Italy: Daniele, Roberto, Giovanni, Pier Carlo
    Britain: Kwasi, Nadhim, Rishi, Sajid


    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1566820707912368128

    Whose finances are in best shape is perhaps the question to ask!
    Debt as % GDP:

    Italy: 151
    France: 113
    UK: 96
    Germany: 69
    Is that the measure that was UK under 40% in 2007 - before years of Austerity (for some) to bring it down! 🫣

    Where would US be on that current list, if I have been paying attention, PBs St Bart the Pirate will comment here that 140% is actually no problem at all, only beyond that it goes squizzy.
    137%

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp?continent=america

    So is St Bart the pirate actually right on this one, this is a pointless measure to use for economic health and strength? The Tory austerity years, the lasting impact of them in income divides, was not actually necessary?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    I am sceptical about claims that Russia can hold on to its current occupied territory after a ceasefire, without too much effort.

    The car of the so-called "commandant" of Russia-occupied city of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblast of Ukraine, was reportedly blown up.

    According to Readovka, he was seriously injured and already transferred to the hospital.The car of the so-called "commandant" of Russia-occupied city of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblast of Ukraine, was reportedly blown up.

    According to Readovka, he was seriously injured and already transferred to the hospital.

    https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1567133605838594048
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    MattW said:

    Belated FPT:

    darkage said:

    Unpopular said:

    ohnotnow said:

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-expected-announce-rent-27917204

    "Nicola Sturgeon expected to announce rent freeze for tenants in Scotland"

    One parliamentary source said if the cost of a freeze was met by landlords the policy would cost the Government nothing.

    That'll work well with increasing mortgage rates.....
    I feel like this is going to trash the rental sector in Scotland. A lot of people, especially on the left, are very hostile to the whole sector but, speaking as someone who has rented extensively, I don't want it destroyed, I want it fit for purpose and abuses in the system stopped. I have no problem with the old woman who rented me a flat, at a decent price, which allowed me to have a place to live for years, however I was less impressed by the green-voting landlady who kicked me out to list the property on AirBnB...

    Anything that will reduce rental stock, in areas where the availability of property might not be able to keep up demand, is likely to increase scarcity and competition. This will increase prices, either legally or illegally, and we will see more 'bidding over the asking price' for rental properties. Those that don't just get sold, that is.

    I know BTLs sit at the right hand of Hitler/the Devil for some, but not everyone is in a position to buy nor wants to be tied down by property. While it doesn't make long-term financial sense to hand over your cash to pay someone else's mortgage, landlords provide a service in exchange for money, a pretty vital one imo. Squeezing the sector until the pips squeak is not likely to benefit tenants.
    These are very good insights just as true for England.
    There is something similar going on in Ireland.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/report-claims-rent-controls-have-backfired-and-worsened-crisis-1.4881856

    Buy to let and landlords have been absolutely trashed through tax and regulation, so the effect is that the flat I rented out 5 years ago for £600 per month is now being let out at £1200 and the town has a massive homelessness problem. Even at £1200 per month I doubt the landlord is making any kind of meaningful return that justifies the risks.

    All this was obvious to me as far back as 2016, I worked for a council who were reliant on private sector landlords to deal with the statutory responsibilities it had to find housing for vulnerable people, and the landlords were just selling up en masse and quitting thus creating perpetual crisis and massively escalating costs.

    ...

    It is just a disaster which the tories are asleep over, real policy making and stakeholder engagement has been replaced with lazy 'f**k business' slurs, combined with simple anti landlord leftism; and of course the universal desire to get credit for new progressive regulation, like building safety laws, etc, no matter what the cost. Reminds me a bit of Arthur Scargill going on about the coal board, 'the loss is without limit', etc.
    Not sure if it will "trash the PRS in Scotland"; it will certainly reduce it - that always happens with this type of populist measure. Remember that rental regulation is devolved. Perhaps it depends on how long the "freeze" is.

    The PRS in Scotland has been shrunk from 370k dwellings in 2016 by just under 15% to 325k (latest figure I can find).

    And "landlord wishes to sell property" is a recognised Ground for Eviction" in Scotland. Albeit discretionary for the Tribunal, whatever that means.
    We'll hear more this afternoon; announcement in parliament.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Oh god. The dear old queen looks terrible

    A well placed friend told me to expect London Bridge soon, just the other day
    Hardly the rashest of predictions for an elderly 96 year old lady, recently bereaved, and clearly in poor health. And also not the first such prediction. @Foxy seems likely to be on the money - spinal issues hence back ache leading to reduced mobility.
    The actuarial risk of death within the next year is over 25% at age 96, almost 27% at age 97, and over 28% at 98.

    So, as you say, hardly a big call. Indeed, whilst it's possible the Queen could see one more of these handovers, it's more likely than not that Liz is Liz's last PM.
    I'd class the Queen as going from good health (for her age) to moderate health over the last year. Nothing to indicate she is in 'poor' health.

    So, in the middle of the actuarial range.

    A big factor is that, once an elderly person starts going into hospital more frequently with more complex requirements, the non zero chance of medical or care errors at each visit multiply, and life shortening mistakes become more likely (I'd guess 1 in 3 deaths have such factors at play). You'd suspect the Queen is far less likely than most to suffer such a fate, so her actuarial chances are better than average.
    But the reason elderly people die as a result of complications isn't primarily because care is shoddy or errors slip in as people get older. They are simply more vulnerable.

    So, whilst I agree she'll get high quality care, the risk of a 90-something year old dying in surgery with no errors being made and the best doctors money can buy is high.
    They also die as a result of complications because (HMQ aside) the NHS quite often sees old people as no real priority. If they die no one will be coming after the hospital with a lawsuit. Old people die and hence the NHS is quite good at not providing the right care for them.
    Do you think other healthcare systems around the world arrive at very different outcomes in terms of actuarial risk of death at that stage?

    At 70, your risk of dying in the next year is little more than 1%. At 80, it's about 4%. At 90, it's getting on for 15%. At 100, it's over 40%.

    The exponential rise is true everywhere and it really isn't credible that it is driven by standard of care and attitudes to the elderly in a particular place. Your body just packs up at that stage and there is little anyone can do but make you more comfortable. A high standard of care can shave a bit off your risk, but it's at the margins and the exponential nature of the rise has to be driven by nature almost entirely.
    Yes. Shapes of bell curves is unilluminating though when you are looking at individual cases. Absent a hotline to her personal physician, every factor you can think of is in her favour: safety from accidental falls, quality of life (surgeons often decline to operate on post 90s if they think they are having a shit time anyway), longevity of mum (dad irrelevant as tobacco involved), motivation to live, mental acuity, quality of care to be expected if needed. All going her way.

    Medical friends of mine said in 2011 that the NHS would have let Prince Philip croak if he had been anyone else. So there's an extra 9 years royalness gets you.
    She's had her nine years above the typical, plus VAT.

    I don't doubt people can buy a few years if they have a few quid. But the fact is you hit a rising wall of exponentially increased risk related to biology - which is the same for the Queen as the rest of us - and the stats worldwide suggest that utterly overwhelms the (important) marginal benefits of quality care as you get into super old age.
  • Liz Truss flying back to London in a French-built jet :lol:
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,154

    Foxy said:

    First names of the last four finance ministers—
    France: Bruno, Michel, Pierre, François
    Germany: Christian, Olaf, Peter, Wolfgang
    Italy: Daniele, Roberto, Giovanni, Pier Carlo
    Britain: Kwasi, Nadhim, Rishi, Sajid


    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1566820707912368128

    Whose finances are in best shape is perhaps the question to ask!
    Debt as % GDP:

    Italy: 151
    France: 113
    UK: 96
    Germany: 69
    Is that the measure that was UK under 40% in 2007 - before years of Austerity (for some) to bring it down! 🫣
    It's also presumably without the GB off-balance-sheet borrowing ;-) .
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Hearing that Jacob Rees Mogg is expected to take on the role of business secretary *and* the junior minister's responsibilities of energy and climate change later today

    Word is at least two Tories have turned down the jr role which would have worked closely with him

    https://twitter.com/NatashaC/status/1567111390418051074

    Couldn't find any fellow phlogiston theorists in the parliamentary party ?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Nigelb said:

    I am sceptical about claims that Russia can hold on to its current occupied territory after a ceasefire, without too much effort.

    The car of the so-called "commandant" of Russia-occupied city of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblast of Ukraine, was reportedly blown up.

    According to Readovka, he was seriously injured and already transferred to the hospital.The car of the so-called "commandant" of Russia-occupied city of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblast of Ukraine, was reportedly blown up.

    According to Readovka, he was seriously injured and already transferred to the hospital.

    https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1567133605838594048


    Yes, whatever happens now, Russia has ensured the eternal and furious enmity of a large nation of 45m people right next door. It’s a long term catastrophe for Russia

    Ukrainians will be trying to murder Russians for decades to come. Did Putin not figure this out? Ukraine is not Chechnya

    Also: there are 2m Ukrainians INSIDE Russia who will now be saboteurs all their lives
  • IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Oh god. The dear old queen looks terrible

    A well placed friend told me to expect London Bridge soon, just the other day
    Hardly the rashest of predictions for an elderly 96 year old lady, recently bereaved, and clearly in poor health. And also not the first such prediction. @Foxy seems likely to be on the money - spinal issues hence back ache leading to reduced mobility.
    The actuarial risk of death within the next year is over 25% at age 96, almost 27% at age 97, and over 28% at 98.

    So, as you say, hardly a big call. Indeed, whilst it's possible the Queen could see one more of these handovers, it's more likely than not that Liz is Liz's last PM.
    I'd class the Queen as going from good health (for her age) to moderate health over the last year. Nothing to indicate she is in 'poor' health.

    So, in the middle of the actuarial range.

    A big factor is that, once an elderly person starts going into hospital more frequently with more complex requirements, the non zero chance of medical or care errors at each visit multiply, and life shortening mistakes become more likely (I'd guess 1 in 3 deaths have such factors at play). You'd suspect the Queen is far less likely than most to suffer such a fate, so her actuarial chances are better than average.
    But the reason elderly people die as a result of complications isn't primarily because care is shoddy or errors slip in as people get older. They are simply more vulnerable.

    So, whilst I agree she'll get high quality care, the risk of a 90-something year old dying in surgery with no errors being made and the best doctors money can buy is high.
    They also die as a result of complications because (HMQ aside) the NHS quite often sees old people as no real priority. If they die no one will be coming after the hospital with a lawsuit. Old people die and hence the NHS is quite good at not providing the right care for them.
    Do you think other healthcare systems around the world arrive at very different outcomes in terms of actuarial risk of death at that stage?

    At 70, your risk of dying in the next year is little more than 1%. At 80, it's about 4%. At 90, it's getting on for 15%. At 100, it's over 40%.

    The exponential rise is true everywhere and it really isn't credible that it is driven by standard of care and attitudes to the elderly in a particular place. Your body just packs up at that stage and there is little anyone can do but make you more comfortable. A high standard of care can shave a bit off your risk, but it's at the margins and the exponential nature of the rise has to be driven by nature almost entirely.
    Yes. Shapes of bell curves is unilluminating though when you are looking at individual cases. Absent a hotline to her personal physician, every factor you can think of is in her favour: safety from accidental falls, quality of life (surgeons often decline to operate on post 90s if they think they are having a shit time anyway), longevity of mum (dad irrelevant as tobacco involved), motivation to live, mental acuity, quality of care to be expected if needed. All going her way.

    Medical friends of mine said in 2011 that the NHS would have let Prince Philip croak if he had been anyone else. So there's an extra 9 years royalness gets you.
    How is the Queen protected from accidental falls? Given the number of rugs in the royal houses, and small dogs underfoot, it's a wonder she is ever on her feet.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,673
    Note that the media are referring to our new PM as Ms Truss rather than Mrs O'Leary. So why did we not have Ms Roberts and Ms Brasier? Changed times I suppose.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Oh god. The dear old queen looks terrible

    A well placed friend told me to expect London Bridge soon, just the other day
    Hardly the rashest of predictions for an elderly 96 year old lady, recently bereaved, and clearly in poor health. And also not the first such prediction. @Foxy seems likely to be on the money - spinal issues hence back ache leading to reduced mobility.
    The actuarial risk of death within the next year is over 25% at age 96, almost 27% at age 97, and over 28% at 98.

    So, as you say, hardly a big call. Indeed, whilst it's possible the Queen could see one more of these handovers, it's more likely than not that Liz is Liz's last PM.
    I'd class the Queen as going from good health (for her age) to moderate health over the last year. Nothing to indicate she is in 'poor' health.

    So, in the middle of the actuarial range.

    A big factor is that, once an elderly person starts going into hospital more frequently with more complex requirements, the non zero chance of medical or care errors at each visit multiply, and life shortening mistakes become more likely (I'd guess 1 in 3 deaths have such factors at play). You'd suspect the Queen is far less likely than most to suffer such a fate, so her actuarial chances are better than average.
    But the reason elderly people die as a result of complications isn't primarily because care is shoddy or errors slip in as people get older. They are simply more vulnerable.

    So, whilst I agree she'll get high quality care, the risk of a 90-something year old dying in surgery with no errors being made and the best doctors money can buy is high.
    They also die as a result of complications because (HMQ aside) the NHS quite often sees old people as no real priority. If they die no one will be coming after the hospital with a lawsuit. Old people die and hence the NHS is quite good at not providing the right care for them.
    Do you think other healthcare systems around the world arrive at very different outcomes in terms of actuarial risk of death at that stage?

    At 70, your risk of dying in the next year is little more than 1%. At 80, it's about 4%. At 90, it's getting on for 15%. At 100, it's over 40%.

    The exponential rise is true everywhere and it really isn't credible that it is driven by standard of care and attitudes to the elderly in a particular place. Your body just packs up at that stage and there is little anyone can do but make you more comfortable. A high standard of care can shave a bit off your risk, but it's at the margins and the exponential nature of the rise has to be driven by nature almost entirely.
    Yes. Shapes of bell curves is unilluminating though when you are looking at individual cases. Absent a hotline to her personal physician, every factor you can think of is in her favour: safety from accidental falls, quality of life (surgeons often decline to operate on post 90s if they think they are having a shit time anyway), longevity of mum (dad irrelevant as tobacco involved), motivation to live, mental acuity, quality of care to be expected if needed. All going her way.

    Medical friends of mine said in 2011 that the NHS would have let Prince Philip croak if he had been anyone else. So there's an extra 9 years royalness gets you.
    She's had her nine years above the typical, plus VAT.

    I don't doubt people can buy a few years if they have a few quid. But the fact is you hit a rising wall of exponentially increased risk related to biology - which is the same for the Queen as the rest of us - and the stats worldwide suggest that utterly overwhelms the (important) marginal benefits of quality care as you get into super old age.
    That is a cast iron argument against her making 110...
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    edited September 2022
    slade said:

    Note that the media are referring to our new PM as Ms Truss rather than Mrs O'Leary. So why did we not have Ms Roberts and Ms Brasier? Changed times I suppose.

    Because they all got to choose how they wanted to be addressed?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,448
    edited September 2022
    slade said:

    Note that the media are referring to our new PM as Ms Truss rather than Mrs O'Leary. So why did we not have Ms Roberts and Ms Brasier? Changed times I suppose.

    Is that not the preference of the respective politician?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    slade said:

    Note that the media are referring to our new PM as Ms Truss rather than Mrs O'Leary. So why did we not have Ms Roberts and Ms Brasier? Changed times I suppose.

    Because that is what she has always traded as

    wtf was brasier anyway?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    edited September 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has the Queen shrunk even more? She was never tall but even so.
    Perspective is distorting the relative heights - Truss is closer to the camera.
    Yes, you can see the effect of perspective by comparing the apparent height of each end of the sofas.
    The sofas/chairs are different, anyway, however.
    Compare the near end with the far end of the *same* sofa.
    It's not a sofa bvut a markedly higher armchair. Look at the positions in relation to the whitish carpet.
    OK, naively measured on screen with a ruler queenie = 65mm truss = 90mm

    Queenie is 5'3". This means that either the bit we can see of LT is about 7'5" and that doesn't include her feet, or PB should belatedly adopt the renaissance discovery of linear perspective.
    I don't think they were using wide angle lenses for photography quite that far back.

    The famous photo of the Carters with the Bidens is more on point.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/us/politics/biden-carters-photo.html
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Oh god. The dear old queen looks terrible

    A well placed friend told me to expect London Bridge soon, just the other day
    Hardly the rashest of predictions for an elderly 96 year old lady, recently bereaved, and clearly in poor health. And also not the first such prediction. @Foxy seems likely to be on the money - spinal issues hence back ache leading to reduced mobility.
    The actuarial risk of death within the next year is over 25% at age 96, almost 27% at age 97, and over 28% at 98.

    So, as you say, hardly a big call. Indeed, whilst it's possible the Queen could see one more of these handovers, it's more likely than not that Liz is Liz's last PM.
    I'd class the Queen as going from good health (for her age) to moderate health over the last year. Nothing to indicate she is in 'poor' health.

    So, in the middle of the actuarial range.

    A big factor is that, once an elderly person starts going into hospital more frequently with more complex requirements, the non zero chance of medical or care errors at each visit multiply, and life shortening mistakes become more likely (I'd guess 1 in 3 deaths have such factors at play). You'd suspect the Queen is far less likely than most to suffer such a fate, so her actuarial chances are better than average.
    But the reason elderly people die as a result of complications isn't primarily because care is shoddy or errors slip in as people get older. They are simply more vulnerable.

    So, whilst I agree she'll get high quality care, the risk of a 90-something year old dying in surgery with no errors being made and the best doctors money can buy is high.
    They also die as a result of complications because (HMQ aside) the NHS quite often sees old people as no real priority. If they die no one will be coming after the hospital with a lawsuit. Old people die and hence the NHS is quite good at not providing the right care for them.
    Do you think other healthcare systems around the world arrive at very different outcomes in terms of actuarial risk of death at that stage?

    At 70, your risk of dying in the next year is little more than 1%. At 80, it's about 4%. At 90, it's getting on for 15%. At 100, it's over 40%.

    The exponential rise is true everywhere and it really isn't credible that it is driven by standard of care and attitudes to the elderly in a particular place. Your body just packs up at that stage and there is little anyone can do but make you more comfortable. A high standard of care can shave a bit off your risk, but it's at the margins and the exponential nature of the rise has to be driven by nature almost entirely.
    Yes. Shapes of bell curves is unilluminating though when you are looking at individual cases. Absent a hotline to her personal physician, every factor you can think of is in her favour: safety from accidental falls, quality of life (surgeons often decline to operate on post 90s if they think they are having a shit time anyway), longevity of mum (dad irrelevant as tobacco involved), motivation to live, mental acuity, quality of care to be expected if needed. All going her way.

    Medical friends of mine said in 2011 that the NHS would have let Prince Philip croak if he had been anyone else. So there's an extra 9 years royalness gets you.
    She's had her nine years above the typical, plus VAT.

    I don't doubt people can buy a few years if they have a few quid. But the fact is you hit a rising wall of exponentially increased risk related to biology - which is the same for the Queen as the rest of us - and the stats worldwide suggest that utterly overwhelms the (important) marginal benefits of quality care as you get into super old age.
    That is a cast iron argument against her making 110...
    I sense a struggle here for us not to go where this sort of difference of learned opinion on PB would normally lead ... a BET.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214

    Scott_xP said:

    Given the briefing so far, is it possible Truss does not announce the energy plan today?

    It eill be announced to parliament as a fiscal event, not in a press conference. The most we get today will be a guideline
    I think what we are getting in deliberate leaks is where they were quite a few weeks ago, surely a measure as vital as this would have to come through focus groups first, much of this leaking into the media is all part of that same process. Like alpha and beta testing before going live.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,792
    Dynamo said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Oh god. The dear old queen looks terrible

    A well placed friend told me to expect London Bridge soon, just the other day
    Hardly the rashest of predictions for an elderly 96 year old lady, recently bereaved, and clearly in poor health. And also not the first such prediction. @Foxy seems likely to be on the money - spinal issues hence back ache leading to reduced mobility.
    Of all the certainties and uncertainties in this world - aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, whether Radiohead is the best band in the world (or not), the most certain is that @Leon does not have a "well placed friend" who would be in a position to comment on this.
    My late mother (pb.com passim) claimed to be able to predict, with some fidelity, when people would die from looking at the back of their necks.

    About four months before my father died she looked at his neck while they were watching Pointless and said, "Well, you haven't got long."

    It's a pity she's not around to tell us when Brenda will go in off the black.
    Did your mum have an Irish background? And have there been others in her family who can do the same thing? I am guessing yes and yes.

    Some have no clue and can only scoff...
    Fenian music teacher from Fermanagh. Possible Bean Sidhe.
  • Foxy said:

    First names of the last four finance ministers—
    France: Bruno, Michel, Pierre, François
    Germany: Christian, Olaf, Peter, Wolfgang
    Italy: Daniele, Roberto, Giovanni, Pier Carlo
    Britain: Kwasi, Nadhim, Rishi, Sajid


    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1566820707912368128

    Whose finances are in best shape is perhaps the question to ask!
    Debt as % GDP:

    Italy: 151
    France: 113
    UK: 96
    Germany: 69
    Is that the measure that was UK under 40% in 2007 - before years of Austerity (for some) to bring it down! 🫣

    Where would US be on that current list, if I have been paying attention, PBs St Bart the Pirate will comment here that 140% is actually no problem at all, only beyond that it goes squizzy.
    137%

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp?continent=america

    So is St Bart the pirate actually right on this one, this is a pointless measure to use for economic health and strength? The Tory austerity years, the lasting impact of them in income divides, was not actually necessary?
    Yes. Government debt only mattered until George Osborne increased it while trying the opposite. After that, well, it's all about the deficit.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    There's been a tussle over the attorney general job between Michael Ellis & Lucy Frazer, sources say.

    It's one of the last Cabinet-level jobs to be decided

    Ellis is set to get the job but Frazer isn't happy and is resisting a return as a junior minister in the MoJ, say sources

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1567142210755346433
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,666
    kinabalu said:

    The level of intervention required by the state in energy is such that it should (but probably won't be) the final nail in the coffin for its farcical privatisation. What an absolute joke it is.

    Nationalise rail, water and energy. The privateers are absolutely hopeless, require endless handholding by taxpayers, earn a fortune and do sweet eff all for their money.

    Nationalise them.

    Your answer to everything: nationalise!

    And as has been seen in the past, blanket nationalisation is just as bad (perhaps even worse) than blanket privatisation.

    So a question: when you call for 'energy' to be nationalised, what exactly are you saying? What's the program? What constitutes 'energy' ?
    First we nationalise everything. Including all the Furrin countries with natural gas that are selling it to us.

    There’s a word for that in the dictionary, so they say.
    There's a case for public ownership where a good is truly essential and is standard - ie the same regardless of supplier - and therefore affordable supply is far more important than choice.

    Energy fits the bill - but this doesn't mean nationalizing the whole chain. Eg instead of a plethora of "competing" outfits in the delivery space you could have a single public org. Simpler, more efficient, free of froth, profiteering and pointless complexity.

    Worth looking at, imo, but as a longer term thing not as a fix for this crisis.
    France is opting for nationalization of EDF. Although I think that's probably easier for them as their govt owned most of EDF anyway. Vattenfall in Sweden is 100% state-owned also.

    I think given the enormous investment that's needed, and the fact that govts can borrow a lot cheaper than private sector - there's definitely a case for state-owned companies. Definitely a risk that politicians will interfere - but that happens with privatised companies too.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,145
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I am sceptical about claims that Russia can hold on to its current occupied territory after a ceasefire, without too much effort.

    The car of the so-called "commandant" of Russia-occupied city of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblast of Ukraine, was reportedly blown up.

    According to Readovka, he was seriously injured and already transferred to the hospital.The car of the so-called "commandant" of Russia-occupied city of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblast of Ukraine, was reportedly blown up.

    According to Readovka, he was seriously injured and already transferred to the hospital.

    https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1567133605838594048


    Yes, whatever happens now, Russia has ensured the eternal and furious enmity of a large nation of 45m people right next door. It’s a long term catastrophe for Russia

    Ukrainians will be trying to murder Russians for decades to come. Did Putin not figure this out? Ukraine is not Chechnya

    Also: there are 2m Ukrainians INSIDE Russia who will now be saboteurs all their lives
    The smart move is to make friends.

    For instance, when/if Korean unification comes up, China should back it. And lend the money to pay for it at a stupidly low rate. On one condition - that the united Korea is completely neutral and hosts no foreign military bases. Including Chinese.

    This would give them a strong friend for many generations, one that could never threaten them, and remove the Americans from that part of Asia without the possibility of even being angry about it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has the Queen shrunk even more? She was never tall but even so.
    Perspective is distorting the relative heights - Truss is closer to the camera.
    Yes, you can see the effect of perspective by comparing the apparent height of each end of the sofas.
    The sofas/chairs are different, anyway, however.
    Compare the near end with the far end of the *same* sofa.
    It's not a sofa bvut a markedly higher armchair. Look at the positions in relation to the whitish carpet.
    OK, naively measured on screen with a ruler queenie = 65mm truss = 90mm

    Queenie is 5'3". This means that either the bit we can see of LT is about 7'5" and that doesn't include her feet, or PB should belatedly adopt the renaissance discovery of linear perspective.
    I don't think they were using wide angle lenses for photography quite that far back.

    The famous photo of the Carters with the Bidens is more on point.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/us/politics/biden-carters-photo.html
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Arnolfini_Portrait,_détail_(2)_spherize-50.jpg
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this painting - captured in a photo I took in a Florentine church ten days ago - quite important?

    Pas de googling

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682
    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Thats BS. Boris wasn't brought down by Brexit at all.
    And nor was Cameron, who wasn't "brought down" at all...
    He brought himself down through hubris, which is the more common route than the clown bringing himself down through dishonesty.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    Leon said:


    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this painting - captured in a photo I took in a Florentine church ten days ago - quite important?

    Pas de googling

    Early excample of perspective? Uccello?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682

    Scott_xP said:
    Private eye cover incoming - any takers for a comical caption?
    HMQ: "Do you know Leon?"
    HMQ: “A well-placed friend tells me that aliens….”
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,792
    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    The level of intervention required by the state in energy is such that it should (but probably won't be) the final nail in the coffin for its farcical privatisation. What an absolute joke it is.

    Nationalise rail, water and energy. The privateers are absolutely hopeless, require endless handholding by taxpayers, earn a fortune and do sweet eff all for their money.

    Nationalise them.

    Your answer to everything: nationalise!

    And as has been seen in the past, blanket nationalisation is just as bad (perhaps even worse) than blanket privatisation.

    So a question: when you call for 'energy' to be nationalised, what exactly are you saying? What's the program? What constitutes 'energy' ?
    First we nationalise everything. Including all the Furrin countries with natural gas that are selling it to us.

    There’s a word for that in the dictionary, so they say.
    There's a case for public ownership where a good is truly essential and is standard - ie the same regardless of supplier - and therefore affordable supply is far more important than choice.

    Energy fits the bill - but this doesn't mean nationalizing the whole chain. Eg instead of a plethora of "competing" outfits in the delivery space you could have a single public org. Simpler, more efficient, free of froth, profiteering and pointless complexity.

    Worth looking at, imo, but as a longer term thing not as a fix for this crisis.
    France is opting for nationalization of EDF. Although I think that's probably easier for them as their govt owned most of EDF anyway. Vattenfall in Sweden is 100% state-owned also.

    I think given the enormous investment that's needed, and the fact that govts can borrow a lot cheaper than private sector - there's definitely a case for state-owned companies. Definitely a risk that politicians will interfere - but that happens with privatised companies too.
    We should just have a single, democratically accountable energy provider in public ownership. It would be worth it not to have go through dick ache of trying to work out whether you're getting fucked over not when choosing one. It's like a combination of Squid Game and Fermat's Last Theorem.
  • Leon said:


    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this painting - captured in a photo I took in a Florentine church ten days ago - quite important?

    Pas de googling

    It's an early tromp l'oeil. Might have been the inspiration for Dali's Christ of St John on the Cross.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,054
    edited September 2022
    Dynamo: "Did your mum have an Irish background? And have there been others in her family who can do the same thing? I am guessing yes and yes...Some have no clue and can only scoff..."

    Dura: "Fenian music teacher from Fermanagh. Possible Bean Sidhe."

    OK that exchange is much more spooky than anything @Leon could come up with...And I thought the fairy rings were there for decoration if not a brew as they were out in the open.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:


    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this painting - captured in a photo I took in a Florentine church ten days ago - quite important?

    Pas de googling

    Early excample of perspective? Uccello?
    You’re super close but it’s even more impressive than that. Not Uccello

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    IshmaelZ said:

    slade said:

    Note that the media are referring to our new PM as Ms Truss rather than Mrs O'Leary. So why did we not have Ms Roberts and Ms Brasier? Changed times I suppose.

    Because that is what she has always traded as

    wtf was brasier anyway?
    TM as was.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:


    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this painting - captured in a photo I took in a Florentine church ten days ago - quite important?

    Pas de googling

    Trompe l oeil of 2 figures outside the frame?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682

    ...

    Ah well everyone, remember we’ve got Fizzy Lizzy’s speech to the nation to look forward to later. Set your watches.

    Can’t wait for the bit where she tells us she’ll deliver us from bad delivery of delivered policies and will deliver more delivery than anyone has ever delivered before.

    For sure, the Prayer of St Francis of Assisi incoming shortly.
    For decades it seems whatever an incoming PM says in their ‘steps of downing street’ speech is the precise opposite of what later comes to pass…
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    @carnyx is closest
  • slade said:

    Note that the media are referring to our new PM as Ms Truss rather than Mrs O'Leary. So why did we not have Ms Roberts and Ms Brasier? Changed times I suppose.

    Not really. Everyone has the right to choose how they’re known professionally (and personally for that matter). I suppose you can say it’s more common now for women to keeps their maiden names particularly for professional purposes.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,911
    IshmaelZ said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    eristdoof said:

    Today, for first time in history, we will have six former Prime Ministers still alive: John Major (79), Tony Blair (69), Gordon Brown (71), David Cameron (55), Theresa May (65) and Boris Johnson (58). What’s remarkable is how young these ex-PMs are - none is yet 80.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1567074637825150978

    This makes me realise that I have reached another one of those age realisations.
    It started when an England football player was younger than me. The next landmark was when there was an England cricket player younger than me. Then the England football/cricket captain wer younger than me, then all the whole team was younger than me.

    Gradually the politicians take over the role with MPs younger than me, then a LOTO younger than me (Milliband) but today for the first time there is a Prime Minister younger than me!
    It’s when you are older than the US President that you really need to worry
    oh …phew!

    Obama was about 16 days younger than me....
    Truss, with whom I share a birthday, is younger than my youngest child.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    @carnyx is closest

    giotto?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    edited September 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has the Queen shrunk even more? She was never tall but even so.
    Perspective is distorting the relative heights - Truss is closer to the camera.
    Yes, you can see the effect of perspective by comparing the apparent height of each end of the sofas.
    The sofas/chairs are different, anyway, however.
    Compare the near end with the far end of the *same* sofa.
    It's not a sofa bvut a markedly higher armchair. Look at the positions in relation to the whitish carpet.
    OK, naively measured on screen with a ruler queenie = 65mm truss = 90mm

    Queenie is 5'3". This means that either the bit we can see of LT is about 7'5" and that doesn't include her feet, or PB should belatedly adopt the renaissance discovery of linear perspective.
    I don't think they were using wide angle lenses for photography quite that far back.

    The famous photo of the Carters with the Bidens is more on point.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/us/politics/biden-carters-photo.html
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Arnolfini_Portrait,_détail_(2)_spherize-50.jpg
    Point.

    But if I were quibbling, I'd note it's a mirror, not a lens.

    And rather more pertinently, it's not a rectilinear corrected lens (a 19thC invention) - which is what distorts perspective to the extent seen in the two photographs.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,448
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I am sceptical about claims that Russia can hold on to its current occupied territory after a ceasefire, without too much effort.

    The car of the so-called "commandant" of Russia-occupied city of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblast of Ukraine, was reportedly blown up.

    According to Readovka, he was seriously injured and already transferred to the hospital.The car of the so-called "commandant" of Russia-occupied city of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblast of Ukraine, was reportedly blown up.

    According to Readovka, he was seriously injured and already transferred to the hospital.

    https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1567133605838594048


    Yes, whatever happens now, Russia has ensured the eternal and furious enmity of a large nation of 45m people right next door. It’s a long term catastrophe for Russia

    Ukrainians will be trying to murder Russians for decades to come. Did Putin not figure this out? Ukraine is not Chechnya

    Also: there are 2m Ukrainians INSIDE Russia who will now be saboteurs all their lives
    On a more low key note, most Ukrainians speak both Ukrainian and Russian fluently, millions have Russian as a first language but consider themselves to be Ukranian rather than "Russian living in the Ukraine".
    Quite a few Ukranians have told me that even those with Russian as a 1st language are now uneasy speaking Russian and are moving over to speaking Ukranian as much as possible. This includes in the family at home.

    This has the potential to bring about a long term cultural change in the Ukraine away from it's neighbours, which is ceratinly exactly the opposite of what Putin is attempting to achieve.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,448
    geoffw said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    eristdoof said:

    Today, for first time in history, we will have six former Prime Ministers still alive: John Major (79), Tony Blair (69), Gordon Brown (71), David Cameron (55), Theresa May (65) and Boris Johnson (58). What’s remarkable is how young these ex-PMs are - none is yet 80.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1567074637825150978

    This makes me realise that I have reached another one of those age realisations.
    It started when an England football player was younger than me. The next landmark was when there was an England cricket player younger than me. Then the England football/cricket captain wer younger than me, then all the whole team was younger than me.

    Gradually the politicians take over the role with MPs younger than me, then a LOTO younger than me (Milliband) but today for the first time there is a Prime Minister younger than me!
    It’s when you are older than the US President that you really need to worry
    oh …phew!

    Obama was about 16 days younger than me....
    Truss, with whom I share a birthday, is younger than my youngest child.
    I presume you mean temporally and not spatially.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has the Queen shrunk even more? She was never tall but even so.
    Perspective is distorting the relative heights - Truss is closer to the camera.
    Yes, you can see the effect of perspective by comparing the apparent height of each end of the sofas.
    The sofas/chairs are different, anyway, however.
    Compare the near end with the far end of the *same* sofa.
    It's not a sofa bvut a markedly higher armchair. Look at the positions in relation to the whitish carpet.
    The sofa on the right is surely a sofa and the end furthest away looks a damn sight shorter than the arm nearest us, like HM & PM, which is due to perspective and where we came in.
  • Leon said:


    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this painting - captured in a photo I took in a Florentine church ten days ago - quite important?

    Pas de googling

    First example of AI applied to human art (Alien Intelligence)?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    @carnyx is closest

    giotto?
    Nope

    It’s really quite a famous painting. I’m a little surprised the pb arts brains trust can’t nail it

    It’s very relevant to the debate we’re having about The Size of The Queen
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,054
    It's like a flashback to my art history course here - we're going to be discussing Alberti and the Florence Baptistry doors before we know it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    @carnyx is closest

    giotto?
    Nope

    It’s really quite a famous painting. I’m a little surprised the pb arts brains trust can’t nail it

    It’s very relevant to the debate we’re having about The Size of The Queen
    I did wonder if it was a camera lucida job but thought that was developed a lot later.
  • Carnyx said:

    Leon said:


    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this painting - captured in a photo I took in a Florentine church ten days ago - quite important?

    Pas de googling

    Early excample of perspective? Uccello?
    The roof looks like Brunelleschi - is it inside a Brunelleschi building?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    @carnyx is closest

    giotto?
    Nope

    It’s really quite a famous painting. I’m a little surprised the pb arts brains trust can’t nail it

    It’s very relevant to the debate we’re having about The Size of The Queen
    Got bored, googled. Shoulda known that. I actually have a Hist of Art A level (C) because it got you on to the easter hols school trip to Italy
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    The Fire Brigades Union said today that 32,500 of its members, including control room staff, across the UK will vote in the coming weeks on a nationwide walkout, which would be the union’s first in a decade

    The FBU’s announcement was made just hours before the new prime minister, Liz Truss, was to take office, and follows a wave of industrial action this summer by tens of thousands of workers https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-leadership-election-results-2022-liz-truss-rishi-sunak-next-prime-minister-live-d7d5rdcjn

    Hospitals could also be hit by strike action as 300,000 nursing staff across the UK are being sent ballots on industrial action, for the first time in the 100-year history of the Royal College of Nursing trade union https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nurses-strike-inevitable-says-union-chief-93wphswpj
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Ghedebrav said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:


    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this painting - captured in a photo I took in a Florentine church ten days ago - quite important?

    Pas de googling

    Early excample of perspective? Uccello?
    The roof looks like Brunelleschi - is it inside a Brunelleschi building?
    No, but Brunelleschi is totally relevant to that painting (actually a fresco)

  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Oh god. The dear old queen looks terrible

    A well placed friend told me to expect London Bridge soon, just the other day
    Hardly the rashest of predictions for an elderly 96 year old lady, recently bereaved, and clearly in poor health. And also not the first such prediction. @Foxy seems likely to be on the money - spinal issues hence back ache leading to reduced mobility.
    The actuarial risk of death within the next year is over 25% at age 96, almost 27% at age 97, and over 28% at 98.

    So, as you say, hardly a big call. Indeed, whilst it's possible the Queen could see one more of these handovers, it's more likely than not that Liz is Liz's last PM.
    I'd class the Queen as going from good health (for her age) to moderate health over the last year. Nothing to indicate she is in 'poor' health.

    So, in the middle of the actuarial range.

    A big factor is that, once an elderly person starts going into hospital more frequently with more complex requirements, the non zero chance of medical or care errors at each visit multiply, and life shortening mistakes become more likely (I'd guess 1 in 3 deaths have such factors at play). You'd suspect the Queen is far less likely than most to suffer such a fate, so her actuarial chances are better than average.
    But the reason elderly people die as a result of complications isn't primarily because care is shoddy or errors slip in as people get older. They are simply more vulnerable.

    So, whilst I agree she'll get high quality care, the risk of a 90-something year old dying in surgery with no errors being made and the best doctors money can buy is high.
    They also die as a result of complications because (HMQ aside) the NHS quite often sees old people as no real priority. If they die no one will be coming after the hospital with a lawsuit. Old people die and hence the NHS is quite good at not providing the right care for them.
    Do you think other healthcare systems around the world arrive at very different outcomes in terms of actuarial risk of death at that stage?

    At 70, your risk of dying in the next year is little more than 1%. At 80, it's about 4%. At 90, it's getting on for 15%. At 100, it's over 40%.

    The exponential rise is true everywhere and it really isn't credible that it is driven by standard of care and attitudes to the elderly in a particular place. Your body just packs up at that stage and there is little anyone can do but make you more comfortable. A high standard of care can shave a bit off your risk, but it's at the margins and the exponential nature of the rise has to be driven by nature almost entirely.
    Yes. Shapes of bell curves is unilluminating though when you are looking at individual cases. Absent a hotline to her personal physician, every factor you can think of is in her favour: safety from accidental falls, quality of life (surgeons often decline to operate on post 90s if they think they are having a shit time anyway), longevity of mum (dad irrelevant as tobacco involved), motivation to live, mental acuity, quality of care to be expected if needed. All going her way.

    Medical friends of mine said in 2011 that the NHS would have let Prince Philip croak if he had been anyone else. So there's an extra 9 years royalness gets you.
    She's had her nine years above the typical, plus VAT.

    I don't doubt people can buy a few years if they have a few quid. But the fact is you hit a rising wall of exponentially increased risk related to biology - which is the same for the Queen as the rest of us - and the stats worldwide suggest that utterly overwhelms the (important) marginal benefits of quality care as you get into super old age.
    That is a cast iron argument against her making 110...
    The exponential rise in risk of death in your late 80s and 90s... that's the brick wall of the biology we all share.

    The Queen is well placed to get great care, but not uniquely so, and the brick wall is still there. Are merchant bankers massively well represented in supercentenarians? I rather doubt it - at that stage it's essentially decent genetics, sensible lifestyle earlier on, and VAST amounts of luck.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    @carnyx is closest

    giotto?
    Nope

    It’s really quite a famous painting. I’m a little surprised the pb arts brains trust can’t nail it

    It’s very relevant to the debate we’re having about The Size of The Queen
    I did wonder if it was a camera lucida job but thought that was developed a lot later.
    You were much closer earlier. Just amp up the answer
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    edited September 2022
    Ok it’s The Holy Trinity by Masaccio in Santa Maria Novella

    Thought by many to be the first use of true linear perspective in a painting. So very very notable

    http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/famous-paintings/holy-trinity-masaccio.htm
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,909
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    @carnyx is closest

    giotto?
    Nope

    It’s really quite a famous painting. I’m a little surprised the pb arts brains trust can’t nail it

    It’s very relevant to the debate we’re having about The Size of The Queen
    It’s a massacio but relies a huge amount on Brunelleschi. Possibly a joint effort we were taught.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    @carnyx is closest

    giotto?
    Nope

    It’s really quite a famous painting. I’m a little surprised the pb arts brains trust can’t nail it

    It’s very relevant to the debate we’re having about The Size of The Queen
    It’s a massacio but relies a huge amount on Brunelleschi. Possibly a joint effort we were taught.
    You must have sent that before you saw my comment so you win the prize!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    NEW: Liz Truss has appointed her Number 10 team (first reported by @Steven_Swinford):

    - Mark Fullbrook: chief of staff
    - @ruthoporter: deputy chief of staff
    - @adjones_88: director of political communications
    - @iaincarter: head of policy

    https://www.ft.com/content/88d2a7f0-4c81-4c35-ba72-cafcd36559de

    Truss' core Number 10 team cont:

    - Simon McGee: director of comms (role has been spilt)
    - @SophieJarvis94: political secretary
    - Matt Sinclair: chief economic advisor
    - John Bew: foreign affairs advisor (one of the few to stay from Johnson era)

    https://www.ft.com/content/88d2a7f0-4c81-4c35-ba72-cafcd36559de
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,054
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    @carnyx is closest

    giotto?
    Nope

    It’s really quite a famous painting. I’m a little surprised the pb arts brains trust can’t nail it

    It’s very relevant to the debate we’re having about The Size of The Queen
    It’s a massacio but relies a huge amount on Brunelleschi. Possibly a joint effort we were taught.
    Exactly. Brunelleschi and Alberti paved the way.

    This is a classic example, very sorry to say but there it is, of @Leon's insecurity and competitiveness.

    Some of us (in the mists of time) studied all this and, as this episode has demonstrated, have forgotten more than @Leon knows but he finds it amusing to hold a PB quiz to try to show his intelligence.

    Sorry @Leon - don't mean this to be mean but really, you don't have to set PB quizzes on renaissance painting for us to love you.
  • Liz may not make her speech if it’s raining when she arrives at Downing Street, apparently. She’ll wait til it clears up.

    Come on Liz, if you want to give a rallying cry for Brits to show grit and determination through the winter then you shouldn’t let a bit of rain stop you!
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    98 handle for euro vs dollar
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has the Queen shrunk even more? She was never tall but even so.
    Perspective is distorting the relative heights - Truss is closer to the camera.
    Yes, you can see the effect of perspective by comparing the apparent height of each end of the sofas.
    The sofas/chairs are different, anyway, however.
    Compare the near end with the far end of the *same* sofa.
    It's not a sofa bvut a markedly higher armchair. Look at the positions in relation to the whitish carpet.
    The sofa on the right is surely a sofa and the end furthest away looks a damn sight shorter than the arm nearest us, like HM & PM, which is due to perspective and where we came in.
    Where is Father Dougal when we need him?

    About to be made Truss’s foreign secretary, no doubt.
  • Liz may not make her speech if it’s raining when she arrives at Downing Street, apparently. She’ll wait til it clears up.

    Come on Liz, if you want to give a rallying cry for Brits to show grit and determination through the winter then you shouldn’t let a bit of rain stop you!

    "I am going to freeze... [awkward pause] energy bills"
  • TOPPING said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    @carnyx is closest

    giotto?
    Nope

    It’s really quite a famous painting. I’m a little surprised the pb arts brains trust can’t nail it

    It’s very relevant to the debate we’re having about The Size of The Queen
    It’s a massacio but relies a huge amount on Brunelleschi. Possibly a joint effort we were taught.
    Exactly. Brunelleschi and Alberti paved the way.

    This is a classic example, very sorry to say but there it is, of @Leon's insecurity and competitiveness.

    Some of us (in the mists of time) studied all this and, as this episode has demonstrated, have forgotten more than @Leon knows but he finds it amusing to hold a PB quiz to try to show his intelligence.

    Sorry @Leon - don't mean this to be mean but really, you don't have to set PB quizzes on renaissance painting for us to love you.
    It briefly took our minds off today's renaissance in Downing Street.
  • IanB2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has the Queen shrunk even more? She was never tall but even so.
    Perspective is distorting the relative heights - Truss is closer to the camera.
    Yes, you can see the effect of perspective by comparing the apparent height of each end of the sofas.
    The sofas/chairs are different, anyway, however.
    Compare the near end with the far end of the *same* sofa.
    It's not a sofa bvut a markedly higher armchair. Look at the positions in relation to the whitish carpet.
    The sofa on the right is surely a sofa and the end furthest away looks a damn sight shorter than the arm nearest us, like HM & PM, which is due to perspective and where we came in.
    Where is Father Dougal when we need him?

    About to be made Truss’s foreign secretary, no doubt.
    He was offered the role, but declined, saying "c'mon, do I look like a complete eejit?"
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    edited September 2022
    Leon said:


    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this painting - captured in a photo I took in a Florentine church ten days ago - quite important?

    Pas de googling

    Deleted. As it was answered earlier.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Oh god. The dear old queen looks terrible

    A well placed friend told me to expect London Bridge soon, just the other day
    Hardly the rashest of predictions for an elderly 96 year old lady, recently bereaved, and clearly in poor health. And also not the first such prediction. @Foxy seems likely to be on the money - spinal issues hence back ache leading to reduced mobility.
    The actuarial risk of death within the next year is over 25% at age 96, almost 27% at age 97, and over 28% at 98.

    So, as you say, hardly a big call. Indeed, whilst it's possible the Queen could see one more of these handovers, it's more likely than not that Liz is Liz's last PM.
    I'd class the Queen as going from good health (for her age) to moderate health over the last year. Nothing to indicate she is in 'poor' health.

    So, in the middle of the actuarial range.

    A big factor is that, once an elderly person starts going into hospital more frequently with more complex requirements, the non zero chance of medical or care errors at each visit multiply, and life shortening mistakes become more likely (I'd guess 1 in 3 deaths have such factors at play). You'd suspect the Queen is far less likely than most to suffer such a fate, so her actuarial chances are better than average.
    But the reason elderly people die as a result of complications isn't primarily because care is shoddy or errors slip in as people get older. They are simply more vulnerable.

    So, whilst I agree she'll get high quality care, the risk of a 90-something year old dying in surgery with no errors being made and the best doctors money can buy is high.
    They also die as a result of complications because (HMQ aside) the NHS quite often sees old people as no real priority. If they die no one will be coming after the hospital with a lawsuit. Old people die and hence the NHS is quite good at not providing the right care for them.
    Do you think other healthcare systems around the world arrive at very different outcomes in terms of actuarial risk of death at that stage?

    At 70, your risk of dying in the next year is little more than 1%. At 80, it's about 4%. At 90, it's getting on for 15%. At 100, it's over 40%.

    The exponential rise is true everywhere and it really isn't credible that it is driven by standard of care and attitudes to the elderly in a particular place. Your body just packs up at that stage and there is little anyone can do but make you more comfortable. A high standard of care can shave a bit off your risk, but it's at the margins and the exponential nature of the rise has to be driven by nature almost entirely.
    Yes. Shapes of bell curves is unilluminating though when you are looking at individual cases. Absent a hotline to her personal physician, every factor you can think of is in her favour: safety from accidental falls, quality of life (surgeons often decline to operate on post 90s if they think they are having a shit time anyway), longevity of mum (dad irrelevant as tobacco involved), motivation to live, mental acuity, quality of care to be expected if needed. All going her way.

    Medical friends of mine said in 2011 that the NHS would have let Prince Philip croak if he had been anyone else. So there's an extra 9 years royalness gets you.
    She's had her nine years above the typical, plus VAT.

    I don't doubt people can buy a few years if they have a few quid. But the fact is you hit a rising wall of exponentially increased risk related to biology - which is the same for the Queen as the rest of us - and the stats worldwide suggest that utterly overwhelms the (important) marginal benefits of quality care as you get into super old age.
    That is a cast iron argument against her making 110...
    The exponential rise in risk of death in your late 80s and 90s... that's the brick wall of the biology we all share.

    The Queen is well placed to get great care, but not uniquely so, and the brick wall is still there. Are merchant bankers massively well represented in supercentenarians? I rather doubt it - at that stage it's essentially decent genetics, sensible lifestyle earlier on, and VAST amounts of luck.
    Chinese billionaires seem very accident-prone.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited September 2022

    Liz may not make her speech if it’s raining when she arrives at Downing Street, apparently. She’ll wait til it clears up.

    This is getting exquisite. Heavy fog at Aberdeen airport, and now rain at Downing Street may delay the speech.

    From Aberdeen:

    image

    Not quite as much artistry as with the Ever Given before it blocked the Suez Canal:

    image


  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    IanB2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has the Queen shrunk even more? She was never tall but even so.
    Perspective is distorting the relative heights - Truss is closer to the camera.
    Yes, you can see the effect of perspective by comparing the apparent height of each end of the sofas.
    The sofas/chairs are different, anyway, however.
    Compare the near end with the far end of the *same* sofa.
    It's not a sofa bvut a markedly higher armchair. Look at the positions in relation to the whitish carpet.
    The sofa on the right is surely a sofa and the end furthest away looks a damn sight shorter than the arm nearest us, like HM & PM, which is due to perspective and where we came in.
    Where is Father Dougal when we need him?

    About to be made Truss’s foreign secretary, no doubt.
    NI Protocol?
    That would be an ecumenical matter.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,145
    edited September 2022

    IanB2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has the Queen shrunk even more? She was never tall but even so.
    Perspective is distorting the relative heights - Truss is closer to the camera.
    Yes, you can see the effect of perspective by comparing the apparent height of each end of the sofas.
    The sofas/chairs are different, anyway, however.
    Compare the near end with the far end of the *same* sofa.
    It's not a sofa bvut a markedly higher armchair. Look at the positions in relation to the whitish carpet.
    The sofa on the right is surely a sofa and the end furthest away looks a damn sight shorter than the arm nearest us, like HM & PM, which is due to perspective and where we came in.
    Where is Father Dougal when we need him?

    About to be made Truss’s foreign secretary, no doubt.
    He was offered the role, but declined, saying "c'mon, do I look like a complete eejit?"
    Surely, the expert we need on photographs and perspective is Professor Peston FRS, DipSHit
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Sir Bernard Jenkin quite rightly ridicules Pannick's opinion, on the Johnson investigation.

    Jenkin told Radio 4’s World at One that the committee would respond to Pannick in due course. But he went on:

    "Ask yourself; do you think it is possible that a committee could recommend a sanction against a member for inadvertently misleading the house? Do you think the House of Commons would vote for that? I’m amazed I need to say this. It is totally absurd.
    And the idea that we’ve moved the goalposts, or changed anything – will change anything. There is no evidence of that."...
  • Nigelb said:

    Sir Bernard Jenkin quite rightly ridicules Pannick's opinion, on the Johnson investigation.

    Jenkin told Radio 4’s World at One that the committee would respond to Pannick in due course. But he went on:

    "Ask yourself; do you think it is possible that a committee could recommend a sanction against a member for inadvertently misleading the house? Do you think the House of Commons would vote for that? I’m amazed I need to say this. It is totally absurd.
    And the idea that we’ve moved the goalposts, or changed anything – will change anything. There is no evidence of that."...

    In other words, Don't Pannick!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    RobD said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    So, are taxes going up or is the new PM going to borrow £90bn extra?

    Last I checked (admittedly a year or more ago) our debt interest payments were already £55bn or thereabouts.

    Taxes are going DOWN supposedly - so it's hitting the credit card big time.

    But fear not. With taxes slashed the "animal spirits" will be unleashed and it'll be go go go for the economy - in very short order this will translate to a bigger pie and all will partake.
    Covid has already shown that Modern Monetary Theory only works short term and results in inflation.

    So the Truss plan is to continue using MMT until your pound is worthless as the leaf in the HHGTTG (where 1 peanut ended up costing three deciduous forests)
    It's weird, because I've seen articles say that she is also concerned about the loose monetary policy of the BoE, that there is too much money in circulation.
    Well she’s not wrong there. Half a trillion that needs un-printing.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Nigelb said:

    Sir Bernard Jenkin quite rightly ridicules Pannick's opinion, on the Johnson investigation.

    Jenkin told Radio 4’s World at One that the committee would respond to Pannick in due course. But he went on:

    "Ask yourself; do you think it is possible that a committee could recommend a sanction against a member for inadvertently misleading the house? Do you think the House of Commons would vote for that? I’m amazed I need to say this. It is totally absurd.
    And the idea that we’ve moved the goalposts, or changed anything – will change anything. There is no evidence of that."...

    So why publish an opinion on 21 June saying that the committee had the power to do exactly that?
  • IanB2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has the Queen shrunk even more? She was never tall but even so.
    Perspective is distorting the relative heights - Truss is closer to the camera.
    Yes, you can see the effect of perspective by comparing the apparent height of each end of the sofas.
    The sofas/chairs are different, anyway, however.
    Compare the near end with the far end of the *same* sofa.
    It's not a sofa bvut a markedly higher armchair. Look at the positions in relation to the whitish carpet.
    The sofa on the right is surely a sofa and the end furthest away looks a damn sight shorter than the arm nearest us, like HM & PM, which is due to perspective and where we came in.
    Where is Father Dougal when we need him?

    About to be made Truss’s foreign secretary, no doubt.
    He was offered the role, but declined, saying "c'mon, do I look like a complete eejit?"
    "Eejit? What's that then, Ted?"
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,759
    edited September 2022
    I've been leaked the contents of the new PM's Downing St. speech:

    We are going to use our world-beating fiscal firepower to deliver deliver deliver.
    On the people's priorities.
    We will deliver cheaper energy. Details to follow.
    We will deliver your letters. We will break the strikes.
    We will deliver levelling-up. By making sure that rich people in the North keep more of their own money.
    We will deliver a growing economy. By trying really hard.
    And we will deliver the biggest cheese export programme ever seen.
    And we will deliver a united nation. United against Putin. United against people crossing the Channel in small boats. And, to reflect my schooling, Leeds United.
    Thank you. Very. Much.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    edited September 2022
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    So, are taxes going up or is the new PM going to borrow £90bn extra?

    Last I checked (admittedly a year or more ago) our debt interest payments were already £55bn or thereabouts.

    Taxes are going DOWN supposedly - so it's hitting the credit card big time.

    But fear not. With taxes slashed the "animal spirits" will be unleashed and it'll be go go go for the economy - in very short order this will translate to a bigger pie and all will partake.
    Covid has already shown that Modern Monetary Theory only works short term and results in inflation.

    So the Truss plan is to continue using MMT until your pound is worthless as the leaf in the HHGTTG (where 1 peanut ended up costing three deciduous forests)
    It's weird, because I've seen articles say that she is also concerned about the loose monetary policy of the BoE, that there is too much money in circulation.
    Well she’s not wrong there. Half a trillion that needs un-printing.
    We haven't heard much from the BoE recently.

    Was there a purdah during the tory PM election?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,338
    It is quite something to watch Truss becoming PM.
    In all honesty, you can only wish her the best of luck.
    I think the thing that she has got going for her, is that she is a pragmatic survivor and has got some stuff done, ie when she made a load of mediocre trade deals at quite a fast rate.
    She has also managed to suppress her apparent 'free market/low tax/pro privatisation' beliefs to a sufficient degree to serve in Boris Johnsons government as it kept doing the opposite.
    She played the leadership election campaign correctly, just telling the electorate what they wanted to hear.
    The reality is that now she can completely ignore them if she wants.
    As the header says, it is the MP's she needs to think about.



  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682

    I've been leaked the contents of the new PM's Downing St. speech:

    We are going to use our world-beating fiscal firepower to deliver deliver deliver.
    On the people's priorities.
    We will deliver cheaper energy. Details to follow.
    We will deliver your letters. We will break the strikes.
    We will deliver levelling-up. By making sure that rich people in the North keep more of their own money.
    We will deliver a growing economy. By trying really hard.
    And we will deliver the biggest cheese export programme ever seen.
    And we will deliver a united nation. United against Putin. United against people crossing the Channel in small boats. And, to reflect my schooling, Leeds United.
    Thank you. Very. Much.

    And she’ll never say the word ‘disgrace’ again, for the rest of her career….
  • Foxy said:

    First names of the last four finance ministers—
    France: Bruno, Michel, Pierre, François
    Germany: Christian, Olaf, Peter, Wolfgang
    Italy: Daniele, Roberto, Giovanni, Pier Carlo
    Britain: Kwasi, Nadhim, Rishi, Sajid


    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1566820707912368128

    Whose finances are in best shape is perhaps the question to ask!
    Debt as % GDP:

    Italy: 151
    France: 113
    UK: 96
    Germany: 69
    Is that the measure that was UK under 40% in 2007 - before years of Austerity (for some) to bring it down! 🫣

    Where would US be on that current list, if I have been paying attention, PBs St Bart the Pirate will comment here that 140% is actually no problem at all, only beyond that it goes squizzy.
    137%

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp?continent=america

    So is St Bart the pirate actually right on this one, this is a pointless measure to use for economic health and strength? The Tory austerity years, the lasting impact of them in income divides, was not actually necessary?
    ????????

    I have NEVER said that. In fact I've always said the exact opposite.

    There is no specific debt to GDP number that "matters" but what matters far more is an overall look at the deficit, whether debt to GDP is going up or down, and where you are in the economic cycle.
  • Nigelb said:

    Sir Bernard Jenkin quite rightly ridicules Pannick's opinion, on the Johnson investigation.

    Jenkin told Radio 4’s World at One that the committee would respond to Pannick in due course. But he went on:

    "Ask yourself; do you think it is possible that a committee could recommend a sanction against a member for inadvertently misleading the house? Do you think the House of Commons would vote for that? I’m amazed I need to say this. It is totally absurd.
    And the idea that we’ve moved the goalposts, or changed anything – will change anything. There is no evidence of that."...

    It's weird. I used to think Bernard Jenkin was a complete oaf, but I heard that interview and he was remarkably sensible, as he often is these days. People change, I guess.
  • Nigelb said:

    Sir Bernard Jenkin quite rightly ridicules Pannick's opinion, on the Johnson investigation.

    Jenkin told Radio 4’s World at One that the committee would respond to Pannick in due course. But he went on:

    "Ask yourself; do you think it is possible that a committee could recommend a sanction against a member for inadvertently misleading the house? Do you think the House of Commons would vote for that? I’m amazed I need to say this. It is totally absurd.
    And the idea that we’ve moved the goalposts, or changed anything – will change anything. There is no evidence of that."...

    It's weird. I used to think Bernard Jenkin was a complete oaf, but I heard that interview and he was remarkably sensible, as he often is these days. People change, I guess.
    The world around us has changed more than he has. It is damning of the political world that anyone remotely sane sounds remarkably reasonable.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    .
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    @carnyx is closest

    giotto?
    Nope

    It’s really quite a famous painting. I’m a little surprised the pb arts brains trust can’t nail it

    It’s very relevant to the debate we’re having about The Size of The Queen
    It's really not that relevant.

    John Henry Dallmeyer is the guy who is.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dynamo said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Oh god. The dear old queen looks terrible

    A well placed friend told me to expect London Bridge soon, just the other day
    Hardly the rashest of predictions for an elderly 96 year old lady, recently bereaved, and clearly in poor health. And also not the first such prediction. @Foxy seems likely to be on the money - spinal issues hence back ache leading to reduced mobility.
    Of all the certainties and uncertainties in this world - aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, whether Radiohead is the best band in the world (or not), the most certain is that @Leon does not have a "well placed friend" who would be in a position to comment on this.
    My late mother (pb.com passim) claimed to be able to predict, with some fidelity, when people would die from looking at the back of their necks.

    About four months before my father died she looked at his neck while they were watching Pointless and said, "Well, you haven't got long."

    It's a pity she's not around to tell us when Brenda will go in off the black.
    Did your mum have an Irish background? And have there been others in her family who can do the same thing? I am guessing yes and yes.

    Some have no clue and can only scoff...
    Fenian music teacher from Fermanagh. Possible Bean Sidhe.
    The ability sounded Irish or Gaelic. A friend of mine with a Scots Gaelic-speaking grandmother from Islay saw a plane crashing into a block of flats a few hours before the El Al 1862 did exactly that in Amsterdam. His aunt had similar experiences.
  • Nigelb said:

    Sir Bernard Jenkin quite rightly ridicules Pannick's opinion, on the Johnson investigation.

    Jenkin told Radio 4’s World at One that the committee would respond to Pannick in due course. But he went on:

    "Ask yourself; do you think it is possible that a committee could recommend a sanction against a member for inadvertently misleading the house? Do you think the House of Commons would vote for that? I’m amazed I need to say this. It is totally absurd.
    And the idea that we’ve moved the goalposts, or changed anything – will change anything. There is no evidence of that."...

    It's weird. I used to think Bernard Jenkin was a complete oaf, but I heard that interview and he was remarkably sensible, as he often is these days. People change, I guess.
    The world around us has changed more than he has. It is damning of the political world that anyone remotely sane sounds remarkably reasonable.
    Yes, fair point. Expectations have indeed changed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    IanB2 said:

    I've been leaked the contents of the new PM's Downing St. speech:

    We are going to use our world-beating fiscal firepower to deliver deliver deliver.
    On the people's priorities.
    We will deliver cheaper energy. Details to follow.
    We will deliver your letters. We will break the strikes.
    We will deliver levelling-up. By making sure that rich people in the North keep more of their own money.
    We will deliver a growing economy. By trying really hard.
    And we will deliver the biggest cheese export programme ever seen.
    And we will deliver a united nation. United against Putin. United against people crossing the Channel in small boats. And, to reflect my schooling, Leeds United.
    Thank you. Very. Much.

    And she’ll never say the word ‘disgrace’ again, for the rest of her career….
    What about 'cheese?'
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127
    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Thats BS. Boris wasn't brought down by Brexit at all.
    And nor was Cameron, who wasn't "brought down" at all...
    He brought himself down through hubris, which is the more common route than the clown bringing himself down through dishonesty.
    Well, he quit when under no pressure at all.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,354
    edited September 2022

    Liz may not make her speech if it’s raining when she arrives at Downing Street, apparently. She’ll wait til it clears up.

    Come on Liz, if you want to give a rallying cry for Brits to show grit and determination through the winter then you shouldn’t let a bit of rain stop you!

    BBC saying she will deliver it from inside no 10 at 4.40pm if it is raining
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,911
     
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    I've been leaked the contents of the new PM's Downing St. speech:

    We are going to use our world-beating fiscal firepower to deliver deliver deliver.
    On the people's priorities.
    We will deliver cheaper energy. Details to follow.
    We will deliver your letters. We will break the strikes.
    We will deliver levelling-up. By making sure that rich people in the North keep more of their own money.
    We will deliver a growing economy. By trying really hard.
    And we will deliver the biggest cheese export programme ever seen.
    And we will deliver a united nation. United against Putin. United against people crossing the Channel in small boats. And, to reflect my schooling, Leeds United.
    Thank you. Very. Much.

    And she’ll never say the word ‘disgrace’ again, for the rest of her career….
    What about 'cheese?'
    Ah, just what I was thinking Gromit.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    geoffw said:

     

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    I've been leaked the contents of the new PM's Downing St. speech:

    We are going to use our world-beating fiscal firepower to deliver deliver deliver.
    On the people's priorities.
    We will deliver cheaper energy. Details to follow.
    We will deliver your letters. We will break the strikes.
    We will deliver levelling-up. By making sure that rich people in the North keep more of their own money.
    We will deliver a growing economy. By trying really hard.
    And we will deliver the biggest cheese export programme ever seen.
    And we will deliver a united nation. United against Putin. United against people crossing the Channel in small boats. And, to reflect my schooling, Leeds United.
    Thank you. Very. Much.

    And she’ll never say the word ‘disgrace’ again, for the rest of her career….
    What about 'cheese?'
    Ah, just what I was thinking Gromit.

    This is Truss we're talking about, not Wallace.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    Understand the current plan is for Nadhim Zahawi to take on the equalities brief as well as running the Cabinet Office (previously it was Liz Truss in conjunction with being foreign secretary).

    But a bit unclear whether he'll be minister for women as well...

    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1567156190806679553
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    edited September 2022
    New U.S. Rule Could ‘Impair’ China’s AI Progress
    https://www.eetimes.com/new-u-s-rule-could-impair-chinas-ai-progress/
    The U.S. government’s fresh restrictions on sales of Nvidia GPUs are expected to slow China’s AI progress, which one analyst says leads the world.

    The U.S. has placed controls on sales of chips to China and Russia over concerns that the processors may have military uses. The measure is the latest salvo in a tech war between the U.S. and China that began under the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump and has continued under President Joe Biden. On Aug. 12, the U.S. Department of Commerce established new controls over exports of technology from several countries that it said are essential to U.S. national security.

    “The U.S. government has imposed a new license requirement, effective immediately, for any future export to China (including Hong Kong) and Russia of (Nvidia’s) A100 and forthcoming H100 integrated circuits,” Nvidia said this week in a corporate filing. “The license requirement also includes any future Nvidia integrated circuit achieving both peak performance and chip-to-chip I/O performance equal to or greater than thresholds that are roughly equivalent to the A100, as well as any system that includes those circuits.”

    While it remains unclear what license conditions and approval process the U.S. government will adopt, those most reliant on Nvidia are Chinese hyperscalers like Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent, as well as horizontal AI players like Sensetime, Megvii, and Yitu...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    Yield on UK 10-year gilts (sovereign bonds) rise to over 3% and sterling starts slipping again as leaks indicate Truss plans £100bn intervention in energy markets, requiring shed load more borrowing.
    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1567156929595588608
  • Scott_xP said:

    Understand the current plan is for Nadhim Zahawi to take on the equalities brief as well as running the Cabinet Office (previously it was Liz Truss in conjunction with being foreign secretary).

    But a bit unclear whether he'll be minister for women as well...

    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1567156190806679553

    He could transition into the role perhaps.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975

    Foxy said:

    First names of the last four finance ministers—
    France: Bruno, Michel, Pierre, François
    Germany: Christian, Olaf, Peter, Wolfgang
    Italy: Daniele, Roberto, Giovanni, Pier Carlo
    Britain: Kwasi, Nadhim, Rishi, Sajid


    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1566820707912368128

    Whose finances are in best shape is perhaps the question to ask!
    Debt as % GDP:

    Italy: 151
    France: 113
    UK: 96
    Germany: 69
    Is that the measure that was UK under 40% in 2007 - before years of Austerity (for some) to bring it down! 🫣

    Where would US be on that current list, if I have been paying attention, PBs St Bart the Pirate will comment here that 140% is actually no problem at all, only beyond that it goes squizzy.
    137%

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp?continent=america

    So is St Bart the pirate actually right on this one, this is a pointless measure to use for economic health and strength? The Tory austerity years, the lasting impact of them in income divides, was not actually necessary?
    ????????

    I have NEVER said that. In fact I've always said the exact opposite.

    There is no specific debt to GDP number that "matters" but what matters far more is an overall look at the deficit, whether debt to GDP is going up or down, and where you are in the economic cycle.
    You only know where you were in the "economic cycle" since it takes shape in retrospect.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682
    Driver said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Thats BS. Boris wasn't brought down by Brexit at all.
    And nor was Cameron, who wasn't "brought down" at all...
    He brought himself down through hubris, which is the more common route than the clown bringing himself down through dishonesty.
    Well, he quit when under no pressure at all.
    But he had no choice, really. Look at how being tainted as a remainer played out for Mrs M. The remarkable thing is how Truss has been so keenly welcomed by the head banging brigade.
This discussion has been closed.