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.
I also didn't notice the 2019 Tory manifesto included a commitment to cut the top rate of income tax and end the bankers' bonus cap.
More a case of the City trumps ideology without fiscal discipline
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
Just off the phone to a chap whose sister's ex boyfriend's cousin dated someone whose mum's in a WhatsApp group with a women who did the catering for 1 episode of Industry S2 & she says the rise in gilt yields is down to the market pricing in Jo Stevens as the next SoS for Wales https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1575062088287805440
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).
I'm not sure Luciana Berger on the one hand, or Dominic Raab on the other would agree with you.
Morning all. Im struggling to understand why the govt arent all over that IMF statement.
Cos the IMF are right and the Government are idiots
The govt might be idiots but the IMF can fuck off if they think we should let people freeze and businesses go under just because the UK isnt on message
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.
There's no way he can give them a preview, that is market embargoed information.
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.
You may well be right.
I only note that the only way I was able to afford a house in London was when prices had crashed after the last time the Tories screwed up the economy. Interest rates and mortgage rates then were way higher than even the reported 7% rates some are expecting and the amount I could borrow was pretty limited, even with a deposit.
It feels that something similar will be the only chance my children will have of doing what I did.
In our small area of Cumbria, property prices went mad during Covid as a result of the stamp duty measures. A solicitor friend said his firm was never busier. Some of those buying were wealthy older people with holiday rental properties who used the money they got from Sunak to buy more properties to be let to holiday makers. It is now exceedingly difficult to find properties to rent or buy in the area. Daughter has been spitting tacks about the issue.
And the recent stamp duty measures will once again exacerbate this problem, Tim Farron has been speaking up about it. If the interests of wealthy property owners are put above the interests of everyone else, we will never do anything to help the young.
I simply note that the minute those interests are threatened a lot of people on this forum are saying what a disaster it is. It may well be but there is a fair amount of self-interest involved as there is in what I am saying about what my children would like to see.
I remain to be convinced - to put it mildly - by this government. But nor do I think the primary purpose of a government should be to keep house prices high for the lucky few.
@Nigelb Is right: we are arguing about who bears the pain. I'd like it to be shared a bit more fairly and include those who have done rather well, even if that will likely affect me personally.
BREAKING: @bankofengland: “ will carry out temp purchases of long-dated UK government bonds from 28 September. The purpose of these purchases will be to restore orderly market conditions.” “The purchases will be carried out on whatever scale is necessary to effect this outcome.”
Morning all, as usual in times of turbulence there's some good lays for cool cucumbers. I'd highlight the following -
Boris Johnson to be the next Con leader @ 9 ... What? Liz Truss to exit in 2023 @ 2.3 ... What? Liz Truss to face Conf vote before the GE @ 1.6 ... What?
Morning all. Im struggling to understand why the govt arent all over that IMF statement.
Cos the IMF are right and the Government are idiots
The govt might be idiots but the IMF can fuck off if they think we should let people freeze and businesses go under just because the UK isnt on message
The energy cap isn’t the problem as all major governments are doing that .
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.
Since this bunch are not usually shy with the whiny, paranoid 'them foreigns should shut their pieholes' stuff, yeah, it is a bit puzzling.
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.
On the commentary done in the 90s, Mel Brooks was very clear that he wouldn't be allowed to make the film "now", never mind someone trying to do it in the 2020s. But as you say, the satire against stupid racists and bigots is pitch perfect. And I would put the "homophobic joke" (you mean the French Mistake sequence) in the same bracket - its just funny.
To be fair the £ seems pretty steady this morning against the dollar. Dreadful rate, but not getting worse. Improving against the Thai Baht as well. What does that say about the Thai economy?
Morning all. Im struggling to understand why the govt arent all over that IMF statement.
Cos the IMF are right and the Government are idiots
The govt might be idiots but the IMF can fuck off if they think we should let people freeze and businesses go under just because the UK isnt on message
The energy cap isn’t the problem as all major governments are doing that .
Then why are the IMF calling for it to be changed? Because thats what their statement says.
An emergency intervention by the Bank of England - buying government debt itself - because of a political intervention, the first of a new government, that went wrong is .... quite something https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1575064989324279809
*Walter Bloomberg @DeItaone · 51s BANK OF ENGLAND: BANK WILL CARRY OUT TEMPORARY PURCHASES OF LONG-DATED UK GOVERNMENT BONDS FROM 28 SEPTEMBER
————
QEEEEEEEEENFINITY!!!!
So: 1. Truss is a moron and thinks other countries have higher debt so we can too 2. Truss and Kamikaze do something painfully stupid and explode the cost of borrowing needed to fund the tax cuts for hedgies 3. BofE announces Quantitative tightening to try and keep things under control 4. Truss and Kwazi have a row 5. BofE announces it will be buying the gilts. So you don't need to worry about those nasty commie remoaner money markets after all 6. Money markets - already spooked by the stupidity of UK plans - looks at BofE buying the debt and decides its a bit too Zimbabwe for even their "this is stupid" comments of before 7. Economy continues to tank. Harder. Faster. With no safe word.
Morning all. Im struggling to understand why the govt arent all over that IMF statement.
Cos the IMF are right and the Government are idiots
The govt might be idiots but the IMF can fuck off if they think we should let people freeze and businesses go under just because the UK isnt on message
The energy cap isn’t the problem as all major governments are doing that .
Then why are the IMF calling for it to be changed? Because thats what their statement says.
They’re not . It’s the tax cuts which they’re moaning about not the energy help.
The Bank of England has a specific role to maintain financial stability in the U.K. - it is acknowledging now that the current situation is putting the stability of the U.K. economy at risk - extraordinary as a reaction to a Budget https://twitter.com/skyscottbeasley/status/1575063845294706690
I see Dan Hannan has revealed himself to be the Giuliani of Brexit. WTF?
"The Market reaction to Kamikwasi is actually a reaction to the prospect of Starmer as PM?" Either he believes that, in which case he is a partisan cretin, or he does not believe that, but says it because he thinks that we will believe it, in which case he is he is a lying partisan cretin with no moral compass.
Given the tosh he spouted about the single market, "absolutely no one is talking about leaving the single market", then my money is on the more sinister interpretation. In any event I see no reason why taxpayers should be funding him as advisor to the Board of trade. It is clearly not his field of expertise, and we have enough bullshitters in the cabinet already.
Morning all. Im struggling to understand why the govt arent all over that IMF statement.
Cos the IMF are right and the Government are idiots
The govt might be idiots but the IMF can fuck off if they think we should let people freeze and businesses go under just because the UK isnt on message
The energy cap isn’t the problem as all major governments are doing that .
Then why are the IMF calling for it to be changed? Because thats what their statement says.
They’re not . It’s the tax cuts which they’re moaning about not the energy help.
Why are they moaning about a tax cut that costs maybe £2bn?
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."
Not all that much of an 'if', IMO. Thread from earlier this month. https://twitter.com/MassDara/status/1569365500211208192 As the Russian theory goes, destroying critical infrastructure makes life unbearable, induces fear, and complicates enemy military operations. Targets include power plants, energy, water, transport and more....
Anyway, interesting as it is to watch the government re-enact The Charge of the Light Brigade through the medium of the financial markets, I have work to do.
Morning all. Im struggling to understand why the govt arent all over that IMF statement.
Cos the IMF are right and the Government are idiots
The govt might be idiots but the IMF can fuck off if they think we should let people freeze and businesses go under just because the UK isnt on message
The energy cap isn’t the problem as all major governments are doing that .
Then why are the IMF calling for it to be changed? Because thats what their statement says.
They’re not . It’s the tax cuts which they’re moaning about not the energy help.
Remember it was only Friday that the government said it needed to borrow an additional £72 billion between now and April to funds its additional spending (the tax cuts) so presumably the Bank of England rather than commercial houses buying some of that debt https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1575066016220348416
Morning all. Im struggling to understand why the govt arent all over that IMF statement.
Cos the IMF are right and the Government are idiots
The govt might be idiots but the IMF can fuck off if they think we should let people freeze and businesses go under just because the UK isnt on message
The energy cap isn’t the problem as all major governments are doing that .
Then why are the IMF calling for it to be changed? Because thats what their statement says.
They’re not . It’s the tax cuts which they’re moaning about not the energy help.
BoE is essentially buying long term yield bonds, because pensions were about to collapse (final salary schemes in particular are often tied to 30-year bonds), and the Treasury will pay them.
The taxpayer is, effectively, paying for Truss/Kwarteng's utter shambles of a budget.
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?
The problem with state owned monopolies is that
- they tend to producer interest. If you are state defined monoply, fucking the customers over is the sensible option. 6 week waits for installing a telephone were good for BT. Think DVLA….
- investment tends to be controlled for political interest. Locations for one. Long term investment vanishes - why spend money to bear fruit after the next election?
Ultimately they see producing the service as irritating byproduct of their existence. See the Yes Minister episode about the best hospital in the NHS. The one with no patients.
Bank of England now making an emergency intervention in the government debt markets, because: "were dysfunction in this market to continue or worsen, there would be a material risk to UK financial stability. Presume they're worried about a Keir Starmer government too, are they? https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1575066519410728961
Bank of England now making an emergency intervention in the government debt markets, because: "were dysfunction in this market to continue or worsen, there would be a material risk to UK financial stability. Presume they're worried about a Keir Starmer government too, are they? https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1575066519410728961
That's it. Keir Starmer is viewed by both the BoE and the IMF as a severe danger to the UK economy.
With the trusted team of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng for ever!
The Bank of England has a specific role to maintain financial stability in the U.K. - it is acknowledging now that the current situation is putting the stability of the U.K. economy at risk - extraordinary as a reaction to a Budget https://twitter.com/skyscottbeasley/status/1575063845294706690
Incredible. The Chancellor should resign immediately, no ifs no buts.
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.
I would say what currently brought us here is people on the right using the language of the progressive left to gotcha left wing people in bad faith for saying bad / clumsy things. I also think that with twitter / social media it is easier to claim that "this random person who says stupid conspiracy theory stuff also agrees with this mainstream left wing person, so this mainstream left wing person must believe the stupid conspiracy theory stuff". Every thorough report I have seen that discusses Labour and antisemitism seems to come to the same conclusion - Corbyn and his team did try and make internal processes work to deal with the complaints coming in, and the Labour right used it as an opportunity to make the leadership look bad.
I would also say that left wing policies are, typically, popular amongst most people, so right wingers have to find ways to make them unpopular. Some ways they do this is by openly saying they benefit "undeserving" people, whether that is people who refuse to work, immigrants or other groups who often are racialised. Another way is to just say the people doing this themselves are racist, and whilst there are no outwardly racist policies, of course they would hide that because they want to be elected.
The opposite is the case with the right wing. Lots of policies, like trickle down economics, are unpopular. So they have to make (unfounded) claims that rising tides lifts all boats, and that helping the richest will also help everyone, alongside draconian anti immigrant policies, policies that harm the poorest in our society (who are disproportionately non white) and talk up nationalism without talking about race. This was the reaganite / thatcherite strategy - stop saying the openly racist stuff, but enact the same policies in race neutral language.
So race neutral language becomes the tool of the right, whilst talking about race is integral to the left who want racial equity. This then gets turned into a right wing talking point; the "real racists" are the ones talking about race all the time, and so on. This, in my mind, is how we got to where we are.
Again, the Huq quote I think can be read badly, or can be read as a critique of powerful men of colour who do things in favour of class interest over dealing with the historical oppression, economic and social, of other non-white people (with Kwasi specifically Black British people, but with Sunak, Javid and Zahawi specifically British Asian people). Highlighting race in the way she did was clumsy, yes, but not racist in my view.
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.
On the commentary done in the 90s, Mel Brooks was very clear that he wouldn't be allowed to make the film "now", never mind someone trying to do it in the 2020s. But as you say, the satire against stupid racists and bigots is pitch perfect. And I would put the "homophobic joke" (you mean the French Mistake sequence) in the same bracket - its just funny.
Every now and then a fool finds Tropic Thunder and tries to get it cancelled.
There was a rather good article by a member of the Black community in LA about it in the LA Times not long ago. His point was that the black face scenes were brilliant and anti-racist, if anything.
No, and neither was Sunak. Just because they said this would happen and it has happened and it will continue to happen doesn't make them right. Both must be these socialist remoaners that pro-government Tory MPs with mince for brains are attacking.
I wonder if Liz Truss is in the keeping very busy with other things stage of denial or has reached the point of sitting motionless, staring at the wall, while officials clear their throats and tap gingerly at the open door to get her attention. https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1575068461826715648
Finally the BoE acts, I just wonder whether it will be enough. Yields are definitely falling, but this isn't going to help inflation. Pumping more money into the market will continue to push up asset price inflation.
Finally the BoE acts, I just wonder whether it will be enough. Yields are definitely falling, but this isn't going to help inflation. Pumping more money into the market will continue to push up asset price inflation.
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?
The problem with state owned monopolies is that
- they tend to producer interest. If you are state defined monoply, fucking the customers over is the sensible option. 6 week waits for installing a telephone were good for BT. Think DVLA….
- investment tends to be controlled for political interest. Locations for one. Long term investment vanishes - why spend money to bear fruit after the next election?
Ultimately they see producing the service as irritating byproduct of their existence. See the Yes Minister episode about the best hospital in the NHS. The one with no patients.
I'm at a loss at all the DVLA stories, For the simple stuff things are done in minutes automatically and then sent in days...
What is left and takes time is the complex bits...
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?
The problem with state owned monopolies is that
- they tend to producer interest. If you are state defined monoply, fucking the customers over is the sensible option. 6 week waits for installing a telephone were good for BT. Think DVLA….
- investment tends to be controlled for political interest. Locations for one. Long term investment vanishes - why spend money to bear fruit after the next election?
Ultimately they see producing the service as irritating byproduct of their existence. See the Yes Minister episode about the best hospital in the NHS. The one with no patients.
So against the very real-world example of state-owned energy companies succeeding in France, Sweden etc. we have the fictionalized account of a different sector in a comedy program from forty years ago?
Statement from @hmtreasury on this extraordinary bank intervention. Pointedly it doesn’t acknowledge the blindingly obvious - that this dysfunction is a direct consequence of their actions. Instead it’s: “Global financial markets have seen significant volatility in recent days.” https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1575068482722762752/photo/1
*Walter Bloomberg @DeItaone · 51s BANK OF ENGLAND: BANK WILL CARRY OUT TEMPORARY PURCHASES OF LONG-DATED UK GOVERNMENT BONDS FROM 28 SEPTEMBER
————
QEEEEEEEEENFINITY!!!!
Can somebody with pointy shoes, tight strides and "product" in their hair explain what the fuck this means?
It means the gilt market has been broken by the morons in Downing Street. Gilts weren't selling at any price. Defined benefit pension schemes were heading for bankruptcy. Total market dysfunction. It is absolutely over for this government. GE this year.
The Brexit loons have full and inarguable control of the UK government and its economic and fiscal policy. So, obviously, what is now happening is all the Labour party's fault!
The sooner Truss/Kwarteng are dispatched, the sooner the UK economy can begin what must now be a slow road to rehabilitation.
The damage isn't bedded in yet. The measures haven't even passed parliament to come into effect barring the stamp duty cut I believe.
Problem is I also don't think that the markets would react well to another leave of absence (even if only a few days) for the government seeing as we've had over 2 months of political hibernation in the last 3 with the Tory leadership election and the mourning period
Finally the BoE acts, I just wonder whether it will be enough. Yields are definitely falling, but this isn't going to help inflation. Pumping more money into the market will continue to push up asset price inflation.
That had no choice, it seems.
Indeed. I suspect this will be a measure that they quietly drop in a few weeks when the world has stopped looking at the UK economy and moved on to some other crisis.
*Walter Bloomberg @DeItaone · 51s BANK OF ENGLAND: BANK WILL CARRY OUT TEMPORARY PURCHASES OF LONG-DATED UK GOVERNMENT BONDS FROM 28 SEPTEMBER
————
QEEEEEEEEENFINITY!!!!
Can somebody with pointy shoes, tight strides and "product" in their hair explain what the fuck this means?
It means the gilt market has been broken by the morons in Downing Street. Gilts weren't selling at any price. Defined benefit pension schemes were heading for bankruptcy. Total market dysfunction. It is absolutely over for this government. GE this year.
You can get good odds on a GE this year. Feels extremely unlikely to me. Even if tory mps want rid of Truss - why on earth would they want a general election now?
Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky I'm told by a city source it's hard to overstate how serious the situation is today. There is concern over the health of pension funds and this is why the Bank of England has acted
This, to me, is about the same level as when the BoE had to step in in 2007 to provide banks with emergency liquidity because the market had simply broken and banks weren't sure which of them would be bankrupt in the morning so stopped lending to each other.
That was a crisis 10 years in the making, this one has appeared in a week.
*Walter Bloomberg @DeItaone · 51s BANK OF ENGLAND: BANK WILL CARRY OUT TEMPORARY PURCHASES OF LONG-DATED UK GOVERNMENT BONDS FROM 28 SEPTEMBER
————
QEEEEEEEEENFINITY!!!!
What does it mean ? I thought the montary response was supposed to be err tightening ?!
It means the Bank of England will print money to buy government debt. All other things being equal that will devalue the pound and boost inflation.
It's one thing to do this when you're facing deflation, quite another when CPI is 9.9%.
The logical way through this for the government is with savage spending cuts. It's the only way to avoid a u-turn or the collapse of the economy.
Whether it is politically viable remains to be seen, but it's certainly what's coming. Did the new Secretaries of State at the spending departments realise this was what they were signing up for?
Feels a bit like shock and awe politics. An attempt to compress a decade of political change into one year. Fully expecting that the budget will send our very own Bartholomew to new heights of political joy. It's the political equivalent of Thelma & Louise, or Falling Down, though they might argue more akin to Luke turning off his targeting computer.
What the hell have they done. Where are the Tory MPs who need to shout as loud as possible and get these two idiots out
I'm still struggling - really struggling - to see why a tax cut worth at most £2 billion has caused such an extreme reaction. It seems utterly irrational.
What on earth is the message going to be at the Conference next week?
I honestly don't know. This is such a huge fuck up, having the central bank essentially tell them they're a bunch of dickheads and have pushed the UK economy to the brink of crisis is pretty terrible.
Even £/€ parity is now a real prospect. The Brexit bonus with all the trimmings.
Now a shoo-in, I think.
If it were certain it would already have happened. I would be surprised if it didn't, but if I was never surprised by financial markets I surely would be a lot wealthier.
*Walter Bloomberg @DeItaone · 51s BANK OF ENGLAND: BANK WILL CARRY OUT TEMPORARY PURCHASES OF LONG-DATED UK GOVERNMENT BONDS FROM 28 SEPTEMBER
————
QEEEEEEEEENFINITY!!!!
What does it mean ? I thought the montary response was supposed to be err tightening ?!
It means the Bank of England will print money to buy government debt. All other things being equal that will devalue the pound and boost inflation.
It's one thing to do this when you're facing deflation, quite another when CPI is 9.9%.
The logical way through this for the government is with savage spending cuts. It's the only way to avoid a u-turn or the collapse of the economy.
Whether it is politically viable remains to be seen, but it's certainly what's coming. Did the new Secretaries of State at the spending departments realise this was what they were signing up for?
Feels a bit like shock and awe politics. An attempt to compress a decade of political change into one year. Fully expecting that the budget will send our very own Bartholomew to new heights of political joy. It's the political equivalent of Thelma & Louise, or Falling Down, though they might argue more akin to Luke turning off his targeting computer.
The thing is there was going to be savage spending cuts anyway - because while costs are increasing 10% the amount of money Government departments were getting was rising 2-3% at best.
Now they are going to announce and own the cuts as well...
What on earth is the message going to be at the Conference next week?
1. We are brilliant. Our plan is flawless and resplendent (giffers in hall applaud) 2. Britain is now unchained. Only remoaners and woke lefties are complaining 3. Redistribution is un-British. Which is why our economic plan gives the most benefit to those most in need - us 4. "One day the lie will collapse and the truth will triumph once again. At that moment, we will stand above everybody, pure and immaculate."
What the hell have they done. Where are the Tory MPs who need to shout as loud as possible and get these two idiots out
I'm still struggling - really struggling - to see why a tax cut worth at most £2 billion has caused such an extreme reaction. It seems utterly irrational.
Markets aren't wholly rational, and the UK depends on the kindness of strangers. The £2B signalled that the Gov't wasn't serious about debt reduction in the future as that sort of tax break yields barely any growth.
What on earth is the message going to be at the Conference next week?
I honestly don't know. This is such a huge fuck up, having the central bank essentially tell them they're a bunch of dickheads and have pushed the UK economy to the brink of crisis is pretty terrible.
BOE buying gilts indemnified by the government via gilt issuance because the market has lost faith in gilts, while the currency is in free fall, mortgage lending has shut down, inflation at 10%... We are heading for potentially the worst economic crisis in the UK in my lifetime.
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?
The problem with state owned monopolies is that
- they tend to producer interest. If you are state defined monoply, fucking the customers over is the sensible option. 6 week waits for installing a telephone were good for BT. Think DVLA….
- investment tends to be controlled for political interest. Locations for one. Long term investment vanishes - why spend money to bear fruit after the next election?
Ultimately they see producing the service as irritating byproduct of their existence. See the Yes Minister episode about the best hospital in the NHS. The one with no patients.
So against the very real-world example of state-owned energy companies succeeding in France, Sweden etc. we have the fictionalized account of a different sector in a comedy program from forty years ago?
The coment was based on the truth - which Yes Minister was famous for.
The French government is, for example, screwing EDF up currently, in an attempt to hide the cost of price support for energy.
The point is not that state ownership is always a catastrophe - just that it tends to the same behaviours as other monopolies. With some added fun due to short term political benefits.
Comments
More a case of the City trumps ideology without fiscal discipline
https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1575062088287805440
This is to exclude the BNP and PSC.
https://twitter.com/AlexWhite1812/status/1575058171499991041
I only note that the only way I was able to afford a house in London was when prices had crashed after the last time the Tories screwed up the economy. Interest rates and mortgage rates then were way higher than even the reported 7% rates some are expecting and the amount I could borrow was pretty limited, even with a deposit.
It feels that something similar will be the only chance my children will have of doing what I did.
In our small area of Cumbria, property prices went mad during Covid as a result of the stamp duty measures. A solicitor friend said his firm was never busier. Some of those buying were wealthy older people with holiday rental properties who used the money they got from Sunak to buy more properties to be let to holiday makers. It is now exceedingly difficult to find properties to rent or buy in the area. Daughter has been spitting tacks about the issue.
And the recent stamp duty measures will once again exacerbate this problem, Tim Farron has been speaking up about it. If the interests of wealthy property owners are put above the interests of everyone else, we will never do anything to help the young.
I simply note that the minute those interests are threatened a lot of people on this forum are saying what a disaster it is. It may well be but there is a fair amount of self-interest involved as there is in what I am saying about what my children would like to see.
I remain to be convinced - to put it mildly - by this government. But nor do I think the primary purpose of a government should be to keep house prices high for the lucky few.
@Nigelb Is right: we are arguing about who bears the pain. I'd like it to be shared a bit more fairly and include those who have done rather well, even if that will likely affect me personally.
*Walter Bloomberg
@DeItaone
·
51s
BANK OF ENGLAND: BANK WILL CARRY OUT TEMPORARY PURCHASES OF LONG-DATED UK GOVERNMENT BONDS FROM 28 SEPTEMBER
————
QEEEEEEEEENFINITY!!!!
@bankofengland: “ will carry out temp purchases of long-dated UK government bonds from 28 September. The purpose of these purchases will be to restore orderly market conditions.”
“The purchases will be carried out on whatever scale is necessary to effect this outcome.”
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1575063606588481536
Boris Johnson to be the next Con leader @ 9 ... What?
Liz Truss to exit in 2023 @ 2.3 ... What?
Liz Truss to face Conf vote before the GE @ 1.6 ... What?
I'm doing all of these.
Improving against the Thai Baht as well. What does that say about the Thai economy?
With the intention of selling them on at a profit at some unspecified future date?
Easy money. Why are the rest of the world so stupid not to think of that?
I thought the montary response was supposed to be err tightening ?!
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1575064989324279809
1. Truss is a moron and thinks other countries have higher debt so we can too
2. Truss and Kamikaze do something painfully stupid and explode the cost of borrowing needed to fund the tax cuts for hedgies
3. BofE announces Quantitative tightening to try and keep things under control
4. Truss and Kwazi have a row
5. BofE announces it will be buying the gilts. So you don't need to worry about those nasty commie remoaner money markets after all
6. Money markets - already spooked by the stupidity of UK plans - looks at BofE buying the debt and decides its a bit too Zimbabwe for even their "this is stupid" comments of before
7. Economy continues to tank. Harder. Faster. With no safe word.
"The Market reaction to Kamikwasi is actually a reaction to the prospect of Starmer as PM?" Either he believes that, in which case he is a partisan cretin, or he does not believe that, but says it because he thinks that we will believe it, in which case he is he is a lying partisan cretin with no moral compass.
Given the tosh he spouted about the single market, "absolutely no one is talking about leaving the single market", then my money is on the more sinister interpretation. In any event I see no reason why taxpayers should be funding him as advisor to the Board of trade. It is clearly not his field of expertise, and we have enough bullshitters in the cabinet already.
It's one thing to do this when you're facing deflation, quite another when CPI is 9.9%.
Thread from earlier this month.
https://twitter.com/MassDara/status/1569365500211208192
As the Russian theory goes, destroying critical infrastructure makes life unbearable, induces fear, and complicates enemy military operations. Targets include power plants, energy, water, transport and more....
So have a nice day all.
Its very plain. They do not recommend large scale fiscal interventions that are untargetted at this time right after describing the energy cap. People are saying its just to do with tax cuts because thats politically more juicy.
Truss and Kwarteng have forced the BOE to step in after only a few weeks in their jobs .
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1575066016220348416
.... because no one in financial markets liked the "mini Budget"
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1575066304779894784
This is......bad
The taxpayer is, effectively, paying for Truss/Kwarteng's utter shambles of a budget.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1575065735025807360
- they tend to producer interest. If you are state defined monoply, fucking the customers over is the sensible option. 6 week waits for installing a telephone were good for BT. Think DVLA….
- investment tends to be controlled for political interest. Locations for one. Long term investment vanishes - why spend money to bear fruit after the next election?
Ultimately they see producing the service as irritating byproduct of their existence. See the Yes Minister episode about the best hospital in the NHS. The one with no patients.
Presume they're worried about a Keir Starmer government too, are they?
https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1575066519410728961
With the trusted team of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng for ever!
We are now at the stage of Chancellor locked out of the house, pleading with financial markets through the letter box to give him another chance and remember all the good times they had together.
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1575067644486553601
I would also say that left wing policies are, typically, popular amongst most people, so right wingers have to find ways to make them unpopular. Some ways they do this is by openly saying they benefit "undeserving" people, whether that is people who refuse to work, immigrants or other groups who often are racialised. Another way is to just say the people doing this themselves are racist, and whilst there are no outwardly racist policies, of course they would hide that because they want to be elected.
The opposite is the case with the right wing. Lots of policies, like trickle down economics, are unpopular. So they have to make (unfounded) claims that rising tides lifts all boats, and that helping the richest will also help everyone, alongside draconian anti immigrant policies, policies that harm the poorest in our society (who are disproportionately non white) and talk up nationalism without talking about race. This was the reaganite / thatcherite strategy - stop saying the openly racist stuff, but enact the same policies in race neutral language.
So race neutral language becomes the tool of the right, whilst talking about race is integral to the left who want racial equity. This then gets turned into a right wing talking point; the "real racists" are the ones talking about race all the time, and so on. This, in my mind, is how we got to where we are.
Again, the Huq quote I think can be read badly, or can be read as a critique of powerful men of colour who do things in favour of class interest over dealing with the historical oppression, economic and social, of other non-white people (with Kwasi specifically Black British people, but with Sunak, Javid and Zahawi specifically British Asian people). Highlighting race in the way she did was clumsy, yes, but not racist in my view.
There was a rather good article by a member of the Black community in LA about it in the LA Times not long ago. His point was that the black face scenes were brilliant and anti-racist, if anything.
Bit like the humour in Jo Jo Rabbit.
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1575068461826715648
What is left and takes time is the complex bits...
Pointedly it doesn’t acknowledge the blindingly obvious - that this dysfunction is a direct consequence of their actions.
Instead it’s: “Global financial markets have seen significant volatility in recent days.” https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1575068482722762752/photo/1
A fairly drastic look, especially when the Chancellor was only recently accusing the Bank of being the one getting things “wrong” and threatening to review its mandate. https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1575069066238099457/photo/1
The Bank of England says if it doesn’t step in to buy long-term Government debt TODAY “there would be a material risk to UK financial stability” https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1575067129363193858/photo/1
Problem is I also don't think that the markets would react well to another leave of absence (even if only a few days) for the government seeing as we've had over 2 months of political hibernation in the last 3 with the Tory leadership election and the mourning period
Feels extremely unlikely to me.
Even if tory mps want rid of Truss - why on earth would they want a general election now?
Does he post on here as Big G?
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
I'm told by a city source it's hard to overstate how serious the situation is today. There is concern over the health of pension funds and this is why the Bank of England has acted
What the hell have they done. Where are the Tory MPs who need to shout as loud as possible and get these two idiots out
It shot up to 1.083 just after 11am, then down to 1.063 then back up to 1.074 now gradually falling and about back where we started.
That was a crisis 10 years in the making, this one has appeared in a week.
Whether it is politically viable remains to be seen, but it's certainly what's coming. Did the new Secretaries of State at the spending departments realise this was what they were signing up for?
Feels a bit like shock and awe politics. An attempt to compress a decade of political change into one year. Fully expecting that the budget will send our very own Bartholomew to new heights of political joy. It's the political equivalent of Thelma & Louise, or Falling Down, though they might argue more akin to Luke turning off his targeting computer.
You seem to have a personal problem with me and clearly have not followed any of my posts
You need to grow up
Now they are going to announce and own the cuts as well...
2. Britain is now unchained. Only remoaners and woke lefties are complaining
3. Redistribution is un-British. Which is why our economic plan gives the most benefit to those most in need - us
4. "One day the lie will collapse and the truth will triumph once again. At that moment, we will stand above everybody, pure and immaculate."
Who precisely is to blame for the current financial chaos? Is it:
a) Gordon Brown
b) Keir Starmer
c) the IMF
d) Remainers
e) left-wing global financiers
f) all of the above
g) none of the above?
The French government is, for example, screwing EDF up currently, in an attempt to hide the cost of price support for energy.
The point is not that state ownership is always a catastrophe - just that it tends to the same behaviours as other monopolies. With some added fun due to short term political benefits.