It will interesting to see if all this calms down somewhat after tomorrow. Hoping for a lovely service for a lady who served her country well, and tirelessly. RIP.
I think people would be pretty annoyed if things did not calm down. That's the whole point of a mourning period ending at the funeral after all, that after that everyone gets their shit together.
Calm down? It seems about as disruptive, in London, as the Marathon. Yes, a bunch of streets are closed. But it’s a tiny patch in central London.
Unless you get wound up by the pictures in shop windows, what is there to be annoyed about?
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
There is no perfect electoral system: it is merely a question of which problems you find most acceptable.
For example, one of the problems with the UK's First Past the Post is that it is difficult for minority views to gain a foothold against entrenched parties. I think the UK might have avoided getting in so deep with the EU if there was an opportunity for a Eurosceptic party to gain seats. There is also the problem, which the US has right now, where in many constituencies gaining your party's nomination is much more important than gaining the broad support of your electorate.
On the other hand, single member FPTP constituencies bring with them a direct local link between representatives and voters.
At the absolute other end of the spectrum, with Party List PR, the problem you have is that not only in the local link severed, but the power to choose individual representatives is taken out of the hands of voters and handed to party bosses. Against that: if enough people care about animal welfare to get an animal welfare party into Parliament, well that's OK.
The older I get, the more attracted I get to small constituency, multi-member STV: it retains local representation, while allowing voters to choose which of (for example) the three Conservative candidates is elected. And by having relatively small constituencies, it means that majorities - while slightly less rare than under FPTP - are far from impossible. It also allows popular independents a decent shot.
Most forms of PR tend towards having no majority. That creates a major detriment to democracy, as the politicians can back out of manifesto pledges as the price of coalition and you the voter never know which ones they cynically will ditch...
Because that never happens with FPTP.
Riiight.
In FPTP the coalitions are internal to the parties. In PR they are often external.
A 'procession of religion representatives' apparently.
We've got:
President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Representative of the Baha'i Community Representative of the Jain Community Representative of the Zoroastrian Community Representative of the Buddhist Community Representative of the Sikh Community General Secretary of the Hindu Council UK Interfaith Co-ordinator, Al-Khoei Foundation A Muslim Scholar; and Chief Rabbi of Great Britain
Any surprising omissions?
There is a large list of top clerics listed further below that list, which looks reasonably comprehensive with respect to Christian denominations.
No pastafarians or scientologists
No Rastafarians either, which feels like an omission? On part of the Palace or the Rastafarians - or both?
No Wiccans.
No pagans.
No Free Church of Scotland (Continuing or otherwise). The only representatives of "the churches of Scotland" are from the CoS, the Episcopalians, and the Roman Catholic church.
No Sephardim.
No Mormons.
No Jehovah's Witnesses.
No Ahmadiyya Muslims.
No Shintoists. No Daoists. No Spiritualists or Spiritists. No manbos or oungans.
The Wee Free would have to throw themselves out of their own church for attending. Attending anything vaguely like a religious ceremony with Catholics visible is EVUL
Harry’s friends are saying he is heartbroken that ‘ER’ has been ‘removed’ from his uniform. It was never there. Here’s a pic from the wedding. Journalists should do some research before falling for the victim narrative #HarryandMeghan #TheMarkles
Morning all, on a rather sad day. It is indeed the passing of an era, an event we all knew would come one day, but it’s still shocking when it does. Thanks for your service, Ma’am.
A 'procession of religion representatives' apparently.
We've got:
President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Representative of the Baha'i Community Representative of the Jain Community Representative of the Zoroastrian Community Representative of the Buddhist Community Representative of the Sikh Community General Secretary of the Hindu Council UK Interfaith Co-ordinator, Al-Khoei Foundation A Muslim Scholar; and Chief Rabbi of Great Britain
Any surprising omissions?
As is sadly typical, there is no Pastafarian representative.
A 'procession of religion representatives' apparently.
We've got:
President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Representative of the Baha'i Community Representative of the Jain Community Representative of the Zoroastrian Community Representative of the Buddhist Community Representative of the Sikh Community General Secretary of the Hindu Council UK Interfaith Co-ordinator, Al-Khoei Foundation A Muslim Scholar; and Chief Rabbi of Great Britain
Any surprising omissions?
As is sadly typical, there is no Pastafarian representative.
A 'procession of religion representatives' apparently.
We've got:
President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Representative of the Baha'i Community Representative of the Jain Community Representative of the Zoroastrian Community Representative of the Buddhist Community Representative of the Sikh Community General Secretary of the Hindu Council UK Interfaith Co-ordinator, Al-Khoei Foundation A Muslim Scholar; and Chief Rabbi of Great Britain
Any surprising omissions?
As is sadly typical, there is no Pastafarian representative.
They should penne complaint.
Took you linguine enough to come up with that
Enough. We're surely pasta that sort of thing on here.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
There is no perfect electoral system: it is merely a question of which problems you find most acceptable.
For example, one of the problems with the UK's First Past the Post is that it is difficult for minority views to gain a foothold against entrenched parties. I think the UK might have avoided getting in so deep with the EU if there was an opportunity for a Eurosceptic party to gain seats. There is also the problem, which the US has right now, where in many constituencies gaining your party's nomination is much more important than gaining the broad support of your electorate.
On the other hand, single member FPTP constituencies bring with them a direct local link between representatives and voters.
At the absolute other end of the spectrum, with Party List PR, the problem you have is that not only in the local link severed, but the power to choose individual representatives is taken out of the hands of voters and handed to party bosses. Against that: if enough people care about animal welfare to get an animal welfare party into Parliament, well that's OK.
The older I get, the more attracted I get to small constituency, multi-member STV: it retains local representation, while allowing voters to choose which of (for example) the three Conservative candidates is elected. And by having relatively small constituencies, it means that majorities - while slightly less rare than under FPTP - are far from impossible. It also allows popular independents a decent shot.
Most forms of PR tend towards having no majority. That creates a major detriment to democracy, as the politicians can back out of manifesto pledges as the price of coalition and you the voter never know which ones they cynically will ditch...
Because that never happens with FPTP.
Riiight.
In FPTP the coalitions are internal to the parties. In PR they are often external.
And if we changed from FPTP to a form of PR I’d expect these parties to split into individual parties too.
A 'procession of religion representatives' apparently.
We've got:
President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Representative of the Baha'i Community Representative of the Jain Community Representative of the Zoroastrian Community Representative of the Buddhist Community Representative of the Sikh Community General Secretary of the Hindu Council UK Interfaith Co-ordinator, Al-Khoei Foundation A Muslim Scholar; and Chief Rabbi of Great Britain
Any surprising omissions?
As is sadly typical, there is no Pastafarian representative.
They should penne complaint.
Took you linguine enough to come up with that
Enough. We're surely pasta that sort of thing on here.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
There is no perfect electoral system: it is merely a question of which problems you find most acceptable.
For example, one of the problems with the UK's First Past the Post is that it is difficult for minority views to gain a foothold against entrenched parties. I think the UK might have avoided getting in so deep with the EU if there was an opportunity for a Eurosceptic party to gain seats. There is also the problem, which the US has right now, where in many constituencies gaining your party's nomination is much more important than gaining the broad support of your electorate.
On the other hand, single member FPTP constituencies bring with them a direct local link between representatives and voters.
At the absolute other end of the spectrum, with Party List PR, the problem you have is that not only in the local link severed, but the power to choose individual representatives is taken out of the hands of voters and handed to party bosses. Against that: if enough people care about animal welfare to get an animal welfare party into Parliament, well that's OK.
The older I get, the more attracted I get to small constituency, multi-member STV: it retains local representation, while allowing voters to choose which of (for example) the three Conservative candidates is elected. And by having relatively small constituencies, it means that majorities - while slightly less rare than under FPTP - are far from impossible. It also allows popular independents a decent shot.
Most forms of PR tend towards having no majority. That creates a major detriment to democracy, as the politicians can back out of manifesto pledges as the price of coalition and you the voter never know which ones they cynically will ditch...
Because that never happens with FPTP.
Riiight.
In FPTP the coalitions are internal to the parties. In PR they are often external.
And if we changed from FPTP to a form of PR I’d expect these parties to split into individual parties too.
Yes
The Peoples Judean Front The Popular Front For Judea The Judean Peoples Front Splitters etc etc
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Your objection does not appear to be to PR, but to what happens when there is a hung result. This is slightly commoner under PR than FPTP, but it happens under FPTP, and PR can deliver non-hung results.
If you don’t want hung results, then what you need is a directly elected executive. That’s usually achieved through electing a President. Only one person wins, ergo no hung results.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
There is no perfect electoral system: it is merely a question of which problems you find most acceptable.
For example, one of the problems with the UK's First Past the Post is that it is difficult for minority views to gain a foothold against entrenched parties. I think the UK might have avoided getting in so deep with the EU if there was an opportunity for a Eurosceptic party to gain seats. There is also the problem, which the US has right now, where in many constituencies gaining your party's nomination is much more important than gaining the broad support of your electorate.
On the other hand, single member FPTP constituencies bring with them a direct local link between representatives and voters.
At the absolute other end of the spectrum, with Party List PR, the problem you have is that not only in the local link severed, but the power to choose individual representatives is taken out of the hands of voters and handed to party bosses. Against that: if enough people care about animal welfare to get an animal welfare party into Parliament, well that's OK.
The older I get, the more attracted I get to small constituency, multi-member STV: it retains local representation, while allowing voters to choose which of (for example) the three Conservative candidates is elected. And by having relatively small constituencies, it means that majorities - while slightly less rare than under FPTP - are far from impossible. It also allows popular independents a decent shot.
Most forms of PR tend towards having no majority. That creates a major detriment to democracy, as the politicians can back out of manifesto pledges as the price of coalition and you the voter never know which ones they cynically will ditch...
Because that never happens with FPTP.
Riiight.
In FPTP the coalitions are internal to the parties. In PR they are often external.
And if we changed from FPTP to a form of PR I’d expect these parties to split into individual parties too.
Yes, and I'd expect the Tory party to shed it's ukip fringe and the Labour party to shed it's corbynite momentum fringe. Parties would then have to work together to get a majority, or not as the case may be. Minority governments with C+S would be more viable. It's a shame the Fixed term parliaments act was never allowed to work either.
A 'procession of religion representatives' apparently.
We've got:
President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Representative of the Baha'i Community Representative of the Jain Community Representative of the Zoroastrian Community Representative of the Buddhist Community Representative of the Sikh Community General Secretary of the Hindu Council UK Interfaith Co-ordinator, Al-Khoei Foundation A Muslim Scholar; and Chief Rabbi of Great Britain
Any surprising omissions?
There is a large list of top clerics listed further below that list, which looks reasonably comprehensive with respect to Christian denominations.
No pastafarians or scientologists
No Rastafarians either, which feels like an omission? On part of the Palace or the Rastafarians - or both?
No Wiccans.
No pagans.
No Free Church of Scotland (Continuing or otherwise). The only representatives of "the churches of Scotland" are from the CoS, the Episcopalians, and the Roman Catholic church.
No Sephardim.
No Mormons.
No Jehovah's Witnesses.
No Ahmadiyya Muslims.
No Shintoists. No Daoists. No Spiritualists or Spiritists. No manbos or oungans.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
There is no perfect electoral system: it is merely a question of which problems you find most acceptable.
For example, one of the problems with the UK's First Past the Post is that it is difficult for minority views to gain a foothold against entrenched parties. I think the UK might have avoided getting in so deep with the EU if there was an opportunity for a Eurosceptic party to gain seats. There is also the problem, which the US has right now, where in many constituencies gaining your party's nomination is much more important than gaining the broad support of your electorate.
On the other hand, single member FPTP constituencies bring with them a direct local link between representatives and voters.
At the absolute other end of the spectrum, with Party List PR, the problem you have is that not only in the local link severed, but the power to choose individual representatives is taken out of the hands of voters and handed to party bosses. Against that: if enough people care about animal welfare to get an animal welfare party into Parliament, well that's OK.
The older I get, the more attracted I get to small constituency, multi-member STV: it retains local representation, while allowing voters to choose which of (for example) the three Conservative candidates is elected. And by having relatively small constituencies, it means that majorities - while slightly less rare than under FPTP - are far from impossible. It also allows popular independents a decent shot.
Most forms of PR tend towards having no majority. That creates a major detriment to democracy, as the politicians can back out of manifesto pledges as the price of coalition and you the voter never know which ones they cynically will ditch...
Because that never happens with FPTP.
Riiight.
In FPTP the coalitions are internal to the parties. In PR they are often external.
Which is a positive and a negative. On the positive side, you can choose which bit of a coalition you wish to strengthen. On the negative, you never know exactly what the government you think you're voting for will look like.
With that said... small multimember STV (i.e. 3-4 MPs per constituency) would be mildly more proportional, while not resulting in too much fragmentation. It's the system used in Spain, and I think I quite approve.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
And that's a special case of referendum voters voting for something that, for whatever reason, turns out to be impossible. Or not possible without hideous side effects that nobody really wants.
Sometimes, government really is about letting people down, even your own voters, because not doing so leads to even worse consequences.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
More like telling the pols to spend loads of money on stuff they like but not ask them to pay for it. Which is par for the course.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
There is no perfect electoral system: it is merely a question of which problems you find most acceptable.
For example, one of the problems with the UK's First Past the Post is that it is difficult for minority views to gain a foothold against entrenched parties. I think the UK might have avoided getting in so deep with the EU if there was an opportunity for a Eurosceptic party to gain seats. There is also the problem, which the US has right now, where in many constituencies gaining your party's nomination is much more important than gaining the broad support of your electorate.
On the other hand, single member FPTP constituencies bring with them a direct local link between representatives and voters.
At the absolute other end of the spectrum, with Party List PR, the problem you have is that not only in the local link severed, but the power to choose individual representatives is taken out of the hands of voters and handed to party bosses. Against that: if enough people care about animal welfare to get an animal welfare party into Parliament, well that's OK.
The older I get, the more attracted I get to small constituency, multi-member STV: it retains local representation, while allowing voters to choose which of (for example) the three Conservative candidates is elected. And by having relatively small constituencies, it means that majorities - while slightly less rare than under FPTP - are far from impossible. It also allows popular independents a decent shot.
Most forms of PR tend towards having no majority. That creates a major detriment to democracy, as the politicians can back out of manifesto pledges as the price of coalition and you the voter never know which ones they cynically will ditch...
Because that never happens with FPTP.
Riiight.
In FPTP the coalitions are internal to the parties. In PR they are often external.
Which is a positive and a negative. On the positive side, you can choose which bit of a coalition you wish to strengthen. On the negative, you never know exactly what the government you think you're voting for will look like.
With that said... small multimember STV (i.e. 3-4 MPs per constituency) would be mildly more proportional, while not resulting in too much fragmentation. It's the system used in Spain, and I think I quite approve.
Closed list PR, by historic province (think counties in England). Does mean the city "constituencies" are pretty big; Madrid has 37 seats done as one list, wheas somewhere like Burgos has 4.
There's probably a practical limit where it's not fair to demand people express preferences. You don't want them going 1,2,3 down the sheet out of sheer exhaustion. I doubt that is written down anywhere- 5 or so?
Good morning everyone. Today will be a day unlike any of us have seen before. Some will feel it deeply, others will just be watching. But we’ll all remember. Something has gone that is never coming back. A new country will begin to emerge tomorrow.
Good morning everyone. Today will be a day unlike any of us have seen before. Some will feel it deeply, others will just be watching. But we’ll all remember. Something has gone that is never coming back. A new country will begin to emerge tomorrow.
Meh. I'll remember what I was doing to avoid the whole thing.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
There is no perfect electoral system: it is merely a question of which problems you find most acceptable.
For example, one of the problems with the UK's First Past the Post is that it is difficult for minority views to gain a foothold against entrenched parties. I think the UK might have avoided getting in so deep with the EU if there was an opportunity for a Eurosceptic party to gain seats. There is also the problem, which the US has right now, where in many constituencies gaining your party's nomination is much more important than gaining the broad support of your electorate.
On the other hand, single member FPTP constituencies bring with them a direct local link between representatives and voters.
At the absolute other end of the spectrum, with Party List PR, the problem you have is that not only in the local link severed, but the power to choose individual representatives is taken out of the hands of voters and handed to party bosses. Against that: if enough people care about animal welfare to get an animal welfare party into Parliament, well that's OK.
The older I get, the more attracted I get to small constituency, multi-member STV: it retains local representation, while allowing voters to choose which of (for example) the three Conservative candidates is elected. And by having relatively small constituencies, it means that majorities - while slightly less rare than under FPTP - are far from impossible. It also allows popular independents a decent shot.
Most forms of PR tend towards having no majority. That creates a major detriment to democracy, as the politicians can back out of manifesto pledges as the price of coalition and you the voter never know which ones they cynically will ditch...
Because that never happens with FPTP.
Riiight.
Quite why we would want to have a manifesto religiously observed for 5 years is beyond me. Many manifesto promises don't survive contact with reality and are rightly dropped. In addition 'Events' may render much of a manifesto obsolete and different policies are needed. I know they get junked for fun a lot of the time, but the alternative is a straight jacket and no ability to act preemptively or reactively.
Good morning everyone. Today will be a day unlike any of us have seen before. Some will feel it deeply, others will just be watching. But we’ll all remember. Something has gone that is never coming back. A new country will begin to emerge tomorrow.
A big day ahead. The world will be watching. I imagine there are a few nervous souls. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for security today.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
In November there are multiple ballot propositions regarding on-line gambling.
If none of them pass, that's OK. If one of them passes, that's OK. If more than one passes - given that some call for certain things to be banned, while others call for them to be legal - then it will be a total shit show.
Good morning everyone. Today will be a day unlike any of us have seen before. Some will feel it deeply, others will just be watching. But we’ll all remember. Something has gone that is never coming back. A new country will begin to emerge tomorrow.
Good morning everyone. Today will be a day unlike any of us have seen before. Some will feel it deeply, others will just be watching. But we’ll all remember. Something has gone that is never coming back. A new country will begin to emerge tomorrow.
Mr O that was what was said 70 years ago both immediately after her father's death and at the time of her coronation. The papers, as I recall, were full of stuff about a new Elizabethan age! There is I suppose a positive in that the last King Charles was known as the Merry Monarch!
At least it's a fine dry day; here anyway. I hope everyone does what they wish to to do today, whether it be glued to the television or ignoring what's going on in London altogether. Or whatever happens in between!
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
In November there are multiple ballot propositions regarding on-line gambling.
If none of them pass, that's OK. If one of them passes, that's OK. If more than one passes - given that some call for certain things to be banned, while others call for them to be legal - then it will be a total shit show.
The issue California has is that it has a lack of quality control within it's referendums which allow completely contradictory items to be voted on separately.
However I don't think there is any easy fix for that which would be acceptable to American Politicians given the current situation there. I suspect change will only occur when the total shit show you describe actually appears but even then that probably won't happen.
The courts will just decide that one referendum overrides the other. It's possible that would be the one with the higher referendum number - it's more likely that the more contentious one will win as being harder to count it was announced later than the more popular one..
Good morning everyone. Today will be a day unlike any of us have seen before. Some will feel it deeply, others will just be watching. But we’ll all remember. Something has gone that is never coming back. A new country will begin to emerge tomorrow.
Mr O that was what was said 70 years ago both immediately after her father's death and at the time of her coronation. The papers, as I recall, were full of stuff about a new Elizabethan age! There is I suppose a positive in that the last King Charles was known as the Merry Monarch!
At least it's a fine dry day; here anyway. I hope everyone does what they wish to to do today, whether it be glued to the television or ignoring what's going on in London altogether. Or whatever happens in between!
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
Trouble is that everyone agrees that some government spending is on useless stuff.
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
Trouble is that everyone agrees that some government spending is on useless stuff.
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
Trouble is that everyone agrees that some government spending is on useless stuff.
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
2 big aircraft carriers.... anyone?
We've already lost Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales has changed a lot.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
Trouble is that everyone agrees that some government spending is on useless stuff.
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
Department name changes. Spurious legal advice. Downing Street media centre. Ministerial jets.
A 'procession of religion representatives' apparently.
We've got:
President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Representative of the Baha'i Community Representative of the Jain Community Representative of the Zoroastrian Community Representative of the Buddhist Community Representative of the Sikh Community General Secretary of the Hindu Council UK Interfaith Co-ordinator, Al-Khoei Foundation A Muslim Scholar; and Chief Rabbi of Great Britain
Any surprising omissions?
There is a large list of top clerics listed further below that list, which looks reasonably comprehensive with respect to Christian denominations.
No pastafarians or scientologists
No Rastafarians either, which feels like an omission? On part of the Palace or the Rastafarians - or both?
No Wiccans.
No pagans.
No Free Church of Scotland (Continuing or otherwise). The only representatives of "the churches of Scotland" are from the CoS, the Episcopalians, and the Roman Catholic church.
No Sephardim.
No Mormons.
No Jehovah's Witnesses.
No Ahmadiyya Muslims.
No Shintoists. No Daoists. No Spiritualists or Spiritists. No manbos or oungans.
The Wee Free would have to throw themselves out of their own church for attending. Attending anything vaguely like a religious ceremony with Catholics visible is EVUL
No, you're confusing Anglican Catholics with Roman Catholics (it is the service that can be the issue, not the other guests). Also you need to specify which Wee Free KIrk you mean.
If you have in mind the Free Presbyterians, and the row over Lord Mackay attending a RC requiem mass, they did have a huge argument and a split about it, to the credit of some at least.
PS Looks as if Scotland and Wales each got 3 sect leaders, so rough justice on the smaller sects anyway. Ireland seems to have done better though I suspect it's a bit of 3 for the North and 3 for the South.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
There is no perfect electoral system: it is merely a question of which problems you find most acceptable.
For example, one of the problems with the UK's First Past the Post is that it is difficult for minority views to gain a foothold against entrenched parties. I think the UK might have avoided getting in so deep with the EU if there was an opportunity for a Eurosceptic party to gain seats. There is also the problem, which the US has right now, where in many constituencies gaining your party's nomination is much more important than gaining the broad support of your electorate.
On the other hand, single member FPTP constituencies bring with them a direct local link between representatives and voters.
At the absolute other end of the spectrum, with Party List PR, the problem you have is that not only in the local link severed, but the power to choose individual representatives is taken out of the hands of voters and handed to party bosses. Against that: if enough people care about animal welfare to get an animal welfare party into Parliament, well that's OK.
The older I get, the more attracted I get to small constituency, multi-member STV: it retains local representation, while allowing voters to choose which of (for example) the three Conservative candidates is elected. And by having relatively small constituencies, it means that majorities - while slightly less rare than under FPTP - are far from impossible. It also allows popular independents a decent shot.
Most forms of PR tend towards having no majority. That creates a major detriment to democracy, as the politicians can back out of manifesto pledges as the price of coalition and you the voter never know which ones they cynically will ditch...
Because that never happens with FPTP.
Riiight.
In FPTP the coalitions are internal to the parties. In PR they are often external.
And if we changed from FPTP to a form of PR I’d expect these parties to split into individual parties too.
Yes
The Peoples Judean Front The Popular Front For Judea The Judean Peoples Front Splitters etc etc
No need for that if you have the system of Single Transferable Votes in Multi-Member constituencies. As an elector, you just decide which candidate comes overall closest to your position and that candidate gets your first choice vote. Then your second vote goes to your second choice candidate and so on. As easy as 1, 2, 3...
It is your first preference vote that counts, until and unless your preferred candidate no longer needs your vote- either because he is out of the running being that last candidate, or because he already has quite enough votes to be sure of winning.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
Trouble is that everyone agrees that some government spending is on useless stuff.
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
Department name changes. Spurious legal advice. Downing Street media centre. Ministerial jets.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
Trouble is that everyone agrees that some government spending is on useless stuff.
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
Department name changes. Spurious legal advice. Downing Street media centre. Ministerial jets.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
Trouble is that everyone agrees that some government spending is on useless stuff.
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
2 big aircraft carriers.... anyone?
Long term liquid gas storage costed a fortune. Obviously it was "useless sh*t". The govt of the day did well to get rid of it. I mean, why would we ever need it?
I must admit that he's been very impressive, on this at least.
Agreed. But I also think he's been quite good in Ukraine as well. The p*ss was taken out of him for his phone calls with Putin earlier in the war, but the recently-released videos of calls with Zelensky and others has put a slightly different slant on those calls. Macron has provided Ukraine with aid and weaponry, whilst trying to change Putin's mind. Much better IMO than Germany's position of somewhat hesitantly providing weapons and aid, whilst many within Germany try to back Russia's position. Germany's position has been an almighty mess.
Johnson, Macron and Biden have showd good leadership in this crisis IMO.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Salmon Wellington. Salmon referencing Scotland. Wellington the arch where she will transfer for her final journey to Windsor.
Dauphinoise Potatoes. Yes far too French but Royal. The male heir has ascended to the throne and a new male heir takes his place. And Macron has-been so damn decent through all this.
Broccoli. For Cubby Broccoli, Bond movie producer. Referencing HMQs starring role in the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony.
Carrots. She was a 24 carat good egg. And I like carrots.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It wasn't a political choice, there was no way to avoid borrowing for that, other than not offering that level of support.
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
The tax cuts promised raise eyebrows within the Conservative Party. Former Chancellor Sunak, for example, does not believe they will encourage growth.
There were alternatives to funding the energy support packages by borrowing alone.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
The tax cuts promised raise eyebrows within the Conservative Party. Former Chancellor Sunak, for example, does not believe they will encourage growth.
There were alternatives to funding the energy support packages by borrowing alone.
The so-called tax cuts are just reverting tax rates back to what they were five months ago.
That Sunak found that objectionable is precisely why he wasn't fit to be Chancellor, or Prime Minister.
There was no borrowing-free alternative to funding the energy support. Even a 100% tax rate as opposed to 65% we're already at wouldn't have covered the support.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It is a 100 billion (not million) but despite a windfall tax of about £8 billion, Labour would have borrowed the rest
After the cowardice shown by the Police in Cardiff & Leeds, they finally start arresting the violent protesters trying to shut down a peaceful rally….in Brighton:
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It wasn't a political choice, there was no way to avoid borrowing for that, other than not offering that level of support.
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
You could mix and match taxation and borrowing under the circumstances. It doesn't have to be one, or the other.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It wasn't a political choice, there was no way to avoid borrowing for that, other than not offering that level of support.
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
She didn’t need to borrow 100B. She left money on the table and then cut taxes. Odd move, not fiscally conservative . 🤷♂️ We’re not going to agree on this, but I am sure that you can see a slight lack of coherence in your argument. Truss borrowing good. Brown borrowing bad.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
The tax cuts promised raise eyebrows within the Conservative Party. Former Chancellor Sunak, for example, does not believe they will encourage growth.
There were alternatives to funding the energy support packages by borrowing alone.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
On this occasion it was necessary - it’s equivalent to the bank bailout - the government using its balance sheet to protect the economy
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It is a 100 billion (not million) but despite a windfall tax of about £8 billion, Labour would have borrowed the rest
Good spot. Bs not Ms. Sorry. The brutal truth is Truss borrowed a lot more than she needed to. A political choice.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It wasn't a political choice, there was no way to avoid borrowing for that, other than not offering that level of support.
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
You could mix and match taxation and borrowing under the circumstances. It doesn't have to be one, or the other.
So you recognise that borrowing was completely unavoidable under the current circumstances?
Absolutely debating what level of taxation there should be is an appropriate discussion, but avoiding borrowing wasn't possible. Personally I'm not convinced increasing tax on energy generation beyond the 65% it is already would have been productive when we need investment to generate more domestic energy supplies. 65% of a bigger pie tends to be better than 100% of no pie.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It wasn't a political choice, there was no way to avoid borrowing for that, other than not offering that level of support.
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
She didn’t need to borrow 100B. She left money on the table and then cut taxes. Odd move, not fiscally conservative . 🤷♂️ We’re not going to agree on this, but I am sure that you can see a slight lack of coherence in your argument. Truss borrowing good. Brown borrowing bad.
Brown borrowing in 2008 during the financial crisis was not something I've criticised him for. What part of that are you struggling to understand, it was the borrowing before the financial crisis that was objectionable.
We're presently at the financial crisis stage.
Interesting though that you view 65% taxation as "leaving money on the table" as if all money should automatically be taxes, even more than 65%. Interesting perspective and not one I'll ever agree with, you're right.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
Trouble is that everyone agrees that some government spending is on useless stuff.
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
2 big aircraft carriers.... anyone?
1 big aircraft carrier. We always seem to have a broken one.
What is wrong with the navy these days? We also had those ships whose engines kept breaking down in the Gulf because the water was too warm.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It wasn't a political choice, there was no way to avoid borrowing for that, other than not offering that level of support.
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
You could mix and match taxation and borrowing under the circumstances. It doesn't have to be one, or the other.
So you recognise that borrowing was completely unavoidable under the current circumstances?
Absolutely debating what level of taxation there should be is an appropriate discussion, but avoiding borrowing wasn't possible. Personally I'm not convinced increasing tax on energy generation beyond the 65% it is already would have been productive when we need investment to generate more domestic energy supplies. 65% of a bigger pie tends to be better than 100% of no pie.
But the windfall finds it way predominantly into shareholder dividends rather than reinvestment. The "we can't reinvest if we incurr a 5% or 10% windfall tax" is a spurious argument. In fact it's a lie.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It wasn't a political choice, there was no way to avoid borrowing for that, other than not offering that level of support.
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
She didn’t need to borrow 100B. She left money on the table and then cut taxes. Odd move, not fiscally conservative . 🤷♂️ We’re not going to agree on this, but I am sure that you can see a slight lack of coherence in your argument. Truss borrowing good. Brown borrowing bad.
Brown borrowing in 2008 during the financial crisis was not something I've criticised him for. What part of that are you struggling to understand, it was the borrowing before the financial crisis that was objectionable.
We're presently at the financial crisis stage.
She is borrowing more than she needs to now with the real possibility that the economy is about to worsen and she will need to borrow significantly more in the years to come.
🤷♂️ Anyway, we are unlikely to agree. Something for us to ponder in the last hours of political consensus. In my view, Truss is not getting this right. Maybe you’re right, Truss can take the risk and it’s all fine and dandy.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
Average structural fiscal deficit as % GDP:
1981-1996 3.6%* 1997-2010 2.9% 2011-2022 3.2%.
* IMF WEO data not available for 1979-80.
Those date ranges are cherrypicked and not matching economic cycles.
In case you missed it the issue again is that we had a surplus in 2002 and then Brown pissed that away before the recession hit, so incorporating 2002 figures in an average just conceals the damage that Brown did. Had Brown just not pissed away our surplus, and kept the budget balanced until the recession hit, then we would have been well placed when the financial crisis hit, but he didn't.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It wasn't a political choice, there was no way to avoid borrowing for that, other than not offering that level of support.
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
You could mix and match taxation and borrowing under the circumstances. It doesn't have to be one, or the other.
So you recognise that borrowing was completely unavoidable under the current circumstances?
Absolutely debating what level of taxation there should be is an appropriate discussion, but avoiding borrowing wasn't possible. Personally I'm not convinced increasing tax on energy generation beyond the 65% it is already would have been productive when we need investment to generate more domestic energy supplies. 65% of a bigger pie tends to be better than 100% of no pie.
But the windfall finds it way predominantly into shareholder dividends rather than reinvestment. The "we can't reinvest if we incurr a 5% or 10% windfall tax" is a spurious argument. In fact it's a lie.
What do you mean 5% or 10% tax? We already have a 65% tax.
How high a tax do you want if not 65% and how much would it actually raise? Especially considering much of the energy we consume is untaxable because it comes from the likes of Qatar or Denmark and so isn't in our tax jurisdiction.
At his time of life, a gentle trot is the most he should be thinking about.
Defeating Trump matters, arguably the only thing that matters. The person most likely to do that needs to stand. The argument for Biden is that he has beaten Trump once already. The only person so to do. Who else can do it?
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
Average structural fiscal deficit as % GDP:
1981-1996 3.6%* 1997-2010 2.9% 2011-2022 3.2%.
* IMF WEO data not available for 1979-80.
I think you’ve cut your data
IIRC the first couple of years of Blair’s government they stuck to Clarke’s plans… they were starting from a very good place which would help the average.
At his time of life, a gentle trot is the most he should be thinking about.
Defeating Trump matters, arguably the only thing that matters. The person most likely to do that needs to stand. The argument for Biden is that he has beaten Trump once already. The only person so to do. Who else can do it?
Paul Merton's Rt. Hon. Tub of Lard MP is probably ineligible to run but would be a better candidate than Trump.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It wasn't a political choice, there was no way to avoid borrowing for that, other than not offering that level of support.
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
You could mix and match taxation and borrowing under the circumstances. It doesn't have to be one, or the other.
So you recognise that borrowing was completely unavoidable under the current circumstances?
Absolutely debating what level of taxation there should be is an appropriate discussion, but avoiding borrowing wasn't possible. Personally I'm not convinced increasing tax on energy generation beyond the 65% it is already would have been productive when we need investment to generate more domestic energy supplies. 65% of a bigger pie tends to be better than 100% of no pie.
But the windfall finds it way predominantly into shareholder dividends rather than reinvestment. The "we can't reinvest if we incurr a 5% or 10% windfall tax" is a spurious argument. In fact it's a lie.
Sunak has already applied a windfall tax of approximately 8 billion to fund the 37billion current relief including the £400 everyone receives from a fortnight at a cost of 14 billion which Labour would remove from consumers
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
Trouble is that everyone agrees that some government spending is on useless stuff.
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
2 big aircraft carriers.... anyone?
1 big aircraft carrier. We always seem to have a broken one.
What is wrong with the navy these days? We also had those ships whose engines kept breaking down in the Gulf because the water was too warm.
The Navy has *always* had these problems with new designs. The difference being that in ye olden days we would build so many ships in most classes that the teething problems were mostly sorted by the fourth or fifth boat.
I got married on HMS Warrior. Built in 1860, it immediately obsoleted all other warships. Yet it had one major problem: it could not turn well at all under steam due to its length and lack of rudder (which was limited in size as it had to be turned by many crew). The same problem afflicted its sister, Black Prince.
But the follow-on designs mostly fixed this by having steam-powered rudders.
Witness also the problem the US Navy has had with the first of their new class of aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford. You can bet these will be fixed by the time the third, Enterprise is launched.
This sometimes does not happen; witness the problem with the US's Independence-class ships. They're building some whilst retiring the earlier ones after only a few years of service. Because they simply do not work.
This is what happens when the Overton window is booted several miles along. After the past two years, the nation is now one where people are used to having shedloads of money shovelled towards them and now is no different.
As I have to say I predicted at the time, once you say "oh this is a crisis I am right to spend billions upon billions on it" then you can say anything is a crisis and you are right to spend billions upon billions on it.
Plus what did @Leon do - post more of those pictures or something else?
I for one will miss @DavidL, @kle4 and @kjh - one can only take so much of their essential reasonableness.
I am a normal run of the mill person. We think most politicians are crap no bodies. I talk to people all over the world and they all seem to think the same. No one cares who gets elected anymore as they are all crap
Why, then, do you think that turnout at elections in most countries exceeds 50% - indeed over 80% in some? You, like most of us, extrapolate from the people you know, who by semi-conscious self-selection tend to be people like you.
because most people still turn out and vote tribally frankly. On the other hand you have people like me , I like politics , I follow politics who have now stopped bothering because there frankly is no longer any point voting because its arsehole A or arselhole b the only choice is how you want to be buggered. As tribal voting decreases and it is I expect turnout to fall.
But if, as you say, they feel that it doesn't matter who wins, why vote tribally, or at all? I don't care who wins Wimbledon, so I don't attend. Do you take sides in things you don't care about?
Over time, I don't think voting globally has gone up or down much. As HYUFD implies, it goes up a bit when there's a charismatic leader on the field (to love or hate), down a bit when they're all a bit colourless.
I havent cast a vote in a general election since 2010,I was implying turnout is upheld by tribal votes. As more and more general feeling becomes it doesnt matter who wins I still get shat on that tribal voting will decrease and I think more people will become like me non voters. It doesn't mean we dont care because we do. It means we dont think voting makes a difference under the current system.
Would you be more inclined to vote under a PR system?
No because under pr I cast a vote with no idea what I am voting for. PR would stop me voting altogether
Ever thought of changing your ID to Misanthrope?
What is misanthopitic about saying I dont like the idea of pr? Under pr I cast a vote then the people I vote for get to decide what I voted for. Personally I prefer to vote for something rather than wait for politicians to decide what I voted for. Old fashioned views maybe but I dont understand why it makes me a misanthrope
Ah, I see. So you'd like the country run as a series of referendums?
The Swiss do and it seems to work just fine for them as just about the richest and most stable country in Europe.
True, it works for them, but does anyone else do the same? By dint of much effort, luck and the right development of culture it seems like they've got a pretty good thing going, yet that doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Not really at the national level, but some western US states do so.
The only way to know if it would work for us would be to give it a try. However as it would effectively strip our political class of much of their power I won't hold my breath.
I think it's a bit of a disaster in California, because the voters are very happy to pass multiple contradictory referenda: more spending on schools, balanced budgets, no new taxes...
Basically they are telling their pols not to waste money on useless shit
Trouble is that everyone agrees that some government spending is on useless stuff.
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
2 big aircraft carriers.... anyone?
1 big aircraft carrier. We always seem to have a broken one.
What is wrong with the navy these days? We also had those ships whose engines kept breaking down in the Gulf because the water was too warm.
The Royal Yacht HMS Boris Johnson is still in the mix. I suspect that will run like clockwork in its role of national strategic importance as a timeshare for Government Ministers to holiday in style.
At his time of life, a gentle trot is the most he should be thinking about.
Defeating Trump matters, arguably the only thing that matters. The person most likely to do that needs to stand. The argument for Biden is that he has beaten Trump once already. The only person so to do. Who else can do it?
Paul Merton's Rt. Hon. Tub of Lard MP is probably ineligible to run but would be a better candidate than Trump.
Undoubtedly Lard is a better candidate than Trump, but could the Lard win against the mob? This is the highest of high stakes.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
Average structural fiscal deficit as % GDP:
1981-1996 3.6%* 1997-2010 2.9% 2011-2022 3.2%.
* IMF WEO data not available for 1979-80.
I think you’ve cut your data
IIRC the first couple of years of Blair’s government they stuck to Clarke’s plans… they were starting from a very good place which would help the average.
How about looking at 2001-8 or 2001-10?
In 2002 the fiscal situation was very, very good. There is no disputing that.
The issue is what Brown did from 2002 to 2007/08. He turned the spending caps on full blast in that time, even with taxes going up, so there was nowhere left to move then when the recession inevitably hit.
Brown was OK when he was the self-styled "Iron Chancellor" following Clarke's plans until 2002. It was after then that he trashed the economy. Averages that incorporate upto 2002 are entirely misleading or wilfully failing to understand what the problem was.
Has anyone else been contacted by their energy supplier to inform of their new tariff. Octopus Energy has told me my direct debit payment will be lowered by 43% from October.
• The Government have announced a 2 year Energy Price Guarantee, capping the increase in prices to £2,500 for a typical home • The £400 energy bill support scheme will also go ahead with monthly payments from October to March • This combination of a reduced cap and winter credits means while some unit rates will rise around 30%, typical annual costs will increase less than 10% • These discounts will be applied automatically: you don't need to do anything • Your new unit rates will match the Energy Price Guarantee, but your Octopus standing charges will be 4% lower – so you will be saving compared to Energy Price Guarantee rates from October 1 • We're not adjusting monthly payments yet for the new prices. We'll review your payments in the coming weeks and send you a recommendation should they need adjusting • However from October to March your payments will be reduced by £ XX [ENDATED], as part of the Energy Bill Support Scheme • We're working hard to help those who need it most this winter. Details below
Well done Liz!!
Thank you Mr Kwartang.
Actually I believe that everyone is to receive a personal energy statement on similar lines before the 1st October
I too am with Octopus and quite impressed. They are stopping some forms of advertising and putting the savings into a hardship fund in order to spend standing charges for 6 months for some vulnerable customers.
It is no great thank you to Ms Truss though, we will be paying off the resultant debt in other forms
Again she will get the credit.
She certainly is paying it on credit.
If you don't want that, don't ask for Government expenditure.
One of the key reasons you detested Brown was his propensity to borrow out of trouble. Why is it OK now?
Asking for a friend.
Borrowing countercyclically is not something I've ever criticised Brown for actually.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
You’re not going to be happy when you hear about Truss. Borrowing 100M unnecessarily on her second day of office before a recession.
So it was unnecessary to offer support over energy prices? That's not what you were saying a few weeks ago.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Nice try. As you well know, it was a political choice to borrow100M to fund support over energy prices. Truss like to borrow in ways that Thatcher never would have.
It wasn't a political choice, there was no way to avoid borrowing for that, other than not offering that level of support.
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
She didn’t need to borrow 100B. She left money on the table and then cut taxes. Odd move, not fiscally conservative . 🤷♂️ We’re not going to agree on this, but I am sure that you can see a slight lack of coherence in your argument. Truss borrowing good. Brown borrowing bad.
Brown borrowing in 2008 during the financial crisis was not something I've criticised him for. What part of that are you struggling to understand, it was the borrowing before the financial crisis that was objectionable.
We're presently at the financial crisis stage.
She is borrowing more than she needs to now with the real possibility that the economy is about to worsen and she will need to borrow significantly more in the years to come.
🤷♂️ Anyway, we are unlikely to agree. Something for us to ponder in the last hours of political consensus. In my view, Truss is not getting this right. Maybe you’re right, Truss can take the risk and it’s all fine and dandy.
We are witnessing a fundamental difference between Truss's low tax, small state policies v labour high tax, large state interventions, which seems to be where the public stands at present, and whoever wins this argument will form the next government
Comments
Unless you get wound up by the pictures in shop windows, what is there to be annoyed about?
https://twitter.com/dominicfarrell/status/1571517808088948736
The Peoples Judean Front
The Popular Front For Judea
The Judean Peoples Front
Splitters
etc
etc
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1571748606230634497
If you don’t want hung results, then what you need is a directly elected executive. That’s usually achieved through electing a President. Only one person wins, ergo no hung results.
With that said... small multimember STV (i.e. 3-4 MPs per constituency) would be mildly more proportional, while not resulting in too much fragmentation. It's the system used in Spain, and I think I quite approve.
Sometimes, government really is about letting people down, even your own voters, because not doing so leads to even worse consequences.
Grey, overcast day. Seems fitting.
Her reign began before that was written…
There's probably a practical limit where it's not fair to demand people express preferences. You don't want them going 1,2,3 down the sheet out of sheer exhaustion. I doubt that is written down anywhere- 5 or so?
Many manifesto promises don't survive contact with reality and are rightly dropped. In addition 'Events' may render much of a manifesto obsolete and different policies are needed.
I know they get junked for fun a lot of the time, but the alternative is a straight jacket and no ability to act preemptively or reactively.
If none of them pass, that's OK.
If one of them passes, that's OK.
If more than one passes - given that some call for certain things to be banned, while others call for them to be legal - then it will be a total shit show.
The papers, as I recall, were full of stuff about a new Elizabethan age! There is I suppose a positive in that the last King Charles was known as the Merry Monarch!
At least it's a fine dry day; here anyway.
I hope everyone does what they wish to to do today, whether it be glued to the television or ignoring what's going on in London altogether. Or whatever happens in between!
However I don't think there is any easy fix for that which would be acceptable to American Politicians given the current situation there. I suspect change will only occur when the total shit show you describe actually appears but even then that probably won't happen.
The courts will just decide that one referendum overrides the other. It's possible that would be the one with the higher referendum number - it's more likely that the more contentious one will win as being harder to count it was announced later than the more popular one..
But there's no agreement at all on what the useless stuff is.
* and all the other banished posters
Spurious legal advice.
Downing Street media centre.
Ministerial jets.
If you have in mind the Free Presbyterians, and the row over Lord Mackay attending a RC requiem mass, they did have a huge argument and a split about it, to the credit of some at least.
PS Looks as if Scotland and Wales each got 3 sect leaders, so rough justice on the smaller sects anyway. Ireland seems to have done better though I suspect it's a bit of 3 for the North and 3 for the South.
Some people are too thick to be allowed to breed, number 76,347,958 in an ongoing series.
It is your first preference vote that counts, until and unless your preferred candidate no longer needs your vote- either because he is out of the running being that last candidate, or because he already has quite enough votes to be sure of winning.
I detest Brown for his propensity to borrow in the 'good times'. He took our budget surplus we had in 2002 and maxed out the deficit before the recession even hit, that's all I've ever criticised him for. Well that, and ending Bank of England oversight over the Banks.
Increasing borrowing during a recession is inevitable. Increasing borrowing before the recession is where madness lay.
Sorry @kle4, @DavidL and @kjh
Johnson, Macron and Biden have showd good leadership in this crisis IMO.
We're probably in recession already. We had negative growth in Q2 and it'll be a bit of a shock if don't have negative growth in Q3 too making it official. The country shutting down today probably helps ensure it does.
Salmon Wellington. Salmon referencing Scotland. Wellington the arch where she will transfer for her final journey to Windsor.
Dauphinoise Potatoes. Yes far too French but Royal. The male heir has ascended to the throne and a new male heir takes his place. And Macron has-been so damn decent through all this.
Broccoli. For Cubby Broccoli, Bond movie producer. Referencing HMQs starring role in the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony.
Carrots. She was a 24 carat good egg. And I like carrots.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-joe-biden-2024-election-60-minutes-2022-09-18/
I heard that but I wouldn't be as harsh, but it was an extraordinary thing to say
Even if you increased the windfall tax so that tax on energy extraction went from 65% its already at to 100%, which would be unjustifiable and counterproductive, you still wouldn't have generated anywhere near enough tax to cover the spending.
Did you make it to London?
There were alternatives to funding the energy support packages by borrowing alone.
That Sunak found that objectionable is precisely why he wasn't fit to be Chancellor, or Prime Minister.
There was no borrowing-free alternative to funding the energy support. Even a 100% tax rate as opposed to 65% we're already at wouldn't have covered the support.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/22302377.three-arrests-made-kellie-jay-keen-rally-brighton/
Absolutely debating what level of taxation there should be is an appropriate discussion, but avoiding borrowing wasn't possible. Personally I'm not convinced increasing tax on energy generation beyond the 65% it is already would have been productive when we need investment to generate more domestic energy supplies. 65% of a bigger pie tends to be better than 100% of no pie.
We're presently at the financial crisis stage.
Interesting though that you view 65% taxation as "leaving money on the table" as if all money should automatically be taxes, even more than 65%. Interesting perspective and not one I'll ever agree with, you're right.
What is wrong with the navy these days? We also had those ships whose engines kept breaking down in the Gulf because the water was too warm.
At his time of life, a gentle trot is the most he should be thinking about.
1981-1996 3.6%*
1997-2010 2.9%
2011-2022 3.2%.
* IMF WEO data not available for 1979-80.
🤷♂️ Anyway, we are unlikely to agree. Something for us to ponder in the last hours of political consensus. In my view, Truss is not getting this right. Maybe you’re right, Truss can take the risk and it’s all fine and dandy.
In case you missed it the issue again is that we had a surplus in 2002 and then Brown pissed that away before the recession hit, so incorporating 2002 figures in an average just conceals the damage that Brown did. Had Brown just not pissed away our surplus, and kept the budget balanced until the recession hit, then we would have been well placed when the financial crisis hit, but he didn't.
How high a tax do you want if not 65% and how much would it actually raise? Especially considering much of the energy we consume is untaxable because it comes from the likes of Qatar or Denmark and so isn't in our tax jurisdiction.
IIRC the first couple of years of Blair’s government they stuck to Clarke’s plans… they were starting from a very good place which would help the average.
How about looking at 2001-8 or 2001-10?
I got married on HMS Warrior. Built in 1860, it immediately obsoleted all other warships. Yet it had one major problem: it could not turn well at all under steam due to its length and lack of rudder (which was limited in size as it had to be turned by many crew). The same problem afflicted its sister, Black Prince.
But the follow-on designs mostly fixed this by having steam-powered rudders.
Witness also the problem the US Navy has had with the first of their new class of aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford. You can bet these will be fixed by the time the third, Enterprise is launched.
This sometimes does not happen; witness the problem with the US's Independence-class ships. They're building some whilst retiring the earlier ones after only a few years of service. Because they simply do not work.
This is what happens when the Overton window is booted several miles along. After the past two years, the nation is now one where people are used to having shedloads of money shovelled towards them and now is no different.
As I have to say I predicted at the time, once you say "oh this is a crisis I am right to spend billions upon billions on it" then you can say anything is a crisis and you are right to spend billions upon billions on it.
Plus what did @Leon do - post more of those pictures or something else?
I for one will miss @DavidL, @kle4 and @kjh - one can only take so much of their essential reasonableness.
The issue is what Brown did from 2002 to 2007/08. He turned the spending caps on full blast in that time, even with taxes going up, so there was nowhere left to move then when the recession inevitably hit.
Brown was OK when he was the self-styled "Iron Chancellor" following Clarke's plans until 2002. It was after then that he trashed the economy. Averages that incorporate upto 2002 are entirely misleading or wilfully failing to understand what the problem was.