Our mortgage is up for renewal in April. Looking at the latest fixed rates we could be paying £700-£1000 more per month. What the frack!?! Never mind sending Kami Kwasi and Loopy Liz to prison, they should be sent to Russia to work in a gulag till the end of their days!
You thought you'd be paying real interest rates of -5% while savers get screwed forever?
Who gives a f*ck about savers! The wrinklies who make up the vast majority of savers have been living off working folk for yonks
Savings rates even after any increase are below inflation but for people like my children who are saving for a deposit, any increase is welcome. As is the prospect of a 10% fall in house prices. If we could get some housebuilding as well, that would be even better.
Mortgage holders and house owners are complaining, understandably, but a shake up which tilts in some small way towards the young and those who do not - but would like to - own their own homes is not Armageddon.
I don't know if this is intended nor do I know whether it will work. It risks going horribly wrong and that will be bad for the young too. But mortgage holders are - with due respect to everyone here - just as much of a self-interested group as pensioners and landlords and all those other groups posters like to castigate.
Sheesh, if anything that shows our weakness and makes a run more certain.
I am getting confused. Are our financial sector titans a massive example of global Britain, well deserving of tax cuts and unlimited bonuses? Or treacherous citizens of nowhere talking down the country? I am finding it hard to keep up.
Kwarteng and Truss have virtually assured a labour government in 2024 and at the same time put the perceived mortgage rate rises at their door, when in truth the bond market worldwide is being routed through the authorities aggressive rise in interest rates as inflation is being fought against everywhere . It is likely about 1% has been added because of the kamikaze behaviour of Kwarteng but even if Starmer had been in no 10 he would be looking at a housing crisis that is hard to see how it is mitigated
I am old enough to remember negative equity and it looks as if this could return over the next few yeaes, but sadly we have become used to very low interest rates which look like being returned to more normal ones and yes many will be affected but we are not immune to worldwide events
Labour have had a good conference but the one thing missing is that they have failed to understand that the economy in 2024 is going to be in a very poor place, and ironically they may well have to raise taxes and reduce public sector spending by an amount that to a Labour party will be very difficult
I do not defend Kwarteng or Truss but at the very least she needs to sack Kwarteng if she wants to have any chance of surviving , and she has a ready made successor she knows only too well, one Rishi Sunak
The obvious pivot - which Starmer and his team have hinted at already - is how we rebuild after the Great Truss Financial Crisis. We invest, and gain a return on that investment. Some of that investing will need to come from government and he's already announced the first StateCo to do energy. Much will need to come from the private sector, and as they are always looking for something sane to put money in there will be plenty of opportunities.
This final phase of Torynomics will kill dead the stupidty of "who will pay for that" and "what will you cut to find the money". Investment had been turned by the Tories into a dirty word. Their spivvy hedgie friends don't want investment, they just want to turn a quick profit now and not care about tomorrow.
That has to end. So many of the things this country needs - infrastructure, hospitals and schools fit for purpose, sustainable self-reliant energy generation - deliver both a long-term positive ROI but a short-term boost when money goes to pay people to build stuff who then pay taxes and spend. Which gives other people jobs.
We used to call it capitalism. Starmer will lead us back there.
In normal times yes but 2024 will not be normal
As far as GB Energy is concerned it is modelled on EDF in France who have just had a 15 billion buy out by Macron and Lucy Powell this morning simply was wholly unconvincing in her explanation about its funding
Its pretty simple: 1. UK needs a big expansion in generating capacity 2. Instead of paying a foreign company to install, own and manage this, the UK will create its own company to do so 3. Instead of buying all of the components from abroad, the UK will promote UK manufacturing to supply turbines and solar panels.
The money will be spend regardless. Because there is no scenario where "sorry, we can't afford to create the generating capacity we need, we'll just have to have brownouts instead"
Also, France's issues this summer stemmed from the fact loads of their nuclear power stations were on rivers which obviously dry up somewhat in a heatwave. Sea level rises are quite predictable beyond the lifespan of any nuclear plant so it's not an issue we'd encounter as ours are all by the sea.
There are some things we cannot afford not to do. Energy generating capacity is a pertinent example - we either invest or we suffer both brownouts and crazy spot price gouging. So the money is being spent regardless - do we hand this over to the French government or the Swedish government, or copy their successful examples and do it ourselves?
With our geographic location and our tech / industrial abilities we should be a global leader in renewables. Instead the market and a "government involvement is communism" mindset means we are nowhere. If we're to spend the money - and we are - why not have something to show for it other than just the infrastructure?
It is more or less what I was advocating on here a couple of days ago, except I thought of renationalisation of existing companies rather than setting one up from scratch.
Personally, I like SKS's idea. The UK needs control of its critical infrastructure rather than bleeding money to foreign owners
Why renationalise any of them? We have regulated markets. Simply regulate them so that the new StateCo is in prime position and let the private sector decide whether it wants to play in a competitive market instead of the protected cartels we have now.
Big_G and DavidL have raised concerns and they are understandable to a point. But the only way we will ever regain our ability to manufacture, install and manage wind turbines is if we do so. And there is something seriously pathetic about an argument that Britain is unable to do the basics that somewhere like Sweden can and its too hard / risky for us to repair that position so that we can.
So much for global Britain. Some on the right would have us an eternal supplicant.
"regulate them so that the new StateCo is in a prime position" and "competitive market" seem incompatible.
The market has one primary function - deliver to the state the strategic function it was created for. The profits of the companies and shareholder value can only be realised after the primary function is achieved.
That is how these markets work across Europe. Except in the UK where a small number of private companies operate a cartel, fail to invest in the strategic expensive elements and shrug their shoulders when shit gets flushed en-masse onto our beaches in the summer tourism season.
As may be - you clearly want to rig the market in favour of StateCo (for reasons which are easy to guess) - at which point why not be honest and nationalise the existing companies?
Its only rigged from the position of a company in a falsely-created cartel. You can't say "investors won't invest in this" when they do all across Europe. What we have now is the rigged market, not what everyone else has and we will have soon.
OT just got a second scam text about the energy support scheme in as many days. This one (obviously) did not come with the additional clue that HMG is unlikely to text people at 2am. Clues did include GOVUK with no dot, and a non-government url. Trouble is some legitimate texts and emails are so badly thought out that they look like scams, which in turn trains people to accept actual scams. Keep safe.
Kwarteng and Truss have virtually assured a labour government in 2024 and at the same time put the perceived mortgage rate rises at their door, when in truth the bond market worldwide is being routed through the authorities aggressive rise in interest rates as inflation is being fought against everywhere . It is likely about 1% has been added because of the kamikaze behaviour of Kwarteng but even if Starmer had been in no 10 he would be looking at a housing crisis that is hard to see how it is mitigated
I am old enough to remember negative equity and it looks as if this could return over the next few yeaes, but sadly we have become used to very low interest rates which look like being returned to more normal ones and yes many will be affected but we are not immune to worldwide events
Labour have had a good conference but the one thing missing is that they have failed to understand that the economy in 2024 is going to be in a very poor place, and ironically they may well have to raise taxes and reduce public sector spending by an amount that to a Labour party will be very difficult
I do not defend Kwarteng or Truss but at the very least she needs to sack Kwarteng if she wants to have any chance of surviving , and she has a ready made successor she knows only too well, one Rishi Sunak
The obvious pivot - which Starmer and his team have hinted at already - is how we rebuild after the Great Truss Financial Crisis. We invest, and gain a return on that investment. Some of that investing will need to come from government and he's already announced the first StateCo to do energy. Much will need to come from the private sector, and as they are always looking for something sane to put money in there will be plenty of opportunities.
This final phase of Torynomics will kill dead the stupidty of "who will pay for that" and "what will you cut to find the money". Investment had been turned by the Tories into a dirty word. Their spivvy hedgie friends don't want investment, they just want to turn a quick profit now and not care about tomorrow.
That has to end. So many of the things this country needs - infrastructure, hospitals and schools fit for purpose, sustainable self-reliant energy generation - deliver both a long-term positive ROI but a short-term boost when money goes to pay people to build stuff who then pay taxes and spend. Which gives other people jobs.
We used to call it capitalism. Starmer will lead us back there.
In normal times yes but 2024 will not be normal
As far as GB Energy is concerned it is modelled on EDF in France who have just had a 15 billion buy out by Macron and Lucy Powell this morning simply was wholly unconvincing in her explanation about its funding
Its pretty simple: 1. UK needs a big expansion in generating capacity 2. Instead of paying a foreign company to install, own and manage this, the UK will create its own company to do so 3. Instead of buying all of the components from abroad, the UK will promote UK manufacturing to supply turbines and solar panels.
The money will be spend regardless. Because there is no scenario where "sorry, we can't afford to create the generating capacity we need, we'll just have to have brownouts instead"
Also, France's issues this summer stemmed from the fact loads of their nuclear power stations were on rivers which obviously dry up somewhat in a heatwave. Sea level rises are quite predictable beyond the lifespan of any nuclear plant so it's not an issue we'd encounter as ours are all by the sea.
There are some things we cannot afford not to do. Energy generating capacity is a pertinent example - we either invest or we suffer both brownouts and crazy spot price gouging. So the money is being spent regardless - do we hand this over to the French government or the Swedish government, or copy their successful examples and do it ourselves?
With our geographic location and our tech / industrial abilities we should be a global leader in renewables. Instead the market and a "government involvement is communism" mindset means we are nowhere. If we're to spend the money - and we are - why not have something to show for it other than just the infrastructure?
It is more or less what I was advocating on here a couple of days ago, except I thought of renationalisation of existing companies rather than setting one up from scratch.
Personally, I like SKS's idea. The UK needs control of its critical infrastructure rather than bleeding money to foreign owners
Why renationalise any of them? We have regulated markets. Simply regulate them so that the new StateCo is in prime position and let the private sector decide whether it wants to play in a competitive market instead of the protected cartels we have now.
Big_G and DavidL have raised concerns and they are understandable to a point. But the only way we will ever regain our ability to manufacture, install and manage wind turbines is if we do so. And there is something seriously pathetic about an argument that Britain is unable to do the basics that somewhere like Sweden can and its too hard / risky for us to repair that position so that we can.
So much for global Britain. Some on the right would have us an eternal supplicant.
The problem with that is that StateCo becomes the new cartel, and when it fails to work properly the industry - and hence all of us - are screwed. This has happened time and time again.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
Our mortgage is up for renewal in April. Looking at the latest fixed rates we could be paying £700-£1000 more per month. What the frack!?! Never mind sending Kami Kwasi and Loopy Liz to prison, they should be sent to Russia to work in a gulag till the end of their days!
You thought you'd be paying real interest rates of -5% while savers get screwed forever?
Who gives a f*ck about savers! The wrinklies who make up the vast majority of savers have been living off working folk for yonks
Savings rates even after any increase are below inflation but for people like my children who are saving for a deposit, any increase is welcome. As is the prospect of a 10% fall in house prices. If we could get some housebuilding as well, that would be even better.
Mortgage holders and house owners are complaining, understandably, but a shake up which tilts in some small way towards the young and those who do not - but would like to - own their own homes is not Armageddon.
I don't know if this is intended nor do I know whether it will work. It risks going horribly wrong and that will be bad for the young too. But mortgage holders are - with due respect to everyone here - just as much of a self-interested group as pensioners and landlords and all those other groups posters like to castigate.
Perhaps in the long term that is the case, but in the short term the young are screwed. Stagnating pay, 10% inflation, bigger percentage deposits needed because of falling values and interest rates not seen in two decades.
a) we have moved on so far in this country that you wouldn't even know the [black] chancellor is black; or b) he is a traitor to his race what with his Eton this and fancy voice?
Or (c) - there is a mentalist strain on the left who weaponise stereotypes about "their people". In this case black people are victims, so this successful Tory man cannot be black.
Its not racism, its far wider than that. It is workers vs bosses - working people are working class. They can't aspire to better themselves because then they become the hated bosses and cease to be working class.
Blair understood this. Which is why he endlessly talked up and invested in social mobility. And they still hate him for it.
The test for labour is will she stand as labour candidate in 2024
Indeed. Labour need to prune the rotten branches. Sam Tarry looks to be heading out the door. There are a good dozen or perhaps a score of MPs who are a disgrace who need to go.
And the same is true on the Tory benches. Remove the insane, the insulting and the downright stupid. Lets have political representatives who aren't fundamentally loathsome.
I might say that it looks like a considerable number of those conservatives the electorate will deal with in 2024
Unfortunately with our electoral system it often doesn't work like that. Some of the best MPs are in marginals as they have to work harder to keep their seats. You can afford to be complacent in a safe seat. So when the electorate decides to have a clearout by voting down a Govt they often clear out some good MPs as well and keeping some old duffers.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
In short. Highly unlikely. We have been talking about national governments for the last 6 years at various stages. There is never the political will to form one.
The most devout worshippers of Freemarkets are actually going to go cap in hand and ask the market to lay off a bit?
This is satire beyond satire.
Kwarteng is a hedge. He knows how this works. But he is also Chancellor of a government run by 7 year olds who are absolute believers both in the great Thatcher and in the fecklessness of the British worker.
So he is taking ideology - bad ideology based on a mis-read of Thatcherism - and going to the markets to tell them that actually the markets should support this actually because actually its sound economics actually cos John Redwood sez so.
Watch for another move south after this session. Its been widely reported the markets consider Truss and KK to be two stops beyond Barking. Now they will have absolute proof. The splat of ideology against the wall of reality.
They are dead wrong on this. But even if they were right you either carry the market with you or you are dead. Because the impact of not doing so is that you cripple your own economy and do nasty things to people with mortgages who like to eat and not be cold in the winter.
“They can celebrate their identity. They can't demote my kids to second class citizens or treat them as though they are a threat to their existence, just by being here. Hopefully you are not filling their minds with this kind of poison.”
+++++
I refer you to your words regarding “Western Civilisation”:
“I will gladly participate in its murder and dance on its grave”
I think the argument ends there, don’t you?
It was a conditional statement, as you know only too well. If Western Civilisation amounts to blood and soil fascism as you seem to believe, then I will gladly see its demise, because it absolutely won't be worth saving. I hope and believe that that isn't the case, but when I read statements like yours I see the first step on the journey to the gas chambers it is genuinely frightening.
Disgusting rather than frightening
You wanted Putin to conquer Ukraine via the “disbanding of NATO”
No need to bring the gas chambers into that...uncalled for
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
In short. Highly unlikely. We have been talking about national governments for the last 6 years at various stages. There is never the political will to form one.
If things get so bad, there is a simpler solution- have a GE.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
In short. Highly unlikely. We have been talking about national governments for the last 6 years at various stages. There is never the political will to form one.
If things get so bad, there is a simpler solution- have a GE.
But what would be the mechanism to force a General Election?
Kwarteng and Truss have virtually assured a labour government in 2024 and at the same time put the perceived mortgage rate rises at their door, when in truth the bond market worldwide is being routed through the authorities aggressive rise in interest rates as inflation is being fought against everywhere . It is likely about 1% has been added because of the kamikaze behaviour of Kwarteng but even if Starmer had been in no 10 he would be looking at a housing crisis that is hard to see how it is mitigated
I am old enough to remember negative equity and it looks as if this could return over the next few yeaes, but sadly we have become used to very low interest rates which look like being returned to more normal ones and yes many will be affected but we are not immune to worldwide events
Labour have had a good conference but the one thing missing is that they have failed to understand that the economy in 2024 is going to be in a very poor place, and ironically they may well have to raise taxes and reduce public sector spending by an amount that to a Labour party will be very difficult
I do not defend Kwarteng or Truss but at the very least she needs to sack Kwarteng if she wants to have any chance of surviving , and she has a ready made successor she knows only too well, one Rishi Sunak
The obvious pivot - which Starmer and his team have hinted at already - is how we rebuild after the Great Truss Financial Crisis. We invest, and gain a return on that investment. Some of that investing will need to come from government and he's already announced the first StateCo to do energy. Much will need to come from the private sector, and as they are always looking for something sane to put money in there will be plenty of opportunities.
This final phase of Torynomics will kill dead the stupidty of "who will pay for that" and "what will you cut to find the money". Investment had been turned by the Tories into a dirty word. Their spivvy hedgie friends don't want investment, they just want to turn a quick profit now and not care about tomorrow.
That has to end. So many of the things this country needs - infrastructure, hospitals and schools fit for purpose, sustainable self-reliant energy generation - deliver both a long-term positive ROI but a short-term boost when money goes to pay people to build stuff who then pay taxes and spend. Which gives other people jobs.
We used to call it capitalism. Starmer will lead us back there.
In normal times yes but 2024 will not be normal
As far as GB Energy is concerned it is modelled on EDF in France who have just had a 15 billion buy out by Macron and Lucy Powell this morning simply was wholly unconvincing in her explanation about its funding
Its pretty simple: 1. UK needs a big expansion in generating capacity 2. Instead of paying a foreign company to install, own and manage this, the UK will create its own company to do so 3. Instead of buying all of the components from abroad, the UK will promote UK manufacturing to supply turbines and solar panels.
The money will be spend regardless. Because there is no scenario where "sorry, we can't afford to create the generating capacity we need, we'll just have to have brownouts instead"
Also, France's issues this summer stemmed from the fact loads of their nuclear power stations were on rivers which obviously dry up somewhat in a heatwave. Sea level rises are quite predictable beyond the lifespan of any nuclear plant so it's not an issue we'd encounter as ours are all by the sea.
There are some things we cannot afford not to do. Energy generating capacity is a pertinent example - we either invest or we suffer both brownouts and crazy spot price gouging. So the money is being spent regardless - do we hand this over to the French government or the Swedish government, or copy their successful examples and do it ourselves?
With our geographic location and our tech / industrial abilities we should be a global leader in renewables. Instead the market and a "government involvement is communism" mindset means we are nowhere. If we're to spend the money - and we are - why not have something to show for it other than just the infrastructure?
It is more or less what I was advocating on here a couple of days ago, except I thought of renationalisation of existing companies rather than setting one up from scratch.
Personally, I like SKS's idea. The UK needs control of its critical infrastructure rather than bleeding money to foreign owners
Why renationalise any of them? We have regulated markets. Simply regulate them so that the new StateCo is in prime position and let the private sector decide whether it wants to play in a competitive market instead of the protected cartels we have now.
Big_G and DavidL have raised concerns and they are understandable to a point. But the only way we will ever regain our ability to manufacture, install and manage wind turbines is if we do so. And there is something seriously pathetic about an argument that Britain is unable to do the basics that somewhere like Sweden can and its too hard / risky for us to repair that position so that we can.
So much for global Britain. Some on the right would have us an eternal supplicant.
The problem with that is that StateCo becomes the new cartel, and when it fails to work properly the industry - and hence all of us - are screwed. This has happened time and time again.
You also seem to be in favour of protectionism?
Which StateCo do you have in mind as having become the new cartel? Don't quote old nationalised industries as they are not StateCo entities.
As for protectionism, define the word. I think the British state should protect strategic assets so that they function at a level and a price that fulfils their strategic function. Is that protectionism? I envisage GBE or whatever they call it being a global player in both exporting physical kit and generating energy for us to sell on the open market - is that protectionism?
In summary, instead of having the French government StateCo successfully run a large chunk of our energy sector for their benefit, I think we should have a British StateCo do so for our benefit. Is that protectionism?
And yes also - @RochdalePioneers . The worst thing for many on the left is for a working class hero to become, through hard work and endeavour, a member of the hated boss class.
cf the Left's view of the Jews and their rise from plucky underdogs who needed saving to imperialist oppressors who should be resisted continuously.
I mean, the left hate class traitors. That's a given, because if you're on the left the understanding of politics is that of a struggle of the working class against the oppression of the capitalist class. And that isn't how the left view Jewish people - it may be a criticism of Israel, or some Jewish people, but many left wing people are Jewish, and indeed a lot of left wing thought is deeply based in the work of Jewish people.
It's amazing how quickly the right wing decided how defending Jewish people was so important to them only after Labour had a Jewish leader who was smeared for being unable to properly eat a bacon sandwich, for having a radical Jewish father who supposedly hated this country, and continuously talked about a liberal metropolitan elite who were citizens of nowhere...
If your claim is that Miliband's bacon sandwich ridicule was anti-semitic, you've lost the argument.
To take just one line, "To denote Miliband as being from north London is not unlike labeling someone an east coast or Upper West Side intellectual in the United States." - is ridiculous. The geography was mentioned because it shows where modern Labour's home is. Electing subsequent leaders from constituencies in Islington and Camden rather proved the point.
So making a key feature of the "otherness" of the Jewish leader of the opposition his supposed inability to eat pork properly is not potentially antisemitism? Despite the fact that everyone looks weird eating, if you look photos of them all the time, and indeed that the manner in which people eat has nothing to do with how they will enact policy?
I'm not claiming that no left wing people also harbour antisemitic conspiracist thought - some obviously do. I just think the right wing obviously have no leg to stand on, and it is very clear from past politics and current politics.
Our mortgage is up for renewal in April. Looking at the latest fixed rates we could be paying £700-£1000 more per month. What the frack!?! Never mind sending Kami Kwasi and Loopy Liz to prison, they should be sent to Russia to work in a gulag till the end of their days!
You thought you'd be paying real interest rates of -5% while savers get screwed forever?
Who gives a f*ck about savers! The wrinklies who make up the vast majority of savers have been living off working folk for yonks
Savings rates even after any increase are below inflation but for people like my children who are saving for a deposit, any increase is welcome. As is the prospect of a 10% fall in house prices. If we could get some housebuilding as well, that would be even better.
Mortgage holders and house owners are complaining, understandably, but a shake up which tilts in some small way towards the young and those who do not - but would like to - own their own homes is not Armageddon.
I don't know if this is intended nor do I know whether it will work. It risks going horribly wrong and that will be bad for the young too. But mortgage holders are - with due respect to everyone here - just as much of a self-interested group as pensioners and landlords and all those other groups posters like to castigate.
The natural economic cycle and the fact every other major western economy (Particularly ours) is essentially forced to follow Fed moves would have rebalanced stuff for savers/mortgage holders. Interest rate would probably have moved to 4%, Kwarteng has poured petrol on it all and we're looking at 6%+. That's the issue.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
Loss of vonc in house followed by GE. National government makes sense in response to a world war or the moon exploding, not problems caused by the party of government
Just caught the end of SKS on Today this morning on my way back from the doctors. Quite impressive, I thought. His instant calling out of the racist comment by Rupa Huq was a nice change too. He's had a good week and he is right to emphasise how far Labour has come after the Corbyn disaster.
Of course fish and barrels come to mind in attacking the present government but his predecessor would have contrived a miss or even been talking about a different barrel somewhere else in the world.
Has he worked out what a woman is yet?
Thats right. People who have lost their homes in the Great Truss Financial Crisis will still vote Tory - for the mince MP who has sneered at them - because Starmer once said something about a woman and took the knee.
Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Woke does not threaten people's lives. Truss does.
I’m not sure Fishing is the core Starmer target vote.
Tories are in danger of ascribing tribal characteristics to the Red Wall along similar lines to Rupa Haq’s “not really black” stuff.
There seems to be an idea that the whole North and Midlands is thronging with people who happen to share the same hang ups and political obsessions as the Tory right.
Culture war is a bit of a luxury for the good times anyway. Probably one reason it’s so prevalent in the affluent US.
"Culture war is a bit of a luxury for the good times anyway. Probably one reason it’s so prevalent in the affluent US." a good point. Biden or Trump won't stop the US economy, we can't afford frivolous leaders.
No its in bad times when the far right thrives...look at Hitler for example...lets say census figures come out show uk is only 75% white british....combine that with economic pain across the land and the collapse of the tories you have a potent combination
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
As with the Decent Chap model of government (which works fine until Indecent Chaps get into office), there is a Sane Chap theory of government.
We don't need a government equivalent of Section Two of the Mental Health Act, because MPs would never allow crazies into office.
It overlooked the possibility that a hundred thousand unelected unrepresentative party members might force a PM on the country.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
The first would happen only if the government loses its majority but is unable for whatever reason to call an election. Which would mean somebody, presumably Sunak, would have to lead a split and Truss would have to agree to join such a government and not to request a dissolution.
It doesn't seem likely if I am honest. It happened in 1915 and 1940 when the country was at war. It also happened in 1931 when the Liberals withdrew support and Labour split over benefit cuts. But in 1915 and 1931 the government had no majority anyway, and in 1915 and 1940 the country was at war and an election was pretty much out of the question. (And in 1931 an election quickly followed, which saw the opposition Conservatives win what remains the greatest number of seats by one party in an election - 470.)
I cannot see a scenario where that makes sense at the moment.
A snap general election isn't impossible. One reason May reneged on her commitment to fixed term parliaments is that the backbenches had sabotaged the budget and forced Hammond to make changes.
But I think Truss will avoid that unless she has no option. May had a huge lead in the polls and it didn't end well. From here, my goodness...
And yes also - @RochdalePioneers . The worst thing for many on the left is for a working class hero to become, through hard work and endeavour, a member of the hated boss class.
cf the Left's view of the Jews and their rise from plucky underdogs who needed saving to imperialist oppressors who should be resisted continuously.
I mean, the left hate class traitors. That's a given, because if you're on the left the understanding of politics is that of a struggle of the working class against the oppression of the capitalist class. And that isn't how the left view Jewish people - it may be a criticism of Israel, or some Jewish people, but many left wing people are Jewish, and indeed a lot of left wing thought is deeply based in the work of Jewish people.
It's amazing how quickly the right wing decided how defending Jewish people was so important to them only after Labour had a Jewish leader who was smeared for being unable to properly eat a bacon sandwich, for having a radical Jewish father who supposedly hated this country, and continuously talked about a liberal metropolitan elite who were citizens of nowhere...
If your claim is that Miliband's bacon sandwich ridicule was anti-semitic, you've lost the argument.
To take just one line, "To denote Miliband as being from north London is not unlike labeling someone an east coast or Upper West Side intellectual in the United States." - is ridiculous. The geography was mentioned because it shows where modern Labour's home is. Electing subsequent leaders from constituencies in Islington and Camden rather proved the point.
So making a key feature of the "otherness" of the Jewish leader of the opposition his supposed inability to eat pork properly is not potentially antisemitism? Despite the fact that everyone looks weird eating, if you look photos of them all the time, and indeed that the manner in which people eat has nothing to do with how they will enact policy?
I'm not claiming that no left wing people also harbour antisemitic conspiracist thought - some obviously do. I just think the right wing obviously have no leg to stand on, and it is very clear from past politics and current politics.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
There is always scenario, but seems highly improbable. Charles Rex would probably have to broker a deal if things became utterly shit creek. Wouldn't be Truss though. Maybe Lord Hague as PM, Starmer as Deputy for a year and then a GE?
Our mortgage is up for renewal in April. Looking at the latest fixed rates we could be paying £700-£1000 more per month. What the frack!?! Never mind sending Kami Kwasi and Loopy Liz to prison, they should be sent to Russia to work in a gulag till the end of their days!
You thought you'd be paying real interest rates of -5% while savers get screwed forever?
Who gives a f*ck about savers! The wrinklies who make up the vast majority of savers have been living off working folk for yonks
Savings rates even after any increase are below inflation but for people like my children who are saving for a deposit, any increase is welcome. As is the prospect of a 10% fall in house prices. If we could get some housebuilding as well, that would be even better.
Mortgage holders and house owners are complaining, understandably, but a shake up which tilts in some small way towards the young and those who do not - but would like to - own their own homes is not Armageddon.
I don't know if this is intended nor do I know whether it will work. It risks going horribly wrong and that will be bad for the young too. But mortgage holders are - with due respect to everyone here - just as much of a self-interested group as pensioners and landlords and all those other groups posters like to castigate.
At 10-15% falls the housebuilding won't happen because of the build cost problem. You can't economically build houses until build costs fall, but build costs represent an increase in general inflation (cost of material and labour) plus costs associated with compliance with environmental regulation. The knock on costs to the economy will be catastrophic. I keep repeating this because it is a mistake to see significantly falling house prices as a solution to anything.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
In short. Highly unlikely. We have been talking about national governments for the last 6 years at various stages. There is never the political will to form one.
If things get so bad, there is a simpler solution- have a GE.
How? The only way to force a general election before January 2025 is for lots of Conservative MPs to end their careers by voting against the government in a confidence vote. That prospect seems far-fetched.
Or the same Conservative MPs can replace Liz Truss with someone else who might save their seats. If it helps the country as well, that's good but not necessary.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
Loss of vonc in house followed by GE. National government makes sense in response to a world war or the moon exploding, not problems caused by the party of government
To lose VONC, Sunak's 'peelites' would have to have split from Truss I think?
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
Loss of vonc in house followed by GE. National government makes sense in response to a world war or the moon exploding, not problems caused by the party of government
But that would require some Tory MPs to support the vonc and bring down the government. So 40 Tory MPs would need to put party before country. Or defect to LD/Lab and then do VONC.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
Loss of vonc in house followed by GE. National government makes sense in response to a world war or the moon exploding, not problems caused by the party of government
To lose VONC, Sunak's 'peelites' would have to have split from Truss I think?
Yes. Or at least, a group of minimum 40 MPs would have to break away and Sunak's supporters are the only ones of sufficient size to do so.
And yes also - @RochdalePioneers . The worst thing for many on the left is for a working class hero to become, through hard work and endeavour, a member of the hated boss class.
cf the Left's view of the Jews and their rise from plucky underdogs who needed saving to imperialist oppressors who should be resisted continuously.
I mean, the left hate class traitors. That's a given, because if you're on the left the understanding of politics is that of a struggle of the working class against the oppression of the capitalist class. And that isn't how the left view Jewish people - it may be a criticism of Israel, or some Jewish people, but many left wing people are Jewish, and indeed a lot of left wing thought is deeply based in the work of Jewish people.
It's amazing how quickly the right wing decided how defending Jewish people was so important to them only after Labour had a Jewish leader who was smeared for being unable to properly eat a bacon sandwich, for having a radical Jewish father who supposedly hated this country, and continuously talked about a liberal metropolitan elite who were citizens of nowhere...
Is this before or after the Cons elected a Jewish party leader?
And yes also - @RochdalePioneers . The worst thing for many on the left is for a working class hero to become, through hard work and endeavour, a member of the hated boss class.
cf the Left's view of the Jews and their rise from plucky underdogs who needed saving to imperialist oppressors who should be resisted continuously.
I mean, the left hate class traitors. That's a given, because if you're on the left the understanding of politics is that of a struggle of the working class against the oppression of the capitalist class. And that isn't how the left view Jewish people - it may be a criticism of Israel, or some Jewish people, but many left wing people are Jewish, and indeed a lot of left wing thought is deeply based in the work of Jewish people.
It's amazing how quickly the right wing decided how defending Jewish people was so important to them only after Labour had a Jewish leader who was smeared for being unable to properly eat a bacon sandwich, for having a radical Jewish father who supposedly hated this country, and continuously talked about a liberal metropolitan elite who were citizens of nowhere...
If your claim is that Miliband's bacon sandwich ridicule was anti-semitic, you've lost the argument.
I'm not sure about that. The amusement of the coverage seemed to be both about how he looked and what he was eating.
And 148Gres is also the right that the Mail's, npw professed hunter of anti-semitism in the Labour Party, coverage of Ralph Miliband, as "an intellectual who hated Britain" - in fact he served in the war effort - was blatantly anti-semitic. May's "citizens of nowhere" and "liberal metropolitan elite" similarly have very specific historical meanings and resonances in Europe.
There was a much more overt example in an article written by Quentin Letts. Quite extraordinary that he got away with it. Probably because it predated the Labour problems so Letts and others felt no constraints.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
If enough backbenchers have the nerve to vote down legislation and Truss would prefer a GE to letting go of her leadership - yes. I think the problem is that's a bit of a Mexican stand off - if the backbench pull that trigger and Truss calls a GE politicians can't be assured their seat is safe, and if Truss wants to be able to govern, she needs her backbenchers to vote for things so can't be too outlandish and lose them.
Starmer would be an idiot to go into a National Government when a Labour led (possibly even majority) looks likely at the next election. It would give the Nats, LDs and Greens ammunition, and wouldn't benefit Labour at all. Maybe if enough backbench Tories just left the party, became independents, and said they would back a Labour led government sans an election over Truss, but then Starmer would probably call a GE anyway.
Bankers are globalists generally focused on making money above all and hard heads, not patriotic sentimentality.
Desperate from Kwarteng. If he wants to shore up the £ he needs more fiscal discipline
And also, he thought it would be a good idea to 'leak' this to the newspapers in advance of the meeting, as if that is going to restore confidence in his competence to do the role he is in.
It feels like we are seeing desperate and deluded 'neoliberal shock therapists' meet reality.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
In short. Highly unlikely. We have been talking about national governments for the last 6 years at various stages. There is never the political will to form one.
If things get so bad, there is a simpler solution- have a GE.
How? The only way to force a general election before January 2025 is for lots of Conservative MPs to end their careers by voting against the government in a confidence vote. That prospect seems far-fetched.
Or the same Conservative MPs can replace Liz Truss with someone else who might save their seats. If it helps the country as well, that's good but not necessary.
Johnson is never going to get that Shakespeare book written is he.
Kwarteng and Truss have virtually assured a labour government in 2024 and at the same time put the perceived mortgage rate rises at their door, when in truth the bond market worldwide is being routed through the authorities aggressive rise in interest rates as inflation is being fought against everywhere . It is likely about 1% has been added because of the kamikaze behaviour of Kwarteng but even if Starmer had been in no 10 he would be looking at a housing crisis that is hard to see how it is mitigated
I am old enough to remember negative equity and it looks as if this could return over the next few yeaes, but sadly we have become used to very low interest rates which look like being returned to more normal ones and yes many will be affected but we are not immune to worldwide events
Labour have had a good conference but the one thing missing is that they have failed to understand that the economy in 2024 is going to be in a very poor place, and ironically they may well have to raise taxes and reduce public sector spending by an amount that to a Labour party will be very difficult
I do not defend Kwarteng or Truss but at the very least she needs to sack Kwarteng if she wants to have any chance of surviving , and she has a ready made successor she knows only too well, one Rishi Sunak
The obvious pivot - which Starmer and his team have hinted at already - is how we rebuild after the Great Truss Financial Crisis. We invest, and gain a return on that investment. Some of that investing will need to come from government and he's already announced the first StateCo to do energy. Much will need to come from the private sector, and as they are always looking for something sane to put money in there will be plenty of opportunities.
This final phase of Torynomics will kill dead the stupidty of "who will pay for that" and "what will you cut to find the money". Investment had been turned by the Tories into a dirty word. Their spivvy hedgie friends don't want investment, they just want to turn a quick profit now and not care about tomorrow.
That has to end. So many of the things this country needs - infrastructure, hospitals and schools fit for purpose, sustainable self-reliant energy generation - deliver both a long-term positive ROI but a short-term boost when money goes to pay people to build stuff who then pay taxes and spend. Which gives other people jobs.
We used to call it capitalism. Starmer will lead us back there.
In normal times yes but 2024 will not be normal
As far as GB Energy is concerned it is modelled on EDF in France who have just had a 15 billion buy out by Macron and Lucy Powell this morning simply was wholly unconvincing in her explanation about its funding
Its pretty simple: 1. UK needs a big expansion in generating capacity 2. Instead of paying a foreign company to install, own and manage this, the UK will create its own company to do so 3. Instead of buying all of the components from abroad, the UK will promote UK manufacturing to supply turbines and solar panels.
The money will be spend regardless. Because there is no scenario where "sorry, we can't afford to create the generating capacity we need, we'll just have to have brownouts instead"
Also, France's issues this summer stemmed from the fact loads of their nuclear power stations were on rivers which obviously dry up somewhat in a heatwave. Sea level rises are quite predictable beyond the lifespan of any nuclear plant so it's not an issue we'd encounter as ours are all by the sea.
There are some things we cannot afford not to do. Energy generating capacity is a pertinent example - we either invest or we suffer both brownouts and crazy spot price gouging. So the money is being spent regardless - do we hand this over to the French government or the Swedish government, or copy their successful examples and do it ourselves?
With our geographic location and our tech / industrial abilities we should be a global leader in renewables. Instead the market and a "government involvement is communism" mindset means we are nowhere. If we're to spend the money - and we are - why not have something to show for it other than just the infrastructure?
It is more or less what I was advocating on here a couple of days ago, except I thought of renationalisation of existing companies rather than setting one up from scratch.
Personally, I like SKS's idea. The UK needs control of its critical infrastructure rather than bleeding money to foreign owners
Why renationalise any of them? We have regulated markets. Simply regulate them so that the new StateCo is in prime position and let the private sector decide whether it wants to play in a competitive market instead of the protected cartels we have now.
Big_G and DavidL have raised concerns and they are understandable to a point. But the only way we will ever regain our ability to manufacture, install and manage wind turbines is if we do so. And there is something seriously pathetic about an argument that Britain is unable to do the basics that somewhere like Sweden can and its too hard / risky for us to repair that position so that we can.
So much for global Britain. Some on the right would have us an eternal supplicant.
The problem with that is that StateCo becomes the new cartel, and when it fails to work properly the industry - and hence all of us - are screwed. This has happened time and time again.
You also seem to be in favour of protectionism?
Which StateCo do you have in mind as having become the new cartel? Don't quote old nationalised industries as they are not StateCo entities.
As for protectionism, define the word. I think the British state should protect strategic assets so that they function at a level and a price that fulfils their strategic function. Is that protectionism? I envisage GBE or whatever they call it being a global player in both exporting physical kit and generating energy for us to sell on the open market - is that protectionism?
In summary, instead of having the French government StateCo successfully run a large chunk of our energy sector for their benefit, I think we should have a British StateCo do so for our benefit. Is that protectionism?
How do you prevent the StateCo becoming a cartel, especially if/when it receives government investment?
Name a 'strategic asset', and look at the stuff required to build that asset. You'll soon find it includes many, many things. Take chips and the way we're all dependent on a little Dutch firm for high-end chips.
Note: these are not reasons *not* to do what you suggest, but things I'd be really wary of.
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
Will Sir Peter Mannion MP is a spoof account, but Brucereuters is, as his twitter name suggests a Reuters reporter. They both quote the same thing verbatim.
So he's (Brucereuters) either got the story wrong or satire and reality have actually merged.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
If enough backbenchers have the nerve to vote down legislation and Truss would prefer a GE to letting go of her leadership - yes. I think the problem is that's a bit of a Mexican stand off - if the backbench pull that trigger and Truss calls a GE politicians can't be assured their seat is safe, and if Truss wants to be able to govern, she needs her backbenchers to vote for things so can't be too outlandish and lose them.
Starmer would be an idiot to go into a National Government when a Labour led (possibly even majority) looks likely at the next election. It would give the Nats, LDs and Greens ammunition, and wouldn't benefit Labour at all. Maybe if enough backbench Tories just left the party, became independents, and said they would back a Labour led government sans an election over Truss, but then Starmer would probably call a GE anyway.
It worked for Baldwin in 1931.
Even better, he was able to blame Ramsay Macdonald for everything that went wrong in the next four years.
- “… something that CON MPs in marginal seats will only be too aware of.“
The latest polls indicate a complete Conservative wipeout in both Scotland and Wales.
That would result in a Con seat distribution of perhaps:
England 250 seats Scotland 0 seats Wales 0 seats N Ireland 0 seats
Not a good look for a supposedly “Unionist” party.
If they only get 250 seats they wouldn’t even be a majority in their home country England. They could easily not even win a plurality there.
This is an existential problem not just for the Conservatives, but for all Unionists, which is why Labour are trying to throw them as many lifelines they can without seriously pissing off their own base.
The distribution of seats matters. It looks like the Tories are well on their way to being a sect.
Even if the Tories drop to 250 that isn't low enough for a Labour majority so I'm not tempted to back that. Wales will be good for them but I'm not expecting any gains in Scotland.
I’d be amazed if Labour don’t make 1 or 2 gains in Scotland, at the very least. Although the SNP have a consistent poll lead of 21-24 points, it ought not to be beyond SLab’s gumption to manage a handful of gains. Mind you, never overestimate SLab has become an accepted wisdom in Scottish politics.
That said, moving from 1 to say 6 SLab seats doesn’t really help Starmer. He probably needs at least 15-20 Scottish seats for Lab Maj, and that requires a 12 point swing. That task looks to be beyond Anas Sarwar and the dunderheids.
On the latest polls Starmer will win a majority anyway even if he gains no seats from the SNP because of big gains from the Tories in England and Wales.
Sturgeon therefore urgently needs Truss and the Tories to have something of a recovery so there is a hung parliament and the SNP get some influence. In fact Tories most seats but SNP balance of power is far better for the SNP than a Labour majority enabling Starmer to ignore them completely
But Starmer has said no ifs, no buts, no deals with the SNP. Wasn’t it even going to be put in the Labour constitution, or was that just a fever dream of PB Unionists?
He has for now as Labour is heading for most seats or a majority. If that changed who knows what he might do.
Plus in a hung parliament where the SNP were Kingmakers neither the Tories nor Labour could get legislation for the UK through without SNP support. Even if neither did a formal deal with the SNP
If Kwarteng was so confident in his tax policies he would have allowed the OBR to publish forecasts . The fact he didn’t shows he’s making it up as he goes along and this is one of the reasons for the loss in market confidence .
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
In short. Highly unlikely. We have been talking about national governments for the last 6 years at various stages. There is never the political will to form one.
If things get so bad, there is a simpler solution- have a GE.
How? The only way to force a general election before January 2025 is for lots of Conservative MPs to end their careers by voting against the government in a confidence vote. That prospect seems far-fetched.
Or the same Conservative MPs can replace Liz Truss with someone else who might save their seats. If it helps the country as well, that's good but not necessary.
Johnson is never going to get that Shakespeare book written is he.
He could write a book comparing himself to Juliet.
Pretends to be dead, to get out of an intolerable situation, only to wake up and find the reason she pretended to be dead has killed himself. So commits a final, proper suicide.
Pretends to give up office, to get out of an intolerable situation, only to try and go back and find the way is blocked because of the meltdown the manner of his resignation caused. So buggers off and writes a book.
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
Will Sir Peter Mannion MP is a spoof account, but Brucereuters is, as his twitter name suggests a Reuters reporter. They both quote the same thing verbatim.
So he's (Brucereuters) either got the story wrong or satire and reality have actually merged.
Brucereuters quoted Sky News, and Sky News very possibly could be quoting a spoof Twitter account.
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
These people haven't a bloody clue have they?
The daily advertisement for how shit the actual education is at Oxford that we have been exposed to in last few years is sobering.
Pretty sure Truss is despite rather than because of what she was taught at Oxford. Starmer never attended any UK university (except in a purely technical sense).
It is fascinating. These eurosceptic-libertarian ultras have been so reliant on feeling betrayed to avoid accountability for their crackpot ideas. In Truss they accidentally got what they wanted - she let them down by not letting them down - and they have nowhere to hide. https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1575027967167602688
Would be a good moment to start floating the idea of rejoining.
Not for Starmer. Why rock the boat when you're riding a wave
But it's surely going to happen
Hi Roger. See you on the 22nd October?
Great poster.
Waste of time - it is not going to happen
Who'd have thought it would take Truss two weewks to self destruct? You just never know. Things are moving fast and the evidence that it was a dreadful decision based on lies and personal ambition is now widely accepted.
So where are we? It may be that the markets have over-reacted but it is part of the government's job to reassure the markets when borrowing is high. Kwarteng presented himself as an unthinking libertarian offering a giveaway at a time of high borrowing, having dismissed his most senior official and crucially without the workings to show for it. Tone deaf in the extreme.
Of course the world is full of slick operators who get away with irresponsible actions. Maybe the bankers should acknowledge that we're not even trying. I've no idea if he's right but here's a coherent argument from Paul Krugman on why a sterling crisis is unlikely.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
This would require at least 40-50 Tory MPs to split from the party and create a new one. It's not going to happen.
HMG will promise to cut spending to reduce the deficit. I expect that will calm the markets sufficiently for the time being, and it's not something that's going to cause party-splitting levels of disquiet on the Tory backbenches.
Then it will be a matter of whether HMG can get the deficit under control by cutting spending, and what the wider consequences of that are.
Our mortgage is up for renewal in April. Looking at the latest fixed rates we could be paying £700-£1000 more per month. What the frack!?! Never mind sending Kami Kwasi and Loopy Liz to prison, they should be sent to Russia to work in a gulag till the end of their days!
You thought you'd be paying real interest rates of -5% while savers get screwed forever?
Who gives a f*ck about savers! The wrinklies who make up the vast majority of savers have been living off working folk for yonks
Savings rates even after any increase are below inflation but for people like my children who are saving for a deposit, any increase is welcome. As is the prospect of a 10% fall in house prices. If we could get some housebuilding as well, that would be even better.
Mortgage holders and house owners are complaining, understandably, but a shake up which tilts in some small way towards the young and those who do not - but would like to - own their own homes is not Armageddon.
I don't know if this is intended nor do I know whether it will work. It risks going horribly wrong and that will be bad for the young too. But mortgage holders are - with due respect to everyone here - just as much of a self-interested group as pensioners and landlords and all those other groups posters like to castigate.
The reality is that the massive rise in the cost of energy imports on its own means that everyone in the UK is worse off. The argument is over how that pain is spread.
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
Will Sir Peter Mannion MP is a spoof account, but Brucereuters is, as his twitter name suggests a Reuters reporter. They both quote the same thing verbatim.
So he's (Brucereuters) either got the story wrong or satire and reality have actually merged.
Brucereuters quoted Sky News, and Sky News very possibly could be quoting a spoof Twitter account.
We can only take it as being true if we get confirmation from a reliable City source like Sir Desmond Glazebrook.
So where are we? It may be that the markets have over-reacted but it is part of the government's job to reassure the markets when borrowing is high. Kwarteng presented himself as an unthinking libertarian offering a giveaway at a time of high borrowing, having dismissed his most senior official and crucially without the workings to show for it. Tone deaf in the extreme.
Of course the world is full of slick operators who get away with irresponsible actions. Maybe the bankers should acknowledge that we're not even trying. I've no idea if he's right but here's a coherent argument from Paul Krugman on why a sterling crisis is unlikely.
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
Will Sir Peter Mannion MP is a spoof account, but Brucereuters is, as his twitter name suggests a Reuters reporter. They both quote the same thing verbatim.
So he's (Brucereuters) either got the story wrong or satire and reality have actually merged.
Brucereuters quoted Sky News, and Sky News very possibly could be quoting a spoof Twitter account.
As it's an improbable thing for Kwarsi to be doing (For @MaxPB obvious reasons mentioned) I'd have thought their source would be checked that it's not a spoof twitter account ? I mean I know journalistic standards aren't as good as they used to be but...
If Kwarteng was so confident in his tax policies he would have allowed the OBR to publish forecasts . The fact he didn’t shows he’s making it up as he goes along and this is one of the reasons for the loss in market confidence .
My guess is that the OBR model did not show any increase in growth as a result of the tax cuts so it would have destroyed his "pro growth" argument. That doesn't necessarily mean that tax cuts will not promote growth, it simply means that the argument would be much more difficult.
The OBR was created to prevent Chancellors from indulging in fantasy economics after Brown's never ending economic cycle. I seriously doubt those that created it would have contemplated it being a problem for a Conservative Chancellor. But this is where we are.
And yes also - @RochdalePioneers . The worst thing for many on the left is for a working class hero to become, through hard work and endeavour, a member of the hated boss class.
cf the Left's view of the Jews and their rise from plucky underdogs who needed saving to imperialist oppressors who should be resisted continuously.
I mean, the left hate class traitors. That's a given, because if you're on the left the understanding of politics is that of a struggle of the working class against the oppression of the capitalist class. And that isn't how the left view Jewish people - it may be a criticism of Israel, or some Jewish people, but many left wing people are Jewish, and indeed a lot of left wing thought is deeply based in the work of Jewish people.
It's amazing how quickly the right wing decided how defending Jewish people was so important to them only after Labour had a Jewish leader who was smeared for being unable to properly eat a bacon sandwich, for having a radical Jewish father who supposedly hated this country, and continuously talked about a liberal metropolitan elite who were citizens of nowhere...
Is this before or after the Cons elected a Jewish party leader?
I mean, I think there are good arguments to be made that Labour under Blair leant on antisemitic tropes to specifically attack Howard, and obviously Disraeli dealt with general antisemitism - but there is a long history of the right wing attacks that have continued post WW2 of making socialist / communist thought specifically Jewish (from Cultural Bolshevism of the early 1900s to Cultural Marxism thrown around today) and tying Jewish people to that, which I feel isn't as prevalent when attacking capitalism by the left (although it is still there to a degree). Some early anticapitalist discussion was obviously antisemitic, and you have people like Caleb Maupin who are on the Red/Brown alliance side of the left who right things like Satan at the Fountainhead, but I would argue that the left wing project (an internationalist, multicultural society with less class division) is clearly more welcoming of Jewish people than the right wing project which seems increasingly focussed on nationalism and monoculturalism, which is always an alarm for Jewish people.
A question for PB-ers. Is there a scenario where confidence in the government falls to such a low level that a National Government, a coalition of all the major parties, is formed? Or that a snap General Election is somehow forced to happen?
In short. Highly unlikely. We have been talking about national governments for the last 6 years at various stages. There is never the political will to form one.
If things get so bad, there is a simpler solution- have a GE.
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
If he can give them a preview of the plan to cut public spending then he might be successful in convincing them there won't be a British sovereign debt crisis.
"My love is grouse shooting. And we are in the middle of the season now."
What an unappealing character.
Unpheasant, shurely?
Point one, grouse shooting is great and unlike pheasant and partridge, doesn't depend on breeding and putting out ludicrously excessive numbers of birds because grouse don't breed in captivity. and people want to eat them, so the corpses don't end up as cat food.
More importantly it's an alibi not just a lifestyle statement and goes on
“The truth is that I didn’t do anything on Friday. I shot. I haven't put a trade on for the last two months. I didn’t need to. This was easy to see from miles away and didn't depend on Kwasi coming into government or anything else.”
Which is true. even I could see it from miles away.
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
I think that this is just an unfortunate spin. What he will be seeking to do is reduce uncertainty, show that he has some sort of a grip and set out how the details of that grip are going to be clarified for the markets sooner rather than later.
Of course, the participants may well come to the opposite conclusion.
What’s weird about arguing that the problem is *not* the mini-budget but Starmerangst is that it was supposed to “unleash” the growth and consequent prosperity that would ensure the Tories stayed in power. So the problem would *still* be they don’t think the mini-budget will work https://twitter.com/SeanJonesKC/status/1575053728549576704
Good morning from Citi: "We see no near-term end to the UK’s fiscal woes. We recommend selling GBPUSD via a Put spread with strikes at 1.00/0.95 and expiry on 28 Dec 2022"
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
If he can give them a preview of the plan to cut public spending then he might be successful in convincing them there won't be a British sovereign debt crisis.
And if they demand deep spending cuts in return for his tax cuts mainly for the rich to shore up the pound again then that is the final nail in the coffin for Tory MPs in redwall seats
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
If he can give them a preview of the plan to cut public spending then he might be successful in convincing them there won't be a British sovereign debt crisis.
He can't do that - as it should be presented to Parliament first.
It's stupid enough that he announces things to the media before Parliament but to discuss his plans with random city people first sounds like insider dealing.
a currency trader tells me that sterling is falling only because markets are worried that Jacob Rees-Mogg will be sacked as business secretary, which would prevent Surrey becoming the Saudi Arabia of shale gas and the economic boom arising from selling apples by the pennyweight https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1575056225414238208
And yes also - @RochdalePioneers . The worst thing for many on the left is for a working class hero to become, through hard work and endeavour, a member of the hated boss class.
cf the Left's view of the Jews and their rise from plucky underdogs who needed saving to imperialist oppressors who should be resisted continuously.
I mean, the left hate class traitors. That's a given, because if you're on the left the understanding of politics is that of a struggle of the working class against the oppression of the capitalist class. And that isn't how the left view Jewish people - it may be a criticism of Israel, or some Jewish people, but many left wing people are Jewish, and indeed a lot of left wing thought is deeply based in the work of Jewish people.
It's amazing how quickly the right wing decided how defending Jewish people was so important to them only after Labour had a Jewish leader who was smeared for being unable to properly eat a bacon sandwich, for having a radical Jewish father who supposedly hated this country, and continuously talked about a liberal metropolitan elite who were citizens of nowhere...
Is this before or after the Cons elected a Jewish party leader?
I mean, I think there are good arguments to be made that Labour under Blair leant on antisemitic tropes to specifically attack Howard, and obviously Disraeli dealt with general antisemitism - but there is a long history of the right wing attacks that have continued post WW2 of making socialist / communist thought specifically Jewish (from Cultural Bolshevism of the early 1900s to Cultural Marxism thrown around today) and tying Jewish people to that, which I feel isn't as prevalent when attacking capitalism by the left (although it is still there to a degree). Some early anticapitalist discussion was obviously antisemitic, and you have people like Caleb Maupin who are on the Red/Brown alliance side of the left who right things like Satan at the Fountainhead, but I would argue that the left wing project (an internationalist, multicultural society with less class division) is clearly more welcoming of Jewish people than the right wing project which seems increasingly focussed on nationalism and monoculturalism, which is always an alarm for Jewish people.
Yes I wouldn't disagree with that at all. The right wing is expected to be anti-Semitic. For the left it's complicated.
But let's look at what brought us here - a sitting Labour Party MP making a (perhaps only clumsy) comment about race. Thus igniting identity discussions and treating people of different races as an homogeneous group of which no member is allowed to side with the Conservatives.
This follows ofc Jezza and the enablement of anti-semitism on his watch.
If your argument is that well the right traditionally own this, we also need to look at the current incarnations of Labour and the Conservatives to show that at least the latter are pretending and acting the less biased.
And yes also - @RochdalePioneers . The worst thing for many on the left is for a working class hero to become, through hard work and endeavour, a member of the hated boss class.
cf the Left's view of the Jews and their rise from plucky underdogs who needed saving to imperialist oppressors who should be resisted continuously.
I mean, the left hate class traitors. That's a given, because if you're on the left the understanding of politics is that of a struggle of the working class against the oppression of the capitalist class. And that isn't how the left view Jewish people - it may be a criticism of Israel, or some Jewish people, but many left wing people are Jewish, and indeed a lot of left wing thought is deeply based in the work of Jewish people.
It's amazing how quickly the right wing decided how defending Jewish people was so important to them only after Labour had a Jewish leader who was smeared for being unable to properly eat a bacon sandwich, for having a radical Jewish father who supposedly hated this country, and continuously talked about a liberal metropolitan elite who were citizens of nowhere...
Is this before or after the Cons elected a Jewish party leader?
I mean, I think there are good arguments to be made that Labour under Blair leant on antisemitic tropes to specifically attack Howard, and obviously Disraeli dealt with general antisemitism - but there is a long history of the right wing attacks that have continued post WW2 of making socialist / communist thought specifically Jewish (from Cultural Bolshevism of the early 1900s to Cultural Marxism thrown around today) and tying Jewish people to that, which I feel isn't as prevalent when attacking capitalism by the left (although it is still there to a degree). Some early anticapitalist discussion was obviously antisemitic, and you have people like Caleb Maupin who are on the Red/Brown alliance side of the left who right things like Satan at the Fountainhead, but I would argue that the left wing project (an internationalist, multicultural society with less class division) is clearly more welcoming of Jewish people than the right wing project which seems increasingly focussed on nationalism and monoculturalism, which is always an alarm for Jewish people.
Anti-semitism seeps in everywhere a political wing takes an authoritarian turn. Jews are such a convenient outgroup for a populist European / Westerrn political movement to blame for everything wrong with society that they almost can’t help themselves.
You’ll find this kind of populism and us / them tactics on both the left and the right. That one is sometimes more explicit about it than the other means little. The seed is always there & it requires constant vigilance on both sides of the aisle to ensure it never takes root.
It’s on all of us, left & right, to ensure that anti-semitism remains an unacceptable part of our politics.
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
If he can give them a preview of the plan to cut public spending then he might be successful in convincing them there won't be a British sovereign debt crisis.
He can't do that - as it should be presented to Parliament first.
It's stupid enough that he announces things to the media before Parliament but to discuss his plans with random city people first sounds like insider dealing.
One thing that we've learned over the last few days is that the City trumps democracy, apparently.
A currency trader tells me that Stirling is falling because of the increase in restaurants that sell "pies" that are just a bit of pastry on the top of the dish, rather than all the way around. https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1575058651751989249
Blazing Saddles is one of the best films ever made, some of it doesn't hold up (mostly the homophobic joke at the end of the film), but it's critique of racism is perfect. Every joke about race is at the expense of white people. Sure, the slurs get thrown around quite liberally, but they are deflated slurs because the Sheriff actually has a position of power and so can react to them.
Those who argue that Blazing Saddles couldn't be made today because the woke lefties would all cry about it, don't understand that woke lefties love this film, and if it was made today it would be all the right wingers who complain about the Little Mermaid being black complaining about a film where the black guy is a hero over the white racist community.
Films like Sorry To Bother You and Dear White People are the modern Blazing Saddles, in my mind.
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
If he can give them a preview of the plan to cut public spending then he might be successful in convincing them there won't be a British sovereign debt crisis.
He can't do that - as it should be presented to Parliament first.
It's stupid enough that he announces things to the media before Parliament but to discuss his plans with random city people first sounds like insider dealing.
One thing that we've learned over the last few days is that the City trumps democracy, apparently.
If by that you mean "politicians can't just do what they like and expect financiers to finance it, no matter how crazy, without penalty and winning a vote doesn't change that" then yes, finance trumps democracy. I'm surprised that this is new learning for a person of the world like yourself.
I prefer to think of it as democracy can't change reality and wanting something isn't enough.
A currency trader tells me that Stirling is falling because of the increase in restaurants that sell "pies" that are just a bit of pastry on the top of the dish, rather than all the way around. https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1575058651751989249
Sterling presumably, but what is the actual joke here?
And yes also - @RochdalePioneers . The worst thing for many on the left is for a working class hero to become, through hard work and endeavour, a member of the hated boss class.
cf the Left's view of the Jews and their rise from plucky underdogs who needed saving to imperialist oppressors who should be resisted continuously.
I mean, the left hate class traitors. That's a given, because if you're on the left the understanding of politics is that of a struggle of the working class against the oppression of the capitalist class. And that isn't how the left view Jewish people - it may be a criticism of Israel, or some Jewish people, but many left wing people are Jewish, and indeed a lot of left wing thought is deeply based in the work of Jewish people.
It's amazing how quickly the right wing decided how defending Jewish people was so important to them only after Labour had a Jewish leader who was smeared for being unable to properly eat a bacon sandwich, for having a radical Jewish father who supposedly hated this country, and continuously talked about a liberal metropolitan elite who were citizens of nowhere...
Is this before or after the Cons elected a Jewish party leader?
I mean, I think there are good arguments to be made that Labour under Blair leant on antisemitic tropes to specifically attack Howard, and obviously Disraeli dealt with general antisemitism - but there is a long history of the right wing attacks that have continued post WW2 of making socialist / communist thought specifically Jewish (from Cultural Bolshevism of the early 1900s to Cultural Marxism thrown around today) and tying Jewish people to that, which I feel isn't as prevalent when attacking capitalism by the left (although it is still there to a degree). Some early anticapitalist discussion was obviously antisemitic, and you have people like Caleb Maupin who are on the Red/Brown alliance side of the left who right things like Satan at the Fountainhead, but I would argue that the left wing project (an internationalist, multicultural society with less class division) is clearly more welcoming of Jewish people than the right wing project which seems increasingly focussed on nationalism and monoculturalism, which is always an alarm for Jewish people.
Anti-semitism seeps in everywhere a political wing takes an authoritarian turn. Jews are such a convenient outgroup for a populist European / Westerrn political movement to blame for everything wrong with society that they almost can’t help themselves.
You’ll find this kind of populism and us / them tactics on both the left and the right. That one is sometimes more explicit about it than the other means little. The seed is always there & it requires constant vigilance on both sides of the aisle to ensure it never takes root.
It’s on all of us, left & right, to ensure that anti-semitism remains an unacceptable part of our politics.
I agree with that in parts. Obviously the left is not immune to antisemitism.
I would just repeat that I think the modern progressive left movement would aim to make a society more welcoming of Jewish people and based off of the thought of left wing Jewish people, whereas the right wing project that is clearly dominant at the moment is openly hostile to Jewish people and still uses fascist tropes (again Cultural Marxism / Great Replacement Theory is just reheated Cultural Bolshevism and Nazi conspiracism).
Not 100% proven that it was Russia, of course. But it is pretty likely.
I'm guessing if it is them - then it's a bit of warning shot along the lines of "Nice gas pipeline you've got with Norway there. Shame if something... 'appened to it."
A currency trader tells me that Stirling is falling because of the increase in restaurants that sell "pies" that are just a bit of pastry on the top of the dish, rather than all the way around. https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1575058651751989249
Sterling presumably, but what is the actual joke here?
the actual joke is Conservative commentators coming out with ever more outlandish reasons for the collapse of the currency that are not "the chancellor is a fuckwit"
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
If he can give them a preview of the plan to cut public spending then he might be successful in convincing them there won't be a British sovereign debt crisis.
He can't do that - as it should be presented to Parliament first.
It's stupid enough that he announces things to the media before Parliament but to discuss his plans with random city people first sounds like insider dealing.
One thing that we've learned over the last few days is that the City trumps democracy, apparently.
If by that you mean "politicians can't just do what they like and expect financiers to finance it, no matter how crazy, without penalty and winning a vote doesn't change that" then yes, finance trumps democracy. I'm surprised that this is new learning for a person of the world like yourself.
I prefer to think of it as democracy can't change reality and wanting something isn't enough.
Sure. But in that case you can't complain about the Chancellor talking to the City before the Commons.
Blazing Saddles is one of the best films ever made, some of it doesn't hold up (mostly the homophobic joke at the end of the film), but it's critique of racism is perfect. Every joke about race is at the expense of white people. Sure, the slurs get thrown around quite liberally, but they are deflated slurs because the Sheriff actually has a position of power and so can react to them.
Those who argue that Blazing Saddles couldn't be made today because the woke lefties would all cry about it, don't understand that woke lefties love this film, and if it was made today it would be all the right wingers who complain about the Little Mermaid being black complaining about a film where the black guy is a hero over the white racist community.
Films like Sorry To Bother You and Dear White People are the modern Blazing Saddles, in my mind.
The Producers was perhaps an even better example also made by MB because the subject matter was even more tabboo but I agree with everything you've said (except that I wouldn't say Blazing Saddles is one of the best films ever made!)
Morning all. Im struggling to understand why the govt arent all over that IMF statement. Something along the lines of 'it is unacceptable to be told not to protect British people and businesses from rising energy costs by the IMF' Reemphasize the positive measures from Friday.
Surely the chancellor isn't gong to go and beg the City to stop shorting sterling, it will have the opposite effect. These meetings always do.
If he can give them a preview of the plan to cut public spending then he might be successful in convincing them there won't be a British sovereign debt crisis.
He can't do that - as it should be presented to Parliament first.
It's stupid enough that he announces things to the media before Parliament but to discuss his plans with random city people first sounds like insider dealing.
One thing that we've learned over the last few days is that the City trumps democracy, apparently.
If by that you mean "politicians can't just do what they like and expect financiers to finance it, no matter how crazy, without penalty and winning a vote doesn't change that" then yes, finance trumps democracy. I'm surprised that this is new learning for a person of the world like yourself.
I prefer to think of it as democracy can't change reality and wanting something isn't enough.
Sure. But in that case you can't complain about the Chancellor talking to the City before the Commons.
I agree, and I wouldn't. World finance trumps democracy here. You can't vote to *be* rich, you have to agree a plan and then put it to parliament or the people.
Comments
Mortgage holders and house owners are complaining, understandably, but a shake up which tilts in some small way towards the young and those who do not - but would like to - own their own homes is not Armageddon.
I don't know if this is intended nor do I know whether it will work. It risks going horribly wrong and that will be bad for the young too. But mortgage holders are - with due respect to everyone here - just as much of a self-interested group as pensioners and landlords and all those other groups posters like to castigate.
Seems not. Telegraph reporting same thing.
The most devout worshippers of Freemarkets are actually going to go cap in hand and ask the market to lay off a bit?
This is satire beyond satire.
You also seem to be in favour of protectionism?
Sir Peter Mannion is a satirical twitter account.
So he is taking ideology - bad ideology based on a mis-read of Thatcherism - and going to the markets to tell them that actually the markets should support this actually because actually its sound economics actually cos John Redwood sez so.
Watch for another move south after this session. Its been widely reported the markets consider Truss and KK to be two stops beyond Barking. Now they will have absolute proof. The splat of ideology against the wall of reality.
They are dead wrong on this. But even if they were right you either carry the market with you or you are dead. Because the impact of not doing so is that you cripple your own economy and do nasty things to people with mortgages who like to eat and not be cold in the winter.
Maybe everyone is reporting a spoof?? LOL
“"Kwasi Kwarteng will ask financiers not to bet against the pound during a meeting with bankers today, Sky News reported on Wednesday."
Okay but he'd better say please”
https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1575043761008017408
Followed by;
“HMT source dismisses the above”
So, who knows?
As for protectionism, define the word. I think the British state should protect strategic assets so that they function at a level and a price that fulfils their strategic function. Is that protectionism? I envisage GBE or whatever they call it being a global player in both exporting physical kit and generating energy for us to sell on the open market - is that protectionism?
In summary, instead of having the French government StateCo successfully run a large chunk of our energy sector for their benefit, I think we should have a British StateCo do so for our benefit. Is that protectionism?
I'm not claiming that no left wing people also harbour antisemitic conspiracist thought - some obviously do. I just think the right wing obviously have no leg to stand on, and it is very clear from past politics and current politics.
That's the issue.
We don't need a government equivalent of Section Two of the Mental Health Act, because MPs would never allow crazies into office.
It overlooked the possibility that a hundred thousand unelected unrepresentative party members might force a PM on the country.
It doesn't seem likely if I am honest. It happened in 1915 and 1940 when the country was at war. It also happened in 1931 when the Liberals withdrew support and Labour split over benefit cuts. But in 1915 and 1931 the government had no majority anyway, and in 1915 and 1940 the country was at war and an election was pretty much out of the question. (And in 1931 an election quickly followed, which saw the opposition Conservatives win what remains the greatest number of seats by one party in an election - 470.)
I cannot see a scenario where that makes sense at the moment.
A snap general election isn't impossible. One reason May reneged on her commitment to fixed term parliaments is that the backbenches had sabotaged the budget and forced Hammond to make changes.
But I think Truss will avoid that unless she has no option. May had a huge lead in the polls and it didn't end well. From here, my goodness...
The knock on costs to the economy will be catastrophic.
I keep repeating this because it is a mistake to see significantly falling house prices as a solution to anything.
Or the same Conservative MPs can replace Liz Truss with someone else who might save their seats. If it helps the country as well, that's good but not necessary.
The daily advertisement for how shit the actual education is at Oxford that we have been exposed to in last few years is sobering.
Starmer would be an idiot to go into a National Government when a Labour led (possibly even majority) looks likely at the next election. It would give the Nats, LDs and Greens ammunition, and wouldn't benefit Labour at all. Maybe if enough backbench Tories just left the party, became independents, and said they would back a Labour led government sans an election over Truss, but then Starmer would probably call a GE anyway.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/09/27/remainers-blame-run-pound-claims-hedge-fund-tycoon-crispin-odey/
It feels like we are seeing desperate and deluded 'neoliberal shock therapists' meet reality.
Name a 'strategic asset', and look at the stuff required to build that asset. You'll soon find it includes many, many things. Take chips and the way we're all dependent on a little Dutch firm for high-end chips.
Note: these are not reasons *not* to do what you suggest, but things I'd be really wary of.
So he's (Brucereuters) either got the story wrong or satire and reality have actually merged.
Even better, he was able to blame Ramsay Macdonald for everything that went wrong in the next four years.
Plus in a hung parliament where the SNP were Kingmakers neither the Tories nor Labour could get legislation for the UK through without SNP
support. Even if neither did a formal deal with the SNP
Pretends to be dead, to get out of an intolerable situation, only to wake up and find the reason she pretended to be dead has killed himself. So commits a final, proper suicide.
Pretends to give up office, to get out of an intolerable situation, only to try and go back and find the way is blocked because of the meltdown the manner of his resignation caused. So buggers off and writes a book.
What an unappealing character.
Of course the world is full of slick operators who get away with irresponsible actions. Maybe the bankers should acknowledge that we're not even trying. I've no idea if he's right but here's a coherent argument from Paul Krugman on why a sterling crisis is unlikely.
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1573649995290628096
HMG will promise to cut spending to reduce the deficit. I expect that will calm the markets sufficiently for the time being, and it's not something that's going to cause party-splitting levels of disquiet on the Tory backbenches.
Then it will be a matter of whether HMG can get the deficit under control by cutting spending, and what the wider consequences of that are.
I also note that that thread is from Sep 24.
I mean I know journalistic standards aren't as good as they used to be but...
The OBR was created to prevent Chancellors from indulging in fantasy economics after Brown's never ending economic cycle. I seriously doubt those that created it would have contemplated it being a problem for a Conservative Chancellor. But this is where we are.
Not at the start of a almost certain reccession, when we have food banks and a cost of living crisis.
It's possibly the worst policy decision I've ever seen.
More importantly it's an alibi not just a lifestyle statement and goes on
“The truth is that I didn’t do anything on Friday. I shot. I haven't put a trade on for the last two months. I didn’t need to. This was easy to see from miles away and didn't depend on Kwasi coming into government or anything else.”
Which is true. even I could see it from miles away.
Of course, the participants may well come to the opposite conclusion.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1575048712921157633
What’s weird about arguing that the problem is *not* the mini-budget but Starmerangst is that it was supposed to “unleash” the growth and consequent prosperity that would ensure the Tories stayed in power. So the problem would *still* be they don’t think the mini-budget will work https://twitter.com/SeanJonesKC/status/1575053728549576704
.@Citi one of the US banks reportedly meeting Kwasi Kwarteng today, may need some persuading to “stop betting against the pound” https://twitter.com/katie_martin_fx/status/1575021698272956417
The international bond markets are clearly terrified of Keir Starmer.
It's stupid enough that he announces things to the media before Parliament but to discuss his plans with random city people first sounds like insider dealing.
https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1575056225414238208
NB This is a spoof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZT7xLjxuhs
But let's look at what brought us here - a sitting Labour Party MP making a (perhaps only clumsy) comment about race. Thus igniting identity discussions and treating people of different races as an homogeneous group of which no member is allowed to side with the Conservatives.
This follows ofc Jezza and the enablement of anti-semitism on his watch.
If your argument is that well the right traditionally own this, we also need to look at the current incarnations of Labour and the Conservatives to show that at least the latter are pretending and acting the less biased.
You’ll find this kind of populism and us / them tactics on both the left and the right. That one is sometimes more explicit about it than the other means little. The seed is always there & it requires constant vigilance on both sides of the aisle to ensure it never takes root.
It’s on all of us, left & right, to ensure that anti-semitism remains an unacceptable part of our politics.
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1574790638419197952
Not 100% proven that it was Russia, of course. But it is pretty likely.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1575058651751989249
Those who argue that Blazing Saddles couldn't be made today because the woke lefties would all cry about it, don't understand that woke lefties love this film, and if it was made today it would be all the right wingers who complain about the Little Mermaid being black complaining about a film where the black guy is a hero over the white racist community.
Films like Sorry To Bother You and Dear White People are the modern Blazing Saddles, in my mind.
I prefer to think of it as democracy can't change reality and wanting something isn't enough.
I would just repeat that I think the modern progressive left movement would aim to make a society more welcoming of Jewish people and based off of the thought of left wing Jewish people, whereas the right wing project that is clearly dominant at the moment is openly hostile to Jewish people and still uses fascist tropes (again Cultural Marxism / Great Replacement Theory is just reheated Cultural Bolshevism and Nazi conspiracism).
Here's them on race.
https://youtu.be/ONDHqg8Cx64
Reemphasize the positive measures from Friday.
Not totally unthinkable generally - eg Andrew Bailey did similar at start of pandemic. But not happening today.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1575062155510284289