The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
Q: Labour's policy to tax the energy companies [to subsidise bills] is supported by 68% of the public, according to polls. You’re prepared to be unpopular aren’t you?
Oh dear, we’re back to “the energy companies” bogeyman from the media and Labour.
How exactly does anyone propose the British government taxes Qatargas and Saudi Aramco, who are the companies doing well out of the crisis?
The company that bills you for domestic energy is barely breaking even, in fact many of them have gone bust in the last two years.
This is partly a case of media getting its facts confused. The Labour proposal would cover both energy companies and power generators, and the latter are the bigger sitting ducks for a windfall tax because a. they've not had one already, b. they are the companies making money in the UK from generating electricity that is at artificially high prices due to the way the elec price is tethered to gas.
A WT on the power generators would apply to renewables and nuclear which is where a lot of the big windfall is landing.
The government plan already includes negotiated wholesale prices with the domestic renewables producers.
The media is indeed getting its facts confused, some might say on purpose, and the Labour proposals are pie-in-the-sky that wouldn’t stand up to a minute’s scrutiny if they were actually in government.
Truss should tweet how she is fed up with so called Inflation Reduction measures that only serve to increase inflation, especially when they are mumbled from 14 rows back.
Even better, she could tweet that she's fed up with so-called affordable care plans that have never worked, and defend the principle of universal health care.
Labour 42% (–) Conservative 34% (+4) Liberal Democrat 10% (-4) Green 5% (-1) Scottish National Party 4% (-1) Reform UK 3% (+1) Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 7 September.
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
LLG 57%. Consistent with other post-leadership but pre-London Bridge polls. Not seen anything with fieldwork after that point yet (or indeed after the energy price cap announcement?)
This was conducted on Sunday, day before the funeral
The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
He sold it to Tory MPs though...
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
The media is indeed getting its facts confused, some might say on purpose, and the Labour proposals are pie-in-the-sky that wouldn’t stand up to a minute’s scrutiny if they were actually in government.
This is true, but the Liz Truss plans (such as they are) don't stand up to a minute's scrutiny either, and she is actually in government.
Truss should tweet how she is fed up with so called Inflation Reduction measures that only serve to increase inflation, especially when they are mumbled from 14 rows back.
Even better, she could tweet that she's fed up with so-called affordable care plans that have never worked, and defend the principle of universal health care.
Q: Labour's policy to tax the energy companies [to subsidise bills] is supported by 68% of the public, according to polls. You’re prepared to be unpopular aren’t you?
Oh dear, we’re back to “the energy companies” bogeyman from the media and Labour.
How exactly does anyone propose the British government taxes Qatargas and Saudi Aramco, who are the companies doing well out of the crisis?
The company that bills you for domestic energy is barely breaking even, in fact many of them have gone bust in the last two years.
This is partly a case of media getting its facts confused. The Labour proposal would cover both energy companies and power generators, and the latter are the bigger sitting ducks for a windfall tax because a. they've not had one already, b. they are the companies making money in the UK from generating electricity that is at artificially high prices due to the way the elec price is tethered to gas.
A WT on the power generators would apply to renewables and nuclear which is where a lot of the big windfall is landing.
How much of that generation is supplied at fixed long term prices, though ?
I feel people have already made their decision on Truss, and it is not a positive one.
The “growth plan” is going to be fascinating. I suspect it will fall apart quite quickly.
I think Truss is being quite smart in going for growth and being serious rather than flippantly chasing polls.
Everyone at the minute is making extremely negative forecasts of doom and gloom, but there's a very real possibility that by this time next year the war in Ukraine should be over, commodity prices will have fallen, the economy should be growing and the roaring twenties that Rishi's tax rises and Putin's war looked to snuff out could be back on.
And if so, Truss will deserve some credit for sticking to her guns. And for her role in helping Ukraine win the war.
She will claim credit, but would deserve next to none.
So it's all doom and gloom for which she deserves the blame, unless things go well in which case she doesn't deserve credit? 🤔
Or Truss claims everything is down to global events when the news is bad and takes the credit when the news is good. 🤔
If Ukraine wins the war, Ukraine takes the credit.
The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
He sold it to Tory MPs though...
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
We desperately need to find a way for encourage business investment.
As Sarah O’Connor of the FT points out, Brits aren’t “lazy”, they’re desperately running to stand still.
I feel people have already made their decision on Truss, and it is not a positive one.
The “growth plan” is going to be fascinating. I suspect it will fall apart quite quickly.
I think Truss is being quite smart in going for growth and being serious rather than flippantly chasing polls.
Everyone at the minute is making extremely negative forecasts of doom and gloom, but there's a very real possibility that by this time next year the war in Ukraine should be over, commodity prices will have fallen, the economy should be growing and the roaring twenties that Rishi's tax rises and Putin's war looked to snuff out could be back on.
And if so, Truss will deserve some credit for sticking to her guns. And for her role in helping Ukraine win the war.
She will claim credit, but would deserve next to none.
So it's all doom and gloom for which she deserves the blame, unless things go well in which case she doesn't deserve credit? 🤔
IIRC certain people were saying that she was so outspoken in her support for Ukraine that she risked escalating the war.
I am reminded of the Foch story - when asked who won at the Marne, he paused, and then said he was quite certain that he would have been blamed for a defeat.
I feel people have already made their decision on Truss, and it is not a positive one.
The “growth plan” is going to be fascinating. I suspect it will fall apart quite quickly.
I think Truss is being quite smart in going for growth and being serious rather than flippantly chasing polls.
Everyone at the minute is making extremely negative forecasts of doom and gloom, but there's a very real possibility that by this time next year the war in Ukraine should be over, commodity prices will have fallen, the economy should be growing and the roaring twenties that Rishi's tax rises and Putin's war looked to snuff out could be back on.
And if so, Truss will deserve some credit for sticking to her guns. And for her role in helping Ukraine win the war.
She will claim credit, but would deserve next to none.
So it's all doom and gloom for which she deserves the blame, unless things go well in which case she doesn't deserve credit? 🤔
Or Truss claims everything is down to global events when the news is bad and takes the credit when the news is good. 🤔
If Ukraine wins the war, Ukraine takes the credit.
As I say here, Truss thinks Thatcher's imperious pig-headedness, at her height, is the only quality worth cosplaying. But a) Thatcher had earned it politically by winning elections and b) it was her undoing.
Yes, people remember the caricature and think that's all there was.
The trouble with the Truss generation is that they're too young to actually remember Thatcher. They've only got the campfire stories that IEA members tell each other- presumably around a bonfire of red tape. So they forget that balanced budgets come before tax cuts and you only pick fights once you're ready to win them.
As I say here, Truss thinks Thatcher's imperious pig-headedness, at her height, is the only quality worth cosplaying. But a) Thatcher had earned it politically by winning elections and b) it was her undoing.
Yes, people remember the caricature and think that's all there was.
The trouble with the Truss generation is that they're too young to actually remember Thatcher. They've only got the campfire stories that IEA members tell each other- presumably around a bonfire of red tape. So they forget that balanced budgets come before tax cuts and you only pick fights once you're ready to win them.
The bonfire of red tape is a good starting point, so long as it’s an actual bonfire, and not merely the talking about it we’ve seen from governments and bureaucrats past.
Interesting thread from @TorstenBell as always… on the q of cutting taxes ultimately meaning difficult questions on public spending Liz Truss is explicitly denying that. She told us today she can borrow more, cut taxes AND keep public spending high. All by growing the economy. https://twitter.com/torstenbell/status/1572252267558113281
Unless we have a two-year recession there is going to be growth between now and the next general election. The issue is from what base it occurs and whether anyone actually notices it. Truss is taking a huge gamble, not just with the economy and public services, but also with the future of the Conservative party.
Truss is a faceless nonentity with a weird voice, ungainly posture and bizarre policies that seem to play directly into Labour's hands.
She has so far scored the unique achievement of making Sir Keir Royale look both charismatic and sensible in comparison. An odd choice by the Tories.
Remember that second place was Rishi Rich, the man who clearly didn’t know how to put petrol in a car, let alone know how much it cost, with as much empathy as the spreadsheets on which he lived his life.
Third place was the woman who introduced a bill on gender identity that had been written by Stonewall, and she then denied in the campaign that it did what it said it did.
Fourth place was a future star, but still very wet behind the ears having only been an MP for five years and aged 42.
Is it any surprise that Mrs Truss was the winner?
I nevertheless think Rishi wins the like to go for a pint with test. His speaking manner is easy and friendly. Moreso (although I'm sure it is more with her friends) than Truss.
To me, Rishi, for all his where does the green wire go-ness, seems the more human.
Sunak would have been a far better choice as PM, but perhaps not for a pint —- he’s a teetotaller
Ha! Ah yes. Well so am I midweek so we could meet for a 0.0% gin somewhere.
As I say here, Truss thinks Thatcher's imperious pig-headedness, at her height, is the only quality worth cosplaying. But a) Thatcher had earned it politically by winning elections and b) it was her undoing.
Yes, people remember the caricature and think that's all there was.
The trouble with the Truss generation is that they're too young to actually remember Thatcher. They've only got the campfire stories that IEA members tell each other- presumably around a bonfire of red tape. So they forget that balanced budgets come before tax cuts and you only pick fights once you're ready to win them.
Yes, they seem to forget that Mrs Thatcher had very large North Sea oil revenues and the income from large-scale privatisations to call on.
“According to Putin, starting from the 21st, all males aged 18-65 will be banned from leaving the country. It appears that General Mobility is confirmed.#Ukraine #Kyiv #NAFO 大递方面消息，从21日开始，所有18-65岁的男丁将禁止出境。看来总动员实捶了”
As I say here, Truss thinks Thatcher's imperious pig-headedness, at her height, is the only quality worth cosplaying. But a) Thatcher had earned it politically by winning elections and b) it was her undoing.
Yes, people remember the caricature and think that's all there was.
The trouble with the Truss generation is that they're too young to actually remember Thatcher. They've only got the campfire stories that IEA members tell each other- presumably around a bonfire of red tape. So they forget that balanced budgets come before tax cuts and you only pick fights once you're ready to win them.
The bonfire of red tape is a good starting point, so long as it’s an actual bonfire, and not merely the talking about it we’ve seen from governments and bureaucrats past.
What red tape?
Right wing think tank the Heritage Foundation had Britain ranked as one of the most “economically free” countries on the planet.
Until, er, Brexit fucked up the trade freedom component numbers.
At the start of the conflict, a lot of countries' and peoples' attitudes were predicated on Russia winning.
What was the point of fucking relations with Russia if they were just going to win anyway?
As the air of invincibility fades, attitudes do too. Do you want to have been on the wrong side of this? What consequences does that have in a post War world?
And so, we see a slow erosion of international support for Russia.
The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
He sold it to Tory MPs though...
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
We desperately need to find a way for encourage business investment.
As Sarah O’Connor of the FT points out, Brits aren’t “lazy”, they’re desperately running to stand still.
Peak TV ratings during Queen's funeral BBC1: 19.5m BBC2: 2m ITV: 5.3m Sky News: 934,000 BBC News channel: 831,000
Combined peak of around 28.5m viewers on main channels, final figure will be a bit higher. Excludes streaming.
Massive audience but smaller than Euro 2020 final.
The estimates of 4 billion+ viewers worldwide (out of a maximum total of 5.4 billion on the planet with access to a TV) look a bit over the top, then.
TV has an ever-diminishing share of the market. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of people watched it via a streaming service or clips on Twitter.
The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
He sold it to Tory MPs though...
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
We desperately need to find a way for encourage business investment.
As Sarah O’Connor of the FT points out, Brits aren’t “lazy”, they’re desperately running to stand still.
It's not Corporation tax levels that discourage business investment, it's uncertainty.
In which case we've had 30+ years of uncertainty which I just don't believe. I could understand that argument from 2016 onwards but growths been almost non existent since 2008.
Is it too much to hope that he might set an example and return Cyprus and the chunk he's taken of Syria to their rightful owners?
Almost certainly, yes.
I think you're rather missing the point. This isn't about moral authority (of which Erdogan possesses very little indeed) but about Putin's international isolation.
I think many leaders have been isolated internationally. They need key allies not to desert them and they can brush the rest off. That is why the China relationship is so important. I think the people who support (or, more accurately, didn't condemn) him represent billions of people, don't they?
Has China supplied a single artillery round to Russia ? I think the relationship is likely to grow frostier still if the nuclear talk continues.
I'm sure Russia could use munitions from everywhere but that wasn't my point. China didn't condemn Russia at the UN, did they? I don't think so. Neither did India IIRC. And I don't think India sent them any tanks either. The issue being "international isolation" isn't complete without a great deal more of the world's population. Because surely you're not seeing this through the prism of the Anglo-American axis only.
Hence the importance of the China relationship.
Oh, in those terms I don't disagree. But it does seem that the relationship is getting significantly less friendly.
My point is that attempts to escalate beyond a certain point risk losing the acquiescence of such states.
Yes. That is the balancing act. But I tend to agree with @Leon even if he is doing a stopped clock thing.
It is difficult to see a route that doesn't involve escalation and perhaps, if not likely, tactical nuclear weapons.
Feels pretty weird writing that but I just don't see an off ramp.
Now....when Richard Sherriff said this morning (he has said it before) that we (the UK) should be on a war footing, spend a shitload more on defence, and invite Ukraine to join NATO, I see the size of any off ramp decrease rapidly. This is manifestly not to say "it's our fault" and I don't rate British army chiefs that highly at all, but I just don't see a great end to this. If both ex Dep SACEUR and @BartholomewRoberts are calling for Russia to give up Crimea, and invite Ukraine into NATO then the space for negotiation (always 100% for Ukraine to decide) diminishes somewhat.
As I say here, Truss thinks Thatcher's imperious pig-headedness, at her height, is the only quality worth cosplaying. But a) Thatcher had earned it politically by winning elections and b) it was her undoing.
Yes, people remember the caricature and think that's all there was.
The trouble with the Truss generation is that they're too young to actually remember Thatcher. They've only got the campfire stories that IEA members tell each other- presumably around a bonfire of red tape. So they forget that balanced budgets come before tax cuts and you only pick fights once you're ready to win them.
The bonfire of red tape is a good starting point, so long as it’s an actual bonfire, and not merely the talking about it we’ve seen from governments and bureaucrats past.
The only red tape which is seriously hitting growth in the UK economy is that created by the Brexiteers, and there's zero chance of them putting a match to that lot - in fact they are planning to add more. There's nothing else of any significance which doesn't have widespread support (eg employment law), which is why there is not a single example of any industry sector complaining about non-Brexit-caused red tape.
Also this great line: “fiscal event is to a budget what a work event was to a party. Basically the same thing but there are no grown ups involved…”. In this case no OBR.
The mad rat Putin is doing it. Declaration of war and full mobilisation
Do you have a source inside the Kremlin?
Yes. It’s called MY BRILLIANT INTUITIVE MIND
Actually you don’t have to be brilliant at all to work out that Putin is going to escalate. As I’ve been saying all day it’s his only option. He’s cornered himself
He may not declare total war but he’s going to up the stakes for sure
As I say here, Truss thinks Thatcher's imperious pig-headedness, at her height, is the only quality worth cosplaying. But a) Thatcher had earned it politically by winning elections and b) it was her undoing.
Yes, people remember the caricature and think that's all there was.
The trouble with the Truss generation is that they're too young to actually remember Thatcher. They've only got the campfire stories that IEA members tell each other- presumably around a bonfire of red tape. So they forget that balanced budgets come before tax cuts and you only pick fights once you're ready to win them.
The bonfire of red tape is a good starting point, so long as it’s an actual bonfire, and not merely the talking about it we’ve seen from governments and bureaucrats past.
The only red tape which is seriously hitting growth in the UK economy is that created by the Brexiteers, and there's zero chance of them putting a match to that lot - in fact they are planning to add more. There's nothing else of any significance which doesn't have widespread support (eg employment law), which is why there is not a single example of any industry sector complaining about non-Brexit-caused red tape.
Posted this at tail-end of a previous thread, which is why I'm repeating it now, with a few edits & addenda
First Term US Midterms
Only includes midterms for US House occurring at midterm of a President's FIRST term (party in caps = controlled US House majority going into first-term midterm elections) Addendum this definition excludes 1942, but I've added it to list anyway, but in italics
2018 Trump, REPS -40 NET seats & lost House majority, Trump lost re-election to 2nd term as POTUS 2010 Obama, DEMS -63 seats & lost House majority; Obama WON re-election 2002 Bush 2, REPS +8 seat & retained House majority; Bush WON re-election 1994 Clinton, DEMS -54 and LOST House majority; Clinton WON re-election 1990 Bush 1, Reps -8 and stayed in House minority; Bush lost re-election 1982 Reagan, Reps -26 and stayed in House minority; Reagan WON re-election 1978 Carter, DEMS -15 and retained House majority; Carter lost election 1974 Ford, Reps -48 and stayed in House minority; Ford lost election 1970 Nixon, Reps -12 and stayed in House minority; Nixon WON re-election 1966 Johnson, DEMS -47 and retained House; Johnson didn't run again & VP Humphrey lost election 1962 Kennedy, DEMS -4 and retained House; Kennedy assassinated but exVP Johnson WON election 1954 Eisenhower, REPS -18 and LOST House; Eisenhower WON re-election 1946 Truman, DEMS -54 and LOST House; Truman WON election (1942 FD Roosevelt, DEMS -45 and stayed in House majority; Roosevelt won re-election to 4th term) 1934 FD Roosevelt, DEMS +9 and retained House; Roosevelt WON re-election 1930 Hoover, REPS -52 and retained House (barely for few months); Hoover lost re-election 1926 Coolidge, REPS -9 and retained House; Coolidge didn't run again, but Sec. Hoover WON election 1922 Harding, REPS -77 and retained House; Harding died but exVP Coolidge WON election 1914 Wilson, DEMS -61 and retained House; Wilson WON re-election 1910 Taft, REPS -56 and LOST House; Taft lost re-election 1902 Roosevelt, REPS +9 and retained House; Roosevelt WON re-election
Out of 20 midterms listed from 1902 through 2018 (not counting 1942), President OR his Party's nominee WON = 13 and lost 7
Out of 10 midterms since 1966, POTUS or Party WON = 5 and lost = 5
Note that in only 3 of 20 mid-terms listed above, did a first-term POTUS's party gain in net US House seats (TR Roosevelt 1902, FD Roosevelt in 1934, Bush 1 in 2002).
Further note that a severe net lost of House seats is often (but not always) the harbinger of POTUS re-election defeat. Whereas a small net seat loss (likely scenario for 2022) can be a bad omen, but much less often, historically speaking.
Truss should tweet how she is fed up with so called Inflation Reduction measures that only serve to increase inflation, especially when they are mumbled from 14 rows back.
Fun though that would be, I think we should treat Biden's Tweet as an intervention in domestic US politics only.
Re Russia. Just been reminded that if Putin made a formal declaration of war tonight then Belarus is treaty bound to support them
Really? Suicidal for Luka.
Thereby bringing the number of former soviet republics at war with other former soviet republics up to 7. Come on Moldova, now is surely the time to pursue that beef with Uzbekistsn.
Is it too much to hope that he might set an example and return Cyprus and the chunk he's taken of Syria to their rightful owners?
Almost certainly, yes.
I think you're rather missing the point. This isn't about moral authority (of which Erdogan possesses very little indeed) but about Putin's international isolation.
I think many leaders have been isolated internationally. They need key allies not to desert them and they can brush the rest off. That is why the China relationship is so important. I think the people who support (or, more accurately, didn't condemn) him represent billions of people, don't they?
Has China supplied a single artillery round to Russia ? I think the relationship is likely to grow frostier still if the nuclear talk continues.
I'm sure Russia could use munitions from everywhere but that wasn't my point. China didn't condemn Russia at the UN, did they? I don't think so. Neither did India IIRC. And I don't think India sent them any tanks either. The issue being "international isolation" isn't complete without a great deal more of the world's population. Because surely you're not seeing this through the prism of the Anglo-American axis only.
Hence the importance of the China relationship.
Oh, in those terms I don't disagree. But it does seem that the relationship is getting significantly less friendly.
My point is that attempts to escalate beyond a certain point risk losing the acquiescence of such states.
Yes. That is the balancing act. But I tend to agree with @Leon even if he is doing a stopped clock thing.
It is difficult to see a route that doesn't involve escalation and perhaps, if not likely, tactical nuclear weapons.
Feels pretty weird writing that but I just don't see an off ramp.
Now....when Richard Sherriff said this morning (he has said it before) that we (the UK) should be on a war footing, spend a shitload more on defence, and invite Ukraine to join NATO, I see the size of any off ramp decrease rapidly. This is manifestly not to say "it's our fault" and I don't rate British army chiefs that highly at all, but I just don't see a great end to this. If both ex Dep SACEUR and @BartholomewRoberts are calling for Russia to give up Crimea, and invite Ukraine into NATO then the space for negotiation (always 100% for Ukraine to decide) diminishes somewhat.
The negotiation is pretty simple: Russia leaves Ukraine.
Truss should tweet how she is fed up with so called Inflation Reduction measures that only serve to increase inflation, especially when they are mumbled from 14 rows back.
Fun though that would be, I think we should treat Biden's Tweet as an intervention in domestic US politics only.
Worth noting (perhaps) some of the biggest midterm POTUS party House losses:
2018 - would appear to be evidence of strong anti-Trump backlash 2010 - very different POTUS but similar to 2018; is common denominator failure of presidential leadership? 1994 - again similar, but think biggest factor was Hillary's healthcare reform fiasco 1982 - reflects economic recession before "Morning in America" but not severe compared to others 1974 - post Watergate AND post-Nixon pardon anti-GOP backlash 1966 - slump from post-JFK and anti-Goldwater Dem highwater mark PLUS start of anti-Vietnam War backlash 1946 - post FDR Republican recovery plus controversy AND missteps of early Truman administration (1942 - post Pearl Harbor angst & challenges, stronger in some vote blocs than others, as well as demographic shifts due to military & economic mobilization that affected Dems more than Reps) 1930 - Great Depression and early failure of presidential leadership by Hoover 1922 - slump from Harding GOP 1920 landslide & high point, also discontent among mostly GOP farmers, controversy over Prohibition enactment AND enforcement, and early stirrings of Harding administration sleaze 1914 - Republican recovery from 1912 bustup, plus early trials & tribulations of Wilson adminstration 1910 - start of breakup between TR Roosevelt and his hand-picked successor Taft, and rising support for progressivism (1910 style) versus standpat conservatism personified by "Big Bill"
At other end of spectrum, midterms where party in power in US House actually GAINED in net seats or had minimal net loss:
2002 - impact of 9/11 and high point of public support & regard for Bush the Younger 1990 - small GOP net seat loss reflection of voters impressed by Bush the Elder's leadership vs Saddam Hussein 1962 - small Dem loss reflective of (immediate) support for JKF in (immediate) aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis (October) 1934 - continued, indeed growing public support for FDR's New Deal leadership 1926 - small GOP loss reflective of support for "Silent Cal" versus Harding sleaze, plus economic boom for (most) American voters 1902 - support for TR in wake of McKinley assassination PLUS voter appreciation of his Rough Rider style
Also this great line: “fiscal event is to a budget what a work event was to a party. Basically the same thing but there are no grown ups involved…”. In this case no OBR.
rumours that #macron is trying to reach #putin before his speech but that the #kremlin isn't taking the bait as if everything has been decided and it is game over ... Macron should learn to stop being a Chamberlain and more a Churchill in #ukraine #europe #nato
As I say here, Truss thinks Thatcher's imperious pig-headedness, at her height, is the only quality worth cosplaying. But a) Thatcher had earned it politically by winning elections and b) it was her undoing.
Yes, people remember the caricature and think that's all there was.
The trouble with the Truss generation is that they're too young to actually remember Thatcher. They've only got the campfire stories that IEA members tell each other- presumably around a bonfire of red tape. So they forget that balanced budgets come before tax cuts and you only pick fights once you're ready to win them.
The bonfire of red tape is a good starting point, so long as it’s an actual bonfire, and not merely the talking about it we’ve seen from governments and bureaucrats past.
Trouble is most red tape is there for a reason, usually to protect either consumers, employees or members of the public (or animals). There is unnecessary bureaucracy out there too of course, but the trouble with a bonfire is it's not very discriminating. In any real bonfire they'd end up burning some things we really ought to have kept.
The trouble then comes months or years later when someone dies because of a corner being cut on transport safety, or a kid is kidnapped because of some relaxation of safeguarding rules, another building burns down because of lax fireproofing regulations, we get a food health scare because cows are being fed sheep brains, or indeed the financial markets crash because the government lifted regulations on mortgage-backed securities. and so on. It's really hard to cut red tape without collateral damage. Needs to be more precision cauterisation than a bonfire.
I feel people have already made their decision on Truss, and it is not a positive one.
The “growth plan” is going to be fascinating. I suspect it will fall apart quite quickly.
I think Truss is being quite smart in going for growth and being serious rather than flippantly chasing polls.
Everyone at the minute is making extremely negative forecasts of doom and gloom, but there's a very real possibility that by this time next year the war in Ukraine should be over, commodity prices will have fallen, the economy should be growing and the roaring twenties that Rishi's tax rises and Putin's war looked to snuff out could be back on.
And if so, Truss will deserve some credit for sticking to her guns. And for her role in helping Ukraine win the war.
She will claim credit, but would deserve next to none.
So it's all doom and gloom for which she deserves the blame, unless things go well in which case she doesn't deserve credit? 🤔
Or Truss claims everything is down to global events when the news is bad and takes the credit when the news is good. 🤔
If Ukraine wins the war, Ukraine takes the credit.
No partial credit for those supporting Ukraine?
Who won the Battle of Britain? Britain or America?
I feel people have already made their decision on Truss, and it is not a positive one.
The “growth plan” is going to be fascinating. I suspect it will fall apart quite quickly.
I think Truss is being quite smart in going for growth and being serious rather than flippantly chasing polls.
Everyone at the minute is making extremely negative forecasts of doom and gloom, but there's a very real possibility that by this time next year the war in Ukraine should be over, commodity prices will have fallen, the economy should be growing and the roaring twenties that Rishi's tax rises and Putin's war looked to snuff out could be back on.
And if so, Truss will deserve some credit for sticking to her guns. And for her role in helping Ukraine win the war.
She will claim credit, but would deserve next to none.
So it's all doom and gloom for which she deserves the blame, unless things go well in which case she doesn't deserve credit? 🤔
Or Truss claims everything is down to global events when the news is bad and takes the credit when the news is good. 🤔
If Ukraine wins the war, Ukraine takes the credit.
Why? They wouldn't have had a chance in hell on their own.
“According to Putin, starting from the 21st, all males aged 18-65 will be banned from leaving the country. It appears that General Mobility is confirmed.#Ukraine #Kyiv #NAFO 大递方面消息，从21日开始，所有18-65岁的男丁将禁止出境。看来总动员实捶了”
Truss should tweet how she is fed up with so called Inflation Reduction measures that only serve to increase inflation, especially when they are mumbled from 14 rows back.
Fun though that would be, I think we should treat Biden's Tweet as an intervention in domestic US politics only.
Of course. It's extremely unlikely this was aimed at the UK. But it's still quite funny.
I feel people have already made their decision on Truss, and it is not a positive one.
The “growth plan” is going to be fascinating. I suspect it will fall apart quite quickly.
It may simply be too late for the government to try to reboot things, in perceptions.
That’s what I feel. ‘‘Twas the Queen’s death what done it. Allowed a pause in the hysterical Westminster machine, and genuine moment of national unity.
So with Russia looking to push forward with laughably quick and unfair 'referendums' in the territories it holds (and not even the full areas of any of them), I suppose the important question is whether that makes any difference to western backers providing support for Ukraine to retrake them at some point? Aside from binding future Russian leaders as much as possible, I assume that is part of the urgency, in trying to make western backers think there is a difference between Ukraine retaking X but not Y.
I feel people have already made their decision on Truss, and it is not a positive one.
The “growth plan” is going to be fascinating. I suspect it will fall apart quite quickly.
I think Truss is being quite smart in going for growth and being serious rather than flippantly chasing polls.
Everyone at the minute is making extremely negative forecasts of doom and gloom, but there's a very real possibility that by this time next year the war in Ukraine should be over, commodity prices will have fallen, the economy should be growing and the roaring twenties that Rishi's tax rises and Putin's war looked to snuff out could be back on.
And if so, Truss will deserve some credit for sticking to her guns. And for her role in helping Ukraine win the war.
Barber boom 2.0. Growing your way out of a negative supply shock means higher inflation and interest rates. Last time it was tried we ended up with an IMF programme.
I feel people have already made their decision on Truss, and it is not a positive one.
The “growth plan” is going to be fascinating. I suspect it will fall apart quite quickly.
I think Truss is being quite smart in going for growth and being serious rather than flippantly chasing polls.
Everyone at the minute is making extremely negative forecasts of doom and gloom, but there's a very real possibility that by this time next year the war in Ukraine should be over, commodity prices will have fallen, the economy should be growing and the roaring twenties that Rishi's tax rises and Putin's war looked to snuff out could be back on.
And if so, Truss will deserve some credit for sticking to her guns. And for her role in helping Ukraine win the war.
She will claim credit, but would deserve next to none.
So it's all doom and gloom for which she deserves the blame, unless things go well in which case she doesn't deserve credit? 🤔
Or Truss claims everything is down to global events when the news is bad and takes the credit when the news is good. 🤔
If Ukraine wins the war, Ukraine takes the credit.
No partial credit for those supporting Ukraine?
Who won the Battle of Britain? Britain or America?
If you think that is an analogy I suggest an O Level history of the Second World War.
So with Russia looking to push forward with laughably quick and unfair 'referendums' in the territories it holds (and not even the full areas of any of them), I suppose the important question is whether that makes any difference to western backers providing support for Ukraine to retrake them at some point? Aside from binding future Russian leaders as much as possible, I assume that is part of the urgency, in trying to make western backers think there is a difference between Ukraine retaking X but not Y.
Ukraine sees its own territories as being before 2014, as the international community agrees. That is good enough for those offering military support.
I feel people have already made their decision on Truss, and it is not a positive one.
The “growth plan” is going to be fascinating. I suspect it will fall apart quite quickly.
I think Truss is being quite smart in going for growth and being serious rather than flippantly chasing polls.
Everyone at the minute is making extremely negative forecasts of doom and gloom, but there's a very real possibility that by this time next year the war in Ukraine should be over, commodity prices will have fallen, the economy should be growing and the roaring twenties that Rishi's tax rises and Putin's war looked to snuff out could be back on.
And if so, Truss will deserve some credit for sticking to her guns. And for her role in helping Ukraine win the war.
She will claim credit, but would deserve next to none.
So it's all doom and gloom for which she deserves the blame, unless things go well in which case she doesn't deserve credit? 🤔
Or Truss claims everything is down to global events when the news is bad and takes the credit when the news is good. 🤔
If Ukraine wins the war, Ukraine takes the credit.
No partial credit for those supporting Ukraine?
Who won the Battle of Britain? Britain or America?
Britain, in no small part thanks to support from America, so both deservedly get credit.
In defeating Russia, there's no shortage of credit to go around. Zelensky and Ukrainians deserve most of the credit of course, but they should be grateful for and thanks should also go to in no particular order Biden, Johnson, Truss, Obama, David Cameron and Theresa May, the leaders of Baltic states and more too.
As I say here, Truss thinks Thatcher's imperious pig-headedness, at her height, is the only quality worth cosplaying. But a) Thatcher had earned it politically by winning elections and b) it was her undoing.
Yes, people remember the caricature and think that's all there was.
The trouble with the Truss generation is that they're too young to actually remember Thatcher. They've only got the campfire stories that IEA members tell each other- presumably around a bonfire of red tape. So they forget that balanced budgets come before tax cuts and you only pick fights once you're ready to win them.
The bonfire of red tape is a good starting point, so long as it’s an actual bonfire, and not merely the talking about it we’ve seen from governments and bureaucrats past.
The only red tape which is seriously hitting growth in the UK economy is that created by the Brexiteers, and there's zero chance of them putting a match to that lot - in fact they are planning to add more. There's nothing else of any significance which doesn't have widespread support (eg employment law), which is why there is not a single example of any industry sector complaining about non-Brexit-caused red tape.
That is hardly surprising though is it? The new 'red tape' is new. The old red tape is long standing and businesses have learned to live with it. Doesn't mean that there are no benefits to be gained.
“Make no mistake: the war in Ukraine just moved up a dangerous gear. Far from turning into the frozen conflict that could have tested the West’s staying power, Ukraine’s recent major counteroffensive has so humiliated Putin that there is every expectation he will now play even uglier than he has already.”
I feel people have already made their decision on Truss, and it is not a positive one.
The “growth plan” is going to be fascinating. I suspect it will fall apart quite quickly.
I think Truss is being quite smart in going for growth and being serious rather than flippantly chasing polls.
Everyone at the minute is making extremely negative forecasts of doom and gloom, but there's a very real possibility that by this time next year the war in Ukraine should be over, commodity prices will have fallen, the economy should be growing and the roaring twenties that Rishi's tax rises and Putin's war looked to snuff out could be back on.
And if so, Truss will deserve some credit for sticking to her guns. And for her role in helping Ukraine win the war.
She will claim credit, but would deserve next to none.
So it's all doom and gloom for which she deserves the blame, unless things go well in which case she doesn't deserve credit? 🤔
Or Truss claims everything is down to global events when the news is bad and takes the credit when the news is good. 🤔
If Ukraine wins the war, Ukraine takes the credit.
No partial credit for those supporting Ukraine?
Who won the Battle of Britain? Britain or America?
Britain
With a fuck ton of help. The Empire training schools coming online in Canada gave Dowding complete confidence that replacement pilots would be flooding in quite soon and the RAF could survive a serious loss rate. As one small example.
Edit: the equivalent, for Ukraine, was the RAF being rearmed with American built Mustangs, complete with pilot training, before and during the battle.
So with Russia looking to push forward with laughably quick and unfair 'referendums' in the territories it holds (and not even the full areas of any of them), I suppose the important question is whether that makes any difference to western backers providing support for Ukraine to retrake them at some point? Aside from binding future Russian leaders as much as possible, I assume that is part of the urgency, in trying to make western backers think there is a difference between Ukraine retaking X but not Y.
Ukraine sees its own territories as being before 2014, as the international community agrees. That is good enough for those offering military support.
There must be an awful lot of 20-something men in Russia, right now, staring at their phones with horror
But surely not surprise.
I think some surprise Yes - IF this happens (we still don’t know for sure, tho the rumours are piling up)
It’s a huge risk for Putin. He must be quite desperate
However full mobilisation would mean he's not intending stopping at Ukraine. Its through the baltics and Moldova, Armenia, etc. Knocking on Polands door Thus he will require forcibly being stopped in Ukraine
Re Russia. Just been reminded that if Putin made a formal declaration of war tonight then Belarus is treaty bound to support them
Is it not a defensive treaty?
And Belorussia is far from stable.
A declaration of war on Ukraine might well lead to revolution in Minsk.
I think, although im not sure, its mutual cooperation in formal war situations. If defensive only, some sort of 'referendum' horseplay will surely be employed However yes, it might lead to revolt
There must be an awful lot of 20-something men in Russia, right now, staring at their phones with horror
But surely not surprise.
I think some surprise Yes - IF this happens (we still don’t know for sure, tho the rumours are piling up)
It’s a huge risk for Putin. He must be quite desperate
If only we had posters from Russia we could ask them.
I suppose there will be a range of opinions from those who have been fatalistically waiting for this moment through to those who thought the special military operation would be over in Russia's favour pretty quickly and there would be no need for future soldiers. I'd be genuinely interested to know where the balance lies.
That is hardly surprising though is it? The new 'red tape' is new. The old red tape is long standing and businesses have learned to live with it. Doesn't mean that there are no benefits to be gained.
Fair point, but when people look for those potential benefits - even when someone as intellectually impressive and ideologically committed as Jacob Rees-Mogg looks for them - they don't seem to be able to find any.
[There is one exception, which is planning law and the associated red tape, but it's politically a hugely difficult one to tackle, and a good way of losing elections.]
Q: Labour's policy to tax the energy companies [to subsidise bills] is supported by 68% of the public, according to polls. You’re prepared to be unpopular aren’t you?
Oh dear, we’re back to “the energy companies” bogeyman from the media and Labour.
How exactly does anyone propose the British government taxes Qatargas and Saudi Aramco, who are the companies doing well out of the crisis?
The company that bills you for domestic energy is barely breaking even, in fact many of them have gone bust in the last two years.
This is partly a case of media getting its facts confused. The Labour proposal would cover both energy companies and power generators, and the latter are the bigger sitting ducks for a windfall tax because a. they've not had one already, b. they are the companies making money in the UK from generating electricity that is at artificially high prices due to the way the elec price is tethered to gas.
A WT on the power generators would apply to renewables and nuclear which is where a lot of the big windfall is landing.
A lot of the renewables guys are on fixed price contracts.
Is it too much to hope that he might set an example and return Cyprus and the chunk he's taken of Syria to their rightful owners?
Almost certainly, yes.
I think you're rather missing the point. This isn't about moral authority (of which Erdogan possesses very little indeed) but about Putin's international isolation.
I think many leaders have been isolated internationally. They need key allies not to desert them and they can brush the rest off. That is why the China relationship is so important. I think the people who support (or, more accurately, didn't condemn) him represent billions of people, don't they?
Has China supplied a single artillery round to Russia ? I think the relationship is likely to grow frostier still if the nuclear talk continues.
I'm sure Russia could use munitions from everywhere but that wasn't my point. China didn't condemn Russia at the UN, did they? I don't think so. Neither did India IIRC. And I don't think India sent them any tanks either. The issue being "international isolation" isn't complete without a great deal more of the world's population. Because surely you're not seeing this through the prism of the Anglo-American axis only.
Hence the importance of the China relationship.
Oh, in those terms I don't disagree. But it does seem that the relationship is getting significantly less friendly.
My point is that attempts to escalate beyond a certain point risk losing the acquiescence of such states.
Yes. That is the balancing act. But I tend to agree with @Leon even if he is doing a stopped clock thing.
It is difficult to see a route that doesn't involve escalation and perhaps, if not likely, tactical nuclear weapons.
Feels pretty weird writing that but I just don't see an off ramp.
Now....when Richard Sherriff said this morning (he has said it before) that we (the UK) should be on a war footing, spend a shitload more on defence, and invite Ukraine to join NATO, I see the size of any off ramp decrease rapidly. This is manifestly not to say "it's our fault" and I don't rate British army chiefs that highly at all, but I just don't see a great end to this. If both ex Dep SACEUR and @BartholomewRoberts are calling for Russia to give up Crimea, and invite Ukraine into NATO then the space for negotiation (always 100% for Ukraine to decide) diminishes somewhat.
Russia sees no opportunity to end the war in Ukraine through diplomacy – press secretary of 🇷🇺president Dmitry Peskov
Honestly, it's quite hard to see a negotiated settlement which doesn't included security guarantees for Ukraine that are more or less equivalent to NATO membership - otherwise what incentive does Ukraine have to settle ? What otherwise would prevent round three from Putin in a few years' time ?
It is hard to see where to compromise with a country committed to a war of aggression, and very evidently not bother by being seen to commit atrocities in the pursuit of that war.
Having said that, a negotiation over Crimea is entirely possible were Russia to pull out of Luhansk/Donbas.
There must be an awful lot of 20-something men in Russia, right now, staring at their phones with horror
But surely not surprise.
I think some surprise Yes - IF this happens (we still don’t know for sure, tho the rumours are piling up)
It’s a huge risk for Putin. He must be quite desperate
If only we had posters from Russia we could ask them.
I suppose there will be a range of opinions from those who have been fatalistically waiting for this moment through to those who thought the special military operation would be over in Russia's favour pretty quickly and there would be no need for future soldiers. I'd be genuinely interested to know where the balance lies.
Would also be interesting to know what potential draftees expectations of comung back in one piece are, and whether they have any idea how many soldiers have been lost already.
Ah, whatever. It’s just war with Russia. No biggie
Indeed. Its not as if we're talking about war with an actual international power like China. 🤷♂️
Russia's Potemkin military have been destroyed already. They've got no tanks left, no logistics, no air superiority, no naval superiority, no Moskva. They have nothing left and if they want to send untrained, unarmed conscripts into a meat grinder, then that's not going to change the course of the war.
Russia need to be kicked out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine including Crimea. If they don't stop, then we need to go all the way to Moscow, just as Hitler saw Berlin fall.
Q: Labour's policy to tax the energy companies [to subsidise bills] is supported by 68% of the public, according to polls. You’re prepared to be unpopular aren’t you?
Oh dear, we’re back to “the energy companies” bogeyman from the media and Labour.
How exactly does anyone propose the British government taxes Qatargas and Saudi Aramco, who are the companies doing well out of the crisis?
The company that bills you for domestic energy is barely breaking even, in fact many of them have gone bust in the last two years.
This is partly a case of media getting its facts confused. The Labour proposal would cover both energy companies and power generators, and the latter are the bigger sitting ducks for a windfall tax because a. they've not had one already, b. they are the companies making money in the UK from generating electricity that is at artificially high prices due to the way the elec price is tethered to gas.
A WT on the power generators would apply to renewables and nuclear which is where a lot of the big windfall is landing.
A lot of the renewables guys are on fixed price contracts.
A lot aren't though, they're on the old Renewables Obligation contracts so they are getting market prices.
Breaking News - Seattle Education Association members vote to end strike, by ratifying new contracts with Seattle Public Schools
Seattle Times -Six days after ending a strike against Seattle Public Schools, Seattle teachers voted to approve a three-year contract that includes salary raises, more support staff in classrooms and more manageable caseloads.
The Seattle Education Association union voted Monday night and announced the result early Tuesday.
There are three contracts in all, and each group voted on its own agreement. For the contact covering certificated staff or classroom teachers, 71% voted in favor. The contract covering paraprofessionals passed with 66% in favor. And educational office professionals voted 82% in favor of their contract.
In all, 4,143 of SEA’s 6,000 members voted on their respective contracts.
SEA members went on strike on what would have been the first day of school, Sept. 7, and voted to suspend the strike on the fifth day after SPS and union leaders came to a tentative agreement. Students started school Wednesday.
The Seattle School Board still needs to vote on the contract for it to be finalized. If it’s not approved, negotiations will likely start again, but Superintendent Brent Jones — who has a background in human resources — said it’s rare for a board to vote down a contract.
It’s unclear when the board will vote on the contract. The next scheduled board meeting is Sept. 28, and they could hold a special meeting before then.
The contract will cost the district about $228 million over three years and add nearly $92 million to the already projected budget shortfalls. Questions from board members about how to balance the budget came up during last week’s regular board meeting. Options include dipping into the district’s rainy day funds and using federal pandemic relief dollars.
Under the proposed contract, SPS agreed to pay raises of 7% for both certificated and classified staff. Originally, the district proposed a 6.5% increase, which included a state-funded 5.5% inflationary adjustment.
In the second year of the contract, members would receive a 4% salary increase for inflation and 3% the following year. If the state funds a higher inflationary adjustment, union members will receive whichever is greater, the tentative agreement says.
SEA was fighting for more manageable caseloads and teacher-to-student ratios in the special education and multilingual programs. The union was able to maintain ratios while increasing the number of staff in classrooms to provide more support.
Ah, whatever. It’s just war with Russia. No biggie
Indeed. Its not as if we're talking about war with an actual international power like China. 🤷♂️
Russia's Potemkin military have been destroyed already. They've got no tanks left, no logistics, no air superiority, no naval superiority, no Moskva. They have nothing left and if they want to send untrained, unarmed conscripts into a meat grinder, then that's not going to change the course of the war.
Russia need to be kicked out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine including Crimea. If they don't stop, then we need to go all the way to Moscow, just as Hitler saw Berlin fall.
Ah, whatever. It’s just war with Russia. No biggie
Indeed. Its not as if we're talking about war with an actual international power like China. 🤷♂️
Russia's Potemkin military have been destroyed already. They've got no tanks left, no logistics, no air superiority, no naval superiority, no Moskva. They have nothing left and if they want to send untrained, unarmed conscripts into a meat grinder, then that's not going to change the course of the war.
Russia need to be kicked out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine including Crimea. If they don't stop, then we need to go all the way to Moscow, just as Hitler saw Berlin fall.
Probably not the time of the year to be going all the way to Moscow as a few leaders have found in the past.
However I look forward to lining up beside you in the PB Pals regiment.
The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
He sold it to Tory MPs though...
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
We desperately need to find a way for encourage business investment.
As Sarah O’Connor of the FT points out, Brits aren’t “lazy”, they’re desperately running to stand still.
It's not Corporation tax levels that discourage business investment, it's uncertainty.
In which case we've had 30+ years of uncertainty which I just don't believe. I could understand that argument from 2016 onwards but growths been almost non existent since 2008.
Rishi's plan for tax incentives for innovation and R&D was worth trying. As he said, Liz Truss is reverting to the situation that has not worked for the past decade. I applaud that Truss wants growth but cannot see from where she thinks it will come.
"'A robust view of executive power says it’s really not the job of the courts to decide what’s classified or unclassified,” said University of California Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo. … 'It’s the president who decides … —the current, incumbent, sitting president.' https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1572246067009441793
Even the right wing nuttiest lawyers seem to be getting tired of Trumpian pretendy-law.
Ah, whatever. It’s just war with Russia. No biggie
Indeed. Its not as if we're talking about war with an actual international power like China. 🤷♂️
Russia's Potemkin military have been destroyed already. They've got no tanks left, no logistics, no air superiority, no naval superiority, no Moskva. They have nothing left and if they want to send untrained, unarmed conscripts into a meat grinder, then that's not going to change the course of the war.
Russia need to be kicked out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine including Crimea. If they don't stop, then we need to go all the way to Moscow, just as Hitler saw Berlin fall.
I am trying to get inside your head as you write this and all I can glean is a tremendous rush of excitement and vicarious sense of achievement and boldness.
That sadly is probably entirely absent from your usual day-to-day existence, exciting as PB can be at times.
Although all is not lost. You can still get there in time for the celebratory schnapps in Red Square if you hurry.
The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
He sold it to Tory MPs though...
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
We desperately need to find a way for encourage business investment.
As Sarah O’Connor of the FT points out, Brits aren’t “lazy”, they’re desperately running to stand still.
It's not Corporation tax levels that discourage business investment, it's uncertainty.
In which case we've had 30+ years of uncertainty which I just don't believe. I could understand that argument from 2016 onwards but growths been almost non existent since 2008.
Rishi's plan for tax incentives for innovation and R&D was worth trying. As he said, Liz Truss is reverting to the situation that has not worked for the past decade.
Corporation tax receipts have gone up over the past decade, even as corporation tax rates were reduced. The situation was working, until the Treasury got greedy under Sunak and started trying to raise rates which is what doesn't work.
As I say here, Truss thinks Thatcher's imperious pig-headedness, at her height, is the only quality worth cosplaying. But a) Thatcher had earned it politically by winning elections and b) it was her undoing.
Yes, people remember the caricature and think that's all there was.
The trouble with the Truss generation is that they're too young to actually remember Thatcher. They've only got the campfire stories that IEA members tell each other- presumably around a bonfire of red tape. So they forget that balanced budgets come before tax cuts and you only pick fights once you're ready to win them.
The bonfire of red tape is a good starting point, so long as it’s an actual bonfire, and not merely the talking about it we’ve seen from governments and bureaucrats past.
Trouble is most red tape is there for a reason, usually to protect either consumers, employees or members of the public (or animals). There is unnecessary bureaucracy out there too of course, but the trouble with a bonfire is it's not very discriminating. In any real bonfire they'd end up burning some things we really ought to have kept.
The trouble then comes months or years later when someone dies because of a corner being cut on transport safety, or a kid is kidnapped because of some relaxation of safeguarding rules, another building burns down because of lax fireproofing regulations, we get a food health scare because cows are being fed sheep brains, or indeed the financial markets crash because the government lifted regulations on mortgage-backed securities. and so on. It's really hard to cut red tape without collateral damage. Needs to be more precision cauterisation than a bonfire.
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
Comments
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
The media is indeed getting its facts confused, some might say on purpose, and the Labour proposals are pie-in-the-sky that wouldn’t stand up to a minute’s scrutiny if they were actually in government.
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
But they would say that, of course
Peak TV ratings during Queen's funeral
BBC1: 19.5m
BBC2: 2m
ITV: 5.3m
Sky News: 934,000
BBC News channel: 831,000
Combined peak of around 28.5m viewers on main channels, final figure will be a bit higher. Excludes streaming.
Massive audience but smaller than Euro 2020 final.
If Ukraine wins the war, Ukraine takes the credit.
As Sarah O’Connor of the FT points out, Brits aren’t “lazy”, they’re desperately running to stand still.
https://twitter.com/sarahoconnor_/status/1572153172998901760?s=46&t=NWESEei7IxIXMz3i8XUcNA
I am reminded of the Foch story - when asked who won at the Marne, he paused, and then said he was quite certain that he would have been blamed for a defeat.
Are people really that stupid?
“According to Putin, starting from the 21st, all males aged 18-65 will be banned from leaving the country. It appears that General Mobility is confirmed.#Ukraine #Kyiv #NAFO 大递方面消息，从21日开始，所有18-65岁的男丁将禁止出境。看来总动员实捶了”
https://twitter.com/dsbxtw9991/status/1572259092382748674?s=46&t=tC224ynY4VELj_Ny89HWIw
Right wing think tank the Heritage Foundation had Britain ranked as one of the most “economically free” countries on the planet.
Until, er, Brexit fucked up the trade freedom component numbers.
What was the point of fucking relations with Russia if they were just going to win anyway?
As the air of invincibility fades, attitudes do too. Do you want to have been on the wrong side of this? What consequences does that have in a post War world?
And so, we see a slow erosion of international support for Russia.
It is difficult to see a route that doesn't involve escalation and perhaps, if not likely, tactical nuclear weapons.
Feels pretty weird writing that but I just don't see an off ramp.
Now....when Richard Sherriff said this morning (he has said it before) that we (the UK) should be on a war footing, spend a shitload more on defence, and invite Ukraine to join NATO, I see the size of any off ramp decrease rapidly. This is manifestly not to say "it's our fault" and I don't rate British army chiefs that highly at all, but I just don't see a great end to this. If both ex Dep SACEUR and @BartholomewRoberts are calling for Russia to give up Crimea, and invite Ukraine into NATO then the space for negotiation (always 100% for Ukraine to decide) diminishes somewhat.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1571057961493233665
Take it as unconfirmed:
"After 23.59 today (Moscow time), men aged 18 to 65 will be prohibited from leaving Russia abroad." - Bochkala_WAR on TG
https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/1572252641840734211
First Term US Midterms
Only includes midterms for US House occurring at midterm of a President's FIRST term
(party in caps = controlled US House majority going into first-term midterm elections)
Addendum this definition excludes 1942, but I've added it to list anyway, but in italics
2018 Trump, REPS -40 NET seats & lost House majority, Trump lost re-election to 2nd term as POTUS
2010 Obama, DEMS -63 seats & lost House majority; Obama WON re-election
2002 Bush 2, REPS +8 seat & retained House majority; Bush WON re-election
1994 Clinton, DEMS -54 and LOST House majority; Clinton WON re-election
1990 Bush 1, Reps -8 and stayed in House minority; Bush lost re-election
1982 Reagan, Reps -26 and stayed in House minority; Reagan WON re-election
1978 Carter, DEMS -15 and retained House majority; Carter lost election
1974 Ford, Reps -48 and stayed in House minority; Ford lost election
1970 Nixon, Reps -12 and stayed in House minority; Nixon WON re-election
1966 Johnson, DEMS -47 and retained House; Johnson didn't run again & VP Humphrey lost election
1962 Kennedy, DEMS -4 and retained House; Kennedy assassinated but exVP Johnson WON election
1954 Eisenhower, REPS -18 and LOST House; Eisenhower WON re-election
1946 Truman, DEMS -54 and LOST House; Truman WON election
(1942 FD Roosevelt, DEMS -45 and stayed in House majority; Roosevelt won re-election to 4th term)
1934 FD Roosevelt, DEMS +9 and retained House; Roosevelt WON re-election
1930 Hoover, REPS -52 and retained House (barely for few months); Hoover lost re-election
1926 Coolidge, REPS -9 and retained House; Coolidge didn't run again, but Sec. Hoover WON election
1922 Harding, REPS -77 and retained House; Harding died but exVP Coolidge WON election
1914 Wilson, DEMS -61 and retained House; Wilson WON re-election
1910 Taft, REPS -56 and LOST House; Taft lost re-election
1902 Roosevelt, REPS +9 and retained House; Roosevelt WON re-election
Out of 20 midterms listed from 1902 through 2018 (not counting 1942), President OR his Party's nominee WON = 13 and lost 7
Out of 10 midterms since 1966, POTUS or Party WON = 5 and lost = 5
Note that in only 3 of 20 mid-terms listed above, did a first-term POTUS's party gain in net US House seats (TR Roosevelt 1902, FD Roosevelt in 1934, Bush 1 in 2002).
Further note that a severe net lost of House seats is often (but not always) the harbinger of POTUS re-election defeat. Whereas a small net seat loss (likely scenario for 2022) can be a bad omen, but much less often, historically speaking.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election
Come on Moldova, now is surely the time to pursue that beef with Uzbekistsn.
End of negotiations.
Worth noting (perhaps) some of the biggest midterm POTUS party House losses:
2018 - would appear to be evidence of strong anti-Trump backlash
2010 - very different POTUS but similar to 2018; is common denominator failure of presidential leadership?
1994 - again similar, but think biggest factor was Hillary's healthcare reform fiasco
1982 - reflects economic recession before "Morning in America" but not severe compared to others
1974 - post Watergate AND post-Nixon pardon anti-GOP backlash
1966 - slump from post-JFK and anti-Goldwater Dem highwater mark PLUS start of anti-Vietnam War backlash
1946 - post FDR Republican recovery plus controversy AND missteps of early Truman administration
(1942 - post Pearl Harbor angst & challenges, stronger in some vote blocs than others, as well as demographic shifts due to military & economic mobilization that affected Dems more than Reps)
1930 - Great Depression and early failure of presidential leadership by Hoover
1922 - slump from Harding GOP 1920 landslide & high point, also discontent among mostly GOP farmers, controversy over Prohibition enactment AND enforcement, and early stirrings of Harding administration sleaze
1914 - Republican recovery from 1912 bustup, plus early trials & tribulations of Wilson adminstration
1910 - start of breakup between TR Roosevelt and his hand-picked successor Taft, and rising support for progressivism (1910 style) versus standpat conservatism personified by "Big Bill"
At other end of spectrum, midterms where party in power in US House actually GAINED in net seats or had minimal net loss:
2002 - impact of 9/11 and high point of public support & regard for Bush the Younger
1990 - small GOP net seat loss reflection of voters impressed by Bush the Elder's leadership vs Saddam Hussein
1962 - small Dem loss reflective of (immediate) support for JKF in (immediate) aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis (October)
1934 - continued, indeed growing public support for FDR's New Deal leadership
1926 - small GOP loss reflective of support for "Silent Cal" versus Harding sleaze, plus economic boom for (most) American voters
1902 - support for TR in wake of McKinley assassination PLUS voter appreciation of his Rough Rider style
https://twitter.com/v_geuzen/status/1572261559895838722?s=46&t=tC224ynY4VELj_Ny89HWIw
The trouble then comes months or years later when someone dies because of a corner being cut on transport safety, or a kid is kidnapped because of some relaxation of safeguarding rules, another building burns down because of lax fireproofing regulations, we get a food health scare because cows are being fed sheep brains, or indeed the financial markets crash because the government lifted regulations on mortgage-backed securities. and so on. It's really hard to cut red tape without collateral damage. Needs to be more precision cauterisation than a bonfire.
It's extremely unlikely this was aimed at the UK. But it's still quite funny.
‘‘Twas the Queen’s death what done it.
Allowed a pause in the hysterical Westminster machine, and genuine moment of national unity.
But again, I’m not on the ground.
I think some surprise Yes - IF this happens (we still don’t know for sure, tho the rumours are piling up)
It’s a huge risk for Putin. He must be quite desperate
In defeating Russia, there's no shortage of credit to go around. Zelensky and Ukrainians deserve most of the credit of course, but they should be grateful for and thanks should also go to in no particular order Biden, Johnson, Truss, Obama, David Cameron and Theresa May, the leaders of Baltic states and more too.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/20/putin-cannot-afford-lose-must-prepare-war-turn-even-uglier/
With a fuck ton of help. The Empire training schools coming online in Canada gave Dowding complete confidence that replacement pilots would be flooding in quite soon and the RAF could survive a serious loss rate. As one small example.
Edit: the equivalent, for Ukraine, was the RAF being rearmed with American built Mustangs, complete with pilot training, before and during the battle.
Thus he will require forcibly being stopped in Ukraine
And Belorussia is far from stable.
A declaration of war on Ukraine might well lead to revolution in Minsk.
However yes, it might lead to revolt
I suppose there will be a range of opinions from those who have been fatalistically waiting for this moment through to those who thought the special military operation would be over in Russia's favour pretty quickly and there would be no need for future soldiers. I'd be genuinely interested to know where the balance lies.
[There is one exception, which is planning law and the associated red tape, but it's politically a hugely difficult one to tackle, and a good way of losing elections.]
More news, as it happens…
Earlier, on September 19, he also rejected allegations that Russian forces committed war crimes in Kharkiv Oblast
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1572259343772295168
Honestly, it's quite hard to see a negotiated settlement which doesn't included security guarantees for Ukraine that are more or less equivalent to NATO membership - otherwise what incentive does Ukraine have to settle ?
What otherwise would prevent round three from Putin in a few years' time ?
It is hard to see where to compromise with a country committed to a war of aggression, and very evidently not bother by being seen to commit atrocities in the pursuit of that war.
Having said that, a negotiation over Crimea is entirely possible were Russia to pull out of Luhansk/Donbas.
I mean, it's all garbled nonsense but that's the logic.
Would be even stupider than Hitler declaring war on the USA.
Russia's Potemkin military have been destroyed already. They've got no tanks left, no logistics, no air superiority, no naval superiority, no Moskva. They have nothing left and if they want to send untrained, unarmed conscripts into a meat grinder, then that's not going to change the course of the war.
Russia need to be kicked out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine including Crimea. If they don't stop, then we need to go all the way to Moscow, just as Hitler saw Berlin fall.
Seattle Times -Six days after ending a strike against Seattle Public Schools, Seattle teachers voted to approve a three-year contract that includes salary raises, more support staff in classrooms and more manageable caseloads.
The Seattle Education Association union voted Monday night and announced the result early Tuesday.
There are three contracts in all, and each group voted on its own agreement. For the contact covering certificated staff or classroom teachers, 71% voted in favor. The contract covering paraprofessionals passed with 66% in favor. And educational office professionals voted 82% in favor of their contract.
In all, 4,143 of SEA’s 6,000 members voted on their respective contracts.
SEA members went on strike on what would have been the first day of school, Sept. 7, and voted to suspend the strike on the fifth day after SPS and union leaders came to a tentative agreement. Students started school Wednesday.
The Seattle School Board still needs to vote on the contract for it to be finalized. If it’s not approved, negotiations will likely start again, but Superintendent Brent Jones — who has a background in human resources — said it’s rare for a board to vote down a contract.
It’s unclear when the board will vote on the contract. The next scheduled board meeting is Sept. 28, and they could hold a special meeting before then.
The contract will cost the district about $228 million over three years and add nearly $92 million to the already projected budget shortfalls. Questions from board members about how to balance the budget came up during last week’s regular board meeting. Options include dipping into the district’s rainy day funds and using federal pandemic relief dollars.
Under the proposed contract, SPS agreed to pay raises of 7% for both certificated and classified staff. Originally, the district proposed a 6.5% increase, which included a state-funded 5.5% inflationary adjustment.
In the second year of the contract, members would receive a 4% salary increase for inflation and 3% the following year. If the state funds a higher inflationary adjustment, union members will receive whichever is greater, the tentative agreement says.
SEA was fighting for more manageable caseloads and teacher-to-student ratios in the special education and multilingual programs. The union was able to maintain ratios while increasing the number of staff in classrooms to provide more support.
She’s young, impressionable…
Schofield? Not so much.
However I look forward to lining up beside you in the PB Pals regiment.
"'A robust view of executive power says it’s really not the job of the courts to decide what’s classified or unclassified,” said University of California Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo. … 'It’s the president who decides … —the current, incumbent, sitting president.'
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1572246067009441793
Even the right wing nuttiest lawyers seem to be getting tired of Trumpian pretendy-law.
That sadly is probably entirely absent from your usual day-to-day existence, exciting as PB can be at times.
Although all is not lost. You can still get there in time for the celebratory schnapps in Red Square if you hurry.
https://fightforua.org/
I’ll be cheering him on from behind my gin bottle