Howdy, Stranger!

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

Kwarteng now 30% favourite for first cabinet exit – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    I'm trying to buy a house at the moment.

    We have a mortgage offer approved, but we subsequently negotiated the price down slightly. I really hope this wasn't a massive error - as we now seem to be in limbo waiting to get a revised offer from the bank.

    I've re-read the t's and c's and think they have to honour the old offer they made at least (which in a rare display of successful gambling on my part was a 5 year fixed rate). But it feels pretty nervy waiting while interest rates go up ever other week it seems.
    fingers crossed for you.
    We bought this year - we had a firm mortgage offer on a fixed rate when we started looking. The offer ran for 6 months - within that time, there were rate increases, but the offer was unaffected by them. T&Cs, I suppose.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    All investments can go down as well as up.

    If you rule out negative equity, then you're abolishing that principle and putting a one way ratchet on prices, with horrendous consequences.
    My home isn’t an investment. It is my home.
    Well precisely, so long as you don't intend to move, if your home's value goes down then it doesn't affect you one jot, you still have your home.

    If you buy your home for £x and then in a few years time its worth £2x then you still have your home, not 2 homes. If its worth £0.5x then you still have your home, not half a home.

    If you intend to move, you may have less money invested for a new purchase, but that's possible for all investments.
    Eh? My mortgage is pretty much unaffordable at 7% interest rates. I therefore have to sell it. If I can’t sell it for high enough to cover the outstanding mortgage, what do I do then?

    “Doesn’t affect me one jot”.
    You're under 35 iirc - Would moving to Nationwide for a 40 year term make it affordable ?
    Not when interest rates are over 6% - the affordability changes are minimal... Best to go interest only for a bit...
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302

    eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    There have been massive winners and losers from housing the last decade. Surely fairer to swap them over at some point, than just consecutive governments ensuring the winners keep winning and the losers keep losing?
    Its the millennials who will suffer. Again. Incomes squeezed renting to afford a deposit. Those who managed to save enough in their 20s to get their claws on the property ladder in the last 5 years are screwed.
    yes wouldnt like to be someone whos taken out a mortgage in the last 5 to 10 years
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    There have been massive winners and losers from housing the last decade. Surely fairer to swap them over at some point, than just consecutive governments ensuring the winners keep winning and the losers keep losing?
    Its the millennials who will suffer. Again. Incomes squeezed renting to afford a deposit. Those who managed to save enough in their 20s to get their claws on the property ladder in the last 5 years are screwed.
    Most young people don't own property. Most old people own property.

    Price of property goes down is a clear transfer of wealth from old to young, and rising prices would be vice versa.

    Yes some of the worst hit in a crash are young recent buyers, that is undeniably true and sad and difficult for those impacted, but imo that does not outweigh the positives of rebalancing houses back to sensible wage ratios. On the whole the young benefit from lower prices.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    There have been massive winners and losers from housing the last decade. Surely fairer to swap them over at some point, than just consecutive governments ensuring the winners keep winning and the losers keep losing?
    Its the millennials who will suffer. Again. Incomes squeezed renting to afford a deposit. Those who managed to save enough in their 20s to get their claws on the property ladder in the last 5 years are screwed.
    I try not to think about it in those terms, but agreed. I think, despite the wailing I heard throughout my teens, Millennials have proven to be a fairly conservative generation. In the end, we wanted the stable jobs and home ownership of previous generations (perhaps it will prove with the Zoomers also). In fact, many Millennials so bought into this vision that, as you say, large numbers went through quite a lot of hardship to achieve it... Right in time to get fucked.
  • HYUFD said:

    Starmer promises to create a public owned Great British Energy company in his conference speech

    I have no issues with this. Sounds like a good idea.
    Will the voters?

    I think they will have the last few weeks.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703

    DavidL said:

    The SNP have made their written submission to the SC in respect of their referendum bill: https://www.snp.org/the-snps-supreme-court-submission-on-the-independence-referendum/

    TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.

    Therefore all local councils have the right to run concurrent referenda for their people to remain or leave, or apply to join the EU, or whatever. County councils in England can run secede referenda at will etc etc
    Hmmm.

    How does "we are a people" stack up with denying a vote to all the members of the 'people' who don't reside in the defined area?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    AlistairM said:

    Wow. Some big bubbles!

    This photo, taken by a Danish F-16 near Bornholm, shows the disturbance in the water caused by one of the gas leaks in the Baltic Sea.

    Image shared by the Danish Armed Forces


    https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1574741612093181952

    Edit: How safe is it flying a jet over the top of a large release of flammable gas?!

    Extinguish all cigarettes and fasten seatbelts
    Every single vid I've seen from Telegram about the war seems to involve soldiers smoking. All of them. On both sides.
    Haven't they heard it's dangerous?
    "Put that bloody cigarette out!" - Saki
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    PeterM said:

    yes wouldnt like to be someone whos taken out a mortgage in the last 5 to 10 years

    I’d rather be wanting to get a mortgage right now and holding off for a bit, rather than have a flat, be about to enter my renegotiation, and be forced to choose between monthly payments I can’t afford or selling my flat in what’s soon likely to be a collapsed market @ huge loss
    https://twitter.com/juliamacfarlane/status/1574749811068506113
    https://twitter.com/katiehind/status/1574527996018544651
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690
    “Look what we know how to do. Back the F off or we’ll do it to some pipelines that are switched on”.

    Is I guess the implicit message here.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    eek said:

    New nationwide Mortgage rates - not necessarily the cheapest but probably reflects the new market



    The phrase Oh Boy springs to mind.


    For reference these were the rates in a press release from January 2022

    First-time buyers:
    Five-year fixed rate at 60% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.52%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year fixed rate at 85% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.54%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year tracker rate at 80% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.24%, with a £999 fee.
    New customers moving home:
    Five-year fixed rate at 75% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.54%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year fixed rate at 85% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.44%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year tracker rate at 80% LTV increased by 0.10% to 1.19%, with a £999 fee.
    Remortgage:
    Two-year fixed rate at 60% LTV increased by 0.10% to 1.44%, with a £999 fee.
    Five-year fixed rate at 80% LTV increased by 0.10% to 1.94%, with a £999 fee.
    Three-year fixed rate at 75% LTV increased by 0.20% to 1.64%, with a £999 fee.

    Blimey.

    I did a look at remortgage rates today and some 2 year fixes still seemed to be around 2.69%. Presumably this changes pretty quickly
    Fixed rate mortgages are really structured bonds sold on the market. The change from 2.69 to 5.59% simply reflects the additional risk Friday's budget introduced to the market...
  • rcs1000 said:

    AlistairM said:

    Wow. Some big bubbles!

    This photo, taken by a Danish F-16 near Bornholm, shows the disturbance in the water caused by one of the gas leaks in the Baltic Sea.

    Image shared by the Danish Armed Forces


    https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1574741612093181952

    Edit: How safe is it flying a jet over the top of a large release of flammable gas?!

    The gas will disperse pretty quickly, as it's lighter than air and there's plenty of wind. But I wouldn't want to be in a small boat having a cigarette in the area.
    Although methane release is one of the possible 'reasons' I've heard behind the Bermuda Triangle plane crashes. And ISTR oil / gas rigs have been sunk because of gas leaks - the gas alters the buoyancy of the water. I daresay Richard will know more.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,921

    rcs1000 said:

    The Nordstream breach is now showing disturbance over an area of a kilometre. Its a fecking HUGE breach

    That'll take more than a sticking plaster.
    Its more the effect on the EU this winter....... theyre already roger ruggered
    No-one thought Nordstream was being turned back on this winter did they? Thought it was pretty clear it was off for the duration of the war.

    This presumably means that it will be off for considerably longer than that - Germany needs a plan for next winter that doesn't involve it.
    Well im working on the assumption this makes replenishing stored gas even more distant and unlikely later, meaning more stringent 'rationing' now
    Gas storage is already full in Europe

    And there is rationing going on right now in Europe (and the UK) - it's called the price mechanism.
    Yes and this exacerbates it, we've seen the predictions for what happens without further rationing in a cold european winter. Its not a *shrugs* thing.
    Sure:

    But you have to remember it's pretty much as bad for us as for them.

    - We have much less gas storage than the EU in general, and Germany in particular
    - A much higher percentage of electricity supply comes from gas in the UK

    If Germany isn't recieving any Russian piped gas, it will need to replace it with LNG gas. The main importer of spot (i.e. not contracted) gas in the world is us. And we don't have the advantage of being able to draw down storage during the winter.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,921

    rcs1000 said:

    AlistairM said:

    Wow. Some big bubbles!

    This photo, taken by a Danish F-16 near Bornholm, shows the disturbance in the water caused by one of the gas leaks in the Baltic Sea.

    Image shared by the Danish Armed Forces


    https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1574741612093181952

    Edit: How safe is it flying a jet over the top of a large release of flammable gas?!

    The gas will disperse pretty quickly, as it's lighter than air and there's plenty of wind. But I wouldn't want to be in a small boat having a cigarette in the area.
    Although methane release is one of the possible 'reasons' I've heard behind the Bermuda Triangle plane crashes. And ISTR oil / gas rigs have been sunk because of gas leaks - the gas alters the buoyancy of the water. I daresay Richard will know more.
    Oh, I hadn't thought of that re buoyancy of water. That's interesting.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    edited September 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    AlistairM said:

    Wow. Some big bubbles!

    This photo, taken by a Danish F-16 near Bornholm, shows the disturbance in the water caused by one of the gas leaks in the Baltic Sea.

    Image shared by the Danish Armed Forces


    https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1574741612093181952

    Edit: How safe is it flying a jet over the top of a large release of flammable gas?!

    The gas will disperse pretty quickly, as it's lighter than air and there's plenty of wind. But I wouldn't want to be in a small boat having a cigarette in the area.
    Since both NS1 and NS2 are currently both delivering zilch, this is presumably from the (previously) pressurised static content.

    I know little about gas pipelines, and I wonder if this is Ivan's latest roll of the die.

    Are deliveries through the Ukraine routed pipeline still running at full tilt?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,205
    edited September 2022
    And instead of the food porn we get on here, here's a picture from this morning's run.

    image

    There are worse places to run.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,890
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    All investments can go down as well as up.

    If you rule out negative equity, then you're abolishing that principle and putting a one way ratchet on prices, with horrendous consequences.
    My home isn’t an investment. It is my home.
    Well precisely, so long as you don't intend to move, if your home's value goes down then it doesn't affect you one jot, you still have your home.

    If you buy your home for £x and then in a few years time its worth £2x then you still have your home, not 2 homes. If its worth £0.5x then you still have your home, not half a home.

    If you intend to move, you may have less money invested for a new purchase, but that's possible for all investments.
    Eh? My mortgage is pretty much unaffordable at 7% interest rates. I therefore have to sell it. If I can’t sell it for high enough to cover the outstanding mortgage, what do I do then?

    “Doesn’t affect me one jot”.
    You're under 35 iirc - Would moving to Nationwide for a 40 year term make it affordable ?
    Not when interest rates are over 6% - the affordability changes are minimal... Best to go interest only for a bit...
    Is that generally allowed ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,921
    Cicero said:

    The sabotage of the Nordstream pipelines is a last, desperate attempt to try and force Germany into pushing for freezing the conflict. The Russian may also attempt to sabotage the Norwegian pipelines, but that would effectively be a direct act of war. In any event its not going to work, there is sufficient headroom across other supplies and alternatives to create work arounds.

    The complete chaos enveloping Russia is also being seen on the battlefield, where there is now growing evidence of a Russian catastrophe around Lyman. The new recruits are just dead men walking, and even the Ukrainians are shaken by the scale of death that the Russians are effectively inflicting on their own side.

    Another significant defeat is looming for Russia, and now the call up has brought the economy in several areas to a dead stop. Even if Putin formally annexes the occupied territories and uses a nuclear weapon to "defend Russian territory" there is every chance that a non-nuclear response could be so devastating that Russia itself, never mind its army, will "decohere". Chunks of Russian territory, notably Dagestan, are already slipping into open rebellion.

    The crisis for Russia may be only just beginning.

    Damaging the Norwegian pipelines would be an act of war.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    eek said:

    New nationwide Mortgage rates - not necessarily the cheapest but probably reflects the new market



    The phrase Oh Boy springs to mind.


    For reference these were the rates in a press release from January 2022

    First-time buyers:
    Five-year fixed rate at 60% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.52%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year fixed rate at 85% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.54%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year tracker rate at 80% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.24%, with a £999 fee.
    New customers moving home:
    Five-year fixed rate at 75% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.54%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year fixed rate at 85% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.44%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year tracker rate at 80% LTV increased by 0.10% to 1.19%, with a £999 fee.
    Remortgage:
    Two-year fixed rate at 60% LTV increased by 0.10% to 1.44%, with a £999 fee.
    Five-year fixed rate at 80% LTV increased by 0.10% to 1.94%, with a £999 fee.
    Three-year fixed rate at 75% LTV increased by 0.20% to 1.64%, with a £999 fee.

    Surely this is to be expected after the Rich Persons giveaway with no workings budget
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    There have been massive winners and losers from housing the last decade. Surely fairer to swap them over at some point, than just consecutive governments ensuring the winners keep winning and the losers keep losing?
    Its the millennials who will suffer. Again. Incomes squeezed renting to afford a deposit. Those who managed to save enough in their 20s to get their claws on the property ladder in the last 5 years are screwed.
    Most young people don't own property. Most old people own property.

    Price of property goes down is a clear transfer of wealth from old to young, and rising prices would be vice versa.

    Yes some of the worst hit in a crash are young recent buyers, that is undeniably true and sad and difficult for those impacted, but imo that does not outweigh the positives of rebalancing houses back to sensible wage ratios. On the whole the young benefit from lower prices.
    The ONLY thing that is rebalancing house prices at the moment is the fact that at low interest rates £x a month could borrow £y amount of money and at higher rates you can only afford £0.6*y instead...
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    edited September 2022
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    All investments can go down as well as up.

    If you rule out negative equity, then you're abolishing that principle and putting a one way ratchet on prices, with horrendous consequences.
    My home isn’t an investment. It is my home.
    Well precisely, so long as you don't intend to move, if your home's value goes down then it doesn't affect you one jot, you still have your home.

    If you buy your home for £x and then in a few years time its worth £2x then you still have your home, not 2 homes. If its worth £0.5x then you still have your home, not half a home.

    If you intend to move, you may have less money invested for a new purchase, but that's possible for all investments.
    Eh? My mortgage is pretty much unaffordable at 7% interest rates. I therefore have to sell it. If I can’t sell it for high enough to cover the outstanding mortgage, what do I do then?

    “Doesn’t affect me one jot”.
    You're under 35 iirc - Would moving to Nationwide for a 40 year term make it affordable ?
    Not when interest rates are over 6% - the affordability changes are minimal... Best to go interest only for a bit...
    Is that generally allowed ?
    Depends on lender/LTV. I've only ever had a interest only mortgage. I then have control over how much and when to pay off some capital.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,027

    Never thought Id say this, but we need a labour government, ASAP.

    I’m listening to Starmer and I am amazed at the difference from Labour. Some good policies, full of confidence.

    Contrast that with Truss who - according to Sky - didn’t even want to say anything to reassure the markets yesterday
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    All investments can go down as well as up.

    If you rule out negative equity, then you're abolishing that principle and putting a one way ratchet on prices, with horrendous consequences.
    My home isn’t an investment. It is my home.
    Well precisely, so long as you don't intend to move, if your home's value goes down then it doesn't affect you one jot, you still have your home.

    If you buy your home for £x and then in a few years time its worth £2x then you still have your home, not 2 homes. If its worth £0.5x then you still have your home, not half a home.

    If you intend to move, you may have less money invested for a new purchase, but that's possible for all investments.
    Eh? My mortgage is pretty much unaffordable at 7% interest rates. I therefore have to sell it. If I can’t sell it for high enough to cover the outstanding mortgage, what do I do then?

    “Doesn’t affect me one jot”.
    You're under 35 iirc - Would moving to Nationwide for a 40 year term make it affordable ?
    Not when interest rates are over 6% - the affordability changes are minimal... Best to go interest only for a bit...
    Is that generally allowed ?
    It's the default mode for a bank if you have payment issues... best to keep things ticking over rather than forcing the point.

    Of course sometimes you do need to force the point but the initial logic is keeping things going however possible first
  • Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How much methane is being leaked from Nordstream right now into the atmosphere ?

    Could it be actually accidental. We all love a good whodunnit but could shoddy Russian maintenance be to blame ?
    It's not unheard of.

    Not both pipelines.
    I and II have both experience some kind of catastrophic failure.
    How serious is the risk of catastrophic failure if they're not maintained?

    If the Russians have abandoned maintenance this year, then could the two be linked that way?
  • rcs1000 said:

    AlistairM said:

    Wow. Some big bubbles!

    This photo, taken by a Danish F-16 near Bornholm, shows the disturbance in the water caused by one of the gas leaks in the Baltic Sea.

    Image shared by the Danish Armed Forces


    https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1574741612093181952

    Edit: How safe is it flying a jet over the top of a large release of flammable gas?!

    The gas will disperse pretty quickly, as it's lighter than air and there's plenty of wind. But I wouldn't want to be in a small boat having a cigarette in the area.
    Not an expert on these things but I thought that the absence of a combustion chamber meant no explosion.

    On an unrelated matter, Robert, is it true that you were at University with man of the moment, Kwasi Kwarteng?

    You may plead the Fifth Amendment if you wish.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AlistairM said:

    Wow. Some big bubbles!

    This photo, taken by a Danish F-16 near Bornholm, shows the disturbance in the water caused by one of the gas leaks in the Baltic Sea.

    Image shared by the Danish Armed Forces


    https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1574741612093181952

    Edit: How safe is it flying a jet over the top of a large release of flammable gas?!

    The gas will disperse pretty quickly, as it's lighter than air and there's plenty of wind. But I wouldn't want to be in a small boat having a cigarette in the area.
    Although methane release is one of the possible 'reasons' I've heard behind the Bermuda Triangle plane crashes. And ISTR oil / gas rigs have been sunk because of gas leaks - the gas alters the buoyancy of the water. I daresay Richard will know more.
    Oh, I hadn't thought of that re buoyancy of water. That's interesting.
    Killed many people trying to escape from beached ships in stormy conditions, I believe - too much air entrained in the water, the person goes down.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    Unpopular said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    There have been massive winners and losers from housing the last decade. Surely fairer to swap them over at some point, than just consecutive governments ensuring the winners keep winning and the losers keep losing?
    Its the millennials who will suffer. Again. Incomes squeezed renting to afford a deposit. Those who managed to save enough in their 20s to get their claws on the property ladder in the last 5 years are screwed.
    I try not to think about it in those terms, but agreed. I think, despite the wailing I heard throughout my teens, Millennials have proven to be a fairly conservative generation. In the end, we wanted the stable jobs and home ownership of previous generations (perhaps it will prove with the Zoomers also). In fact, many Millennials so bought into this vision that, as you say, large numbers went through quite a lot of hardship to achieve it... Right in time to get fucked.
    weird fact of human psychology is that the higher the price you make something the more people want it...i remember when property was dirt cheap in the mid 90s no one was bothered about buying property
  • eek said:

    New nationwide Mortgage rates - not necessarily the cheapest but probably reflects the new market



    The phrase Oh Boy springs to mind.


    For reference these were the rates in a press release from January 2022

    First-time buyers:
    Five-year fixed rate at 60% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.52%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year fixed rate at 85% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.54%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year tracker rate at 80% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.24%, with a £999 fee.
    New customers moving home:
    Five-year fixed rate at 75% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.54%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year fixed rate at 85% LTV increased by 0.05% to 1.44%, with a £999 fee.
    Two-year tracker rate at 80% LTV increased by 0.10% to 1.19%, with a £999 fee.
    Remortgage:
    Two-year fixed rate at 60% LTV increased by 0.10% to 1.44%, with a £999 fee.
    Five-year fixed rate at 80% LTV increased by 0.10% to 1.94%, with a £999 fee.
    Three-year fixed rate at 75% LTV increased by 0.20% to 1.64%, with a £999 fee.

    This is where trackers start to become attractive again.

    My remortgage is up Dec 2023. I'll probably be obliged to go for one then.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,267
    Starmer reminds the audience Truss voted Remain like him.

    However he says Leavers did not vote to slash workers' rights etc
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651

    We have 5 by-elections in the House of Lords next month due to retirements of Viscount Ullswater, Lord Colwyn, the Earl of Listowel and Lord Astor of Hever and the death of the Earl of Home.

    There is one vacancy in the Crossbenchers, 2 vacancies in the Conservatives and 2 vacancies for the whole House (although these are expect to be filled by Conservatives).

    The first election will be by AV, but the last two elections will be by STV.

    Candidates statements to be published later this week.

    Members of the House of Lords presumably either take a party's whip or else they're crossbenchers, but what's the procedure for the registration of a hereditary peer's party affiliation when he doesn't hold a seat, not even as a life peer? Is the register made public?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP have made their written submission to the SC in respect of their referendum bill: https://www.snp.org/the-snps-supreme-court-submission-on-the-independence-referendum/

    TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.

    Therefore all local councils have the right to run concurrent referenda for their people to remain or leave, or apply to join the EU, or whatever. County councils in England can run secede referenda at will etc etc
    Hmmm.

    How does "we are a people" stack up with denying a vote to all the members of the 'people' who don't reside in the defined area?
    SNP view is that anyone who lives in Scotland is a Scot.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,890
    Dynamo said:

    We have 5 by-elections in the House of Lords next month due to retirements of Viscount Ullswater, Lord Colwyn, the Earl of Listowel and Lord Astor of Hever and the death of the Earl of Home.

    There is one vacancy in the Crossbenchers, 2 vacancies in the Conservatives and 2 vacancies for the whole House (although these are expect to be filled by Conservatives).

    The first election will be by AV, but the last two elections will be by STV.

    Candidates statements to be published later this week.

    Members of the House of Lords presumably either take a party's whip or else they're crossbenchers, but what's the procedure for the registration of a hereditary peer's party affiliation when he doesn't hold a seat, not even as a life peer? Is the register made public?
    Who do you think has sabotaged the pipeline ?
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    All investments can go down as well as up.

    If you rule out negative equity, then you're abolishing that principle and putting a one way ratchet on prices, with horrendous consequences.
    My home isn’t an investment. It is my home.
    Well precisely, so long as you don't intend to move, if your home's value goes down then it doesn't affect you one jot, you still have your home.

    If you buy your home for £x and then in a few years time its worth £2x then you still have your home, not 2 homes. If its worth £0.5x then you still have your home, not half a home.

    If you intend to move, you may have less money invested for a new purchase, but that's possible for all investments.
    Eh? My mortgage is pretty much unaffordable at 7% interest rates. I therefore have to sell it. If I can’t sell it for high enough to cover the outstanding mortgage, what do I do then?

    “Doesn’t affect me one jot”.
    That doesn't make much sense to me, if you sell it then you'll still need a home to live in so would have to start renting, which isn't really any cheaper than the interest alone of your mortgage probably, even at 7%.

    Coming to an interest-only payment arrangement with the bank would be better than selling the property, and the interest is dead money just as your rent would be if you sold.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,921
    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AlistairM said:

    Wow. Some big bubbles!

    This photo, taken by a Danish F-16 near Bornholm, shows the disturbance in the water caused by one of the gas leaks in the Baltic Sea.

    Image shared by the Danish Armed Forces


    https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1574741612093181952

    Edit: How safe is it flying a jet over the top of a large release of flammable gas?!

    The gas will disperse pretty quickly, as it's lighter than air and there's plenty of wind. But I wouldn't want to be in a small boat having a cigarette in the area.
    Since both NS1 and NS2 are currently both delivering zilch, this is presumably from the (previously) pressurised static content.

    I know little about gas pipelines, and I wonder if this is Ivan's latest roll of the die.

    Are deliveries through the Ukraine routed pipeline still running at full tilt?
    They were (albeit at volumes 60% of 2019 levels - largely because it was a more expensive transport route than NS). It is worth noting that pretty much all the original Ukraine pipeline gas goes to Italy these days.

    Russia's friends (Salvini and Berlusconi) are now part of the government there, although Meloni has been a lot more hawkish on Russia.

    It will be interesting to see what happens.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    bond yields spiking badly in US again up 1 full point in last hour
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP have made their written submission to the SC in respect of their referendum bill: https://www.snp.org/the-snps-supreme-court-submission-on-the-independence-referendum/

    TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.

    Therefore all local councils have the right to run concurrent referenda for their people to remain or leave, or apply to join the EU, or whatever. County councils in England can run secede referenda at will etc etc
    Hmmm.

    How does "we are a people" stack up with denying a vote to all the members of the 'people' who don't reside in the defined area?
    SNP view is that anyone who lives in Scotland is a Scot.
    (Thanks for the reply.)

    Precisely.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,551
    edited September 2022
    Starmer impressive on Scotland
    No deal with SNP under any circumstances
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    All investments can go down as well as up.

    If you rule out negative equity, then you're abolishing that principle and putting a one way ratchet on prices, with horrendous consequences.
    My home isn’t an investment. It is my home.
    Well precisely, so long as you don't intend to move, if your home's value goes down then it doesn't affect you one jot, you still have your home.

    If you buy your home for £x and then in a few years time its worth £2x then you still have your home, not 2 homes. If its worth £0.5x then you still have your home, not half a home.

    If you intend to move, you may have less money invested for a new purchase, but that's possible for all investments.
    Eh? My mortgage is pretty much unaffordable at 7% interest rates. I therefore have to sell it. If I can’t sell it for high enough to cover the outstanding mortgage, what do I do then?

    “Doesn’t affect me one jot”.
    You're under 35 iirc - Would moving to Nationwide for a 40 year term make it affordable ?
    I guess we’ll see. My fix runs until February 2024.
    What is the interest rate and are you on a repayment mortgage?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177
    I'm ready to vote labour. When's that bloody election...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,921

    eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    All investments can go down as well as up.

    If you rule out negative equity, then you're abolishing that principle and putting a one way ratchet on prices, with horrendous consequences.
    My home isn’t an investment. It is my home.
    Well precisely, so long as you don't intend to move, if your home's value goes down then it doesn't affect you one jot, you still have your home.

    If you buy your home for £x and then in a few years time its worth £2x then you still have your home, not 2 homes. If its worth £0.5x then you still have your home, not half a home.

    If you intend to move, you may have less money invested for a new purchase, but that's possible for all investments.
    Eh? My mortgage is pretty much unaffordable at 7% interest rates. I therefore have to sell it. If I can’t sell it for high enough to cover the outstanding mortgage, what do I do then?

    “Doesn’t affect me one jot”.
    That doesn't make much sense to me, if you sell it then you'll still need a home to live in so would have to start renting, which isn't really any cheaper than the interest alone of your mortgage probably, even at 7%.

    Coming to an interest-only payment arrangement with the bank would be better than selling the property, and the interest is dead money just as your rent would be if you sold.
    Rental yields - especially once you include maintenance costs - are usually below 7%.

    See: https://www.sdlauctions.co.uk/latest-news/what-is-a-good-rental-yield-in-the-uk/
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    BREAKING:

    Huw Pill, the Bank of England's chief economist, warns that there will be a 'significant monetary response' to shore up sterling

    Big rate rises are coming next month in the wake of Kwasi Kwarteng's £45billion tax-cutting budget


    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1574758222505951232
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528

    MaxPB said:

    Quite a good blog on Truss/Kwarteng:

    https://keirbradwell.substack.com/p/2-kwartengs-plan

    Government after government has failed to do nearly enough about the supply side of the British economy. Reams have been written, far more eloquently than I can manage, about how this inaction has trapped us, time and time again, into choices we don’t want to have to make, on public services and elsewhere. It has trapped us into falling ever further behind America in our living standards. And it has nudged us into accepting relative decline as the norm and the future of Britain.

    Until now, nobody has truly dared tackle this head-on. But we have finally found a PM and chancellor willing to do so. And yet for whatever reason — perhaps simply because we cannot get our heads around the reorganisation they have in mind — we are risking making it politically impossible before they have even begun to try.

    That, at least, is a load of waffle just because there were no supply side reforms, just a bunch of tax cuts which will push up demand.

    I'm all in favour of supply side reforms and pushing up business investment, there's was very little in the Friday statement that actually achieves any supply side fix.
    He does address that if you read the whole piece:

    This is a long list, and even then it is only really a start on the work that the economy needs. It is also vague: it equivocates about the most important supply-side reform of all — housing reform — promising merely that more detail will be announced soon.

    But it is a start. And if it is implemented properly (and followed up with more), it would allow Kwarteng’s plan to succeed, and with it, bring to end the awful bind that British policymaking has been stuck in since 2008.

    The plan is therefore a do-or-die moment.

    To commit to the Growth Plan’s tax-and-spend decisions without the structural reforms to go along with them would be a disaster. It would represent the worst of the status quo, but with a new layer of ‘bad’ added on top.

    And there are lots of reasons for pessimism. Getting a supply-side reform through Parliament is much more difficult than doing new spending, especially with special interest groups doing their absolute utmost to block progress. Truss is already light on political capital, given how few MPs originally voted for her, and the response to our currency trouble will only have made that worse. Worst of all, there is very little time: it is less than two years until a general election.
    Which is why it's waffle. The writer is just projecting onto Kwasi what he wants to happen. There's been no detail or moves to boost supply just vague ideas and ambitions. What we actually have is a series of tax cuts which are intended to boost demand. Rather than defending them based on something he hopes they will do in the future, they need to be chastised for not doing what is necessary to reform the economy by boosting supply (and investment).

    The Friday event, when you take it for the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, is aimed at producing a short term gain in demand by borrowing loads of money. In a high inflation environment it's going to cause interest rates to shoot up and the currency to tank, unsurprisingly that's what has happened.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703

    eek said:

    eek said:

    You know that stamp duty cut - it's not going to help house prices now interest rates are heading upwards

    From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/banks-will-cut-mortgage-offers-90000-interest-rates-soar/

    Home buyers face severe restrictions on the amount they can borrow, as rocketing interest rates force banks to limit mortgage offers.

    In some cases customers could be able to borrow £90,000 less than previously expected.

    Great, that means prices will come down. One good thing from the mad duo.
    Not really suddenly a lot of recent purchasers are going to be in negative equity....
    All investments can go down as well as up.

    If you rule out negative equity, then you're abolishing that principle and putting a one way ratchet on prices, with horrendous consequences.
    My home isn’t an investment. It is my home.
    Well precisely, so long as you don't intend to move, if your home's value goes down then it doesn't affect you one jot, you still have your home.

    If you buy your home for £x and then in a few years time its worth £2x then you still have your home, not 2 homes. If its worth £0.5x then you still have your home, not half a home.

    If you intend to move, you may have less money invested for a new purchase, but that's possible for all investments.
    Eh? My mortgage is pretty much unaffordable at 7% interest rates. I therefore have to sell it. If I can’t sell it for high enough to cover the outstanding mortgage, what do I do then?

    “Doesn’t affect me one jot”.
    In recent times 90% of new mortgages have been at fixed rates. Which for most people will give a buffer.

    Plus house prices are generally up by something like 20-25% over a couple of years, which gives a different type of buffer.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    I'm ready to vote labour. When's that bloody election...

    Sorry to break it to you but January 2025 as the Tory party have no choice but to cling on as long as possible...
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    Great British Energy is a good start but sounds way too limuted in scope and merely a net zero pet project. Sod pairing with other companies, it should be aiming to provide 100% of our energy needs then selling any excess.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Cicero said:

    The sabotage of the Nordstream pipelines is a last, desperate attempt to try and force Germany into pushing for freezing the conflict. The Russian may also attempt to sabotage the Norwegian pipelines, but that would effectively be a direct act of war. In any event its not going to work, there is sufficient headroom across other supplies and alternatives to create work arounds.

    The complete chaos enveloping Russia is also being seen on the battlefield, where there is now growing evidence of a Russian catastrophe around Lyman. The new recruits are just dead men walking, and even the Ukrainians are shaken by the scale of death that the Russians are effectively inflicting on their own side.

    Another significant defeat is looming for Russia, and now the call up has brought the economy in several areas to a dead stop. Even if Putin formally annexes the occupied territories and uses a nuclear weapon to "defend Russian territory" there is every chance that a non-nuclear response could be so devastating that Russia itself, never mind its army, will "decohere". Chunks of Russian territory, notably Dagestan, are already slipping into open rebellion.

    The crisis for Russia may be only just beginning.

    Damaging the Norwegian pipelines would be an act of war.
    Could you prove who was responsible?
  • Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AlistairM said:

    Wow. Some big bubbles!

    This photo, taken by a Danish F-16 near Bornholm, shows the disturbance in the water caused by one of the gas leaks in the Baltic Sea.

    Image shared by the Danish Armed Forces


    https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1574741612093181952

    Edit: How safe is it flying a jet over the top of a large release of flammable gas?!

    The gas will disperse pretty quickly, as it's lighter than air and there's plenty of wind. But I wouldn't want to be in a small boat having a cigarette in the area.
    Although methane release is one of the possible 'reasons' I've heard behind the Bermuda Triangle plane crashes. And ISTR oil / gas rigs have been sunk because of gas leaks - the gas alters the buoyancy of the water. I daresay Richard will know more.
    Oh, I hadn't thought of that re buoyancy of water. That's interesting.
    Killed many people trying to escape from beached ships in stormy conditions, I believe - too much air entrained in the water, the person goes down.
    I *wish* I could find a source for claim about oil rigs sinking - yonks ago I saw a picture of one ( think in the Gulf of Mexico) that was allegedly listing because of a gas leak.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,200
    Superb speech from Starmer . I’m counting the days till this wretched government is shown the door .
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    eek said:

    I'm ready to vote labour. When's that bloody election...

    Sorry to break it to you but January 2025 as the Tory party have no choice but to cling on as long as possible...
    October 2024 most likely then (avoiding winter)?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269



    We're all going to need the pot of gold at the end of this rainbow, I feel .....
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    Interesting to reflect that the Tory catastrophe over the past week or so has been almost entirely self-inflicted, through their own incomprehensible witless stupidity.

    And now we're going to see what effect some rather sharp interventions from an intelligent opposition will have.

    After that, of course, the stage will be left to the Tories for a while longer. Who knows what they can accomplish?
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,027
    An excellent speech. Bring on the next election
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    edited September 2022

    rcs1000 said:

    AlistairM said:

    Wow. Some big bubbles!

    This photo, taken by a Danish F-16 near Bornholm, shows the disturbance in the water caused by one of the gas leaks in the Baltic Sea.

    Image shared by the Danish Armed Forces


    https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1574741612093181952

    Edit: How safe is it flying a jet over the top of a large release of flammable gas?!

    The gas will disperse pretty quickly, as it's lighter than air and there's plenty of wind. But I wouldn't want to be in a small boat having a cigarette in the area.
    Not an expert on these things but I thought that the absence of a combustion chamber meant no explosion.

    On an unrelated matter, Robert, is it true that you were at University with man of the moment, Kwasi Kwarteng?

    You may plead the Fifth Amendment if you wish.
    FAE (Fuel Air Explosions) involving natural gas are of much interest to the people who deal with LNG supply chains (and plain ordinary gas). They are perfectly possible - it is a simply a matter of concentration in the air.

    The nightmare one (that fortunately isn't quite that easy) is a whole LNG tank breaks open on the surface of the sea. The LNG flows rapidly across the water, until it forms a thin layer, which evaporates. Perfect conditions for a huge FAE. Fortunately the dispersal doesn't work like that.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    Stocky said:

    eek said:

    I'm ready to vote labour. When's that bloody election...

    Sorry to break it to you but January 2025 as the Tory party have no choice but to cling on as long as possible...
    October 2024 most likely then (avoiding winter)?
    Why? The Tories are going to lose disastrously - they will delay the inevitable as long as possible.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,921

    Great British Energy is a good start but sounds way too limuted in scope and merely a net zero pet project. Sod pairing with other companies, it should be aiming to provide 100% of our energy needs then selling any excess.

    That is rather predicated on British energy being extractable at the same price as energy from the rest of the world.

    Remember: British coal mining collapsed long before British coal demand. It was simply cheaper (a lot cheaper) to buy coal from open pit mines in Colombia, than from deep mines in the UK.

    Now, could we extract more (by, for example, making the taxation regime for the North Sea more sensible)?

    Yep, absolutely.

    But we can't will British rocks to generate more commercially available hydrocarbons by snapping our fingers.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    My bit on Kwasi's markets meltdown, economists describing the Conservatives mildly as a "doomsday cult", and the Daily Mail's war on woke city slickers or something https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/27/markets-kwasi-kwarteng-chancellor?CMP=share_btn_tw
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    Chris said:

    Interesting to reflect that the Tory catastrophe over the past week or so has been almost entirely self-inflicted, through their own incomprehensible witless stupidity.

    And now we're going to see what effect some rather sharp interventions from an intelligent opposition will have.

    After that, of course, the stage will be left to the Tories for a while longer. Who knows what they can accomplish?

    This a good overview of next week's Tory Conference?


  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    edited September 2022
    Burnham throws in the towel.

    On R4.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    nico679 said:

    Superb speech from Starmer . I’m counting the days till this wretched government is shown the door .

    bear in mind labour will have little room for manouvre when they come in...they are bound to disappoint their supporters
  • The last 7 days are the point where the Tories 100% lost the next election. No way back for them now.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    The ubiquitous standing ovation is delivered according to the LAW
    It is the single most meaningless gesture iro leaders speeches
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited September 2022
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP have made their written submission to the SC in respect of their referendum bill: https://www.snp.org/the-snps-supreme-court-submission-on-the-independence-referendum/

    TLDR, the argument boils down to this. Peoples have a right to self determination. We are a people. Hence we have that right. The Scotland Act 1998 should be construed in a way that does not interfere with that right. A referendum allows the views of the Scottish people to be determined. The reserved matters therefore cannot constrain this.

    Therefore all local councils have the right to run concurrent referenda for their people to remain or leave, or apply to join the EU, or whatever. County councils in England can run secede referenda at will etc etc
    Hmmm.

    How does "we are a people" stack up with denying a vote to all the members of the 'people' who don't reside in the defined area?
    SNP view is that anyone who lives in Scotland is a Scot.
    Regardless of their citizenship?

    Who among those who don't live in Scotland are Scots in the SNP's view? Do they see Tony Blair as a Scot, for example, by dint of having been born in Scotland?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,353
    nico679 said:

    Superb speech from Starmer . I’m counting the days till this wretched government is shown the door .

    Soporific speech. Well meaning to the point of smarmy about it. The has been one bright spot in a dark few days for the Tories.

    I support Starmer as very safe pair of hands in much needed and overdue change of government, I have said often enough I have no problem with him for acting quick and decisively, which is how he contrasted well with Boris, and reasonably honestly by political standards, but if anyone changing sides have to bull Starmer up to explain their volte facey, that’s for them, he’s still utterly boring and un-inspirational in my honest opinion.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    Liz Truss's other gift is clarity. V clear what govt stands for & that's somehow helped things snap into focus for Labour. Both Johnson & Cameron were hard to pigeonhole so slippery to oppose - Labour's now clear what she is & who they are
    https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1574761860414439426
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    nico679 said:

    Superb speech from Starmer . I’m counting the days till this wretched government is shown the door .

    Disagree with the former, agree with the latter.

    He is a terrible orator, very short on bold ideas
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,200
    PeterM said:

    nico679 said:

    Superb speech from Starmer . I’m counting the days till this wretched government is shown the door .

    bear in mind labour will have little room for manouvre when they come in...they are bound to disappoint their supporters
    They can’t be any more disappointing than the current government . I don’t expect them to do everything they want but even if they achieve half of what Starmer suggested that would be great .
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    148grss said:

    eek said:

    Cicero said:

    Cicero said:

    Cicero said:

    Can´t help feeling that we could be looking at the end of the modern Conservative party.

    There are certainly parallels with the Liberal Party, during and after the first world war, with Johnson as the Lloyd George figure undermining the traditional heart of his party.

    Longer term splits over Europe (Liberal Parallel; Ireland and the Suffragettes) have seen even former leadership contenders like Rory Stewart, Heseltine and Ken Clarke driven out from the party. These public service minded figures have been replaced by the hard-faced chancers, like JRM, Johnson and indeed Truss herself.

    The divisions between Sunak and KK are fundamental, not just Wykhamist v Etonian. The party is fundamentally at odds with itself.

    If I was an economically literate Tory MP, even with something like a 9K majority, I would be thinking very hard about whether it might not be better for the Parliamentary party to throw out the Populists now, before the Country does it in 2 years with the collateral damage being that I would also lose my seat.

    Truss turns out to be the Militant Tendency of the modern Tories, and if not challenged the Tories could indeed go into a Canadian style meltdown. A 45-26 % split next time with a bit of tactical voting for the Lib Dems could get the Tories down into double figures.

    PR then kills them.

    You may be right about the split in the Tory party, but you're making an assumption that it won't be the Trussites who look vindicated in 12-months time. A lot can change domestically and internationally between now and then.
    The Trussites cannot be vindicated. The Markets wont wear it. Today Dollar Parity, 3 months time, Euro Parity.

    Reserves blown, rates into double figures, national humiliation, ergo KamiKwasi can not do what he is trying to do.
    Who gives a flying f**k if we pass parity with either the dollar or the Euro? What difference does it make?

    If the pound reaches a new equilibrium that encourages economic growth and exports more than consumerism and imports, then that could help not hinder Truss's agenda.
    In two words: confidence and capacity.

    The long term productivity numbers show that there has been insufficient investment in the UK over the past 30-odd years, so lower currency rates do not improve the competitive position of the economy sufficient to trigger growth. The economic capacity, especially the industrial capacity, is too small and too weak for Sterling based assets alone to restore a stable growth rate. The negative view of the country means that it would take a very long time to gain inward investment, especially as we are not in the single market.

    The impact of a collapse of confidence in the UK means that we can no longer afford so many imports but do not have the capacity for import substitution and there will be a persistent investment gap. So the most likely impact is a very long and very deep depression.
    Hard to grasp why this apparently is hard to grasp. The US Dollar is *the* global reserve currency. The exchange rate of other currencies against it matters, especially when yours is one of the other leading global currencies.

    Yesterday we fell to our lowest exchange rate against the dollar since its creation. That is not a position that global traders believe to be tenable - they do not have confidence in what a growing number of very senior global finance figures have described in various kinds of choice language.

    BR is one of these England uber Alles lunatics. Remember how people said bin the EEA and lets go WTO? Then tried to lecture the WTO on how the WTO worked when it was made clear to them that there are rules for global trade. Same moronity on display here.

    What is the Pound? It is fiat - it only has the value that the confidence of others grant it. We have to pay our taxes in it, creditors receive their gilt interest payments in it. Confidence creates value. Take the confidence away by being bloody stupid and your scrip may not even have the value of the polymer its printed on.
    So what you are saying is that there are limits in reality of what we can achieve to grow our economy. Ok. We have a wider problem then: having bankrupted ourselves with 2 World Wars, used North Sea wealth to avoid hard decisions on government expenditure, built a rapacious welfare system and NHS that uses an increasing share of government spending while still not meeting expectations, all while having our tax system take a higher percentage of our income than ever plus borrowing at unsustainable levels - what is the end position going to be? We cannot *CANNOT* continue as we are.

    Either we grow the economy or else economic reality will force 1) an increase in pension age by 10yrs - most people will die while working, 2) a smaller NHS with fewer basic treatment options at end of life - but more support to help people stay in their homes or get back out of hospital, 3) a shift to individual state pension pots funded by our own work history, 4) wealth taxes - the last resort of governments who have run out of all other options. Oh, and we will have to build millions of new houses to force property prices down.

    A very different Britain
    We need to find a way to increase productivity - which last Friday's budget simply doesn't do for 1 very obvious reason.

    If you continue doing the same things you've been doing for the past 10 years (low corporation tax) during which time they haven't resulted in companies investing money - continuing to offer low corporation tax rates isn't going to suddenly result in companies investing...

    Sunak at least was trying to change that point and trying to identify how a Government could provide incentives for firms to invest in productivity improvements.
    Maybe I'm just some utopian lefty but maybe we could just decide that different things are important. We say we have a welfare state, but really we have an emergency pull cord - people in medical emergencies have good outcomes, and some people in very dire economic straights have a safety net. But we don't have a welfare state in the sense of having a good standard of living as a guaranteed foundation of existence. And people ask, "well how would you pay for that?", but in many ways it pays for itself. Investing in cheaper public transport allows workers to move more freely and be more productive. A guarantee of affordable roof over your head makes less anxious workers. The same for healthcare and education. But they would be less economically precarious, and therefore would flex their muscles against capital, and that is unacceptable to business.

    We should also be looking at more automation and an acceptance that we don't need to work as much as we do. Taking a purely material marxist view, private automation would lead to workers being laid off and less need for workers, but there is no reason why the profits of automation should be held in private hands rather than for common good. More work done by robots, less work done by people, but more fruits of labour going to everyone is what we should be aiming for. A real transformation of how we consider work in the digital age. Not revived voodoo economics.
    I share the aspiration but I'm starting to doubt whether modern British governments are capable of doing stuff like this, ie which require a lot of thought to design, then hard graft to implement, and aren't expected to pay off by next Thursday.

    Eg see how tax cuts (easy peasy) are running miles ahead of supply-side reform (quite hard) in this Truss "Project".
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302

    nico679 said:

    Superb speech from Starmer . I’m counting the days till this wretched government is shown the door .

    Disagree with the former, agree with the latter.

    He is a terrible orator, very short on bold ideas
    if corbyn was labour leader now he would win the next election guaranteed
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177

    Burnham throws in the towel.

    On R4.

    In what respect (not been following)
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037

    The last 7 days are the point where the Tories 100% lost the next election. No way back for them now.

    They need to stop a Labour majority and retain 250 to 260 or so seats. That is now their purpose
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895

    He is a terrible orator, very short on bold ideas

    Exactly what the country needs after BoZo and Truss
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Quite a good blog on Truss/Kwarteng:

    https://keirbradwell.substack.com/p/2-kwartengs-plan

    Government after government has failed to do nearly enough about the supply side of the British economy. Reams have been written, far more eloquently than I can manage, about how this inaction has trapped us, time and time again, into choices we don’t want to have to make, on public services and elsewhere. It has trapped us into falling ever further behind America in our living standards. And it has nudged us into accepting relative decline as the norm and the future of Britain.

    Until now, nobody has truly dared tackle this head-on. But we have finally found a PM and chancellor willing to do so. And yet for whatever reason — perhaps simply because we cannot get our heads around the reorganisation they have in mind — we are risking making it politically impossible before they have even begun to try.

    That, at least, is a load of waffle just because there were no supply side reforms, just a bunch of tax cuts which will push up demand.

    I'm all in favour of supply side reforms and pushing up business investment, there's was very little in the Friday statement that actually achieves any supply side fix.
    He does address that if you read the whole piece:

    This is a long list, and even then it is only really a start on the work that the economy needs. It is also vague: it equivocates about the most important supply-side reform of all — housing reform — promising merely that more detail will be announced soon.

    But it is a start. And if it is implemented properly (and followed up with more), it would allow Kwarteng’s plan to succeed, and with it, bring to end the awful bind that British policymaking has been stuck in since 2008.

    The plan is therefore a do-or-die moment.

    To commit to the Growth Plan’s tax-and-spend decisions without the structural reforms to go along with them would be a disaster. It would represent the worst of the status quo, but with a new layer of ‘bad’ added on top.

    And there are lots of reasons for pessimism. Getting a supply-side reform through Parliament is much more difficult than doing new spending, especially with special interest groups doing their absolute utmost to block progress. Truss is already light on political capital, given how few MPs originally voted for her, and the response to our currency trouble will only have made that worse. Worst of all, there is very little time: it is less than two years until a general election.
    Which is why it's waffle. The writer is just projecting onto Kwasi what he wants to happen. There's been no detail or moves to boost supply just vague ideas and ambitions. What we actually have is a series of tax cuts which are intended to boost demand. Rather than defending them based on something he hopes they will do in the future, they need to be chastised for not doing what is necessary to reform the economy by boosting supply (and investment).

    The Friday event, when you take it for the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, is aimed at producing a short term gain in demand by borrowing loads of money. In a high inflation environment it's going to cause interest rates to shoot up and the currency to tank, unsurprisingly that's what has happened.
    When you take in the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, almost all of what happened was pre-announced and the 45p changes "cost" £2 billion supposedly, but the real cost to the Exchequer will of course be far less than that and may even by negative.

    So the hysteria that has followed is just ridiculous. Yes you are completely right that the vague ideas and ambitions need meat on the bones to follow through with, I totally agree with you on that, but at least they're targeting the right issues and saying the right things even if its not yet in action. They need to follow through with credible actions on reforms, but those are things that aren't simply announced in a statement.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Huw Pill, the Bank of England's chief economist, warns that there will be a 'significant monetary response' to shore up sterling

    Big rate rises are coming next month in the wake of Kwasi Kwarteng's £45billion tax-cutting budget


    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1574758222505951232

    About time...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637

    The last 7 days are the point where the Tories 100% lost the next election. No way back for them now.

    Could well be right.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895

    They need to stop a Labour majority and retain 250 to 260 or so seats. That is now their purpose

    They should defenestrate Truss then
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190

    nico679 said:

    Superb speech from Starmer . I’m counting the days till this wretched government is shown the door .

    Disagree with the former, agree with the latter.

    He is a terrible orator, very short on bold ideas
    I tend to agree, Jonathan Blake on BBC 5Live saying Starmer is very boring, but your boy Burnham disagrees.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Huw Pill, the Bank of England's chief economist, warns that there will be a 'significant monetary response' to shore up sterling

    Big rate rises are coming next month in the wake of Kwasi Kwarteng's £45billion tax-cutting budget


    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1574758222505951232

    About time...
    Not a flicker on the currency markets. They dont believe him.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    edited September 2022
    Interesting take on Starmer's speech:

    Starmer’s New Labour reenactment will appeal to commentators as a centrist led Labour Party makes gains against a floundering Tory governments. But the economic circumstances couldn’t be more different. They aren’t good ones for fiscal ‘prudence’ and moderate redistribution.

    Blair’s governments, and especially Brown’s chancellorship, was founded on a programme based around the centre-left making peace with globalisation and distributing benefits from the growth of London’s financial economy across the UK. Globalisation is now in retreat.


    https://twitter.com/ewangibbs/status/1574755445595668480?s=46&t=MFf5XaMisz4TWhjYJ75dhg&fbclid=IwAR3Mlf20Wb2lvn2K4tMgquUKl1cFNeyeTMtVHmz0pZK0DMPz6q4F-Qas3y4
  • MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Huw Pill, the Bank of England's chief economist, warns that there will be a 'significant monetary response' to shore up sterling

    Big rate rises are coming next month in the wake of Kwasi Kwarteng's £45billion tax-cutting budget


    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1574758222505951232

    About time...
    Should have been done before Friday. Better late than never.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    Can't tell if this is exquisite sarcasm, or not...

    Not bad, but he’s no Neil Kinnock.

    https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1574762837729320964
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,890
    edited September 2022

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Quite a good blog on Truss/Kwarteng:

    https://keirbradwell.substack.com/p/2-kwartengs-plan

    Government after government has failed to do nearly enough about the supply side of the British economy. Reams have been written, far more eloquently than I can manage, about how this inaction has trapped us, time and time again, into choices we don’t want to have to make, on public services and elsewhere. It has trapped us into falling ever further behind America in our living standards. And it has nudged us into accepting relative decline as the norm and the future of Britain.

    Until now, nobody has truly dared tackle this head-on. But we have finally found a PM and chancellor willing to do so. And yet for whatever reason — perhaps simply because we cannot get our heads around the reorganisation they have in mind — we are risking making it politically impossible before they have even begun to try.

    That, at least, is a load of waffle just because there were no supply side reforms, just a bunch of tax cuts which will push up demand.

    I'm all in favour of supply side reforms and pushing up business investment, there's was very little in the Friday statement that actually achieves any supply side fix.
    He does address that if you read the whole piece:

    This is a long list, and even then it is only really a start on the work that the economy needs. It is also vague: it equivocates about the most important supply-side reform of all — housing reform — promising merely that more detail will be announced soon.

    But it is a start. And if it is implemented properly (and followed up with more), it would allow Kwarteng’s plan to succeed, and with it, bring to end the awful bind that British policymaking has been stuck in since 2008.

    The plan is therefore a do-or-die moment.

    To commit to the Growth Plan’s tax-and-spend decisions without the structural reforms to go along with them would be a disaster. It would represent the worst of the status quo, but with a new layer of ‘bad’ added on top.

    And there are lots of reasons for pessimism. Getting a supply-side reform through Parliament is much more difficult than doing new spending, especially with special interest groups doing their absolute utmost to block progress. Truss is already light on political capital, given how few MPs originally voted for her, and the response to our currency trouble will only have made that worse. Worst of all, there is very little time: it is less than two years until a general election.
    Which is why it's waffle. The writer is just projecting onto Kwasi what he wants to happen. There's been no detail or moves to boost supply just vague ideas and ambitions. What we actually have is a series of tax cuts which are intended to boost demand. Rather than defending them based on something he hopes they will do in the future, they need to be chastised for not doing what is necessary to reform the economy by boosting supply (and investment).

    The Friday event, when you take it for the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, is aimed at producing a short term gain in demand by borrowing loads of money. In a high inflation environment it's going to cause interest rates to shoot up and the currency to tank, unsurprisingly that's what has happened.
    When you take in the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, almost all of what happened was pre-announced and the 45p changes "cost" £2 billion supposedly, but the real cost to the Exchequer will of course be far less than that and may even by negative.

    So the hysteria that has followed is just ridiculous. Yes you are completely right that the vague ideas and ambitions need meat on the bones to follow through with, I totally agree with you on that, but at least they're targeting the right issues and saying the right things even if its not yet in action. They need to follow through with credible actions on reforms, but those are things that aren't simply announced in a statement.
    "and the 45p changes "cost" £2 billion supposedly, but the real cost to the Exchequer will of course be far less than that and may even by negative."
    Have you seen the gilt, stock market and currency reactions ?! You do know what that all means for Gov't finances right ?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    Two delegates describe SKS speech as exciting.

    Blimey must be very easy to please.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Quite a good blog on Truss/Kwarteng:

    https://keirbradwell.substack.com/p/2-kwartengs-plan

    Government after government has failed to do nearly enough about the supply side of the British economy. Reams have been written, far more eloquently than I can manage, about how this inaction has trapped us, time and time again, into choices we don’t want to have to make, on public services and elsewhere. It has trapped us into falling ever further behind America in our living standards. And it has nudged us into accepting relative decline as the norm and the future of Britain.

    Until now, nobody has truly dared tackle this head-on. But we have finally found a PM and chancellor willing to do so. And yet for whatever reason — perhaps simply because we cannot get our heads around the reorganisation they have in mind — we are risking making it politically impossible before they have even begun to try.

    That, at least, is a load of waffle just because there were no supply side reforms, just a bunch of tax cuts which will push up demand.

    I'm all in favour of supply side reforms and pushing up business investment, there's was very little in the Friday statement that actually achieves any supply side fix.
    He does address that if you read the whole piece:

    This is a long list, and even then it is only really a start on the work that the economy needs. It is also vague: it equivocates about the most important supply-side reform of all — housing reform — promising merely that more detail will be announced soon.

    But it is a start. And if it is implemented properly (and followed up with more), it would allow Kwarteng’s plan to succeed, and with it, bring to end the awful bind that British policymaking has been stuck in since 2008.

    The plan is therefore a do-or-die moment.

    To commit to the Growth Plan’s tax-and-spend decisions without the structural reforms to go along with them would be a disaster. It would represent the worst of the status quo, but with a new layer of ‘bad’ added on top.

    And there are lots of reasons for pessimism. Getting a supply-side reform through Parliament is much more difficult than doing new spending, especially with special interest groups doing their absolute utmost to block progress. Truss is already light on political capital, given how few MPs originally voted for her, and the response to our currency trouble will only have made that worse. Worst of all, there is very little time: it is less than two years until a general election.
    Which is why it's waffle. The writer is just projecting onto Kwasi what he wants to happen. There's been no detail or moves to boost supply just vague ideas and ambitions. What we actually have is a series of tax cuts which are intended to boost demand. Rather than defending them based on something he hopes they will do in the future, they need to be chastised for not doing what is necessary to reform the economy by boosting supply (and investment).

    The Friday event, when you take it for the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, is aimed at producing a short term gain in demand by borrowing loads of money. In a high inflation environment it's going to cause interest rates to shoot up and the currency to tank, unsurprisingly that's what has happened.
    When you take in the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, almost all of what happened was pre-announced and the 45p changes "cost" £2 billion supposedly, but the real cost to the Exchequer will of course be far less than that and may even by negative.

    So the hysteria that has followed is just ridiculous. Yes you are completely right that the vague ideas and ambitions need meat on the bones to follow through with, I totally agree with you on that, but at least they're targeting the right issues and saying the right things even if its not yet in action. They need to follow through with credible actions on reforms, but those are things that aren't simply announced in a statement.
    "and the 45p changes "cost" £2 billion supposedly, but the real cost to the Exchequer will of course be far less than that and may even by negative."
    Have you seen the gilt, stock market and currency reactions ?! You do know what that all means for Gov't finances right ?
    Clearly he doesn't
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AlistairM said:

    Wow. Some big bubbles!

    This photo, taken by a Danish F-16 near Bornholm, shows the disturbance in the water caused by one of the gas leaks in the Baltic Sea.

    Image shared by the Danish Armed Forces


    https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1574741612093181952

    Edit: How safe is it flying a jet over the top of a large release of flammable gas?!

    The gas will disperse pretty quickly, as it's lighter than air and there's plenty of wind. But I wouldn't want to be in a small boat having a cigarette in the area.
    Although methane release is one of the possible 'reasons' I've heard behind the Bermuda Triangle plane crashes. And ISTR oil / gas rigs have been sunk because of gas leaks - the gas alters the buoyancy of the water. I daresay Richard will know more.
    Oh, I hadn't thought of that re buoyancy of water. That's interesting.
    Killed many people trying to escape from beached ships in stormy conditions, I believe - too much air entrained in the water, the person goes down.
    I *wish* I could find a source for claim about oil rigs sinking - yonks ago I saw a picture of one ( think in the Gulf of Mexico) that was allegedly listing because of a gas leak.
    there was a TV program discussing if sudden release of sub-seabed methane pockets could explain loss of ships in the Bermuda Triangle. I seem to remember them doing a simulation in a water tank with a model boat.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190

    Burnham throws in the towel.

    On R4.

    In what respect (not been following)
    "Starmer is the Prime Minister in waiting". says Burnham.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Huw Pill, the Bank of England's chief economist, warns that there will be a 'significant monetary response' to shore up sterling

    Big rate rises are coming next month in the wake of Kwasi Kwarteng's £45billion tax-cutting budget


    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1574758222505951232

    About time...
    Not a flicker on the currency markets. They dont believe him.
    The fact there isn't a flicker on the currency markets actually says they do believe him.

    Because in reality he is confirming that the interest rate increases which the market is expecting in November are going to be delivered in November.
  • On Starmer - I will take boring and managerial. Good god will I take boring and managerial after the past 3 years.
  • Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Quite a good blog on Truss/Kwarteng:

    https://keirbradwell.substack.com/p/2-kwartengs-plan

    Government after government has failed to do nearly enough about the supply side of the British economy. Reams have been written, far more eloquently than I can manage, about how this inaction has trapped us, time and time again, into choices we don’t want to have to make, on public services and elsewhere. It has trapped us into falling ever further behind America in our living standards. And it has nudged us into accepting relative decline as the norm and the future of Britain.

    Until now, nobody has truly dared tackle this head-on. But we have finally found a PM and chancellor willing to do so. And yet for whatever reason — perhaps simply because we cannot get our heads around the reorganisation they have in mind — we are risking making it politically impossible before they have even begun to try.

    That, at least, is a load of waffle just because there were no supply side reforms, just a bunch of tax cuts which will push up demand.

    I'm all in favour of supply side reforms and pushing up business investment, there's was very little in the Friday statement that actually achieves any supply side fix.
    He does address that if you read the whole piece:

    This is a long list, and even then it is only really a start on the work that the economy needs. It is also vague: it equivocates about the most important supply-side reform of all — housing reform — promising merely that more detail will be announced soon.

    But it is a start. And if it is implemented properly (and followed up with more), it would allow Kwarteng’s plan to succeed, and with it, bring to end the awful bind that British policymaking has been stuck in since 2008.

    The plan is therefore a do-or-die moment.

    To commit to the Growth Plan’s tax-and-spend decisions without the structural reforms to go along with them would be a disaster. It would represent the worst of the status quo, but with a new layer of ‘bad’ added on top.

    And there are lots of reasons for pessimism. Getting a supply-side reform through Parliament is much more difficult than doing new spending, especially with special interest groups doing their absolute utmost to block progress. Truss is already light on political capital, given how few MPs originally voted for her, and the response to our currency trouble will only have made that worse. Worst of all, there is very little time: it is less than two years until a general election.
    Which is why it's waffle. The writer is just projecting onto Kwasi what he wants to happen. There's been no detail or moves to boost supply just vague ideas and ambitions. What we actually have is a series of tax cuts which are intended to boost demand. Rather than defending them based on something he hopes they will do in the future, they need to be chastised for not doing what is necessary to reform the economy by boosting supply (and investment).

    The Friday event, when you take it for the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, is aimed at producing a short term gain in demand by borrowing loads of money. In a high inflation environment it's going to cause interest rates to shoot up and the currency to tank, unsurprisingly that's what has happened.
    When you take in the actual measures and exclude all of the guff, almost all of what happened was pre-announced and the 45p changes "cost" £2 billion supposedly, but the real cost to the Exchequer will of course be far less than that and may even by negative.

    So the hysteria that has followed is just ridiculous. Yes you are completely right that the vague ideas and ambitions need meat on the bones to follow through with, I totally agree with you on that, but at least they're targeting the right issues and saying the right things even if its not yet in action. They need to follow through with credible actions on reforms, but those are things that aren't simply announced in a statement.
    "and the 45p changes "cost" £2 billion supposedly, but the real cost to the Exchequer will of course be far less than that and may even by negative."
    Have you seen the gilt, stock market and currency reactions ?! You do know what that all means for Gov't finances right ?
    Yes.

    And those movements aren't justified by a £2bn change in government finances. They're mostly long overdue corrections and a response to the Dovishness of the BoE.
  • eek said:

    Regardless of their citizenship?

    Who among those who don't live in Scotland are Scots in the SNP's view? Do they see Tony Blair as a Scot, for example, by dint of having been born in Scotland?

    I understand exactly what the SNP are saying. There is the wider Scottish diaspora - Scottish people who live outside Scotland. Then you have Scottish citizens - people from Scotland and other nations who live in Scotland.

    So as an immigrant I am Scottish as a citizen but not Scottish as a nationality. Not that it matters, because nobody will grant Nippie the referendum she would lose, so she gets to fight on...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    It’s a sign of just how troubled a market is when the price of roughly a third of the safest sterling corporate bonds drops into distressed territory, compared with just one at the end of last year https://trib.al/4aVnl4p https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1574764178623152135/photo/1
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    edited September 2022

    Two delegates describe SKS speech as exciting.

    Blimey must be very easy to please.

    Reality is fighting against the very obvious decision that Sir Keir is now to be portrayed in the media as the PM in waiting, and 'statesmanlike' etc, during mourning there was some laughable fawning from the likes of Wearmouth and Rigby. Hes in a good position and has some good stuff to sell and the Tories are a mess but the polling doesnt lie in how he is seen and theres a strong element of emporers new clothes to the 'SKS The Titan' being pushed
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    Scott_xP said:

    Can't tell if this is exquisite sarcasm, or not...

    Not bad, but he’s no Neil Kinnock.

    https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1574762837729320964

    I'm not sure why it should be. Kinnock had quite a reputation as a parliamentary orator. I'm trying to think of someone since then who did. Hmm.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    Pulpstar said:

    Dynamo said:

    We have 5 by-elections in the House of Lords next month due to retirements of Viscount Ullswater, Lord Colwyn, the Earl of Listowel and Lord Astor of Hever and the death of the Earl of Home.

    There is one vacancy in the Crossbenchers, 2 vacancies in the Conservatives and 2 vacancies for the whole House (although these are expect to be filled by Conservatives).

    The first election will be by AV, but the last two elections will be by STV.

    Candidates statements to be published later this week.

    Members of the House of Lords presumably either take a party's whip or else they're crossbenchers, but what's the procedure for the registration of a hereditary peer's party affiliation when he doesn't hold a seat, not even as a life peer? Is the register made public?
    Who do you think has sabotaged the pipeline ?
    Waiting for Mohammed al Fayed to blame the Duke of Edinburgh...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,357
    eek said:

    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Huw Pill, the Bank of England's chief economist, warns that there will be a 'significant monetary response' to shore up sterling

    Big rate rises are coming next month in the wake of Kwasi Kwarteng's £45billion tax-cutting budget


    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1574758222505951232

    About time...
    Not a flicker on the currency markets. They dont believe him.
    The fact there isn't a flicker on the currency markets actually says they do believe him.

    Because in reality he is confirming that the interest rate increases which the market is expecting in November are going to be delivered in November.
    Why not October?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507

    An excellent speech. Bring on the next election

    SKS was 8/11 to be prime minister after next election this morning with Coral. now 2/5.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    On Starmer - I will take boring and managerial. Good god will I take boring and managerial after the past 3 years.

    Starmer described just abour every emergence from lockdown as 'reckless'

    We would have locked down longer and harder, with deeper recessions and higher spending. For Starmer, Johnson's upheaval was not upheaval enough.
This discussion has been closed.