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

123468

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160
    MattW 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”.
    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.
    That's very true:

    Albeit most of the fixes are for relatively short (2 to 5 year) periods. You will therefore have a meaningful number dropping off the fixed rate each year. (FWIW, there is a similar phenomenon in the US, where an increasing proportion of the mortgage market is on five year fixeds.)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    Chris said:

    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.
    I wondered if it was a reference to narrowly losing the next election...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,158
    mickydroy said:

    There is no doubt, Starmer is starting to look the part, in part helped by the clowns running the tory party, but I do think some credit must be given to Starmer as well, he has certainly knocked the labour party into shape.It is well worth remembering the state of disarray, Corbyn left it in, also does anybody think the Labour party would be anywhere near this position, if Rebecca Long Bailey had won

    Yes, he's done an excellent job.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    edited September 2022
    Dynamo said:

    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?
    MattW said:

    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.
    For the purposes of voting, there *is* no other practical legal definition of a Scot; you might have missed the discussions we had on PB some years back now.

    But, tbf, this is based on DavidL's summary - which may not be intended to bear the burden you and then I have placed on it.

    Edit: unless you want to go all blood and soil, like Mr Cameron did in 2014? But only in his speeches: He didn't himself claim a vote by virtue of his parentage, grandparentage, whatever.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Comments at fringe events distracting from the main show, as ever, I see.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370

    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?
    Because the next scheduled BoE meeting is on November 3rd (then December 15th)
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370
    edited September 2022

    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...
    That quote isn't from me it's from that Russian (loving if I'm being generous) Troll....
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    Burnham throws in the towel.

    On R4.

    In what respect (not been following)
    "Starmer is the Prime Minister in waiting". says Burnham.
    So you mean Burnham not being PM in waiting? (Not a close follower of this!)
  • (Old) New Scientist article on methane bubbles:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn227-swallowing-ships/
  • 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.
    Feels a bit "Black Wednesday - 30th anniversary Blu-Ray edition", doesn't it?

    "The day the Tories lost their reputation for economic competence. Again."
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662

    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.
    He wants to be Candidate for Rosie Coopers seat presumably.

    Won't be allowed of course by the right wing factionalists in charge. Far too dangerous

    I think Andy was speaking more from the heart when he said earlier in the week that Labour needs to be bolder, less so in his soundbite just now although he did say let's see the detail of this UK Energy proposal, think it will turn out to be less than he would like.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568
    eek said:

    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?
    Because the next scheduled BoE meeting is on November 3rd (then December 15th)
    I'm thinking unscheduled is required.....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160
    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.
    If I were the Chancellor (and I am not), then I would have made two changes:

    (1) I would have removed all the bonkers distortions around the removal of the tax free rate, childcare tax allowance, etc.

    (2) I would have raised the thresholds at which people paid tax, benefitting those who are being most squeezed by rising energy prices.

    I would not have abolished the 45% rate tax.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Two delegates describe SKS speech as exciting.

    Blimey must be very easy to please.

    I am convinced your boy Bozza will return. Starmer will struggle against BigDog. This is no done deal.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191

    eek said:

    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?
    Because the next scheduled BoE meeting is on November 3rd (then December 15th)
    I'm thinking unscheduled is required.....
    I think that would be wrong. Emergency meetings tend to induce (more) panic. A 1.5% (Something like that) rise in November would be more correct.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990

    I'm thinking unscheduled is required.....

    Your man Kwasi adamant this morning his plan will work. No intervention required...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    edited September 2022

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

    Finally, us boring people will be represented again.

    In fairness Truss probably would be quite boring if not for sparking compete and utter chaos with an air of gentle befuddlement.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,587
    Wes Streeting continues to impress:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63041447

    "Labour opposes junk food ban as living costs soar"

    (Still think his social media history will get him fired at some point though).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191

    Two delegates describe SKS speech as exciting.

    Blimey must be very easy to please.

    I am convinced your boy Bozza will return. Starmer will struggle against BigDog. This is no done deal.
    Why ? Are you on the other side of my Smarkets bet ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568
    Scott_xP said:

    Chris said:

    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.
    I wondered if it was a reference to narrowly losing the next election...
    His inability to walk along a beach without giving a humorous photo op?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662

    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.
    Lay
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,158
    The floating voters of middle England AND the financial markets gagging for a Labour government! - I think we're in "carrying a ming vase across a slidy floor" territory.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160
    Scott_xP said:

    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

    That's very simplistic: prices can drop because (a) lenders don't expect to be repaid, or (b) because inflation and rising interest rates mean they need to earn a slightly higher return.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    The government will reject claims circulating in Whitehall that the meeting between Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng was "argumentative" and descended into a "shouting match".

    https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-had-to-be-convinced-to-issue-govt-statement-to-calm-markets-after-meeting-with-chancellor-12706352
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    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.
    He wants to be Candidate for Rosie Coopers seat presumably.

    Won't be allowed of course by the right wing factionalists in charge. Far too dangerous

    I think Andy was speaking more from the heart when he said earlier in the week that Labour needs to be bolder, less so in his soundbite just now although he did say let's see the detail of this UK Energy proposal, think it will turn out to be less than he would like.
    Burnham can't take Cooper's seat whilst Mayor.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568
    Scott_xP said:

    I'm thinking unscheduled is required.....

    Your man Kwasi adamant this morning his plan will work. No intervention required...
    My man? I have personal experience of him being a right c***......
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    kinabalu said:

    The floating voters of middle England AND the financial markets gagging for a Labour government! - I think we're in "carrying a ming vase across a slidy floor" territory.

    Starmer better win.

    Where does labour go if he doesn't....?

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061

    Burnham throws in the towel.

    On R4.

    In what respect (not been following)
    "Starmer is the Prime Minister in waiting". says Burnham.
    We now enter 10 days of Mourning for the end of yet another Labour King over Water
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    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?
    Because the next scheduled BoE meeting is on November 3rd (then December 15th)
    I'm thinking unscheduled is required.....
    I think that would be wrong. Emergency meetings tend to induce (more) panic. A 1.5% (Something like that) rise in November would be more correct.
    Except 1% in October might do the trick.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370
    rcs1000 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.
    If I were the Chancellor (and I am not), then I would have made two changes:

    (1) I would have removed all the bonkers distortions around the removal of the tax free rate, childcare tax allowance, etc.

    (2) I would have raised the thresholds at which people paid tax, benefitting those who are being most squeezed by rising energy prices.

    I would not have abolished the 45% rate tax.
    @MaxPB suggested removing the distortions round £100,000 and introducing a single 43% rate at that point instead.

    I think they've calculated that it would actually generate revenue even before people stopped playing games at £90,000 or so to avoid being hit by the rules..
  • eek said:

    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...
    That quote isn't from me it's from that Russian (loving if I'm being generous) Troll....
    Apologies - I couldn't get it to post without a massive edit. Clearly an inaccurate massive edit...
  • Nigelb said:

    Of course it might not be deliberate sabotage.

    Watch to the end...
    https://twitter.com/chrisschmitz/status/1574743068464812033

    "Who said anything about sabotage?" - Sean Connery.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662

    Two delegates describe SKS speech as exciting.

    Blimey must be very easy to please.

    I am convinced your boy Bozza will return. Starmer will struggle against BigDog. This is no done deal.
    Boris will represent Tories best hope. Massive damage to the brand Boris and even more so brand Tory via Truss's sabotage though.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160

    (Old) New Scientist article on methane bubbles:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn227-swallowing-ships/

    Thx for that
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    PeterM said:

    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
    Hmm...er, No!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    A publicly-owned energy company is also v popular with Tory voters https://twitter.com/Cmmonwealth/status/1574755032372756483
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,747
    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    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

    That's very simplistic: prices can drop because (a) lenders don't expect to be repaid, or (b) because inflation and rising interest rates mean they need to earn a slightly higher return.
    It’s a sign of just how troubled our media is when even Bloomberg doesn’t understand what drives the price of credit.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    kinabalu said:

    mickydroy said:

    There is no doubt, Starmer is starting to look the part, in part helped by the clowns running the tory party, but I do think some credit must be given to Starmer as well, he has certainly knocked the labour party into shape.It is well worth remembering the state of disarray, Corbyn left it in, also does anybody think the Labour party would be anywhere near this position, if Rebecca Long Bailey had won

    Yes, he's done an excellent job.
    Late middle age white male lawyers are probably a good fit for a need to reset to being normal again.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,749
    Scott_xP said:

    The government will reject claims circulating in Whitehall that the meeting between Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng was "argumentative" and descended into a "shouting match".

    https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-had-to-be-convinced-to-issue-govt-statement-to-calm-markets-after-meeting-with-chancellor-12706352

    Strange. What should they have had a shouting match about?

    "You fool! You did what you said you would!"

    "You fool! You did what you promised not to!"

    "You liar! You told me you had an 'A' level in Economics!"

    The mind boggles.
  • 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.
    Lay
    well you can get 5/2 Truss with Coral and 4/6 Starmer with 365.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662

    Burnham throws in the towel.

    On R4.

    In what respect (not been following)
    "Starmer is the Prime Minister in waiting". says Burnham.
    What's he supposed to say "he is a useless nonentity with no charisma and bold ideas and can I be the next by election candidate please?"
  • That was a superb speech from Keir
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160
    eek said:

    rcs1000 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.
    If I were the Chancellor (and I am not), then I would have made two changes:

    (1) I would have removed all the bonkers distortions around the removal of the tax free rate, childcare tax allowance, etc.

    (2) I would have raised the thresholds at which people paid tax, benefitting those who are being most squeezed by rising energy prices.

    I would not have abolished the 45% rate tax.
    @MaxPB suggested removing the distortions round £100,000 and introducing a single 43% rate at that point instead.

    I think they've calculated that it would actually generate revenue even before people stopped playing games at £90,000 or so to avoid being hit by the rules..
    Great minds think alike.

    Personally, I absolute loathe silly marginal tax rates. We have them at the lower end of the income spectrum with the withdrawal of benefits, and we have them in the £90-110,000 range with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
  • 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...
    To be fair I think the SNP are right on “who gets to vote” (by residence, not by age) and someone born in Scotland but left as a child like me, shouldn’t, nor should long term New York residents like Alan Cumming who thought buying himself a flat would also buy himself a vote in 2014. He was disappointed.

    I do wonder what the current market tribulations of sterling is doing to the “thinking” of those who fondly imagine setting up a new currency with significant current account and external deficits will be a doddle. Perhaps the Whisky export duty will come to the rescue? Pity they can no longer exploit the hidden oil fields.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662

    That was a superb speech from Keir

    Lol

    This is a shocker
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,173

    That was a superb speech from Keir

    Lol

    This is a shocker
    Nice to see some political disagreement on PB :smile:
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Burnham throws in the towel.

    On R4.

    In what respect (not been following)
    "Starmer is the Prime Minister in waiting". says Burnham.
    So you mean Burnham not being PM in waiting? (Not a close follower of this!)
    Yes.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,431
    Scott_xP said:

    The government will reject claims circulating in Whitehall that the meeting between Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng was "argumentative" and descended into a "shouting match".

    https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-had-to-be-convinced-to-issue-govt-statement-to-calm-markets-after-meeting-with-chancellor-12706352

    Mandy Rice- Cooper applies I think!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Burnham throws in the towel.

    On R4.

    In what respect (not been following)
    "Starmer is the Prime Minister in waiting". says Burnham.
    What's he supposed to say "he is a useless nonentity with no charisma and bold ideas and can I be the next by election candidate please?"
    Well that's what he normally says. It wasn't Johnsonian comedic genius, but the party faithful including Burnham seemed to like the speech.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160
    Good News from the Middle East: high gas prices are leading Israel and Lebanon to agree maritime borders, so as to enable the export of gas from fields in the area:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/business/energy-environment/israel-lebanon-natural-gas-europe.html
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    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...
    To be fair I think the SNP are right on “who gets to vote” (by residence, not by age) and someone born in Scotland but left as a child like me, shouldn’t, nor should long term New York residents like Alan Cumming who thought buying himself a flat would also buy himself a vote in 2014. He was disappointed.

    I do wonder what the current market tribulations of sterling is doing to the “thinking” of those who fondly imagine setting up a new currency with significant current account and external deficits will be a doddle. Perhaps the Whisky export duty will come to the rescue? Pity they can no longer exploit the hidden oil fields.
    The French example sometimes touted by Unionists seeking to nobble indyref ( as they see it) doesn't work as there is a clear definition of French nationality and currently active documentation aka passport.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    Truss would have green lighted everything that Kwarteng announced so what’s the argument about ?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662
    carnforth said:

    Wes Streeting continues to impress:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63041447

    "Labour opposes junk food ban as living costs soar"

    (Still think his social media history will get him fired at some point though).

    Wes Streeting thinks Private Health care can help clear the NHS backlog and thinks Dr's can therefore be in 2 places at the same time.

    Nothing yo do with the funding from Private Health company owners of course
  • nico679 said:

    Truss would have green lighted everything that Kwarteng announced so what’s the argument about ?

    Apparently she didn't want to issue any statement.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,747
    So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.

    We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.

    Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.

  • eekeek Posts: 28,370
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 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.
    If I were the Chancellor (and I am not), then I would have made two changes:

    (1) I would have removed all the bonkers distortions around the removal of the tax free rate, childcare tax allowance, etc.

    (2) I would have raised the thresholds at which people paid tax, benefitting those who are being most squeezed by rising energy prices.

    I would not have abolished the 45% rate tax.
    @MaxPB suggested removing the distortions round £100,000 and introducing a single 43% rate at that point instead.

    I think they've calculated that it would actually generate revenue even before people stopped playing games at £90,000 or so to avoid being hit by the rules..
    Great minds think alike.

    Personally, I absolute loathe silly marginal tax rates. We have them at the lower end of the income spectrum with the withdrawal of benefits, and we have them in the £90-110,000 range with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yep the problem at the lower end is that they are utterly unavoidable given that the only other options are giving them to everyone as a universal benefit or reducing the taper level and suddenly finding millions more people are suddenly eligible for a small amount...

  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    oh look at this 89% of Kherson region residents voted to join the Russian Federation....what a surprise

    https://twitter.com/WarfareReports/status/1574745587525816325?s=20&t=TePntffXPCynzq9AE9KHUQ
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568
    The swedes measured a 2.3 seismic event at the Nordstream pipeline. Measured at 30 different recording stations.

    Not coming back on stream any time soon.

    Now it just needs Russian oil export facilities to have a bizarre gardening accident.....

    https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/damage-nord-stream-pipelines-unprecedented-may-have-been-sabotaged
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662
    moonshine said:

    So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.

    We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.

    Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.

    100% correct.

    Too difficult for CHB to understand though.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275

    nico679 said:

    Truss would have green lighted everything that Kwarteng announced so what’s the argument about ?

    Apparently she didn't want to issue any statement.
    I’m confused what statement are you talking about ?
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Truss would have green lighted everything that Kwarteng announced so what’s the argument about ?

    Apparently she didn't want to issue any statement.
    I’m confused what statement are you talking about ?
    Liz Truss had to be convinced to issue a government statement yesterday to calm the markets, Sky News understands.

    Faced with market turmoil, spiking borrowing costs, and the drop in the value of the pound in the foreign exchange markets, the prime minister's initial instinct was to stand firm and say little or nothing, unwilling to look like she might be shifting position.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 788
    Scott_xP said:

    The government will reject claims circulating in Whitehall that the meeting between Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng was "argumentative" and descended into a "shouting match".

    https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-had-to-be-convinced-to-issue-govt-statement-to-calm-markets-after-meeting-with-chancellor-12706352

    Considering the £ took another tumble after Kwasi's statement maybe Liz had the right idea.
  • moonshine said:

    So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.

    We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.

    Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.

    100% correct.

    Too difficult for CHB to understand though.
    I am going to laugh when Keir goes 20 points clear.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Truss would have green lighted everything that Kwarteng announced so what’s the argument about ?

    Apparently she didn't want to issue any statement.
    I’m confused what statement are you talking about ?
    Liz Truss had to be convinced to issue a government statement yesterday to calm the markets, Sky News understands.

    Faced with market turmoil, spiking borrowing costs, and the drop in the value of the pound in the foreign exchange markets, the prime minister's initial instinct was to stand firm and say little or nothing, unwilling to look like she might be shifting position.
    The lady's not for turning.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Truss would have green lighted everything that Kwarteng announced so what’s the argument about ?

    Apparently she didn't want to issue any statement.
    I’m confused what statement are you talking about ?
    The one from HMT about the November thingamy
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Truss would have green lighted everything that Kwarteng announced so what’s the argument about ?

    Apparently she didn't want to issue any statement.
    I’m confused what statement are you talking about ?
    Liz Truss had to be convinced to issue a government statement yesterday to calm the markets, Sky News understands.

    Faced with market turmoil, spiking borrowing costs, and the drop in the value of the pound in the foreign exchange markets, the prime minister's initial instinct was to stand firm and say little or nothing, unwilling to look like she might be shifting position.
    Thanks for that . But surely she needs to come out and say something .
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 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.
    If I were the Chancellor (and I am not), then I would have made two changes:

    (1) I would have removed all the bonkers distortions around the removal of the tax free rate, childcare tax allowance, etc.

    (2) I would have raised the thresholds at which people paid tax, benefitting those who are being most squeezed by rising energy prices.

    I would not have abolished the 45% rate tax.
    @MaxPB suggested removing the distortions round £100,000 and introducing a single 43% rate at that point instead.

    I think they've calculated that it would actually generate revenue even before people stopped playing games at £90,000 or so to avoid being hit by the rules..
    Great minds think alike.

    Personally, I absolute loathe silly marginal tax rates. We have them at the lower end of the income spectrum with the withdrawal of benefits, and we have them in the £90-110,000 range with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yep the problem at the lower end is that they are utterly unavoidable given that the only other options are giving them to everyone as a universal benefit or reducing the taper level and suddenly finding millions more people are suddenly eligible for a small amount...

    Raising thresholds on NI/income tax would help.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662

    moonshine said:

    So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.

    We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.

    Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.

    100% correct.

    Too difficult for CHB to understand though.
    I am going to laugh when Keir goes 20 points clear.
    Out loud?
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,206

    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?
    Trouble is that the most recent buyers when the music stops get to be losers twice over - they buy at the top, then get bent over by the mortgage interest rate as the value of their house plummets.

    Most of the gains from the house prices have gone to either OAPs or the kids who've inherited from them - in neither case is there much prospect of them losing out from a crash.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Truss would have green lighted everything that Kwarteng announced so what’s the argument about ?

    Apparently she didn't want to issue any statement.
    I’m confused what statement are you talking about ?
    Liz Truss had to be convinced to issue a government statement yesterday to calm the markets, Sky News understands.

    Faced with market turmoil, spiking borrowing costs, and the drop in the value of the pound in the foreign exchange markets, the prime minister's initial instinct was to stand firm and say little or nothing, unwilling to look like she might be shifting position.
    Thanks for that . But surely she needs to come out and say something .
    Depends what she’s going to say. I’d have no confidence she would avoid making it worse.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Truss would have green lighted everything that Kwarteng announced so what’s the argument about ?

    Apparently she didn't want to issue any statement.
    I’m confused what statement are you talking about ?
    Liz Truss had to be convinced to issue a government statement yesterday to calm the markets, Sky News understands.

    Faced with market turmoil, spiking borrowing costs, and the drop in the value of the pound in the foreign exchange markets, the prime minister's initial instinct was to stand firm and say little or nothing, unwilling to look like she might be shifting position.
    Thanks for that . But surely she needs to come out and say something .
    Better to stay silent and be thought a fool rather than speaking and putting the matter beyond doubt?
  • mickydroy said:

    mickydroy said:

    Not so long ago the Tories had a 15% lead over labour, now Labour have a 15 % lead over the Tories, I dont actually think either are or were true.Things are fluid, when it settles down it will more likely be a 5% lead for Labour we see consistently, just because we are interested in politics, we falsely assume the whole country is , which couldnt be further from the truth, in reality the vast majority of the population only switch on around GE time, if you are lucky. So when Uncle Rupert declares in the Sun in 2024, that the Tories are the party to get us out of this mess, that precarious labour lead will fall further

    9 times out of 10 I’d agree with you. But I dunno, this really does feel very different. It’s the very real economic pain that will prevent the normally highly dependable swingback.

    Maybe the Con DKs won’t end up voting Labour, but I expect a late LD surge and a heck of a lot of Con2019 abstentions. Meanwhile, Lab, SNP and LD abstentions from 2019 are likely to be back with a bang. Especially the Lab ones (Corbyn bounceback).
    Time will tell, but without Labour making big inroads in Scotland, I will not be rushing to back them to win an overall majority
    Profoundly unlikely on current polling: the SNP has a consistent lead of 21-24 points.
  • eek said:

    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.
    The electorate could be even more bloody minded having endured a long expensive cold winter - maybe with added strikes.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    NEW: Rupa Huq has had the Labour whip suspended pending an investigation into comments made at Labour conference

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63042145
  • Two delegates describe SKS speech as exciting.

    Blimey must be very easy to please.

    Easier than you for sure...
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,747

    moonshine said:

    So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.

    We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.

    Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.

    100% correct.

    Too difficult for CHB to understand though.
    I am going to laugh when Keir goes 20 points clear.
    I don’t care what party or individual is in charge so long as they engage their brains and work in the national interest. If they do a good job I’ll vote for them too. But this is just pointless gesture politics.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/sep/27/eurovision-song-contest-2023-to-be-hosted-in-liverpool-or-glasgow

    Eurovision song contest 2023 to be hosted in Liverpool or Glasgow

    It was always going to be one of those two.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Chris said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The government will reject claims circulating in Whitehall that the meeting between Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng was "argumentative" and descended into a "shouting match".

    https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-had-to-be-convinced-to-issue-govt-statement-to-calm-markets-after-meeting-with-chancellor-12706352

    Strange. What should they have had a shouting match about?

    "You fool! You did what you said you would!"

    "You fool! You did what you promised not to!"

    "You liar! You told me you had an 'A' level in Economics!"

    The mind boggles.
    Happens all the time when we're expected to blame a chancellor but not a PM. Boris has been masterful In pretending he didnt like what Rishi did.
  • Cicero said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FUDHY is a very odd Tory. He has paeans of praise for General Franco, the Sweden Democrats, Meloni, Farage and Scottish Labour, but none for his own leader.

    He's an authoritarian, bordering on what gets called "far right".

    Truss is a dry as dust, socially liberal Conservative. Some people here used to say the believed in that, but not him.
    It is you who are the hardline libertarian who has backed a strategy which has taken the Tories to 28% in the polls, not me
    Yes it is, and your point is?

    I would rather see the Tories lose with a libertarian time in office, than win with an authoritarian one.
    Maybe but if this strategy sees the Tories face heave defeat at the next general election that will kill off libertarianism within the Tory party for a generation
    Poxvirus generation, spirochaete generation, amoeba generation, Caenorhabditis elegans generation, gerbil generation?
    Galapagos tortoise. Giant redwood.
    Apparerntly 1000 years for beech trees in Epping Forest.
    Huh? Are you sure? I always thought that Fagus sylvatica was one of the shorter-lived of the large forest broadleaves.

    Or maybe that only applies outwith its natural range, eg in Scotland, where it is a notoriously fragile and sick pest.
    Although the Forestry Commission is a bit snooty about whether beech is native to Scotland, the ones at Craigevar seem to be anything but fragile and are apparently over 200 years old. Mind you the Oaks are much more impressive and they can easily be double that age.
    The beech is not native to Scotland. It was only introduced in the late 17th century, and is notorious for being diseased, weak and prone to falling to bits. Worse, it kills pretty much everything under its canopy. Almost as big a pest as Rhododendron ponticum.

    200 years is nothing for a healthy forest species.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568

    moonshine said:

    So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.

    We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.

    Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.

    100% correct.

    Too difficult for CHB to understand though.
    I am going to laugh when Keir goes 20 points clear.
    Prime Minister Ed Miliband went 20 points clear too.....
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,587
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Rupa Huq has had the Labour whip suspended pending an investigation into comments made at Labour conference

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63042145

    Starmer not messing around. Good for him.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Rupa Huq has had the Labour whip suspended pending an investigation into comments made at Labour conference

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63042145

    It would have been so easy to just bash him for going to Eton and thus out of touch. Why say the rest?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,668
    edited September 2022

    (Old) New Scientist article on methane bubbles:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn227-swallowing-ships/

    It would definitely be better for the climate and safety to light it. How is the repair normally done? Cut the pipe and fit a new section? Can't be easy.

    As an aside I remember at school we used to feed methane from the gas taps into a water/washing up liquid mix and light it as it floated up as bubbles. I'm not entirely sure health and safety would approve of such goings on these days but it did show how quickly methane will rise through the atmosphere.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,507

    nico679 said:

    Truss would have green lighted everything that Kwarteng announced so what’s the argument about ?

    Apparently she didn't want to issue any statement.
    She’s not very visible, is she?

    Surely she should come out every three or four days, allow someone from the reporter pool a few questions, whilst she stands in front a factory that farms battery’s for cars, or something
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Rupa Huq has had the Labour whip suspended pending an investigation into comments made at Labour conference

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63042145

    It would have been so easy to just bash him for going to Eton and thus out of touch. Why say the rest?
    They're so used to race-baiting they can't help themselves.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,747
    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/sep/27/eurovision-song-contest-2023-to-be-hosted-in-liverpool-or-glasgow

    Eurovision song contest 2023 to be hosted in Liverpool or Glasgow

    It was always going to be one of those two.

    Let’s get that Sam guy back to sing a rock version of Abide With Me.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568
    PeterM said:

    oh look at this 89% of Kherson region residents voted to join the Russian Federation....what a surprise

    https://twitter.com/WarfareReports/status/1574745587525816325?s=20&t=TePntffXPCynzq9AE9KHUQ

    Kudos to the 11% who voted нет with an AK47 up their nostril.....
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,587
    Be a fun time if someone blows up the Norway-UK or Norway-EU pipelines, won't it.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,507
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Rupa Huq has had the Labour whip suspended pending an investigation into comments made at Labour conference

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63042145

    It would have been so easy to just bash him for going to Eton and thus out of touch. Why say the rest?
    Because she is stupid. Too stupid to be an MP and law maker.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,587
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Rupa Huq has had the Labour whip suspended pending an investigation into comments made at Labour conference

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63042145

    It would have been so easy to just bash him for going to Eton and thus out of touch. Why say the rest?
    She went to private school herself.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103

    moonshine said:

    So typical of Starmer to come close to a good idea while absolutely missing the target.

    We do not need to nationalise renewable energy production. We just need to set out the right fiscal and regulatory regime and the very kind private sector will build it for us.

    Where there is an argument for state intervention is in the hydrocarbon market, which is still sorely needed during the energy transition but is being starved of investment and financing, as the private sector increasingly shies away from the sector. Nationalise the uk based oil refineries and get competent firms to run them. Setup a British Infrastructure bank to lend to junior oil and gas firms in the North Sea so they don’t have to pay double digit bond coupons. And use the same bank to guarantee the liabilities of sunrise industries like tidal lagoon power.

    100% correct.

    Too difficult for CHB to understand though.
    I am going to laugh when Keir goes 20 points clear.
    Prime Minister Ed Miliband went 20 points clear too.....
    Very true, but it didnt feel like a era changing moment. It felt like the gov could get a grip, and did. Now?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    AZ gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake went on Tucker Carlson Tonight to talk about how “excited” she is over the recent election in Italy, praising and comparing herself to fascist Giorgia Meloni. “This is somebody I can relate to,” Lake says.
    https://twitter.com/az_rww/status/1574565703566340096
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,668

    PeterM said:

    oh look at this 89% of Kherson region residents voted to join the Russian Federation....what a surprise

    https://twitter.com/WarfareReports/status/1574745587525816325?s=20&t=TePntffXPCynzq9AE9KHUQ

    Kudos to the 11% who voted нет with an AK47 up their nostril.....
    You think anyone actually counted the votes?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507
    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/sep/27/eurovision-song-contest-2023-to-be-hosted-in-liverpool-or-glasgow

    Eurovision song contest 2023 to be hosted in Liverpool or Glasgow

    It was always going to be one of those two.

    does it go to the Tory Membership now?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Rupa Huq has had the Labour whip suspended pending an investigation into comments made at Labour conference

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63042145

    Losing the Blue Peter vote
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191
    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/sep/27/eurovision-song-contest-2023-to-be-hosted-in-liverpool-or-glasgow

    Eurovision song contest 2023 to be hosted in Liverpool or Glasgow

    It was always going to be one of those two.

    Why ?
  • HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    The YouGov details are all fairly predictable and of course dire for the Tories in every respect. Two things to note:

    There is as much as usual self interest in the views about tax - supporting all the stuff that advantages the majority, and opposing everything that gives to someone else.

    And the figure for those who "Cannot afford my costs and often have to go without essentials....." is, at 5% lower than I would have thought.

    Maybe that's why I am told, counter intuitively, that our local foodbank is remarkably quiet at the moment.


    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/mkyov3djhi/TheTimes_VI_Budget_220926_W.pdf


    The YouGov details are all fairly predictable and of course dire for Scottish Labour in every respect.

    SNP 44%
    SLab 21%
    SCon 19%
    Grn 7%
    SLD 5%
    Ref 2%
    oth 1% (presumably Alba)

    Pro-independence 52%
    Unionist 47%

    A long way off @Casino_Royale ’s mooted

    SNP 35%
    SLab 30%
    So SNP down from the 45% they got in 2019, SLAB up from 18%
    MoE

    Yesterday, Mike and the whole of PB were excited by a 17 point Labour lead, yet I’m supposed to be worried by a 23 point SNP lead? Err… no.

    SLab need a 12 point swing from the SNP to make any decent gains. A 2 point swing in a sub-sample of a poll where they are miles ahead in England is profoundly unimpressive.
    The whole of PB were not excited about a Labour poll lead. Yet another gross exaggeration and typical.of the site.
    The Herd were filling their breeks yesterday. Thank goodness one or two of you have regained your composure today. I want you to be alert and clear-headed when you face the electoral firing squad on polling day.
  • PeterM said:

    oh look at this 89% of Kherson region residents voted to join the Russian Federation....what a surprise

    https://twitter.com/WarfareReports/status/1574745587525816325?s=20&t=TePntffXPCynzq9AE9KHUQ

    I'd be surprised if the final count reported wasn't over 90%.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,020
    edited September 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Rupa Huq has had the Labour whip suspended pending an investigation into comments made at Labour conference

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63042145

    I remember the good old days of Jezza when it took months, even years, to suspend people who publicly said something on the record that was racist / anti-semitic...due process and investigations required or something according to the rule book.
This discussion has been closed.