Howdy, Stranger!

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

The general election betting moves to LAB since the arrival of Truss – politicalbetting.com

14567810»

Comments

  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Seems like the evidence is a focus group of 7 people and that's enough evidence to suggest a growing Labour lead is actually wrong and the Tories are popular

    Have there been new VI polls since Friday?
    Yes with Opinium. Labour +1 and Truss and Starmer now tied on best PM. I believe they were the only outlet to have her ahead
    Thanks, I’ve not been keeping track.
    Np, good to see you continuing to post Rob
  • carnforth said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    ping said:

    Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

    https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

    The whole thread is interesting.

    As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

    Truss and Kwarteng are happy to let Sterling depreciate. They believe in the markets and that they are over reacting.

    Will the markets test the government to see if they are willing to pay premium rates on debt?
    The Sterling denominated debt is being inflated away.
    The existing debt or rather the non indexed 75% of it, is. The whole cunning scheme involves borrowing a fuckton more, at crippling interest rates, to pay for inflated bills, so that doesn't really help, does it?
    Why did governments in Britain and elsewhere start issuing inflation-linked government bonds. Could they not sell enough ordinary ones? Apologies if this is a terribly naive question.
    Would you buy a non-linked gilt from these shysters?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:



    You are about to see a raft of policies that eradicate EU rules and are part of the growth agenda

    I have no regrets on Brexit

    Curiously, the Truss government seems poised to abandon the "public money for public goods" Defra agenda which Gove introduced, and return to the EU system of simply dishing out money in proportion to the size of the farm. An example of "the EU knows best"?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/brexit-bonus-farmers-poised-to-scrap
    It's great news that the Government is focusing on food security and the scary rewilding agenda may be getting the shaft.
    I hope that there will be some additional funds made available for specific public goods though - for example, paying farmers to install systems to let some of their land near rivers be flooded if it helps reduce flooding of villages and towns downstream. And pay them for the area of land and production impact. It would be a lot cheaper than other alternatives.
    How much flooding will there be though if we actually dredge? That's what's so exciting about this Government - they actually seem determined to get shit done. They might dredge the rivers again. They might build reservoirs again. I mean they've got two years before they face what looks like an electoral firing squad, and my goodness they are tunnelling their little hearts out planning their escape, and bloody good luck to them.
    Your enthusiasms are puzzlingly random and lacking in nuance; dredging everything is no more help than covering it in rock dust for reasons explained for example at

    https://www.ciwem.org/news/floods-and-dredging-reality
    I am sure we did dredging the Somerset levels the last time we discussed this. I seem to remember the detail of the attempted rebuttal read more like a confirmation that dredging was exactly what was needed.
    I don't remember discussing it, but there's masses of discussion on the internet specifically about the levels explicitly rebutting the Yay dredge it! approach

    https://www.therrc.co.uk/news/floods-and-dredging-reality-check

    https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/is-dredging-a-sustainable-solution-for-managing-uk-floods/

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/30/dredging-rivers-floods-somerset-levels-david-cameron-farmers

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frwa.2021.628829/full

    And so on.
    You should read some of your own sources. They're really very weak. The British Ecological Society, The River Restoration Trust, George Twatty Monbiot in the Guardian - I mean really. And the one piece of fundamental research (I do remember it now) about dredging the Somerset levels actually agrees that it's a good idea.

    The trouble with all these 'fact checks' is, we're not dredging, and we are getting flooding. Dredge the rivers sensibly, as we used to, and see how much flooding we're left with, and then let's deal with that. It's like insisting how uneconomical fracking is, but fracking is banned. Or admonishing people for wasting too much water when our population has gone up, and we've effectively banned the building of new infrastructure like reservoirs.
    Fail, read the 4th link which is entirely without eco agenda. I do read sources before I quote them whereas I don't believe you have had time to. Just time enough to identify an author as twatty. And your knockdown piece of research is one you seem unable to identify.

    You just don't pause to think about things. Inflation does not help your net position if you intend to incur fresh debt as well as servicing old. Silt behaves differently in high vs low gradient rivers. Etc etc.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:



    You are about to see a raft of policies that eradicate EU rules and are part of the growth agenda

    I have no regrets on Brexit

    Curiously, the Truss government seems poised to abandon the "public money for public goods" Defra agenda which Gove introduced, and return to the EU system of simply dishing out money in proportion to the size of the farm. An example of "the EU knows best"?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/brexit-bonus-farmers-poised-to-scrap
    It's great news that the Government is focusing on food security and the scary rewilding agenda may be getting the shaft.
    I hope that there will be some additional funds made available for specific public goods though - for example, paying farmers to install systems to let some of their land near rivers be flooded if it helps reduce flooding of villages and towns downstream. And pay them for the area of land and production impact. It would be a lot cheaper than other alternatives.
    How much flooding will there be though if we actually dredge? That's what's so exciting about this Government - they actually seem determined to get shit done. They might dredge the rivers again. They might build reservoirs again. I mean they've got two years before they face what looks like an electoral firing squad, and my goodness they are tunnelling their little hearts out planning their escape, and bloody good luck to them.
    Your enthusiasms are puzzlingly random and lacking in nuance; dredging everything is no more help than covering it in rock dust for reasons explained for example at

    https://www.ciwem.org/news/floods-and-dredging-reality
    I am sure we did dredging the Somerset levels the last time we discussed this. I seem to remember the detail of the attempted rebuttal read more like a confirmation that dredging was exactly what was needed.
    I don't remember discussing it, but there's masses of discussion on the internet specifically about the levels explicitly rebutting the Yay dredge it! approach

    https://www.therrc.co.uk/news/floods-and-dredging-reality-check

    https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/is-dredging-a-sustainable-solution-for-managing-uk-floods/

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/30/dredging-rivers-floods-somerset-levels-david-cameron-farmers

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frwa.2021.628829/full

    And so on.
    You should read some of your own sources. They're really very weak. The British Ecological Society, The River Restoration Trust, George Twatty Monbiot in the Guardian - I mean really. And the one piece of fundamental research (I do remember it now) about dredging the Somerset levels actually agrees that it's a good idea.

    The trouble with all these 'fact checks' is, we're not dredging, and we are getting flooding. Dredge the rivers sensibly, as we used to, and see how much flooding we're left with, and then let's deal with that. It's like insisting how uneconomical fracking is, but fracking is banned. Or admonishing people for wasting too much water when our population has gone up, and we've effectively banned the building of new infrastructure like reservoirs.
    Fail, read the 4th link which is entirely without eco agenda. I do read sources before I quote them whereas I don't believe you have had time to. Just time enough to identify an author as twatty. And your knockdown piece of research is one you seem unable to identify.

    You just don't pause to think about things. Inflation does not help your net position if you intend to incur fresh debt as well as servicing old. Silt behaves differently in high vs low gradient rivers. Etc etc.
    You are wasting your time. Russianguy1983 doesn't read, he just puts Kremlin talking points
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:



    You are about to see a raft of policies that eradicate EU rules and are part of the growth agenda

    I have no regrets on Brexit

    Curiously, the Truss government seems poised to abandon the "public money for public goods" Defra agenda which Gove introduced, and return to the EU system of simply dishing out money in proportion to the size of the farm. An example of "the EU knows best"?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/brexit-bonus-farmers-poised-to-scrap
    It's great news that the Government is focusing on food security and the scary rewilding agenda may be getting the shaft.
    I hope that there will be some additional funds made available for specific public goods though - for example, paying farmers to install systems to let some of their land near rivers be flooded if it helps reduce flooding of villages and towns downstream. And pay them for the area of land and production impact. It would be a lot cheaper than other alternatives.
    How much flooding will there be though if we actually dredge? That's what's so exciting about this Government - they actually seem determined to get shit done. They might dredge the rivers again. They might build reservoirs again. I mean they've got two years before they face what looks like an electoral firing squad, and my goodness they are tunnelling their little hearts out planning their escape, and bloody good luck to them.
    Your enthusiasms are puzzlingly random and lacking in nuance; dredging everything is no more help than covering it in rock dust for reasons explained for example at

    https://www.ciwem.org/news/floods-and-dredging-reality
    I am sure we did dredging the Somerset levels the last time we discussed this. I seem to remember the detail of the attempted rebuttal read more like a confirmation that dredging was exactly what was needed.
    I don't remember discussing it, but there's masses of discussion on the internet specifically about the levels explicitly rebutting the Yay dredge it! approach

    https://www.therrc.co.uk/news/floods-and-dredging-reality-check

    https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/is-dredging-a-sustainable-solution-for-managing-uk-floods/

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/30/dredging-rivers-floods-somerset-levels-david-cameron-farmers

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frwa.2021.628829/full

    And so on.
    You should read some of your own sources. They're really very weak. The British Ecological Society, The River Restoration Trust, George Twatty Monbiot in the Guardian - I mean really. And the one piece of fundamental research (I do remember it now) about dredging the Somerset levels actually agrees that it's a good idea.

    The trouble with all these 'fact checks' is, we're not dredging, and we are getting flooding. Dredge the rivers sensibly, as we used to, and see how much flooding we're left with, and then let's deal with that. It's like insisting how uneconomical fracking is, but fracking is banned. Or admonishing people for wasting too much water when our population has gone up, and we've effectively banned the building of new infrastructure like reservoirs.
    Fail, read the 4th link which is entirely without eco agenda. I do read sources before I quote them whereas I don't believe you have had time to. Just time enough to identify an author as twatty. And your knockdown piece of research is one you seem unable to identify.

    You just don't pause to think about things. Inflation does not help your net position if you intend to incur fresh debt as well as servicing old. Silt behaves differently in high vs low gradient rivers. Etc etc.
    You are wasting your time. Russianguy1983 doesn't read, he just puts Kremlin talking points
    Sadly he has a number of quite loony-tune takes, to the extent that you can’t really take anything he says seriously.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,458

    carnforth said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    ping said:

    Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

    https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

    The whole thread is interesting.

    As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

    Truss and Kwarteng are happy to let Sterling depreciate. They believe in the markets and that they are over reacting.

    Will the markets test the government to see if they are willing to pay premium rates on debt?
    The Sterling denominated debt is being inflated away.
    The existing debt or rather the non indexed 75% of it, is. The whole cunning scheme involves borrowing a fuckton more, at crippling interest rates, to pay for inflated bills, so that doesn't really help, does it?
    Why did governments in Britain and elsewhere start issuing inflation-linked government bonds. Could they not sell enough ordinary ones? Apologies if this is a terribly naive question.
    Would you buy a non-linked gilt from these shysters?
    Well, 75% of those bought are non-linked. So someone does.

    By the way, how is your oft-repeated theory that Britain will have the lowest growth in the G7 in 2023 coming along? Per Deutsche bank:

    “German GDP is expected to drop 3.5% in 2023, & Italy is forecast to see a 2% decline”
  • Foxy said:

    EPG said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One thing that bemuses me in this country is how, for a service economy allegedly, we are really quite poor at service. I have dealt with 3 financial institutions in the past 3 days and have, literally, spent nearly 7 hours just trying to get through and matters actioned. You can get lots of responses on Twitter and endless apologies etc but there is a complete failure to understand that you actually need people who are available and able to understand and deal with a problem. Same for telephone companies and insurance companies I've dealt with this year.

    I am a bit spoiled because growing up where I did in Naples we got the sort of old-fashioned service now largely seen in historical dramas. It it was not that long ago, though.

    Far too many service providers have just dumped their responsibilities onto their customers so that we are effectively working for free for them. It is infuriating for customers and horrible for those working for them because they then have to deal with annoyed customers with little power to change things for the better. And yet sitting in a motorway cafe right now writing this, the lady serving behind the counter has been the epitome of friendliness and efficiency. So it can be done.

    Online service is great most of the time but we forget the need for effective personal contact for when things go wrong or help is needed at our peril. And that is why people (ok me) can get so infuriated: it's not just the waste of time but the determination of institutions to put us at a distance and dismiss us rather than reach out and help. It is inhuman and impersonal. It is the exact opposite of what customer service and problem-solving should be.

    Poor service due to cheap service, which equals higher profits, which equals bigger management bonuses. The ills of Britain summarised.
    I suppose the questions are (a) how many people are willing to pay more for the extra customer service and (b) if the pool of customers the "high-service" firm ends up with is profitable or if it gives them a lot of bespoke problems.
    The success of Ryanair suggests that people prioritise cost over service.
    It would be good to have the choice of cost over service. When shopping, there is the choice of Waitrose or Booths versus Asda or Morrisons. In financial services, it seems to be only Asda service at Waitrose prices.


    Didn’t @Charles, formerly of this parish, work for a rather better type of bank?
    The PB cliche is “late of this parish” so you survive, but only just
    Not much of a loss, Charles was a prat
    That is unbecoming of you. Charles was a decent member of PB who happened to represent the establishment He always behaved with decency, politeness and calm and the site is all the worse for his absence.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    ping said:

    Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

    https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

    The whole thread is interesting.

    As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

    Truss and Kwarteng are happy to let Sterling depreciate. They believe in the markets and that they are over reacting.

    Will the markets test the government to see if they are willing to pay premium rates on debt?
    Foreign exchange markets always overshoot. That's one of the few clear and generally agreed points in that particular part of economics, though because the proof is rather technical it hasn't penetrated the public mind and probably won't.
    Well great, but that information on its own isn't useful, because we don't know whether 1.09 was an overshoot and we will come back to 1.11 or whether we will overshoot to 97c and then stabilise at 1.01.
  • That is unbecoming of you. Charles was a decent member of PB who happened to represent the establishment He always behaved with decency, politeness and calm and the site is all the worse for his absence.

    Richard you know I respect you but Chris was a total prat and a condescending one at that.

    My friend we will simply have to agree to disagree on this. I am sure many here say the same about me and would be happy if I left too. Each to their own.
  • Sadly he has a number of quite loony-tune takes, to the extent that you can’t really take anything he says seriously.

    Isn't this the bloke who thinks the shot down planes didn't happen
  • carnforth said:

    carnforth said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    ping said:

    Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

    https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

    The whole thread is interesting.

    As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

    Truss and Kwarteng are happy to let Sterling depreciate. They believe in the markets and that they are over reacting.

    Will the markets test the government to see if they are willing to pay premium rates on debt?
    The Sterling denominated debt is being inflated away.
    The existing debt or rather the non indexed 75% of it, is. The whole cunning scheme involves borrowing a fuckton more, at crippling interest rates, to pay for inflated bills, so that doesn't really help, does it?
    Why did governments in Britain and elsewhere start issuing inflation-linked government bonds. Could they not sell enough ordinary ones? Apologies if this is a terribly naive question.
    Would you buy a non-linked gilt from these shysters?
    Well, 75% of those bought are non-linked. So someone does.

    By the way, how is your oft-repeated theory that Britain will have the lowest growth in the G7 in 2023 coming along? Per Deutsche bank:

    “German GDP is expected to drop 3.5% in 2023, & Italy is forecast to see a 2% decline”
    It wasn’t a theory.
    I was noting analyst forecasts, pre Ukraine War.

    Britain still looks quite uniquely fucked. Even more so than it did so 12 months ago when, for example, a run on the pound or a gilt strike weren’t really feasible possibilities.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited September 2022
    Wrong comment quoted
  • Sadly he has a number of quite loony-tune takes, to the extent that you can’t really take anything he says seriously.

    Isn't this the bloke who thinks the shot down planes didn't happen
    Quite “interesting” views on Covid pharmacology too.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    carnforth said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    ping said:

    Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

    https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

    The whole thread is interesting.

    As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

    Truss and Kwarteng are happy to let Sterling depreciate. They believe in the markets and that they are over reacting.

    Will the markets test the government to see if they are willing to pay premium rates on debt?
    The Sterling denominated debt is being inflated away.
    The existing debt or rather the non indexed 75% of it, is. The whole cunning scheme involves borrowing a fuckton more, at crippling interest rates, to pay for inflated bills, so that doesn't really help, does it?
    Why did governments in Britain and elsewhere start issuing inflation-linked government bonds. Could they not sell enough ordinary ones? Apologies if this is a terribly naive question.
    Pension funds wanted them, I believe
  • That is unbecoming of you. Charles was a decent member of PB who happened to represent the establishment He always behaved with decency, politeness and calm and the site is all the worse for his absence.

    Richard you know I respect you but Chris was a total prat and a condescending one at that.

    My friend we will simply have to agree to disagree on this. I am sure many here say the same about me and would be happy if I left too. Each to their own.
    Charles was an insufferable snob.
  • That is unbecoming of you. Charles was a decent member of PB who happened to represent the establishment He always behaved with decency, politeness and calm and the site is all the worse for his absence.

    Richard you know I respect you but Chris was a total prat and a condescending one at that.

    My friend we will simply have to agree to disagree on this. I am sure many here say the same about me and would be happy if I left too. Each to their own.
    Charles was an insufferable snob.
    We don't always agree matey but on this, yes we certainly do.

    He was completely unwilling to see any point of view that wasn't of the right, not unique to him of course.

    I think Max for example has a lot of very interesting views that often make me question my own and he's certainly not on the same side as me politically. Likewise Richard and stodge to name a couple of others.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,612
    Ukraine thought for the evening.

    Russia badly wants the world to notice its sham referendums, even if they’re condemning them. Somehow gives them some sort of 50:50 credibility. Shamefully they pulled this off with Crimea (though not DNR/LNR) in 2014 because we were weak.

    Western commentators and journalists should almost completely ignore them, but bombard the airwaves with stories of Russian atrocities and war crimes as well as plenty of reportage of counter attacks in occupied land. Normalise the fact of Ukraine fighting to take back its own territory and deny oxygen to the annexers and those tw*ts who will attempt to claim that attacks on annexed lands are somehow an escalation.

    You’d think PR wouldn’t matter to a psycho with his finger on the red button but I think it does, very much.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,951
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    ping said:

    Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

    https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

    The whole thread is interesting.

    As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

    Truss and Kwarteng are happy to let Sterling depreciate. They believe in the markets and that they are over reacting.

    Will the markets test the government to see if they are willing to pay premium rates on debt?
    Foreign exchange markets always overshoot. That's one of the few clear and generally agreed points in that particular part of economics, though because the proof is rather technical it hasn't penetrated the public mind and probably won't.
    Most prices tend to overshoot. And then remember all assets are continually swinging around as people reassess the future in light of new information.

    It may be that Sterling is too weak right now. It may be that it is too strong. As someone fortunate enough to be earning US Dollars, the UK feels very cheap to me right now, and I'm fairly sure that a rush to safety in the US Dollar has made most risk assets too cheap.

    But, hey, what do I know?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    IshmaelZ said:

    Wrong comment quoted

    I think that most times I quote people, they are usually so wrong.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    ping said:

    Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

    https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

    The whole thread is interesting.

    As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

    Truss and Kwarteng are happy to let Sterling depreciate. They believe in the markets and that they are over reacting.

    Will the markets test the government to see if they are willing to pay premium rates on debt?
    Foreign exchange markets always overshoot. That's one of the few clear and generally agreed points in that particular part of economics, though because the proof is rather technical it hasn't penetrated the public mind and probably won't.
    Most prices tend to overshoot. And then remember all assets are continually swinging around as people reassess the future in light of new information.

    It may be that Sterling is too weak right now. It may be that it is too strong. As someone fortunate enough to be earning US Dollars, the UK feels very cheap to me right now, and I'm fairly sure that a rush to safety in the US Dollar has made most risk assets too cheap.

    But, hey, what do I know?
    What is you do rcs?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Wrong comment quoted

    I think that most times I quote people, they are usually so wrong.
    It was my own post I quoted, so there was no doubt about it
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    https://twitter.com/johnmcternan/status/1573747634417897474?s=20

    Mick Lynch in Liverpool calls for sks resignation

    NB Communication Workers Union banner with motto una nos es validus which wants to mean United, we are strong, actually works out as Single woman, we, you are a strong man.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    ping said:

    Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

    https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

    The whole thread is interesting.

    As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

    Truss and Kwarteng are happy to let Sterling depreciate. They believe in the markets and that they are over reacting.

    Will the markets test the government to see if they are willing to pay premium rates on debt?
    Foreign exchange markets always overshoot. That's one of the few clear and generally agreed points in that particular part of economics, though because the proof is rather technical it hasn't penetrated the public mind and probably won't.
    Most prices tend to overshoot. And then remember all assets are continually swinging around as people reassess the future in light of new information.

    It may be that Sterling is too weak right now. It may be that it is too strong. As someone fortunate enough to be earning US Dollars, the UK feels very cheap to me right now, and I'm fairly sure that a rush to safety in the US Dollar has made most risk assets too cheap.

    But, hey, what do I know?
    Too cheap in sterling terms?
  • ping said:

    Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

    https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

    The whole thread is interesting.

    As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

    For balance, Krugman:

    https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1573653503809134592

    The result is that sterling depreciation actually *improves* Britain's net international investment position (the same thing happens to the US). So a balance-sheet currency crisis story doesn't seem to make sense
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:



    You are about to see a raft of policies that eradicate EU rules and are part of the growth agenda

    I have no regrets on Brexit

    Curiously, the Truss government seems poised to abandon the "public money for public goods" Defra agenda which Gove introduced, and return to the EU system of simply dishing out money in proportion to the size of the farm. An example of "the EU knows best"?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/brexit-bonus-farmers-poised-to-scrap
    It's great news that the Government is focusing on food security and the scary rewilding agenda may be getting the shaft.
    I hope that there will be some additional funds made available for specific public goods though - for example, paying farmers to install systems to let some of their land near rivers be flooded if it helps reduce flooding of villages and towns downstream. And pay them for the area of land and production impact. It would be a lot cheaper than other alternatives.
    How much flooding will there be though if we actually dredge? That's what's so exciting about this Government - they actually seem determined to get shit done. They might dredge the rivers again. They might build reservoirs again. I mean they've got two years before they face what looks like an electoral firing squad, and my goodness they are tunnelling their little hearts out planning their escape, and bloody good luck to them.
    Your enthusiasms are puzzlingly random and lacking in nuance; dredging everything is no more help than covering it in rock dust for reasons explained for example at

    https://www.ciwem.org/news/floods-and-dredging-reality
    I am sure we did dredging the Somerset levels the last time we discussed this. I seem to remember the detail of the attempted rebuttal read more like a confirmation that dredging was exactly what was needed.
    I don't remember discussing it, but there's masses of discussion on the internet specifically about the levels explicitly rebutting the Yay dredge it! approach

    https://www.therrc.co.uk/news/floods-and-dredging-reality-check

    https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/is-dredging-a-sustainable-solution-for-managing-uk-floods/

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/30/dredging-rivers-floods-somerset-levels-david-cameron-farmers

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frwa.2021.628829/full

    And so on.
    You should read some of your own sources. They're really very weak. The British Ecological Society, The River Restoration Trust, George Twatty Monbiot in the Guardian - I mean really. And the one piece of fundamental research (I do remember it now) about dredging the Somerset levels actually agrees that it's a good idea.

    The trouble with all these 'fact checks' is, we're not dredging, and we are getting flooding. Dredge the rivers sensibly, as we used to, and see how much flooding we're left with, and then let's deal with that. It's like insisting how uneconomical fracking is, but fracking is banned. Or admonishing people for wasting too much water when our population has gone up, and we've effectively banned the building of new infrastructure like reservoirs.
    Fail, read the 4th link which is entirely without eco agenda. I do read sources before I quote them whereas I don't believe you have had time to. Just time enough to identify an author as twatty. And your knockdown piece of research is one you seem unable to identify.

    You just don't pause to think about things. Inflation does not help your net position if you intend to incur fresh debt as well as servicing old. Silt behaves differently in high vs low gradient rivers. Etc etc.
    Well, you posted the same article twice, the CIWEM piece you posted initially was reproduced on the River Restoration blog. And it contains this:

    'Dredging the Somerset Levels

    In the winter of 2013-14, and the preceding winter, the Somerset Levels experienced serious flooding as a result of successive winter storms bringing extreme levels of rainfall to the region time and again.

    Large areas of the Levels were inundated as river embankments overtopped. It took weeks, stretching into months for the water to drain away, leading to calls for far more extensive pumping and dredging to get rid of the water more quickly.

    Ultimately the Environment Agency dredged the rivers Parrett and Tone and the Somerset Rivers Authority undertakes frequent maintenance dredging to maintain larger channels. The Levels have not experienced such serious flooding since.'

    So it hardly convinces as a dredging rebuttal.

    Regarding the academic work you provided, I don't pretend to understand it, but what I can glean from the summary there is that dredging the river upstream can cause issues of flooding downstream because it speeds up the flow of water. That seems obvious to me. Dredge away from flood risks, not toward them would surely always be the intention anyway.
  • TimS said:

    Ukraine thought for the evening.

    Russia badly wants the world to notice its sham referendums, even if they’re condemning them. Somehow gives them some sort of 50:50 credibility. Shamefully they pulled this off with Crimea (though not DNR/LNR) in 2014 because we were weak.

    Western commentators and journalists should almost completely ignore them, but bombard the airwaves with stories of Russian atrocities and war crimes as well as plenty of reportage of counter attacks in occupied land.

    What do you think they have been doing?

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:



    You are about to see a raft of policies that eradicate EU rules and are part of the growth agenda

    I have no regrets on Brexit

    Curiously, the Truss government seems poised to abandon the "public money for public goods" Defra agenda which Gove introduced, and return to the EU system of simply dishing out money in proportion to the size of the farm. An example of "the EU knows best"?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/brexit-bonus-farmers-poised-to-scrap
    It's great news that the Government is focusing on food security and the scary rewilding agenda may be getting the shaft.
    I hope that there will be some additional funds made available for specific public goods though - for example, paying farmers to install systems to let some of their land near rivers be flooded if it helps reduce flooding of villages and towns downstream. And pay them for the area of land and production impact. It would be a lot cheaper than other alternatives.
    How much flooding will there be though if we actually dredge? That's what's so exciting about this Government - they actually seem determined to get shit done. They might dredge the rivers again. They might build reservoirs again. I mean they've got two years before they face what looks like an electoral firing squad, and my goodness they are tunnelling their little hearts out planning their escape, and bloody good luck to them.
    Your enthusiasms are puzzlingly random and lacking in nuance; dredging everything is no more help than covering it in rock dust for reasons explained for example at

    https://www.ciwem.org/news/floods-and-dredging-reality
    I am sure we did dredging the Somerset levels the last time we discussed this. I seem to remember the detail of the attempted rebuttal read more like a confirmation that dredging was exactly what was needed.
    I don't remember discussing it, but there's masses of discussion on the internet specifically about the levels explicitly rebutting the Yay dredge it! approach

    https://www.therrc.co.uk/news/floods-and-dredging-reality-check

    https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/is-dredging-a-sustainable-solution-for-managing-uk-floods/

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/30/dredging-rivers-floods-somerset-levels-david-cameron-farmers

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frwa.2021.628829/full

    And so on.
    You should read some of your own sources. They're really very weak. The British Ecological Society, The River Restoration Trust, George Twatty Monbiot in the Guardian - I mean really. And the one piece of fundamental research (I do remember it now) about dredging the Somerset levels actually agrees that it's a good idea.

    The trouble with all these 'fact checks' is, we're not dredging, and we are getting flooding. Dredge the rivers sensibly, as we used to, and see how much flooding we're left with, and then let's deal with that. It's like insisting how uneconomical fracking is, but fracking is banned. Or admonishing people for wasting too much water when our population has gone up, and we've effectively banned the building of new infrastructure like reservoirs.
    Fail, read the 4th link which is entirely without eco agenda. I do read sources before I quote them whereas I don't believe you have had time to. Just time enough to identify an author as twatty. And your knockdown piece of research is one you seem unable to identify.

    You just don't pause to think about things. Inflation does not help your net position if you intend to incur fresh debt as well as servicing old. Silt behaves differently in high vs low gradient rivers. Etc etc.
    Well, you posted the same article twice, the CIWEM piece you posted initially was reproduced on the River Restoration blog. And it contains this:

    'Dredging the Somerset Levels

    In the winter of 2013-14, and the preceding winter, the Somerset Levels experienced serious flooding as a result of successive winter storms bringing extreme levels of rainfall to the region time and again.

    Large areas of the Levels were inundated as river embankments overtopped. It took weeks, stretching into months for the water to drain away, leading to calls for far more extensive pumping and dredging to get rid of the water more quickly.

    Ultimately the Environment Agency dredged the rivers Parrett and Tone and the Somerset Rivers Authority undertakes frequent maintenance dredging to maintain larger channels. The Levels have not experienced such serious flooding since.'

    So it hardly convinces as a dredging rebuttal.

    Regarding the academic work you provided, I don't pretend to understand it, but what I can glean from the summary there is that dredging the river upstream can cause issues of flooding downstream because it speeds up the flow of water. That seems obvious to me. Dredge away from flood risks, not toward them would surely always be the intention anyway.
    And the very next para says

    Yet the situation is far from black and white; there is considerable nuance. The region hasn’t been hit by a similar, relentless succession of winter storms since, either. Some parts of the Country are particularly flood prone and flood frequently. Other locations badly hit this winter hadn’t been affected for decades.

    This is embarrassing stuff. But after your very remarkable implied claim that inflation inflates away future borrowing, I am inclined to give up on all fronts.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,819
    edited September 2022

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:



    You are about to see a raft of policies that eradicate EU rules and are part of the growth agenda

    I have no regrets on Brexit

    Curiously, the Truss government seems poised to abandon the "public money for public goods" Defra agenda which Gove introduced, and return to the EU system of simply dishing out money in proportion to the size of the farm. An example of "the EU knows best"?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/brexit-bonus-farmers-poised-to-scrap
    It's great news that the Government is focusing on food security and the scary rewilding agenda may be getting the shaft.
    I hope that there will be some additional funds made available for specific public goods though - for example, paying farmers to install systems to let some of their land near rivers be flooded if it helps reduce flooding of villages and towns downstream. And pay them for the area of land and production impact. It would be a lot cheaper than other alternatives.
    How much flooding will there be though if we actually dredge? That's what's so exciting about this Government - they actually seem determined to get shit done. They might dredge the rivers again. They might build reservoirs again. I mean they've got two years before they face what looks like an electoral firing squad, and my goodness they are tunnelling their little hearts out planning their escape, and bloody good luck to them.
    Your enthusiasms are puzzlingly random and lacking in nuance; dredging everything is no more help than covering it in rock dust for reasons explained for example at

    https://www.ciwem.org/news/floods-and-dredging-reality
    I am sure we did dredging the Somerset levels the last time we discussed this. I seem to remember the detail of the attempted rebuttal read more like a confirmation that dredging was exactly what was needed.
    I don't remember discussing it, but there's masses of discussion on the internet specifically about the levels explicitly rebutting the Yay dredge it! approach

    https://www.therrc.co.uk/news/floods-and-dredging-reality-check

    https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/is-dredging-a-sustainable-solution-for-managing-uk-floods/

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/30/dredging-rivers-floods-somerset-levels-david-cameron-farmers

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frwa.2021.628829/full

    And so on.
    You should read some of your own sources. They're really very weak. The British Ecological Society, The River Restoration Trust, George Twatty Monbiot in the Guardian - I mean really. And the one piece of fundamental research (I do remember it now) about dredging the Somerset levels actually agrees that it's a good idea.

    The trouble with all these 'fact checks' is, we're not dredging, and we are getting flooding. Dredge the rivers sensibly, as we used to, and see how much flooding we're left with, and then let's deal with that. It's like insisting how uneconomical fracking is, but fracking is banned. Or admonishing people for wasting too much water when our population has gone up, and we've effectively banned the building of new infrastructure like reservoirs.
    Fail, read the 4th link which is entirely without eco agenda. I do read sources before I quote them whereas I don't believe you have had time to. Just time enough to identify an author as twatty. And your knockdown piece of research is one you seem unable to identify.

    You just don't pause to think about things. Inflation does not help your net position if you intend to incur fresh debt as well as servicing old. Silt behaves differently in high vs low gradient rivers. Etc etc.
    Well, you posted the same article twice, the CIWEM piece you posted initially was reproduced on the River Restoration blog. And it contains this:

    'Dredging the Somerset Levels

    In the winter of 2013-14, and the preceding winter, the Somerset Levels experienced serious flooding as a result of successive winter storms bringing extreme levels of rainfall to the region time and again.

    Large areas of the Levels were inundated as river embankments overtopped. It took weeks, stretching into months for the water to drain away, leading to calls for far more extensive pumping and dredging to get rid of the water more quickly.

    Ultimately the Environment Agency dredged the rivers Parrett and Tone and the Somerset Rivers Authority undertakes frequent maintenance dredging to maintain larger channels. The Levels have not experienced such serious flooding since.'

    So it hardly convinces as a dredging rebuttal.

    Regarding the academic work you provided, I don't pretend to understand it, but what I can glean from the summary there is that dredging the river upstream can cause issues of flooding downstream because it speeds up the flow of water. That seems obvious to me. Dredge away from flood risks, not toward them would surely always be the intention anyway.
    Are those natural river channels any more or are they just artificial drains?

    There was a big fuss about dredging the 'River' Don here after Fishlake flooded.

    This would achieve nothing - because the bed is below sea level, the river level is tidal, and all digging would do is destabilise the banks. Fishlake actually flooded due to a combination of new defenses in Sheffield and (whisper it) mining subsidence, not the river being too shallow.

    It just seems to be a kneejerk reaction every time there is a flood. Dredge the river! 95% of the time it is nonsense.


    [The Don was diverted to flow into the River Ouse by Vermuyden - originally it flowed into the Trent and the original course can still be seen as a shallow dip in many fields]

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,994
    TimS said:

    Ukraine thought for the evening.

    Russia badly wants the world to notice its sham referendums, even if they’re condemning them. Somehow gives them some sort of 50:50 credibility. Shamefully they pulled this off with Crimea (though not DNR/LNR) in 2014 because we were weak.

    Western commentators and journalists should almost completely ignore them, but bombard the airwaves with stories of Russian atrocities and war crimes as well as plenty of reportage of counter attacks in occupied land. Normalise the fact of Ukraine fighting to take back its own territory and deny oxygen to the annexers and those tw*ts who will attempt to claim that attacks on annexed lands are somehow an escalation.

    You’d think PR wouldn’t matter to a psycho with his finger on the red button but I think it does, very much.

    On that note, here’s a new Russian joke for @ydoethur .

    A ukrainian goes to vote in the russian referendum. A russian soldier at the polling station shows him the ballot and silently puts it in the box. “Can I at least see who I’m voting for?” says the Ukrainian. “Do you understand democracy?” says the soldier. “It’s a secret ballot.”
    https://twitter.com/SevaUT/status/1573809197795491845
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,994
    edited September 2022
    A source who was present at a dinner attended by hedge-fund managers a week ago revealed: “They were all supporters of Truss and every one of them was shorting the pound.”

    How the 'Biscotti Budget' came to be

    https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1573724027776122884
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,387

    HYUFD said:

    Truss to increase the number of foreign immigrants into the UK by extending the list of shortage occupations
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19909863/liz-truss-ease-foreign-workers-rules/

    Excellent news
    I thought we were talking about a housing shortage earlier?
  • New thread.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:



    You are about to see a raft of policies that eradicate EU rules and are part of the growth agenda

    I have no regrets on Brexit

    Curiously, the Truss government seems poised to abandon the "public money for public goods" Defra agenda which Gove introduced, and return to the EU system of simply dishing out money in proportion to the size of the farm. An example of "the EU knows best"?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/brexit-bonus-farmers-poised-to-scrap
    It's great news that the Government is focusing on food security and the scary rewilding agenda may be getting the shaft.
    I hope that there will be some additional funds made available for specific public goods though - for example, paying farmers to install systems to let some of their land near rivers be flooded if it helps reduce flooding of villages and towns downstream. And pay them for the area of land and production impact. It would be a lot cheaper than other alternatives.
    How much flooding will there be though if we actually dredge? That's what's so exciting about this Government - they actually seem determined to get shit done. They might dredge the rivers again. They might build reservoirs again. I mean they've got two years before they face what looks like an electoral firing squad, and my goodness they are tunnelling their little hearts out planning their escape, and bloody good luck to them.
    Your enthusiasms are puzzlingly random and lacking in nuance; dredging everything is no more help than covering it in rock dust for reasons explained for example at

    https://www.ciwem.org/news/floods-and-dredging-reality
    I am sure we did dredging the Somerset levels the last time we discussed this. I seem to remember the detail of the attempted rebuttal read more like a confirmation that dredging was exactly what was needed.
    I don't remember discussing it, but there's masses of discussion on the internet specifically about the levels explicitly rebutting the Yay dredge it! approach

    https://www.therrc.co.uk/news/floods-and-dredging-reality-check

    https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/is-dredging-a-sustainable-solution-for-managing-uk-floods/

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/30/dredging-rivers-floods-somerset-levels-david-cameron-farmers

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frwa.2021.628829/full

    And so on.
    You should read some of your own sources. They're really very weak. The British Ecological Society, The River Restoration Trust, George Twatty Monbiot in the Guardian - I mean really. And the one piece of fundamental research (I do remember it now) about dredging the Somerset levels actually agrees that it's a good idea.

    The trouble with all these 'fact checks' is, we're not dredging, and we are getting flooding. Dredge the rivers sensibly, as we used to, and see how much flooding we're left with, and then let's deal with that. It's like insisting how uneconomical fracking is, but fracking is banned. Or admonishing people for wasting too much water when our population has gone up, and we've effectively banned the building of new infrastructure like reservoirs.
    Fail, read the 4th link which is entirely without eco agenda. I do read sources before I quote them whereas I don't believe you have had time to. Just time enough to identify an author as twatty. And your knockdown piece of research is one you seem unable to identify.

    You just don't pause to think about things. Inflation does not help your net position if you intend to incur fresh debt as well as servicing old. Silt behaves differently in high vs low gradient rivers. Etc etc.
    Well, you posted the same article twice, the CIWEM piece you posted initially was reproduced on the River Restoration blog. And it contains this:

    'Dredging the Somerset Levels

    In the winter of 2013-14, and the preceding winter, the Somerset Levels experienced serious flooding as a result of successive winter storms bringing extreme levels of rainfall to the region time and again.

    Large areas of the Levels were inundated as river embankments overtopped. It took weeks, stretching into months for the water to drain away, leading to calls for far more extensive pumping and dredging to get rid of the water more quickly.

    Ultimately the Environment Agency dredged the rivers Parrett and Tone and the Somerset Rivers Authority undertakes frequent maintenance dredging to maintain larger channels. The Levels have not experienced such serious flooding since.'

    So it hardly convinces as a dredging rebuttal.

    Regarding the academic work you provided, I don't pretend to understand it, but what I can glean from the summary there is that dredging the river upstream can cause issues of flooding downstream because it speeds up the flow of water. That seems obvious to me. Dredge away from flood risks, not toward them would surely always be the intention anyway.
    Weird you cut off the next bit that said modelling showed that dredging wouldn't have stoped the 2014 flooding.
This discussion has been closed.