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
Don't set me off on the £400 relief for every household. A relief one receives for each of the houses they own.
A less focused relief couldn't have been imagined.
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?
That, to be fair, is the key question. Kamala Harris doesn't look to have what it takes. Buttigieg and Ossoff still a bit junior (although watching Trump trying to debate Ossoff would be the funniest thing ever). Gretchen Whitmer possibly but it's hard to see a path for her to the nomination if Biden or Harris put themselves forward. Manchin would be an interesting pick to appeal to a wide swathe of middle America, but has as much chance of getting past the party faithful as I would of a date with Margot Robbie.
However - and a big however - it is a choice they will face at some point. Although Trump's age means there's a limit to how long he will be a threat, de Santis and other nutters will still be around and more likely to be picked than reasonably sane candidates like Halley even after Trump's time unless the Republicans split.
One thing that Biden should perhaps consider is whether, with due respect to Anthony Blinken who has done a very good job, he now needs a younger, dynamic politician in the high profile role of Secretary of State to start a transition process. Keeping veterans like Clinton, Kerry and Biden at the top, for all they did a good job, was with hindsight a serious mistake by Obama. I hope Biden doesn't repeat it.
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.
Not just the Navy, this is why SpaceX are so good at what they do, because they build vehicles specifically so that they fail and are destroyed but they learn from the failures, and fix the issues until eventually they have a reusable design without the problems.
If you only build 2 of a class of a vehicle, then you're not giving yourself space for that iteration of design principles.
Can we please (!) show some respect on this of all days with a 12 hour moratorium on regurgitations of the risible Tory Story take on government spending under New Labour.
It'd be unfair to do it retrospectively so what I suggest is it starts NOW and ends at 21.15 this evening.
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
A couple of corrections. The Tories put taxes up to their highest level. Borrowing has never been a route to lower taxes. Truss owns the Tory economic record of high taxes, now higher borrowing, low growth and poor public investment.
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
I don't support Truss' approach. I like tax cuts generally but in this instance the most benefit is received by those who need help the least, while those who need help the most get least assistance.
Labour's stance of throwing a fortune at everyone, whether they need help or not, is also bloody daft. And I find it... optimistic to suggest that would not entail a large amount of borrowing. It's a justified criticism of Truss, though those who make it whole* advocating borrowing a fortune to fling at the well-off do rather dilute their point with hypocrisy.
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
Don't set me off on the £400 relief for every household. A relief one receives for each of the houses they own.
A less focused relief couldn't have been imagined.
Every household for which they pay the bills. I won't be getting it for my tenant.
Although, of course, it won't apply to buildings with communal heating which ironically need it most...
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...
Thank God no politician would ever try to cut taxes and raise spending at once!
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 technical and engineering trades have been pared down by redundancies and contractorisation so there simply isn't enough institutional knowledge and experience to keep things running smoothly.
In other naval news, the "affordable" T31 frigate has spent 50% of its allocated budget. Progress to date: laid down the keel of hull 1 of 5.
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
Low tax, agreed.
Small state - ummm, well...
Do you mean low taxes in a high tax but lower taxes than required kind of a way?
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
Don't set me off on the £400 relief for every household. A relief one receives for each of the houses they own.
A less focused relief couldn't have been imagined.
Labour's proposals freezing the energy price benefitted the wealthy immensely and it is a problem when you need a quick and easy mitigation
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.
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?
In Guernsey they had an election where everyone had up to 38 votes to cast from over a hundred candidates I believe. Not listed by preference I think, but still great.
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
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?
Same data removing first 3 years of each government plus removing Covid period.
1982-96 3.6% 2000-10 3.5% 2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
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
Don't set me off on the £400 relief for every household. A relief one receives for each of the houses they own.
A less focused relief couldn't have been imagined.
Every household for which they pay the bills. I won't be getting it for my tenant.
Although, of course, it won't apply to buildings with communal heating which ironically need it most...
But you will be getting it for your holiday home in West Wales, your weekend cottage in the Forest of Dean, and your occasional flat in Mayfair as well as your main residence, stately pile on Cannock Chase.
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?
Same data removing first 3 years of each government plus removing Covid period.
1982-96 3.6% 2000-10 3.5% 2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
Yes if you include when he had a surplus before he crashed the public finances then the average doesn't look bad. 🤦♂️
The issue is what he did from the surplus in 2002, not that there was a surplus in 2002.
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?
In Guernsey they had an election where everyone had up to 38 votes to cast from over a hundred candidates I believe. Not listed by preference I think, but still great.
I hope there are enough Tory candidates for the likes of our friend from Epping to be able to use all their votes! I would hate such a person to have to vote for and Alderney Independence candidate!
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?
In Guernsey they had an election where everyone had up to 38 votes to cast from over a hundred candidates I believe. Not listed by preference I think, but still great.
I had to fill it in. After a few “he’s good” and “she’s smart” it quickly became “not her” and “definitely not him”.
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?
That, to be fair, is the key question. Kamala Harris doesn't look to have what it takes. Buttigieg and Ossoff still a bit junior (although watching Trump trying to debate Ossoff would be the funniest thing ever). Gretchen Whitmer possibly but it's hard to see a path for her to the nomination if Biden or Harris put themselves forward. Manchin would be an interesting pick to appeal to a wide swathe of middle America, but has as much chance of getting past the party faithful as I would of a date with Margot Robbie.
It's difficult to see past Biden if he chooses to run.
Trump will 100% be the Republican nominee though not with a RINO Veep this time. He will go MAGAWorld for that. Kristi Noem? MTG?
The absolute, burning priority for Trump, once he's back, will be impeaching and/or prosecuting Biden. His other peccadillos like leaving NATO will probably wait for the third term.
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
Don't set me off on the £400 relief for every household. A relief one receives for each of the houses they own.
A less focused relief couldn't have been imagined.
Every household for which they pay the bills. I won't be getting it for my tenant.
Although, of course, it won't apply to buildings with communal heating which ironically need it most...
But you will be getting it for your holiday home in West Wales, your weekend cottage in the Forest of Dean, and your occasional flat in Mayfair as well as your main residence, stately pile on Cannock Chase.
Will I? Oh that's good news.
Just one question: could you let me have the addresses of the other places I own, please?
I think I'll sell the one in Mayfair and use it to recapitalise the business.
The others - well, they might come in useful when I've found out where they are.
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
Despite being an atheist, I've always been drawn to the idea of reincarnation. I don't believe in it, but the idea of having multiple goes around, my consciousness through new eyes, is incredibly appealing.
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
A couple of corrections. The Tories put taxes up to their highest level. Borrowing has never been a route to lower taxes.
It certainly can be if real interest rates stay sharply negative and you use the tax cuts or higher spending to boost growth. That was effectively how we dealt with our debt after the Second World War - we just inflated it away over a few decades (though real interest rates were slightly positive for most of that period).
The thing to worry about in that case would be a sharply lower pound, but as most other major economies, especially in America and the eurozone, are even more indebted than we are this time, that is less of a concern now. In effect, it is entirely possible that all the major central banks will make a tacit agreement to use money illusion to inflate the a large part of the debt away.
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
I think about this occasionally. If there is a Heaven, you surely want to go when you are at your healthiest. But what happens to a poor soul who dies at (say) eight, with the best years of your life ahead of them? Do they go to Heaven as a bewildered child, or do they magically 'grow up', both physically and intellectually?
(and that's leaving out the evil of Limbo.)
Also: my grand-aunt (gladly still with us) lost her first beloved husband at a youngish age. She then remarried a wonderful man. When they are all dead, what happens in Heaven? Does she have to choose which husband she wants to be with most of the time, or is there some weird ménage à trois?
I find this, and all the other questions that the concept of 'Heaven' causes, to be one of the reasons I am agnostic.
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?
Same data removing first 3 years of each government plus removing Covid period.
1982-96 3.6% 2000-10 3.5% 2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
Yes if you include when he had a surplus before he crashed the public finances then the average doesn't look bad. 🤦♂️
The issue is what he did from the surplus in 2002, not that there was a surplus in 2002.
What matters for the debt position is the long run record not the position in any given year. Policy was too restrictive in the early years of the Labour government - no government had run a structural surplus before Labour did in 1999 and 2000 and government debt had fallen to 34% of GDP in 2001 from 44% in 1996. There was certainly space to borrow more to fund public services and by 2006 debt to GDP was still only 40%, well below the level that Labour inherited. Brown's fiscal loosening post brought the structural deficit to levels that pertained for most of the 1980s - presumably you also damn Thatcher for her reckless borrowing?
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
Despite being an atheist, I've always been drawn to the idea of reincarnation. I don't believe in it, but the idea of having multiple goes around, my consciousness through new eyes, is incredibly appealing.
What did Sir Terry Pratchett say? No one is dead, truly dead, until there is nobody who remembers them. Given the popularity of family history tracing nowadays, I suspect there are some who have come alive again!
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
Don't set me off on the £400 relief for every household. A relief one receives for each of the houses they own.
A less focused relief couldn't have been imagined.
Every household for which they pay the bills. I won't be getting it for my tenant.
Although, of course, it won't apply to buildings with communal heating which ironically need it most...
But you will be getting it for your holiday home in West Wales, your weekend cottage in the Forest of Dean, and your occasional flat in Mayfair as well as your main residence, stately pile on Cannock Chase.
Will I? Oh that's good news.
Just one question: could you let me have the addresses of the other places I own, please?
I think I'll sell the one in Mayfair and use it to recapitalise the business.
The others - well, they might come in useful when I've found out where they are.
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
Don't set me off on the £400 relief for every household. A relief one receives for each of the houses they own.
A less focused relief couldn't have been imagined.
Every household for which they pay the bills. I won't be getting it for my tenant.
Although, of course, it won't apply to buildings with communal heating which ironically need it most...
But you will be getting it for your holiday home in West Wales, your weekend cottage in the Forest of Dean, and your occasional flat in Mayfair as well as your main residence, stately pile on Cannock Chase.
Will I? Oh that's good news.
Just one question: could you let me have the addresses of the other places I own, please?
I think I'll sell the one in Mayfair and use it to recapitalise the business.
The others - well, they might come in useful when I've found out where they are.
Don't dispose just yet. You'll lose your £400!
So? It must be costing far more than that in council tax and property prices aren't likely to rise significantly beyond current levels for a while.
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.
Not just the Navy, this is why SpaceX are so good at what they do, because they build vehicles specifically so that they fail and are destroyed but they learn from the failures, and fix the issues until eventually they have a reusable design without the problems.
(Snip)
Yeah, it's as though NASA never thought of the concept of 'test tanks', 'dynamic test vehicles' or 'boilerplates' ....
Is the airspace over London closed today? The security implications of today are bind boggling.
For a couple of hours I think; there was something about it with regard to the flights leaving Heathrow.
Thanks. It’s entirely inappropriate to talk about, but I can’t quite shake out my head the implications of a 9/11 style attack this morning. The security services must be on the highest possible alert behind the scenes. I wager there will be a lot of relieved people this evening.
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?
Same data removing first 3 years of each government plus removing Covid period.
1982-96 3.6% 2000-10 3.5% 2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
Yes if you include when he had a surplus before he crashed the public finances then the average doesn't look bad. 🤦♂️
The issue is what he did from the surplus in 2002, not that there was a surplus in 2002.
The mistake he made was hubristically declaring no more boom and bust.
In absolute terms his record, including in the second and third Labour terms, was absolutely in the pack not only with other UK administrations but also our western allies.
Most was spent on significant improvements to cure public services. There’s certainly stuff to criticise in there, including the cost of the Iraq war and the accounting trickery of PFI, but it left the national infrastructure in a better state than they found it.
The trouble is we got into an orthodoxy that anything above 3% deficit is bad- largely because that’s what bundesbank and the ECB orthodoxy said. When actually the bigger issue in the British economy was private household debt.
The financial crisis came along and rendered previous public deficits pretty irrelevant anyway, as the central banks turned on the printing presses. We now see that the austerity of the first couple of years after 2010 was a bit premature and countries that stayed looser - like the US - did better in that period.
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
I think about this occasionally. If there is a Heaven, you surely want to go when you are at your healthiest. But what happens to a poor soul who dies at (say) eight, with the best years of your life ahead of them? Do they go to Heaven as a bewildered child, or do they magically 'grow up', both physically and intellectually?
(and that's leaving out the evil of Limbo.)
Also: my grand-aunt (gladly still with us) lost her first beloved husband at a youngish age. She then remarried a wonderful man. When they are all dead, what happens in Heaven? Does she have to choose which husband she wants to be with most of the time, or is there some weird ménage à trois?
I find this, and all the other questions that the concept of 'Heaven' causes, to be one of the reasons I am agnostic.
I quite like the Buddhist concept; going up (or down) the ladder to Nirvana depending upon one's performance in life.
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?
That, to be fair, is the key question. Kamala Harris doesn't look to have what it takes. Buttigieg and Ossoff still a bit junior (although watching Trump trying to debate Ossoff would be the funniest thing ever). Gretchen Whitmer possibly but it's hard to see a path for her to the nomination if Biden or Harris put themselves forward. Manchin would be an interesting pick to appeal to a wide swathe of middle America, but has as much chance of getting past the party faithful as I would of a date with Margot Robbie.
However - and a big however - it is a choice they will face at some point. Although Trump's age means there's a limit to how long he will be a threat, de Santis and other nutters will still be around and more likely to be picked than reasonably sane candidates like Halley even after Trump's time unless the Republicans split.
One thing that Biden should perhaps consider is whether, with due respect to Anthony Blinken who has done a very good job, he now needs a younger, dynamic politician in the high profile role of Secretary of State to start a transition process. Keeping veterans like Clinton, Kerry and Biden at the top, for all they did a good job, was with hindsight a serious mistake by Obama. I hope Biden doesn't repeat it.
Ydoethur! I have Margot Robbie on the line for you...oh wait, sorry it's Joe Manchin.
Is the airspace over London closed today? The security implications of today are bind boggling.
For a couple of hours I think; there was something about it with regard to the flights leaving Heathrow.
Thanks. It’s entirely inappropriate to talk about, but I can’t quite shake out my head the implications of a 9/11 style attack this morning. The security services must be on the highest possible alert behind the scenes. I wager there will be a lot of relieved people this evening.
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?
That, to be fair, is the key question. Kamala Harris doesn't look to have what it takes. Buttigieg and Ossoff still a bit junior (although watching Trump trying to debate Ossoff would be the funniest thing ever). Gretchen Whitmer possibly but it's hard to see a path for her to the nomination if Biden or Harris put themselves forward. Manchin would be an interesting pick to appeal to a wide swathe of middle America, but has as much chance of getting past the party faithful as I would of a date with Margot Robbie.
However - and a big however - it is a choice they will face at some point. Although Trump's age means there's a limit to how long he will be a threat, de Santis and other nutters will still be around and more likely to be picked than reasonably sane candidates like Halley even after Trump's time unless the Republicans split.
One thing that Biden should perhaps consider is whether, with due respect to Anthony Blinken who has done a very good job, he now needs a younger, dynamic politician in the high profile role of Secretary of State to start a transition process. Keeping veterans like Clinton, Kerry and Biden at the top, for all they did a good job, was with hindsight a serious mistake by Obama. I hope Biden doesn't repeat it.
Ydoethur! I have Margot Robbie on the line for you...oh wait, sorry it's Joe Manchin.
Tell him I'm male and I think he'll lose interest.
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
I think about this occasionally. If there is a Heaven, you surely want to go when you are at your healthiest. But what happens to a poor soul who dies at (say) eight, with the best years of your life ahead of them? Do they go to Heaven as a bewildered child, or do they magically 'grow up', both physically and intellectually?
(and that's leaving out the evil of Limbo.)
Also: my grand-aunt (gladly still with us) lost her first beloved husband at a youngish age. She then remarried a wonderful man. When they are all dead, what happens in Heaven? Does she have to choose which husband she wants to be with most of the time, or is there some weird ménage à trois?
I find this, and all the other questions that the concept of 'Heaven' causes, to be one of the reasons I am agnostic.
I quite like the Buddhist concept; going up (or down) the ladder to Nirvana depending upon one's performance in life.
Nice to imagine a future incarnation of Boris Johnson alighting on some dogshit a few decades hence and wondering where it all went wrong.
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?
Same data removing first 3 years of each government plus removing Covid period.
1982-96 3.6% 2000-10 3.5% 2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
Yes if you include when he had a surplus before he crashed the public finances then the average doesn't look bad. 🤦♂️
The issue is what he did from the surplus in 2002, not that there was a surplus in 2002.
What matters for the debt position is the long run record not the position in any given year. Policy was too restrictive in the early years of the Labour government - no government had run a structural surplus before Labour did in 1999 and 2000 and government debt had fallen to 34% of GDP in 2001 from 44% in 1996. There was certainly space to borrow more to fund public services and by 2006 debt to GDP was still only 40%, well below the level that Labour inherited. Brown's fiscal loosening post brought the structural deficit to levels that pertained for most of the 1980s - presumably you also damn Thatcher for her reckless borrowing?
Thatcher inherited an awful situation and the borrowing followed the economic cycle with her reducing borrowing such that there was a budget surplus in 1989 before the next recession.
Had Brown entered the next recession with a surplus, as Thatcher had, then we wouldn't have had an issue. He didn't, he turned the spending taps on full blast before the recession hit.
Arguing that spending was too restrictive pre-2002 (which I disagree with) isn't an argument for too much spending post it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes if you average too little with too much you might get an OK figure, but you've still gone to too much by the end which is what mattered.
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
I think about this occasionally. If there is a Heaven, you surely want to go when you are at your healthiest. But what happens to a poor soul who dies at (say) eight, with the best years of your life ahead of them? Do they go to Heaven as a bewildered child, or do they magically 'grow up', both physically and intellectually?
(and that's leaving out the evil of Limbo.)
Also: my grand-aunt (gladly still with us) lost her first beloved husband at a youngish age. She then remarried a wonderful man. When they are all dead, what happens in Heaven? Does she have to choose which husband she wants to be with most of the time, or is there some weird ménage à trois?
I find this, and all the other questions that the concept of 'Heaven' causes, to be one of the reasons I am agnostic.
I think that Christian take on this is that in heaven you would experience love for all, and not the same as the earthly experience.
Personally, and rather sadly, I reject life after death as probably not going to happen. Might be surprised, in which case, yay! But more likely the long dreamless sleep from which you never wake.
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
I think about this occasionally. If there is a Heaven, you surely want to go when you are at your healthiest. But what happens to a poor soul who dies at (say) eight, with the best years of your life ahead of them? Do they go to Heaven as a bewildered child, or do they magically 'grow up', both physically and intellectually?
(and that's leaving out the evil of Limbo.)
Also: my grand-aunt (gladly still with us) lost her first beloved husband at a youngish age. She then remarried a wonderful man. When they are all dead, what happens in Heaven? Does she have to choose which husband she wants to be with most of the time, or is there some weird ménage à trois?
I find this, and all the other questions that the concept of 'Heaven' causes, to be one of the reasons I am agnostic.
I quite like the Buddhist concept; going up (or down) the ladder to Nirvana depending upon one's performance in life.
I liked the system they ended up with in The Good Place, where you faced a series of challenges depending on how you did in life, a sort of non violent purgatory, to learn how to be a better person, and eventually you then got Heaven, and when even that began to pall for you...nothingness.
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?
That, to be fair, is the key question. Kamala Harris doesn't look to have what it takes. Buttigieg and Ossoff still a bit junior (although watching Trump trying to debate Ossoff would be the funniest thing ever). Gretchen Whitmer possibly but it's hard to see a path for her to the nomination if Biden or Harris put themselves forward. Manchin would be an interesting pick to appeal to a wide swathe of middle America, but has as much chance of getting past the party faithful as I would of a date with Margot Robbie.
However - and a big however - it is a choice they will face at some point. Although Trump's age means there's a limit to how long he will be a threat, de Santis and other nutters will still be around and more likely to be picked than reasonably sane candidates like Halley even after Trump's time unless the Republicans split.
One thing that Biden should perhaps consider is whether, with due respect to Anthony Blinken who has done a very good job, he now needs a younger, dynamic politician in the high profile role of Secretary of State to start a transition process. Keeping veterans like Clinton, Kerry and Biden at the top, for all they did a good job, was with hindsight a serious mistake by Obama. I hope Biden doesn't repeat it.
Ydoethur! I have Margot Robbie on the line for you...oh wait, sorry it's Joe Manchin.
Tell him I'm male and I think he'll lose interest.
Margot Robbie is overrated. Take it from me. She snores.
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
Despite being an atheist, I've always been drawn to the idea of reincarnation. I don't believe in it, but the idea of having multiple goes around, my consciousness through new eyes, is incredibly appealing.
What did Sir Terry Pratchett say? No one is dead, truly dead, until there is nobody who remembers them. Given the popularity of family history tracing nowadays, I suspect there are some who have come alive again!
I have a little concept about this. When you love someone, you give them a tiny piece of your heart. When they love you in return, you swap those pieces. You cannot get that piece of your heart back; it's gone. Give too much of your heart, and you have little left. The tiny pieces of heart can grow diseased and decay, representing the bad aspects of love, from lovesickness to stalking and other bad things.
But mostly, that little piece of heart remains good and healthy. It's the thing that causes you to think of a long-lost love and smile at the memory. It's the thing that brings joy when you meet someone in the street after two decades, or get a call from them.
I lost a friend when I was younger. As long as my heart goes on beating, so will hers.
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?
Same data removing first 3 years of each government plus removing Covid period.
1982-96 3.6% 2000-10 3.5% 2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
Yes if you include when he had a surplus before he crashed the public finances then the average doesn't look bad. 🤦♂️
The issue is what he did from the surplus in 2002, not that there was a surplus in 2002.
What matters for the debt position is the long run record not the position in any given year. Policy was too restrictive in the early years of the Labour government - no government had run a structural surplus before Labour did in 1999 and 2000 and government debt had fallen to 34% of GDP in 2001 from 44% in 1996. There was certainly space to borrow more to fund public services and by 2006 debt to GDP was still only 40%, well below the level that Labour inherited. Brown's fiscal loosening post brought the structural deficit to levels that pertained for most of the 1980s - presumably you also damn Thatcher for her reckless borrowing?
Thatcher inherited an awful situation and the borrowing followed the economic cycle with her reducing borrowing such that there was a budget surplus in 1989 before the next recession.
Had Brown entered the next recession with a surplus, as Thatcher had, then we wouldn't have had an issue. He didn't, he turned the spending taps on full blast before the recession hit.
Arguing that spending was too restrictive pre-2002 (which I disagree with) isn't an argument for too much spending post it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes if you average too little with too much you might get an OK figure, but you've still gone to too much by the end which is what mattered.
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
Don't set me off on the £400 relief for every household. A relief one receives for each of the houses they own.
A less focused relief couldn't have been imagined.
Labour's proposals freezing the energy price benefitted the wealthy immensely and it is a problem when you need a quick and easy mitigation
You confuse me with someone trumpeting Labour Party policy.
Your Government are in office, the Labour Party are not. If Government policies are irrational I am allowed to criticise (until the law is changed, at least).
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?
That, to be fair, is the key question. Kamala Harris doesn't look to have what it takes. Buttigieg and Ossoff still a bit junior (although watching Trump trying to debate Ossoff would be the funniest thing ever). Gretchen Whitmer possibly but it's hard to see a path for her to the nomination if Biden or Harris put themselves forward. Manchin would be an interesting pick to appeal to a wide swathe of middle America, but has as much chance of getting past the party faithful as I would of a date with Margot Robbie.
However - and a big however - it is a choice they will face at some point. Although Trump's age means there's a limit to how long he will be a threat, de Santis and other nutters will still be around and more likely to be picked than reasonably sane candidates like Halley even after Trump's time unless the Republicans split.
One thing that Biden should perhaps consider is whether, with due respect to Anthony Blinken who has done a very good job, he now needs a younger, dynamic politician in the high profile role of Secretary of State to start a transition process. Keeping veterans like Clinton, Kerry and Biden at the top, for all they did a good job, was with hindsight a serious mistake by Obama. I hope Biden doesn't repeat it.
Ydoethur! I have Margot Robbie on the line for you...oh wait, sorry it's Joe Manchin.
Tell him I'm male and I think he'll lose interest.
Margot Robbie is overrated. Take it from me. She snores.
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
Despite being an atheist, I've always been drawn to the idea of reincarnation. I don't believe in it, but the idea of having multiple goes around, my consciousness through new eyes, is incredibly appealing.
What did Sir Terry Pratchett say? No one is dead, truly dead, until there is nobody who remembers them. Given the popularity of family history tracing nowadays, I suspect there are some who have come alive again!
Have you ever seen the movie Coco?
If not, I'd strongly recommend it as a movie to watch with grandkids. Its a really beautiful movie exploring such concepts and inspired by Mexico's dia de muertos (day of the dead).
It has the same principle, that the dead live on as long as we remember them and talk about them pass on their memories.
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?
Same data removing first 3 years of each government plus removing Covid period.
1982-96 3.6% 2000-10 3.5% 2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
Yes if you include when he had a surplus before he crashed the public finances then the average doesn't look bad. 🤦♂️
The issue is what he did from the surplus in 2002, not that there was a surplus in 2002.
What matters for the debt position is the long run record not the position in any given year. Policy was too restrictive in the early years of the Labour government - no government had run a structural surplus before Labour did in 1999 and 2000 and government debt had fallen to 34% of GDP in 2001 from 44% in 1996. There was certainly space to borrow more to fund public services and by 2006 debt to GDP was still only 40%, well below the level that Labour inherited. Brown's fiscal loosening post brought the structural deficit to levels that pertained for most of the 1980s - presumably you also damn Thatcher for her reckless borrowing?
Thatcher inherited an awful situation and the borrowing followed the economic cycle with her reducing borrowing such that there was a budget surplus in 1989 before the next recession.
Had Brown entered the next recession with a surplus, as Thatcher had, then we wouldn't have had an issue. He didn't, he turned the spending taps on full blast before the recession hit.
Arguing that spending was too restrictive pre-2002 (which I disagree with) isn't an argument for too much spending post it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes if you average too little with too much you might get an OK figure, but you've still gone to too much by the end which is what mattered.
Thatcher inherited a bad but improving situation.
Didn’t the treasury mess up the economic numbers in the late 70’s, leading to an IMF bailout that wasn’t needed?
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
I think about this occasionally. If there is a Heaven, you surely want to go when you are at your healthiest. But what happens to a poor soul who dies at (say) eight, with the best years of your life ahead of them? Do they go to Heaven as a bewildered child, or do they magically 'grow up', both physically and intellectually?
(and that's leaving out the evil of Limbo.)
Also: my grand-aunt (gladly still with us) lost her first beloved husband at a youngish age. She then remarried a wonderful man. When they are all dead, what happens in Heaven? Does she have to choose which husband she wants to be with most of the time, or is there some weird ménage à trois?
I find this, and all the other questions that the concept of 'Heaven' causes, to be one of the reasons I am agnostic.
And does the 8 y.o. get reunited with his loving grandparents or are they unrecognisable 25 y.o.s?
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
Despite being an atheist, I've always been drawn to the idea of reincarnation. I don't believe in it, but the idea of having multiple goes around, my consciousness through new eyes, is incredibly appealing.
What did Sir Terry Pratchett say? No one is dead, truly dead, until there is nobody who remembers them. Given the popularity of family history tracing nowadays, I suspect there are some who have come alive again!
Have you ever seen the movie Coco?
If not, I'd strongly recommend it as a movie to watch with grandkids. Its a really beautiful movie exploring such concepts and inspired by Mexico's dia de muertos (day of the dead).
It has the same principle, that the dead live on as long as we remember them and talk about them pass on their memories.
So the medieval practice of paying monks to pray for the soul of your loved one for x years makes sense.
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?
Same data removing first 3 years of each government plus removing Covid period.
1982-96 3.6% 2000-10 3.5% 2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
Yes if you include when he had a surplus before he crashed the public finances then the average doesn't look bad. 🤦♂️
The issue is what he did from the surplus in 2002, not that there was a surplus in 2002.
What matters for the debt position is the long run record not the position in any given year. Policy was too restrictive in the early years of the Labour government - no government had run a structural surplus before Labour did in 1999 and 2000 and government debt had fallen to 34% of GDP in 2001 from 44% in 1996. There was certainly space to borrow more to fund public services and by 2006 debt to GDP was still only 40%, well below the level that Labour inherited. Brown's fiscal loosening post brought the structural deficit to levels that pertained for most of the 1980s - presumably you also damn Thatcher for her reckless borrowing?
Thatcher inherited an awful situation and the borrowing followed the economic cycle with her reducing borrowing such that there was a budget surplus in 1989 before the next recession.
Had Brown entered the next recession with a surplus, as Thatcher had, then we wouldn't have had an issue. He didn't, he turned the spending taps on full blast before the recession hit.
Arguing that spending was too restrictive pre-2002 (which I disagree with) isn't an argument for too much spending post it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes if you average too little with too much you might get an OK figure, but you've still gone to too much by the end which is what mattered.
It's nowhere near 21.15 yet. Not by my watch anyway.
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?
Same data removing first 3 years of each government plus removing Covid period.
1982-96 3.6% 2000-10 3.5% 2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
Yes if you include when he had a surplus before he crashed the public finances then the average doesn't look bad. 🤦♂️
The issue is what he did from the surplus in 2002, not that there was a surplus in 2002.
What matters for the debt position is the long run record not the position in any given year. Policy was too restrictive in the early years of the Labour government - no government had run a structural surplus before Labour did in 1999 and 2000 and government debt had fallen to 34% of GDP in 2001 from 44% in 1996. There was certainly space to borrow more to fund public services and by 2006 debt to GDP was still only 40%, well below the level that Labour inherited. Brown's fiscal loosening post brought the structural deficit to levels that pertained for most of the 1980s - presumably you also damn Thatcher for her reckless borrowing?
Thatcher inherited an awful situation and the borrowing followed the economic cycle with her reducing borrowing such that there was a budget surplus in 1989 before the next recession.
Had Brown entered the next recession with a surplus, as Thatcher had, then we wouldn't have had an issue. He didn't, he turned the spending taps on full blast before the recession hit.
Arguing that spending was too restrictive pre-2002 (which I disagree with) isn't an argument for too much spending post it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes if you average too little with too much you might get an OK figure, but you've still gone to too much by the end which is what mattered.
Oh please, every Tory deficit is thanks to Labour, while every Labour surplus is thanks to the Tories? I am talking about the structural deficits of Thatcher's mid 80s pomp, not the early years of her administration - never less than 3% of GDP from 1983-87. Was that also reckless? There was a structural deficit of 3% of GDP in 1989 going into the recession caused by the crash following the Lawson boom. If you want to make a case for poor domestic macro policy causing a recession it is much easier to make the case for the 1990 recession than 2008. Where was the global financial crisis in 1990?
Watching this amazing pageant being televised worldwide to an audience in excess of 4 billion makes one immensely proud of our country, and is an entirely appropriate tribute to 'The Queen' as she will ever be known
I agree with others now is the time to avoid political discourse for the rest of the day and to accept this is a occasion without parallel and history in the making
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
I think about this occasionally. If there is a Heaven, you surely want to go when you are at your healthiest. But what happens to a poor soul who dies at (say) eight, with the best years of your life ahead of them? Do they go to Heaven as a bewildered child, or do they magically 'grow up', both physically and intellectually?
(and that's leaving out the evil of Limbo.)
Also: my grand-aunt (gladly still with us) lost her first beloved husband at a youngish age. She then remarried a wonderful man. When they are all dead, what happens in Heaven? Does she have to choose which husband she wants to be with most of the time, or is there some weird ménage à trois?
I find this, and all the other questions that the concept of 'Heaven' causes, to be one of the reasons I am agnostic.
And does the 8 y.o. get reunited with his loving grandparents or are they unrecognisable 25 y.o.s?
It’s less troubling than a purely mechanical infinite universe, where by sheer weight of probability atoms will reassemble purely by chance and one day we will all wake up.
Watching this amazing pageant being televised worldwide to an audience in excess of 4 billion makes one immensely proud of our country, and is an entirely appropriate tribute to 'The Queen' as she will ever be known
I agree with others now is the time to avoid political discourse for the rest of the day and to accept this is a occasion without parallel and history in the making
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?
Same data removing first 3 years of each government plus removing Covid period.
1982-96 3.6% 2000-10 3.5% 2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
Yes if you include when he had a surplus before he crashed the public finances then the average doesn't look bad. 🤦♂️
The issue is what he did from the surplus in 2002, not that there was a surplus in 2002.
What matters for the debt position is the long run record not the position in any given year. Policy was too restrictive in the early years of the Labour government - no government had run a structural surplus before Labour did in 1999 and 2000 and government debt had fallen to 34% of GDP in 2001 from 44% in 1996. There was certainly space to borrow more to fund public services and by 2006 debt to GDP was still only 40%, well below the level that Labour inherited. Brown's fiscal loosening post brought the structural deficit to levels that pertained for most of the 1980s - presumably you also damn Thatcher for her reckless borrowing?
Thatcher inherited an awful situation and the borrowing followed the economic cycle with her reducing borrowing such that there was a budget surplus in 1989 before the next recession.
Had Brown entered the next recession with a surplus, as Thatcher had, then we wouldn't have had an issue. He didn't, he turned the spending taps on full blast before the recession hit.
Arguing that spending was too restrictive pre-2002 (which I disagree with) isn't an argument for too much spending post it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes if you average too little with too much you might get an OK figure, but you've still gone to too much by the end which is what mattered.
Oh please, every Tory deficit is thanks to Labour, while every Labour surplus is thanks to the Tories? I am talking about the structural deficits of Thatcher's mid 80s pomp, not the early years of her administration - never less than 3% of GDP from 1983-87. Was that also reckless? There was a structural deficit of 3% of GDP in 1989 going into the recession caused by the crash following the Lawson boom. If you want to make a case for poor domestic macro policy causing a recession it is much easier to make the case for the 1990 recession than 2008. Where was the global financial crisis in 1990?
Brown's deficits prior to 2002 were legacy from what he inherited from the Tories, yes. Brown's deficits after the country had entered a surplus, were because he turned on the spending taps.
I never once said that the poor domestic policy caused the recession, I don't think recessions get "caused". Recessions happen, they're a fact of life, trying to prevent them was Brown's hubris in thinking it was possible to end boom and bust.
Trying to abolish recessions is like trying to abolish winter. You don't abolish recessions, you need to prepare for them, just as you prepare for winter.
TimS - I think that is broadly correct. Those who blame Brown's borrowing too much pre 2008 for our predicament don't tend to quantify it. Governments very rarely run an absolute surplus. So borrowing was too high but not fatal. However you could still argue that it is one of those things that government is expected to get right and won't be let off for getting wrong.
The real killer was the eye watering private debt that needed deleveraging and the fact so much tax revenue was coming from the city. However no-one ever levelled with the public about this. One of the reasons I take a dim view of Cameron, Osborne and Clegg. I don't think Ed Miliband's 'turn the page' approach helped much either.
Watching this amazing pageant being televised worldwide to an audience in excess of 4 billion makes one immensely proud of our country, and is an entirely appropriate tribute to 'The Queen' as she will ever be known
I agree with others now is the time to avoid political discourse for the rest of the day and to accept this is a occasion without parallel and history in the making
I very much doubt even close to that many people will be watching. I'm sure it will be screened such that it is theoretically possible.
Anyway, let's me sink properly into this genuinely massive event. I'm feeling something now, first stirrings at least, and that's something of a relief. Who wants to be a robot. RIP the Queen, God save the King!
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
Despite being an atheist, I've always been drawn to the idea of reincarnation. I don't believe in it, but the idea of having multiple goes around, my consciousness through new eyes, is incredibly appealing.
What did Sir Terry Pratchett say? No one is dead, truly dead, until there is nobody who remembers them. Given the popularity of family history tracing nowadays, I suspect there are some who have come alive again!
Have you ever seen the movie Coco?
If not, I'd strongly recommend it as a movie to watch with grandkids. Its a really beautiful movie exploring such concepts and inspired by Mexico's dia de muertos (day of the dead).
It has the same principle, that the dead live on as long as we remember them and talk about them pass on their memories.
So the medieval practice of paying monks to pray for the soul of your loved one for x years makes sense.
Well certainly for the monks, a good stable income.
Watching this amazing pageant being televised worldwide to an audience in excess of 4 billion makes one immensely proud of our country, and is an entirely appropriate tribute to 'The Queen' as she will ever be known
I agree with others now is the time to avoid political discourse for the rest of the day and to accept this is a occasion without parallel and history in the making
I very much doubt even close to that many people will be watching. I'm sure it will be screened such that it is theoretically possible.
It is being shown on live on various international news channels and that was an estimated figure from broadcasters
I found it moving. Elderly widower sits down to watch the funeral on his own and it brings home to him the loss of his wife.
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
To be honest, if there is a next world, I would rather have one where I am fit and strong; say in my early 30s as opposed to one where I am as I am now. Or even as I was before my present troubles hit me!
I think about this occasionally. If there is a Heaven, you surely want to go when you are at your healthiest. But what happens to a poor soul who dies at (say) eight, with the best years of your life ahead of them? Do they go to Heaven as a bewildered child, or do they magically 'grow up', both physically and intellectually?
(and that's leaving out the evil of Limbo.)
Also: my grand-aunt (gladly still with us) lost her first beloved husband at a youngish age. She then remarried a wonderful man. When they are all dead, what happens in Heaven? Does she have to choose which husband she wants to be with most of the time, or is there some weird ménage à trois?
I find this, and all the other questions that the concept of 'Heaven' causes, to be one of the reasons I am agnostic.
And does the 8 y.o. get reunited with his loving grandparents or are they unrecognisable 25 y.o.s?
It’s less troubling than a purely mechanical infinite universe, where by sheer weight of probability atoms will reassemble purely by chance and one day we will all wake up.
Facial similarity is certainly reborn, or inherited. And my eldest son expresses his opinions in a manner eerily similar to his grandfather, my father.
While his son is much more laid-back, more like me!
As a mild republican, for whom abolishing the monarchy is not in my top 1,000 priorities, I find myself in a quandary this morning.
I suspect if I sit in front of the TV and watch all the proceedings I may well regret it. However, there's a bit of me that thinks if I don't watch it, I may regret that too. What to do?
It does show the power of ritual that everyone has this down as The Big Day. Whereas by most metrics 8 September was a bit more important. I think we subconsciously think she hasn't really gone till she is under ground, hence talk of her "final night at Buckingham Palace" - she wasn't there. Her corpse was. And hence thinking it makes sense to file past her coffin, when you will be able to get equal proximity to her remains in the King George VI Memorial Chapel whenever you want.
Comments
A less focused relief couldn't have been imagined.
However - and a big however - it is a choice they will face at some point. Although Trump's age means there's a limit to how long he will be a threat, de Santis and other nutters will still be around and more likely to be picked than reasonably sane candidates like Halley even after Trump's time unless the Republicans split.
One thing that Biden should perhaps consider is whether, with due respect to Anthony Blinken who has done a very good job, he now needs a younger, dynamic politician in the high profile role of Secretary of State to start a transition process. Keeping veterans like Clinton, Kerry and Biden at the top, for all they did a good job, was with hindsight a serious mistake by Obama. I hope Biden doesn't repeat it.
If you only build 2 of a class of a vehicle, then you're not giving yourself space for that iteration of design principles.
It'd be unfair to do it retrospectively so what I suggest is it starts NOW and ends at 21.15 this evening.
Cheers.
Small state - ummm, well...
I don't support Truss' approach. I like tax cuts generally but in this instance the most benefit is received by those who need help the least, while those who need help the most get least assistance.
Labour's stance of throwing a fortune at everyone, whether they need help or not, is also bloody daft. And I find it... optimistic to suggest that would not entail a large amount of borrowing. It's a justified criticism of Truss, though those who make it whole* advocating borrowing a fortune to fling at the well-off do rather dilute their point with hypocrisy.
Edited extra bit: *while
Recorded shortly before he died
Eddie Butler: Andrew Cotter pays tribute to broadcaster and Wales international - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/62941067
Although, of course, it won't apply to buildings with communal heating which ironically need it most...
A number of people have said how state mourning triggers memories of beareavement in their own lives.
In other naval news, the "affordable" T31 frigate has spent 50% of its allocated budget. Progress to date: laid down the keel of hull 1 of 5.
https://twitter.com/ldn_gov/status/1571774109918396418
Arrivals being directed to Hyde Park where viewing screens have been set up.
1982-96 3.6%
2000-10 3.5%
2014-19 2.9%
Still better than Thatcher/Major.
Brown's fiscal record was far from perfect but is absolutely in the same ballpark as Tory administrations on either side of him. This idea that he "crashed" the public finances is a fantasy that lives only in the mind of Tory hacks who've swallowed their own propaganda. It enjoys no credence among people who look at these things for a living.
The issue is what he did from the surplus in 2002, not that there was a surplus in 2002.
Thanks for the header.
Have a peaceful day, all.I think I'll be outdoors, and catch up later.
Trump will 100% be the Republican nominee though not with a RINO Veep this time. He will go MAGAWorld for that. Kristi Noem? MTG?
The absolute, burning priority for Trump, once he's back, will be impeaching and/or prosecuting Biden. His other peccadillos like leaving NATO will probably wait for the third term.
Tbf the listings have been rubbish for the last ten days. Repeat after repeat.
Just one question: could you let me have the addresses of the other places I own, please?
I think I'll sell the one in Mayfair and use it to recapitalise the business.
The others - well, they might come in useful when I've found out where they are.
The big screen has just started and they're showing itv.
I've seen more bobbies on the beat in the last 3 days than the rest of my life put together!
I've seen more bobbies on the beat
The thing to worry about in that case would be a sharply lower pound, but as most other major economies, especially in America and the eurozone, are even more indebted than we are this time, that is less of a concern now. In effect, it is entirely possible that all the major central banks will make a tacit agreement to use money illusion to inflate the a large part of the debt away.
(and that's leaving out the evil of Limbo.)
Also: my grand-aunt (gladly still with us) lost her first beloved husband at a youngish age. She then remarried a wonderful man. When they are all dead, what happens in Heaven? Does she have to choose which husband she wants to be with most of the time, or is there some weird ménage à trois?
I find this, and all the other questions that the concept of 'Heaven' causes, to be one of the reasons I am agnostic.
Given the popularity of family history tracing nowadays, I suspect there are some who have come alive again!
(rolls eyes).
Just what the late monarch would have wanted from some of her more traditionally-minded supporters today.
Not.
In absolute terms his record, including in the second and third Labour terms, was absolutely in the pack not only with other UK administrations but also our western allies.
Most was spent on significant improvements to cure public services. There’s certainly stuff to criticise in there, including the cost of the Iraq war and the accounting trickery of PFI, but it left the national infrastructure in a better state than they found it.
The trouble is we got into an orthodoxy that anything above 3% deficit is bad- largely because that’s what bundesbank and the ECB orthodoxy said. When actually the bigger issue in the British economy was private household debt.
The financial crisis came along and rendered previous public deficits pretty irrelevant anyway, as the central banks turned on the printing presses. We now see that the austerity of the first couple of years after 2010 was a bit premature and countries that stayed looser - like the US - did better in that period.
Had Brown entered the next recession with a surplus, as Thatcher had, then we wouldn't have had an issue. He didn't, he turned the spending taps on full blast before the recession hit.
Arguing that spending was too restrictive pre-2002 (which I disagree with) isn't an argument for too much spending post it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes if you average too little with too much you might get an OK figure, but you've still gone to too much by the end which is what mattered.
So he probably will...
Personally, and rather sadly, I reject life after death as probably not going to happen. Might be surprised, in which case, yay! But more likely the long dreamless sleep from which you never wake.
Struck this morning by the enormity of today, hidden on a normal little monday in a normal little September on this funny little island.
But mostly, that little piece of heart remains good and healthy. It's the thing that causes you to think of a long-lost love and smile at the memory. It's the thing that brings joy when you meet someone in the street after two decades, or get a call from them.
I lost a friend when I was younger. As long as my heart goes on beating, so will hers.
Your Government are in office, the Labour Party are not. If Government policies are irrational I am allowed to criticise (until the law is changed, at least).
And if I ever do, I'll still never know...
If not, I'd strongly recommend it as a movie to watch with grandkids. Its a really beautiful movie exploring such concepts and inspired by Mexico's dia de muertos (day of the dead).
It has the same principle, that the dead live on as long as we remember them and talk about them pass on their memories.
There was a structural deficit of 3% of GDP in 1989 going into the recession caused by the crash following the Lawson boom. If you want to make a case for poor domestic macro policy causing a recession it is much easier to make the case for the 1990 recession than 2008. Where was the global financial crisis in 1990?
I agree with others now is the time to avoid political discourse for the rest of the day and to accept this is a occasion without parallel and history in the making
President Carter did not attend Tito's funeral while President Biden is there today
https://www.youngpioneertours.com/worlds-largest-state-funeral-tito/
I never once said that the poor domestic policy caused the recession, I don't think recessions get "caused". Recessions happen, they're a fact of life, trying to prevent them was Brown's hubris in thinking it was possible to end boom and bust.
Trying to abolish recessions is like trying to abolish winter. You don't abolish recessions, you need to prepare for them, just as you prepare for winter.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/dzls/pusf
The real killer was the eye watering private debt that needed deleveraging and the fact so much tax revenue was coming from the city. However no-one ever levelled with the public about this. One of the reasons I take a dim view of Cameron, Osborne and Clegg. I don't think Ed Miliband's 'turn the page' approach helped much either.
They should just let the procession speak for itself.
While his son is much more laid-back, more like me!
I suspect if I sit in front of the TV and watch all the proceedings I may well regret it. However, there's a bit of me that thinks if I don't watch it, I may regret that too.
What to do?