Come on you PB Tories. Come on Casino, come on HYUFD, come on Nabavi - get rid of her.
She has only just been elected, she isn't going anytime soon. Though if the unstable markets continue she might have to change Chancellor and perhaps swap Kwasi Kwarteng with Simon Clarke
Thanks Hyufd. You are a better spokesman that the tosser on Radio 4 at the moment.
One good thing about this dire situation however is that we will never again have to suffer scare stories about dangerous Lefties like Corbyn threatening the economy and all our livelihoods.
Corbyn is looking like a moderate at the moment!
Don’t be too sure. Through history the party has been excellent at staking a claim for any good economic news (“the golden economic legacy”) while passing off anything bad as either someone else’s fault (trade unions, now remoaning leftie financial markets), or a global issue (the “global recession” of the early 90s that just happened to be worst in Britain), or just conveniently forgetting about it (Barber boom).
All the time making sure that every Labour economic mistake in office is banged home to the electorate over and over again. They made 18 years worth of hay out of the winter of discontent and managed almost a decade from “Brown selling off the gold” and the global financial crisis, and are still trying to.
So give it a year or two after the next election and they will shamelessly be promoting themselves as the party of competent economic management.
Come on you PB Tories. Come on Casino, come on HYUFD, come on Nabavi - get rid of her.
She has only just been elected, she isn't going anytime soon. Though if the unstable markets continue she might have to change Chancellor and perhaps swap Kwasi Kwarteng with Simon Clarke
Thanks Hyufd. You are a better spokesman that the tosser on Radio 4 at the moment.
One good thing about this dire situation however is that we will never again have to suffer scare stories about dangerous Lefties like Corbyn threatening the economy and all our livelihoods.
Corbyn is looking like a moderate at the moment!
Yes we will. Because unfortunately just because Truss has proven she is as unhinged, stupid and dangerous as Corbyn and his acolytes doesn't mean they aren't unhinged, stupid and dangerous as well.
The line becomes 'Remember Truss? So do we. We know how wrong we were to vote her in. Corbyn/Pidcock/Sultana would be worse.'
For a Government that badly needs to restore its credibility with the markets, denying the bleeding obvious about why we have seen such market turmoil since Friday's statement is not going to help. https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1575387538545672192
Just to say I was totally and utterly wrong about Truss, I assumed she was just telling the members what they wanted to hear and she'd pivot when she got the job.
My general mental model of British politicians is that they're smart people with good advice while the voters are less well informed and the media tries hard to make them dumber, and I *think* that's still mostly the right model, but whoa, it didn't work this time.
Sadly that model of British politicians doesn't survive scrutiny of how politicians as a whole failed to unite around a sane soft Brexit strategy such as 'Norway for Now'/EEA EFTA and ended up with an outcome few in industry, commerce and finance wanted.
You are right. This could indeed be an extinction level event for the Conservative Party. Bets now boldly struck on a Labour Majority now may be looking distinctly overcautious by next week.
I would watch what they are doing on planning reform, which is their big 'supply side' measure to 'calm the markets'. The truss / IEA wing of the conservative party have a similar 'habit of thought' (as brilliantly described by @edmundintokyo) that if you 'sweep away' the rules about developing land, then growth will happen in consequence. They believe this blindly, despite everyone in the industry, including the entire housebuilding industry, knowing that this is complete nonsense. Yet they are so blindly encapsulated by this pseudo religious belief that they never, ever, learn that it isn't true, and that no economy has ever prospered in this way.
They even embarked on an experiment in early 2019 when policy exchange wrote a paper calling for this type of deregulation. The now head of the housebuilders foundation said at the time that it was 'intellectually incoherant'. Cummings was charged with taking it on and Robert Jenrick was the lemming that followed his orders. It ended up getting gradually watered down until it emerged in a white paper (Planning for the Future) which provoked a mass rebellion of tory MP's bringing the white paper down and Jenrick and (arguably) Cummings with it. Because it turns out that, rather than being an obscure technical activity, planning is quite important and has major consequences for the type of places we live in.
Truss, Kwarteng etc are such believers that they will embark on the same process again, but harder and faster, more mad, with less research and evidence . And of course, it will just fail again.
If you want a taste of what we know about the likely course of planning reform, this is a good analysis by Zack Simons, a top planning barrister. He suspects as I do that it is business as usual (ie politics will intervene and nothing will ultimately happen).
If it was all so urgent and necessary, why did she oppose Johnson’s removal from power given it was some of his policies that she’s ripped up?
Quite. We all know and expect politicians to admit saving their jobs is more important than anything else, but odd to see it admitted - she literally set out that the 'vital and necessary' actions were not worth arguing for if it had cost her a job.
Well, he's been very badly frightened for his pension, savings, mortgage ... I'd be a Rottweiler in that position. Also if I wanted to retain any credibility with the listeners.
I've been trying to get my head around the issue facing Pension Funds that required the BoE intervention yesterday. Is this kind of correct?
Pension funds buy bonds or lend the government money. But they worry that the value of the bonds could fall as a result of market volatility, resulting itself from eg anticipated need for or actual interest rate rises. So they buy insurance against rising interest rates, or hedge, to protect against the value of their investment/bond/gilt falling.
This insurance or hedge involves them buying something called gilt derivatives from Liability Driven Investment Funds. But the hedge/insurance costs money and the Pension Funds need to hold enough collateral/cash to pay for the insurance. If the value of the bond/gilt/investment moves rapidly down then the costs of the protection become eye watering and this could wipe out the collateral held and force the pension funds to sell all their bonds/investments at once at whatever price they can get in a fire sale. The bonds then fall even further in value etc.
So the hedge has backfired. It works if the value of the bond falls gradually but not if it falls rapidly. This sounds like a rubbish insurance policy to me. It’s like insuring your house where the policy covers you against a small burglary but not against the house burning down.
It sounds rather more complicated than that, since they are investment vehicles coupled with hedging, rather than pure insurance. And the 'insurance' seems to be against several different, possibly not compatible things.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/ldi.asp ...There is not one agreed-upon approach or definition for the specific actions taken in regard to the LDI. Pension fund managers quite often use a variety of approaches under the LDI strategy banner. Broadly, however, they have two objectives. The first one is to manage or minimize risk from liabilities. These risks range from a change in interest rates to currency inflation because they have a direct effect on the funding status of the pension plan.
To do this, the firm might project current liabilities into the future in order to determine a suitable figure for risk. The second objective to generate returns from available assets. At this stage, the firm might seek out equity or debt instruments that generate returns commensurate with its estimated liabilities.
There are a number of key tactics that seem to repeat under the LDI strategy. Hedging is often involved, either in part or in whole, to block or limit the fund’s exposure to inflation and interest rates, as these risks often take a bite out of the fund’s ability to make good on the promises it has made to members.
In the past, bonds were often used to partially hedge for interest-rate risks, but the LDI strategy tends to focus on using swaps and various other derivatives.
Whatever approach is used typically pursues a "glide path" that aims to reduce risks—such as interest rates—over time and achieve returns that either match or exceed the growth of anticipated pension plan liabilities....
It sounds more like pension funds contracting out the management of some of their assets to vehicles they don't really understand (I certainly don't, FWIW).
Truss doing her local interviews and denying anything is wrong - in a hopelessly tone deaf way - is not going to reassure markets and it won’t bring people along with her
It's funny how many of the posters on here who screeched and wailed about the evils of Europe and desired Brexit above everything else, are now condemning the government that gave them exactly what you wanted.
Your desire for Brexit got us extremists into government. Each PM has been more 'extreme' than the last: but it did not matter, as long as you got Brexit.
Although I bet most of you are fairly well-off, and so won't suffer too much in the economic downturn *your* perverted dream has caused.
Not sure about the causality here. I think this particular fuck up is discrete.
At the base of it is a concern about productivity, and that has been a problem ever since the Great Recession, not Brexit.
(I think Brexit was also a cock up, fyi)
There are a large number of Conservative MPs for whom being Europhobic is they key attribute any leader can have. They care little about anything else: capability or even sanity. They removed Cameron and May because they were somehow *too* pro-EU (in reality both were Eurosceptics). They replaced them with Boris, who was sounded sufficiently Europhobic (even if his true position was all over the place) whilst being fairly lazy (and hence incompetent) at leading.
Their removal of anyone pro-EU has weakened the depth of the party. Competent people left because of the poison the Brexiteers spread in the party. That's why so many people available at the top now lack basic competence.
I have a certain amount of contempt for Corbyn and the defenders of his leadership and anti-Semitism. I have a really large dollop of contempt for the likes of JRM, Bone, Francois etc.
And you know what? They'll all be okay through this crisis. They won't be suffering.
Had a bad year for PM to go by x date bets. However let's not misunderestimate that there's two distinct mechanisms whereby she leaves early, either she is ousted by MPs or she calls an early GE as a last desperate way of fending them off. I had been saying she would not call a GE because that would be bonkers but it would be less bonkers than last Friday.
Was last Friday bonkers?
It was politically tin-eared, controversial and poorly executed.
But it is internally consistent from a different philosophical position.
The Channel 4 poll is quite significant. It replicates the 17% lead in the YouGov poll with the exact same Lab and Con vote shares. But it also does so based on a sample of 10,000. Together that shuts the door on any notion that the 17% Lab lead might have been down to an unusual sample. Furthermore, the fieldwork window dates from last Friday to Tuesday, so a lot of those sampled will have responded before the full scale of the market reaction and threat to mortgages and even pensions became apparent. It's not unreasonable to believe that voting intention might have shifted even further since Friday.
Nonetheless, those "Conservatives to have a polling lead by the end of September" bets are still, technically, live.
Its probably a correct reflection of where the polls are, BUT, this is still conference season. Next week is the Troy conference. It could go either way. It could make things worse, but it might make it a bit better. Always beware polling during conferences.
If Truss's conference bounce is anything like her honeymoon bounce, Labour might end up 20 points ahead.
Well, he's been very badly frightened for his pension, savings, mortgage ... I'd be a Rottweiler in that position. Also if I wanted to retain any credibility with the listeners.
My pension pot is down 25 per cent, or £40,000 this year, and that is before the price has been updated for yesterday. Damn.
What the hell do you own? The weakness of Sterling should have been very much in your favor.
It is a standard workplace pension run by a well-known firm whose fund managers no doubt went to the right schools. The fund is apparently split between "cash" and "pension protector" but they'd probably have done better buying National Lottery scratchcards.
Incidentally, that fall is not from peak but from when they last sent a statement a few months ago, when it had already dropped £20,000 from the previous year.
I wonder how many other people approaching retirement are sitting on less than they imagine, and how many young and low-paid people are doing their nuts in their new compulsory workplace pensions.
Damn.
Fuck me, you've been screwed. I'm so sorry.
They should fire themselves for performing so poorly in Sterling terms.
Agreed. Is there some cash withdrawal above the yield that is messing up the figures?
The Channel 4 poll is quite significant. It replicates the 17% lead in the YouGov poll with the exact same Lab and Con vote shares. But it also does so based on a sample of 10,000. Together that shuts the door on any notion that the 17% Lab lead might have been down to an unusual sample. Furthermore, the fieldwork window dates from last Friday to Tuesday, so a lot of those sampled will have responded before the full scale of the market reaction and threat to mortgages and even pensions became apparent. It's not unreasonable to believe that voting intention might have shifted even further since Friday.
Nonetheless, those "Conservatives to have a polling lead by the end of September" bets are still, technically, live.
Its probably a correct reflection of where the polls are, BUT, this is still conference season. Next week is the Troy conference. It could go either way. It could make things worse, but it might make it a bit better. Always beware polling during conferences.
If Truss's conference bounce is anything like her honeymoon bounce, Labour might end up 20 points ahead.
It's going to be more than 20, within a week I should think.
I generally see myself as right-of-centre economically, and left-of-centre socially.
Until the last five or so years, I have gravitated towards the Conservatives (and occasionally Lib Dem), as I see a sound economy as necessary to deliver social benefits.
But the Conservatives under Boris and now Truss have utterly destroyed their party's economic reputation. Boris had the Covid crisis to deal with, so can be somewhat excused. Truss has no such excuse. There's no way I can vote Conservative until someone sane is in place, and the extremists have been put out to grass (or in padded rooms, which seems more applicable).
Just to say I was totally and utterly wrong about Truss, I assumed she was just telling the members what they wanted to hear and she'd pivot when she got the job.
My general mental model of British politicians is that they're smart people with good advice while the voters are less well informed and the media tries hard to make them dumber, and I *think* that's still mostly the right model, but whoa, it didn't work this time.
Sadly that model of British politicians doesn't survive scrutiny of how politicians as a whole failed to unite around a sane soft Brexit strategy such as 'Norway for Now'/EEA EFTA and ended up with an outcome few in industry, commerce and finance wanted.
I think it kind of does, because the one part of Brexit that the voters really understood was freedom of movement, and after Brexit they were definitely expecting that it would stop. I think even quite a few people who voted for Remain would have got mad if they'd kept it.
My pension pot is down 25 per cent, or £40,000 this year, and that is before the price has been updated for yesterday. Damn.
What the hell do you own? The weakness of Sterling should have been very much in your favor.
It is a standard workplace pension run by a well-known firm whose fund managers no doubt went to the right schools. The fund is apparently split between "cash" and "pension protector" but they'd probably have done better buying National Lottery scratchcards.
Incidentally, that fall is not from peak but from when they last sent a statement a few months ago, when it had already dropped £20,000 from the previous year.
I wonder how many other people approaching retirement are sitting on less than they imagine, and how many young and low-paid people are doing their nuts in their new compulsory workplace pensions.
Damn.
Fuck me, you've been screwed. I'm so sorry.
They should fire themselves for performing so poorly in Sterling terms.
On reflection I think @DecrepiterJohnL is retired. So heavily weighted to UK government bonds. Because they are risk free… or something
Well, he's been very badly frightened for his pension, savings, mortgage ... I'd be a Rottweiler in that position. Also if I wanted to retain any credibility with the listeners.
Daily Mail online has homed in on the derivative mechanics behind DB pensions, multiple articles this morning. Narrow escape. This is the angle the govt should try and argue from if they want to live to fight another day.
Incidentally, the big bank mortgage lenders are still advertising 5 year fixes some 300bps below swap curves. The likes of Lloyds, Barclays, Natwest. One would hope all the drama has encouraged people nearing the ends of their term to arrange an early remortgage. Of course in the final 3 mths it’s a simple login>click box>done. Earlier than that it’s an early repayment charge, which in the final year will be worth it in just about every case.
Let us see where base rates really peak at. It feels to me rather like economic reality is catching up with the world economy and the rates cycle will peak and turn far sooner than the Fed and markets expect. We’re having the recession that was supposed to happen before covid came along. Which of course caused a massive technical recession but because of the unprecedented global bail out, we didn’t see the economic adjustment mechanisms clicking into place to reset things.
I agree with an earlier poster, in the UK context Starmer will be coming to power at just the right time.
The Daily Mail thought this budget/statement was great "proper Tory budget" and wanted more, more, more.
It is not exactly an impartial reporter, but keep reading what you want to believe...
Yep, for months they and the Daily Express have been egging on Truss to be a 'proper' tory and bring about tax cuts.
Now that the disaster of this stupidity is unfolding they've spent the week headlining with other stories.
You can be right-of-centre and still be analytical and truthful. The Daily Telegraph today is particularly good (check out Jeremy Warner's piece).
The Daily Mail bears part of the blame for this crisis. Liz Truss was too weak or too stupid to stand up to them. She, and they, fed the membership what they wanted to hear. Something which bore no relation to the current economic or fiscal situation. A truthful tory campaign agenda would have promised tax cuts as soon as we can afford them, which isn't now.
Good morning
The conservative party has sealed its fate and will be out of office for a long time
However, there are two issues here that need to be recognised
Starmer has endorsed the 19% tax rate and the abolition of the NI rise at a total cost of 20 billion, all borrowed money, and he has already allocated the other 2 billion of money raised from the reduction in the 45% rate again borrowed money which contradicts his demand to cancel the mini budget
Labour will be the next government but will be facing large tax rises and cuts in the public sector, but not just due to the idiotic behaviour of Kwarteng and Truss, but the worldwide rout in the bond markets causing financial mayhem across the globe
The fact is Russia invading Ukraine in an act of war which seems to have no end is going to make the west very much poorer and the strains will show for years, even decades
Starmer and labour will inherit a poisoned chalice and they will have extremely difficult decisions to make
The basic rate tax cut to 19% isn't really a tax cut because of the freezing of thresholds. If inflation is over 5%, the tax take actually increases in real terms. It would have been more tax raising without the cut, but is still a revenue raiser.
Certainly Labour will inherit a poor financial position and have difficult decisions to make, but the 19% rate is not a particularly big problem.
It is still part of the borrowed unfunded tax cuts and the narrative
I think we all need to recognise that the next labour government will be having to increase taxes and cut public spending in something that will be very difficult for them
All and sundry were calling for the energy cap for the last 6 weeks and that was ny far the biggest giveaway in the mini budget. If the Government had not done that the £ would have surged.
The other strange comments is that the Government are only interested in benefitting the rich. I don't think there has ever been a Government that has given more money away to those on a lower income than this one.(since Dec 2019). Furlough benefitted the lower income the most, UC is a pretty generous benefit and this year those on UC will get over £1000 for help with their energy bills, if you take into account the energy cap this will mean that their energy costs will be less than last year.
And everyone has forgotten the £150 rebate from Council Tax.
Perhaps someone can guide me to a Government who gave more money to those on lower incomes
Not sure about "pretty generous" for UC.
If they don't uprate it by inflation (already delayed due to the mechanism they use) then it will be even worse.
I have lots of friends on UC.
An example
Part time nurse with one child taking home £1300 Child maintenance £345 Child Benefit £90 ish UC £868.23
Total take home income per month £2603.23
Rent £750 Coucnil Tax £110.00
So after her rent and council tax she has £1,743.23 for her and her son
She has also has had the £600+ cost of living allowance from UC and will get the £400 off her energy bills.
I doubt there are many countries in the world that have such a generous benefit system.
Absolute rubbish. It's the most meagre in Western Europe, and a number of people are already going to be destitute next week when the next round of price rises hits. If welfare is hit further to pay for this giant transfer of wealth to the rich, endangering our entire economy with its madness, I myself will be out on the streets joining the demonstrators for the first time in 40 years.
On the pipeline sabotage, Russia seems to be the obvious suspect.
- It pushes the price of natural gas higher without affecting current Russian exports as the pipelines weren't being used, which means more income for Russia, and more pain for Europe.
- It puts more pressure on Europeans worried about energy for the winter.
- It potentially puts western countries/companies in a difficult position if anyone wants to actually repair it ever - assuming that repairs would require some sanction-busting.
- Potentially acts as a warning/trial run for attacking other pipelines/critical infrastructure in Europe. They might even have some investigators conclude it was the Norwegians blowing up a Russian pipeline, so they have an excuse to blow up a Norwegian one in retaliation if they are really determined to escalate things.
- Maybe even gets Gazprom off the hook for failing to fulfil its contracts.
- It's exactly the kind of move Putin would make.
I don't buy the argument that Russia wouldn't do it because it gives up the "leverage" Nordstream gives them. What leverage? They've already turned the gas off. It didn't work. This is actually a kind of logical next step if you're Putin.
The alternatives: - It was the US "because it will bring Germany closer to the US" (as someone posted here) seems really far-fetched. Blowing up gas pipelines in Europe is generally really unlikely to bring Germany closer to the US, and sets a terrible precedent. - It was the US to help LNG exports. More logical, but also seems a bit implausible. Especially when the administration is surely most concerned with doing well in the midterms. Other LNG exporters - eg Qatar - even less likely, not sure they would be able to even if crazy enough to think it's a good idea. - Ukraine to make it less likely for the rest of Europe to agree some kind of compromise with Russia? Maybe has some logic (though could have the opposite effect - Europeans thinking shit we'd better end this war before all the pipelines get blown up), but could Ukraine do it? And if found out, a sure way to start losing friends.
I think Russia is definitely the number 1 suspect for the reasons you've given. But what about one of the Baltic states? They opposed the pipeline precisely because they said it would give Russia leverage. Germany selling out Ukraine (and subsequently themselves) is an existential threat for them, and they have a proper passionate hatred of Russia in a way that America doesn't.
That sounds extremely unlikely. The ally on which they rely for their security - the US - has been pretty scrupulous in avoiding anything that looks like direct military confrontation with Russia, for fear of precipitating WWIII. No way would any of them risk freelancing like that.
This is a terrible media round from Liz Truss. Robotic. Totally lacking in empathy. But it's also revealing the fundamental problem. The policy itself is utterly, completely and totally indefensible. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1575389611865653248
Daily Mail online has homed in on the derivative mechanics behind DB pensions, multiple articles this morning. Narrow escape. This is the angle the govt should try and argue from if they want to live to fight another day.
Incidentally, the big bank mortgage lenders are still advertising 5 year fixes some 300bps below swap curves. The likes of Lloyds, Barclays, Natwest. One would hope all the drama has encouraged people nearing the ends of their term to arrange an early remortgage. Of course in the final 3 mths it’s a simple login>click box>done. Earlier than that it’s an early repayment charge, which in the final year will be worth it in just about every case.
Let us see where base rates really peak at. It feels to me rather like economic reality is catching up with the world economy and the rates cycle will peak and turn far sooner than the Fed and markets expect. We’re having the recession that was supposed to happen before covid came along. Which of course caused a massive technical recession but because of the unprecedented global bail out, we didn’t see the economic adjustment mechanisms clicking into place to reset things.
I agree with an earlier poster, in the UK context Starmer will be coming to power at just the right time.
The Daily Mail thought this budget/statement was great "proper Tory budget" and wanted more, more, more.
It is not exactly an impartial reporter, but keep reading what you want to believe...
Yep, for months they and the Daily Express have been egging on Truss to be a 'proper' tory and bring about tax cuts.
Now that the disaster of this stupidity is unfolding they've spent the week headlining with other stories.
You can be right-of-centre and still be analytical and truthful. The Daily Telegraph today is particularly good (check out Jeremy Warner's piece).
The Daily Mail bears part of the blame for this crisis. Liz Truss was too weak or too stupid to stand up to them. She, and they, fed the membership what they wanted to hear. Something which bore no relation to the current economic or fiscal situation. A truthful tory campaign agenda would have promised tax cuts as soon as we can afford them, which isn't now.
Good morning
The conservative party has sealed its fate and will be out of office for a long time
However, there are two issues here that need to be recognised
Starmer has endorsed the 19% tax rate and the abolition of the NI rise at a total cost of 20 billion, all borrowed money, and he has already allocated the other 2 billion of money raised from the reduction in the 45% rate again borrowed money which contradicts his demand to cancel the mini budget
Labour will be the next government but will be facing large tax rises and cuts in the public sector, but not just due to the idiotic behaviour of Kwarteng and Truss, but the worldwide rout in the bond markets causing financial mayhem across the globe
The fact is Russia invading Ukraine in an act of war which seems to have no end is going to make the west very much poorer and the strains will show for years, even decades
Starmer and labour will inherit a poisoned chalice and they will have extremely difficult decisions to make
The basic rate tax cut to 19% isn't really a tax cut because of the freezing of thresholds. If inflation is over 5%, the tax take actually increases in real terms. It would have been more tax raising without the cut, but is still a revenue raiser.
Certainly Labour will inherit a poor financial position and have difficult decisions to make, but the 19% rate is not a particularly big problem.
It is still part of the borrowed unfunded tax cuts and the narrative
I think we all need to recognise that the next labour government will be having to increase taxes and cut public spending in something that will be very difficult for them
All and sundry were calling for the energy cap for the last 6 weeks and that was ny far the biggest giveaway in the mini budget. If the Government had not done that the £ would have surged.
The other strange comments is that the Government are only interested in benefitting the rich. I don't think there has ever been a Government that has given more money away to those on a lower income than this one.(since Dec 2019). Furlough benefitted the lower income the most, UC is a pretty generous benefit and this year those on UC will get over £1000 for help with their energy bills, if you take into account the energy cap this will mean that their energy costs will be less than last year.
And everyone has forgotten the £150 rebate from Council Tax.
Perhaps someone can guide me to a Government who gave more money to those on lower incomes
Not sure about "pretty generous" for UC.
If they don't uprate it by inflation (already delayed due to the mechanism they use) then it will be even worse.
I have lots of friends on UC.
An example
Part time nurse with one child taking home £1300 Child maintenance £345 Child Benefit £90 ish UC £868.23
Total take home income per month £2603.23
Rent £750 Coucnil Tax £110.00
So after her rent and council tax she has £1,743.23 for her and her son
She has also has had the £600+ cost of living allowance from UC and will get the £400 off her energy bills.
I doubt there are many countries in the world that have such a generous benefit system.
Generous? Wowsers you really are disconnected from reality. And that is good! The more sneering clueless Tories we still have, the better it is for the "lets smash the Tories" majority of voters.
The media round plan suggests the gov genuinely things it's a cabal of evil media folk behind their problems and if they can just reach enough people directly through local news people will understand they are great and there's no issues.
That's bonkers.
People dont understand economic minutiae. But they know when inflation is rampant, they know promising to increase things without bringing in money to pay for them makes little sense, and they notice when a government sets out a plan and things go immediately to hell.
Its not that people don't understand the plan. That might be true but is irrelevant. Its that people can see if the plan has worked even if they don't understand it. And it hasn't.
No we can't wait - because the damage is happening now.
Notwithstanding the economic rights or wrongs of the Trussterfuck, the Tories are making the amateur mistake on relying on the public being grateful for the extra money*. They should remember that the public are never grateful.
Makes one wonder if they were naive enough to think local radio interviews would be softer/easier than WATO, or R2. Off course the local hacks are going to go for it, right from the start. This is their shot. One good sound bite might get them a shot at the national stations.
Well, he's been very badly frightened for his pension, savings, mortgage ... I'd be a Rottweiler in that position. Also if I wanted to retain any credibility with the listeners.
Daily Mail online has homed in on the derivative mechanics behind DB pensions, multiple articles this morning. Narrow escape. This is the angle the govt should try and argue from if they want to live to fight another day.
Incidentally, the big bank mortgage lenders are still advertising 5 year fixes some 300bps below swap curves. The likes of Lloyds, Barclays, Natwest. One would hope all the drama has encouraged people nearing the ends of their term to arrange an early remortgage. Of course in the final 3 mths it’s a simple login>click box>done. Earlier than that it’s an early repayment charge, which in the final year will be worth it in just about every case.
Let us see where base rates really peak at. It feels to me rather like economic reality is catching up with the world economy and the rates cycle will peak and turn far sooner than the Fed and markets expect. We’re having the recession that was supposed to happen before covid came along. Which of course caused a massive technical recession but because of the unprecedented global bail out, we didn’t see the economic adjustment mechanisms clicking into place to reset things.
I agree with an earlier poster, in the UK context Starmer will be coming to power at just the right time.
The Daily Mail thought this budget/statement was great "proper Tory budget" and wanted more, more, more.
It is not exactly an impartial reporter, but keep reading what you want to believe...
Yep, for months they and the Daily Express have been egging on Truss to be a 'proper' tory and bring about tax cuts.
Now that the disaster of this stupidity is unfolding they've spent the week headlining with other stories.
You can be right-of-centre and still be analytical and truthful. The Daily Telegraph today is particularly good (check out Jeremy Warner's piece).
The Daily Mail bears part of the blame for this crisis. Liz Truss was too weak or too stupid to stand up to them. She, and they, fed the membership what they wanted to hear. Something which bore no relation to the current economic or fiscal situation. A truthful tory campaign agenda would have promised tax cuts as soon as we can afford them, which isn't now.
Good morning
The conservative party has sealed its fate and will be out of office for a long time
However, there are two issues here that need to be recognised
Starmer has endorsed the 19% tax rate and the abolition of the NI rise at a total cost of 20 billion, all borrowed money, and he has already allocated the other 2 billion of money raised from the reduction in the 45% rate again borrowed money which contradicts his demand to cancel the mini budget
Labour will be the next government but will be facing large tax rises and cuts in the public sector, but not just due to the idiotic behaviour of Kwarteng and Truss, but the worldwide rout in the bond markets causing financial mayhem across the globe
The fact is Russia invading Ukraine in an act of war which seems to have no end is going to make the west very much poorer and the strains will show for years, even decades
Starmer and labour will inherit a poisoned chalice and they will have extremely difficult decisions to make
The basic rate tax cut to 19% isn't really a tax cut because of the freezing of thresholds. If inflation is over 5%, the tax take actually increases in real terms. It would have been more tax raising without the cut, but is still a revenue raiser.
Certainly Labour will inherit a poor financial position and have difficult decisions to make, but the 19% rate is not a particularly big problem.
It is still part of the borrowed unfunded tax cuts and the narrative
I think we all need to recognise that the next labour government will be having to increase taxes and cut public spending in something that will be very difficult for them
All and sundry were calling for the energy cap for the last 6 weeks and that was ny far the biggest giveaway in the mini budget. If the Government had not done that the £ would have surged.
The other strange comments is that the Government are only interested in benefitting the rich. I don't think there has ever been a Government that has given more money away to those on a lower income than this one.(since Dec 2019). Furlough benefitted the lower income the most, UC is a pretty generous benefit and this year those on UC will get over £1000 for help with their energy bills, if you take into account the energy cap this will mean that their energy costs will be less than last year.
And everyone has forgotten the £150 rebate from Council Tax.
Perhaps someone can guide me to a Government who gave more money to those on lower incomes
Not sure about "pretty generous" for UC.
If they don't uprate it by inflation (already delayed due to the mechanism they use) then it will be even worse.
I have lots of friends on UC.
An example
Part time nurse with one child taking home £1300 Child maintenance £345 Child Benefit £90 ish UC £868.23
Total take home income per month £2603.23
Rent £750 Coucnil Tax £110.00
So after her rent and council tax she has £1,743.23 for her and her son
She has also has had the £600+ cost of living allowance from UC and will get the £400 off her energy bills.
I doubt there are many countries in the world that have such a generous benefit system.
Absolute rubbish. It's one of the stingiest in Europe, and a number of people are already going to be destitute next week when the next round of price rises hits. If welfare is hit further to pay for this giant transfer of wealth to the rich, endangering our entire economy with its madness, I myself will be out on the streets joining the demonstrators for the first time in 40 years.
Truss doing her local interviews and denying anything is wrong - in a hopelessly tone deaf way - is not going to reassure markets and it won’t bring people along with her
Her biggest weakness is she can’t do empathy (even Thatcher, oft portrayed as heartless, managed that from time to time).
She is someone who would do well tasked with coming up with radical or novel policies in a think tank (generally then dismissed for being too kooky). I think she’s in the wrong job.
Makes one wonder if they were naive enough to think local radio interviews would be softer/easier than WATO, or R2. Off course the local hacks are going to go for it, right from the start. This is their shot. One good sound bite might get them a shot at the national stations.
And compared to how long it would be before Ms T turns up again ...
It's funny how many of the posters on here who screeched and wailed about the evils of Europe and desired Brexit above everything else, are now condemning the government that gave them exactly what you wanted.
Your desire for Brexit got us extremists into government. Each PM has been more 'extreme' than the last: but it did not matter, as long as you got Brexit.
Although I bet most of you are fairly well-off, and so won't suffer too much in the economic downturn *your* perverted dream has caused.
Not sure about the causality here. I think this particular fuck up is discrete.
At the base of it is a concern about productivity, and that has been a problem ever since the Great Recession, not Brexit.
(I think Brexit was also a cock up, fyi)
Also, @JosiasJessop, I'm very keen that we form a Grand Alliance of Remainers and Brexiteers to ensure a Labour majority. Let's not divide down Brexit lines at this time of opportunity.
Brexit is not the issue here. That remains fixable. The issue are the *causes* of Brexit. The Minford smash everything pirate capitalists, the mouth-foamers on Tory benches obsessed with the EU being evil. The media moguls looking for favour with their people at the very very top.
And the voters of this country, sick of being ignored. Sick of being told they don't understand. Sick of being out of control of their own lives.
We can fix the first block. Cull the Tory MPs and expel the lunatics to fringe nowhere as Starmer has done with Momentum and the cultists. But the second block is harder. They voted to make things better, for most things either stayed the same or got worse, and now things will get an awful lot worse.
For all that they complained they were ignored as too stupid to understand, this is reality. Most of us don't understand, its just that many of us here are smart enough to recognise and accept that. The Blair anecdote of the angry man saying "you think you know more about Europe than I do" to which Blair responded "well I do don't I", having done x,y,z etc
There remains a risk that someone comes along to distil this anger and disconnection down into something worse than Brexit. As the fascists have just done in Italy.
I don't want a massive Labour landslide. The last thing we need are a bunch of people such as Jared O'Mara getting seats - people who put their name forward and then surprisingly win. Picking a figure out of the air: an 80-seat majority should be enough to get stuff done, but also keep Starmer and Labour from going too far.
I'm also still concerned about the Corbynites in Labour, though that concern is slowly decreasing as people like Jones continue to make pillocks of themselves.
And Rupa Huq's recent stupidity/nastiness (delete as applicable) shows that Labour isn't exactly fully sane, either.
On the pipeline sabotage, Russia seems to be the obvious suspect.
- It pushes the price of natural gas higher without affecting current Russian exports as the pipelines weren't being used, which means more income for Russia, and more pain for Europe.
- It puts more pressure on Europeans worried about energy for the winter.
- It potentially puts western countries/companies in a difficult position if anyone wants to actually repair it ever - assuming that repairs would require some sanction-busting.
- Potentially acts as a warning/trial run for attacking other pipelines/critical infrastructure in Europe. They might even have some investigators conclude it was the Norwegians blowing up a Russian pipeline, so they have an excuse to blow up a Norwegian one in retaliation if they are really determined to escalate things.
- Maybe even gets Gazprom off the hook for failing to fulfil its contracts.
- It's exactly the kind of move Putin would make.
I don't buy the argument that Russia wouldn't do it because it gives up the "leverage" Nordstream gives them. What leverage? They've already turned the gas off. It didn't work. This is actually a kind of logical next step if you're Putin.
The alternatives: - It was the US "because it will bring Germany closer to the US" (as someone posted here) seems really far-fetched. Blowing up gas pipelines in Europe is generally really unlikely to bring Germany closer to the US, and sets a terrible precedent. - It was the US to help LNG exports. More logical, but also seems a bit implausible. Especially when the administration is surely most concerned with doing well in the midterms. Other LNG exporters - eg Qatar - even less likely, not sure they would be able to even if crazy enough to think it's a good idea. - Ukraine to make it less likely for the rest of Europe to agree some kind of compromise with Russia? Maybe has some logic (though could have the opposite effect - Europeans thinking shit we'd better end this war before all the pipelines get blown up), but could Ukraine do it? And if found out, a sure way to start losing friends.
I think Russia is definitely the number 1 suspect for the reasons you've given. But what about one of the Baltic states? They opposed the pipeline precisely because they said it would give Russia leverage. Germany selling out Ukraine (and subsequently themselves) is an existential threat for them, and they have a proper passionate hatred of Russia in a way that America doesn't.
Possibly, or Poland? Just wonder if they would be capable of pulling if off independently. And does the timing make any sense?
Russia certainly has the means, and there are reports coming now of Russian military in the area recently.
Blowing up Western European infrastructure is an escalation that surely only Russia could want, even if there are others who would be happy if Nordstream never (re-)opens.
Daily Mail online has homed in on the derivative mechanics behind DB pensions, multiple articles this morning. Narrow escape. This is the angle the govt should try and argue from if they want to live to fight another day.
Incidentally, the big bank mortgage lenders are still advertising 5 year fixes some 300bps below swap curves. The likes of Lloyds, Barclays, Natwest. One would hope all the drama has encouraged people nearing the ends of their term to arrange an early remortgage. Of course in the final 3 mths it’s a simple login>click box>done. Earlier than that it’s an early repayment charge, which in the final year will be worth it in just about every case.
Let us see where base rates really peak at. It feels to me rather like economic reality is catching up with the world economy and the rates cycle will peak and turn far sooner than the Fed and markets expect. We’re having the recession that was supposed to happen before covid came along. Which of course caused a massive technical recession but because of the unprecedented global bail out, we didn’t see the economic adjustment mechanisms clicking into place to reset things.
I agree with an earlier poster, in the UK context Starmer will be coming to power at just the right time.
The Daily Mail thought this budget/statement was great "proper Tory budget" and wanted more, more, more.
It is not exactly an impartial reporter, but keep reading what you want to believe...
Yep, for months they and the Daily Express have been egging on Truss to be a 'proper' tory and bring about tax cuts.
Now that the disaster of this stupidity is unfolding they've spent the week headlining with other stories.
You can be right-of-centre and still be analytical and truthful. The Daily Telegraph today is particularly good (check out Jeremy Warner's piece).
The Daily Mail bears part of the blame for this crisis. Liz Truss was too weak or too stupid to stand up to them. She, and they, fed the membership what they wanted to hear. Something which bore no relation to the current economic or fiscal situation. A truthful tory campaign agenda would have promised tax cuts as soon as we can afford them, which isn't now.
Good morning
The conservative party has sealed its fate and will be out of office for a long time
However, there are two issues here that need to be recognised
Starmer has endorsed the 19% tax rate and the abolition of the NI rise at a total cost of 20 billion, all borrowed money, and he has already allocated the other 2 billion of money raised from the reduction in the 45% rate again borrowed money which contradicts his demand to cancel the mini budget
Labour will be the next government but will be facing large tax rises and cuts in the public sector, but not just due to the idiotic behaviour of Kwarteng and Truss, but the worldwide rout in the bond markets causing financial mayhem across the globe
The fact is Russia invading Ukraine in an act of war which seems to have no end is going to make the west very much poorer and the strains will show for years, even decades
Starmer and labour will inherit a poisoned chalice and they will have extremely difficult decisions to make
The basic rate tax cut to 19% isn't really a tax cut because of the freezing of thresholds. If inflation is over 5%, the tax take actually increases in real terms. It would have been more tax raising without the cut, but is still a revenue raiser.
Certainly Labour will inherit a poor financial position and have difficult decisions to make, but the 19% rate is not a particularly big problem.
It is still part of the borrowed unfunded tax cuts and the narrative
I think we all need to recognise that the next labour government will be having to increase taxes and cut public spending in something that will be very difficult for them
All and sundry were calling for the energy cap for the last 6 weeks and that was ny far the biggest giveaway in the mini budget. If the Government had not done that the £ would have surged.
The other strange comments is that the Government are only interested in benefitting the rich. I don't think there has ever been a Government that has given more money away to those on a lower income than this one.(since Dec 2019). Furlough benefitted the lower income the most, UC is a pretty generous benefit and this year those on UC will get over £1000 for help with their energy bills, if you take into account the energy cap this will mean that their energy costs will be less than last year.
And everyone has forgotten the £150 rebate from Council Tax.
Perhaps someone can guide me to a Government who gave more money to those on lower incomes
Not sure about "pretty generous" for UC.
If they don't uprate it by inflation (already delayed due to the mechanism they use) then it will be even worse.
I have lots of friends on UC.
An example
Part time nurse with one child taking home £1300 Child maintenance £345 Child Benefit £90 ish UC £868.23
Total take home income per month £2603.23
Rent £750 Coucnil Tax £110.00
So after her rent and council tax she has £1,743.23 for her and her son
She has also has had the £600+ cost of living allowance from UC and will get the £400 off her energy bills.
I doubt there are many countries in the world that have such a generous benefit system.
Generous? Wowsers you really are disconnected from reality. And that is good! The more sneering clueless Tories we still have, the better it is for the "lets smash the Tories" majority of voters.
So you think having £1743.23 after you have paid your rent and council tax is not generous? Thats £400 per week after rent and council tax. She works 20 hours.
The media round plan suggests the gov genuinely things it's a cabal of evil media folk behind their problems and if they can just reach enough people directly through local news people will understand they are great and there's no issues.
That's bonkers.
People dont understand economic minutiae. But they know when inflation is rampant, they know promising to increase things without bringing in money to pay for them makes little sense, and they notice when a government sets out a plan and things go immediately to hell.
Its not that people don't understand the plan. That might be true but is irrelevant. Its that people can see if the plan has worked even if they don't understand it. And it hasn't.
No we can't wait - because the damage is happening now.
There’s a massive credibility vacuum at the top of government now. And the markets know that.
The Channel 4 poll is quite significant. It replicates the 17% lead in the YouGov poll with the exact same Lab and Con vote shares. But it also does so based on a sample of 10,000. Together that shuts the door on any notion that the 17% Lab lead might have been down to an unusual sample. Furthermore, the fieldwork window dates from last Friday to Tuesday, so a lot of those sampled will have responded before the full scale of the market reaction and threat to mortgages and even pensions became apparent. It's not unreasonable to believe that voting intention might have shifted even further since Friday.
Nonetheless, those "Conservatives to have a polling lead by the end of September" bets are still, technically, live.
Its probably a correct reflection of where the polls are, BUT, this is still conference season. Next week is the Troy conference. It could go either way. It could make things worse, but it might make it a bit better. Always beware polling during conferences.
If Truss's conference bounce is anything like her honeymoon bounce, Labour might end up 20 points ahead.
It's going to be more than 20, within a week I should think.
If the Conservative MPs had any collective sense of survival, she ought to be out by the end of the weekend. The fact that some of them are still publicly debating whether the fiscal event was an idiocy, or a piece of genius they just don't quite yet understand, suggests that they're not clear sighted enough to see the oncoming train.
Daily Mail online has homed in on the derivative mechanics behind DB pensions, multiple articles this morning. Narrow escape. This is the angle the govt should try and argue from if they want to live to fight another day.
Incidentally, the big bank mortgage lenders are still advertising 5 year fixes some 300bps below swap curves. The likes of Lloyds, Barclays, Natwest. One would hope all the drama has encouraged people nearing the ends of their term to arrange an early remortgage. Of course in the final 3 mths it’s a simple login>click box>done. Earlier than that it’s an early repayment charge, which in the final year will be worth it in just about every case.
Let us see where base rates really peak at. It feels to me rather like economic reality is catching up with the world economy and the rates cycle will peak and turn far sooner than the Fed and markets expect. We’re having the recession that was supposed to happen before covid came along. Which of course caused a massive technical recession but because of the unprecedented global bail out, we didn’t see the economic adjustment mechanisms clicking into place to reset things.
I agree with an earlier poster, in the UK context Starmer will be coming to power at just the right time.
The Daily Mail thought this budget/statement was great "proper Tory budget" and wanted more, more, more.
It is not exactly an impartial reporter, but keep reading what you want to believe...
Yep, for months they and the Daily Express have been egging on Truss to be a 'proper' tory and bring about tax cuts.
Now that the disaster of this stupidity is unfolding they've spent the week headlining with other stories.
You can be right-of-centre and still be analytical and truthful. The Daily Telegraph today is particularly good (check out Jeremy Warner's piece).
The Daily Mail bears part of the blame for this crisis. Liz Truss was too weak or too stupid to stand up to them. She, and they, fed the membership what they wanted to hear. Something which bore no relation to the current economic or fiscal situation. A truthful tory campaign agenda would have promised tax cuts as soon as we can afford them, which isn't now.
Good morning
The conservative party has sealed its fate and will be out of office for a long time
However, there are two issues here that need to be recognised
Starmer has endorsed the 19% tax rate and the abolition of the NI rise at a total cost of 20 billion, all borrowed money, and he has already allocated the other 2 billion of money raised from the reduction in the 45% rate again borrowed money which contradicts his demand to cancel the mini budget
Labour will be the next government but will be facing large tax rises and cuts in the public sector, but not just due to the idiotic behaviour of Kwarteng and Truss, but the worldwide rout in the bond markets causing financial mayhem across the globe
The fact is Russia invading Ukraine in an act of war which seems to have no end is going to make the west very much poorer and the strains will show for years, even decades
Starmer and labour will inherit a poisoned chalice and they will have extremely difficult decisions to make
The basic rate tax cut to 19% isn't really a tax cut because of the freezing of thresholds. If inflation is over 5%, the tax take actually increases in real terms. It would have been more tax raising without the cut, but is still a revenue raiser.
Certainly Labour will inherit a poor financial position and have difficult decisions to make, but the 19% rate is not a particularly big problem.
It is still part of the borrowed unfunded tax cuts and the narrative
I think we all need to recognise that the next labour government will be having to increase taxes and cut public spending in something that will be very difficult for them
All and sundry were calling for the energy cap for the last 6 weeks and that was ny far the biggest giveaway in the mini budget. If the Government had not done that the £ would have surged.
The other strange comments is that the Government are only interested in benefitting the rich. I don't think there has ever been a Government that has given more money away to those on a lower income than this one.(since Dec 2019). Furlough benefitted the lower income the most, UC is a pretty generous benefit and this year those on UC will get over £1000 for help with their energy bills, if you take into account the energy cap this will mean that their energy costs will be less than last year.
And everyone has forgotten the £150 rebate from Council Tax.
Perhaps someone can guide me to a Government who gave more money to those on lower incomes
Not sure about "pretty generous" for UC.
If they don't uprate it by inflation (already delayed due to the mechanism they use) then it will be even worse.
I have lots of friends on UC.
An example
Part time nurse with one child taking home £1300 Child maintenance £345 Child Benefit £90 ish UC £868.23
Total take home income per month £2603.23
Rent £750 Coucnil Tax £110.00
So after her rent and council tax she has £1,743.23 for her and her son
She has also has had the £600+ cost of living allowance from UC and will get the £400 off her energy bills.
I doubt there are many countries in the world that have such a generous benefit system.
Generous? Wowsers you really are disconnected from reality. And that is good! The more sneering clueless Tories we still have, the better it is for the "lets smash the Tories" majority of voters.
Also forgetting the promised pay freeze. And likely benefit freeze. So ca. 10-15% cut in real income soon (depending on exact details of expenditure) thanks to inflation.
I generally see myself as right-of-centre economically, and left-of-centre socially.
Until the last five or so years, I have gravitated towards the Conservatives (and occasionally Lib Dem), as I see a sound economy as necessary to deliver social benefits.
But the Conservatives under Boris and now Truss have utterly destroyed their party's economic reputation. Boris had the Covid crisis to deal with, so can be somewhat excused. Truss has no such excuse. There's no way I can vote Conservative until someone sane is in place, and the extremists have been put out to grass (or in padded rooms, which seems more applicable).
And I doubt I am alone.
It's possible they're on grass already.
It would explain some of their more bizarre actions.
Daily Mail online has homed in on the derivative mechanics behind DB pensions, multiple articles this morning. Narrow escape. This is the angle the govt should try and argue from if they want to live to fight another day.
Incidentally, the big bank mortgage lenders are still advertising 5 year fixes some 300bps below swap curves. The likes of Lloyds, Barclays, Natwest. One would hope all the drama has encouraged people nearing the ends of their term to arrange an early remortgage. Of course in the final 3 mths it’s a simple login>click box>done. Earlier than that it’s an early repayment charge, which in the final year will be worth it in just about every case.
Let us see where base rates really peak at. It feels to me rather like economic reality is catching up with the world economy and the rates cycle will peak and turn far sooner than the Fed and markets expect. We’re having the recession that was supposed to happen before covid came along. Which of course caused a massive technical recession but because of the unprecedented global bail out, we didn’t see the economic adjustment mechanisms clicking into place to reset things.
I agree with an earlier poster, in the UK context Starmer will be coming to power at just the right time.
The Daily Mail thought this budget/statement was great "proper Tory budget" and wanted more, more, more.
It is not exactly an impartial reporter, but keep reading what you want to believe...
Yep, for months they and the Daily Express have been egging on Truss to be a 'proper' tory and bring about tax cuts.
Now that the disaster of this stupidity is unfolding they've spent the week headlining with other stories.
You can be right-of-centre and still be analytical and truthful. The Daily Telegraph today is particularly good (check out Jeremy Warner's piece).
The Daily Mail bears part of the blame for this crisis. Liz Truss was too weak or too stupid to stand up to them. She, and they, fed the membership what they wanted to hear. Something which bore no relation to the current economic or fiscal situation. A truthful tory campaign agenda would have promised tax cuts as soon as we can afford them, which isn't now.
Good morning
The conservative party has sealed its fate and will be out of office for a long time
However, there are two issues here that need to be recognised
Starmer has endorsed the 19% tax rate and the abolition of the NI rise at a total cost of 20 billion, all borrowed money, and he has already allocated the other 2 billion of money raised from the reduction in the 45% rate again borrowed money which contradicts his demand to cancel the mini budget
Labour will be the next government but will be facing large tax rises and cuts in the public sector, but not just due to the idiotic behaviour of Kwarteng and Truss, but the worldwide rout in the bond markets causing financial mayhem across the globe
The fact is Russia invading Ukraine in an act of war which seems to have no end is going to make the west very much poorer and the strains will show for years, even decades
Starmer and labour will inherit a poisoned chalice and they will have extremely difficult decisions to make
The basic rate tax cut to 19% isn't really a tax cut because of the freezing of thresholds. If inflation is over 5%, the tax take actually increases in real terms. It would have been more tax raising without the cut, but is still a revenue raiser.
Certainly Labour will inherit a poor financial position and have difficult decisions to make, but the 19% rate is not a particularly big problem.
It is still part of the borrowed unfunded tax cuts and the narrative
I think we all need to recognise that the next labour government will be having to increase taxes and cut public spending in something that will be very difficult for them
All and sundry were calling for the energy cap for the last 6 weeks and that was ny far the biggest giveaway in the mini budget. If the Government had not done that the £ would have surged.
The other strange comments is that the Government are only interested in benefitting the rich. I don't think there has ever been a Government that has given more money away to those on a lower income than this one.(since Dec 2019). Furlough benefitted the lower income the most, UC is a pretty generous benefit and this year those on UC will get over £1000 for help with their energy bills, if you take into account the energy cap this will mean that their energy costs will be less than last year.
And everyone has forgotten the £150 rebate from Council Tax.
Perhaps someone can guide me to a Government who gave more money to those on lower incomes
Not sure about "pretty generous" for UC.
If they don't uprate it by inflation (already delayed due to the mechanism they use) then it will be even worse.
I have lots of friends on UC.
An example
Part time nurse with one child taking home £1300 Child maintenance £345 Child Benefit £90 ish UC £868.23
Total take home income per month £2603.23
Rent £750 Coucnil Tax £110.00
So after her rent and council tax she has £1,743.23 for her and her son
She has also has had the £600+ cost of living allowance from UC and will get the £400 off her energy bills.
I doubt there are many countries in the world that have such a generous benefit system.
Absolute rubbish. It's one of the stingiest in Europe, and a number of people are already going to be destitute next week when the next round of price rises hits. If welfare is hit further to pay for this giant transfer of wealth to the rich, endangering our entire economy with its madness, I myself will be out on the streets joining the demonstrators for the first time in 40 years.
On the pipeline sabotage, Russia seems to be the obvious suspect.
- It pushes the price of natural gas higher without affecting current Russian exports as the pipelines weren't being used, which means more income for Russia, and more pain for Europe.
- It puts more pressure on Europeans worried about energy for the winter.
- It potentially puts western countries/companies in a difficult position if anyone wants to actually repair it ever - assuming that repairs would require some sanction-busting.
- Potentially acts as a warning/trial run for attacking other pipelines/critical infrastructure in Europe. They might even have some investigators conclude it was the Norwegians blowing up a Russian pipeline, so they have an excuse to blow up a Norwegian one in retaliation if they are really determined to escalate things.
- Maybe even gets Gazprom off the hook for failing to fulfil its contracts.
- It's exactly the kind of move Putin would make.
I don't buy the argument that Russia wouldn't do it because it gives up the "leverage" Nordstream gives them. What leverage? They've already turned the gas off. It didn't work. This is actually a kind of logical next step if you're Putin.
The alternatives: - It was the US "because it will bring Germany closer to the US" (as someone posted here) seems really far-fetched. Blowing up gas pipelines in Europe is generally really unlikely to bring Germany closer to the US, and sets a terrible precedent. - It was the US to help LNG exports. More logical, but also seems a bit implausible. Especially when the administration is surely most concerned with doing well in the midterms. Other LNG exporters - eg Qatar - even less likely, not sure they would be able to even if crazy enough to think it's a good idea. - Ukraine to make it less likely for the rest of Europe to agree some kind of compromise with Russia? Maybe has some logic (though could have the opposite effect - Europeans thinking shit we'd better end this war before all the pipelines get blown up), but could Ukraine do it? And if found out, a sure way to start losing friends.
I think Russia is definitely the number 1 suspect for the reasons you've given. But what about one of the Baltic states? They opposed the pipeline precisely because they said it would give Russia leverage. Germany selling out Ukraine (and subsequently themselves) is an existential threat for them, and they have a proper passionate hatred of Russia in a way that America doesn't.
Possibly, or Poland? Just wonder if they would be capable of pulling if off independently. And does the timing make any sense?
Russia certainly has the means, and there are reports coming now of Russian military in the area recently.
Blowing up Western European infrastructure is an escalation that surely only Russia could want, even if there are others who would be happy if Nordstream never (re-)opens.
It's only a few months since Gerhard Schröder said Russia wouldn't turn off gas deliveries to Germany. I wonder if he's had any kind of epiphany since then.
“I don’t do mea culpa,” Schröder told the US broadsheet from his office in Hanover, in north-western Germany. “It’s not my thing.” The Social Democrat suggested he would resign from his board seats only if Russia chose to turn off gas deliveries to Germany, something he claimed “won’t happen”.
Surely there must be a large amount of non-wealthy Tory MPs who are looking at the Polls, listening to Truss, looking at unemployment in two years, working out that their mortgage increase coupled with their downgraded income possibilities and realising that they are buggered and their only slight chance of keeping their jobs and paying the mortgage is to risk a change of PM.
I don't think MPs will remove her no matter what, swapping out the leader and PM so soon would rightly look shambolic, but they're not going to vote for half of this.
It's funny how many of the posters on here who screeched and wailed about the evils of Europe and desired Brexit above everything else, are now condemning the government that gave them exactly what you wanted.
Your desire for Brexit got us extremists into government. Each PM has been more 'extreme' than the last: but it did not matter, as long as you got Brexit.
Although I bet most of you are fairly well-off, and so won't suffer too much in the economic downturn *your* perverted dream has caused.
Not sure about the causality here. I think this particular fuck up is discrete.
At the base of it is a concern about productivity, and that has been a problem ever since the Great Recession, not Brexit.
(I think Brexit was also a cock up, fyi)
Also, @JosiasJessop, I'm very keen that we form a Grand Alliance of Remainers and Brexiteers to ensure a Labour majority. Let's not divide down Brexit lines at this time of opportunity.
Brexit is not the issue here. That remains fixable. The issue are the *causes* of Brexit. The Minford smash everything pirate capitalists, the mouth-foamers on Tory benches obsessed with the EU being evil. The media moguls looking for favour with their people at the very very top.
And the voters of this country, sick of being ignored. Sick of being told they don't understand. Sick of being out of control of their own lives.
We can fix the first block. Cull the Tory MPs and expel the lunatics to fringe nowhere as Starmer has done with Momentum and the cultists. But the second block is harder. They voted to make things better, for most things either stayed the same or got worse, and now things will get an awful lot worse.
For all that they complained they were ignored as too stupid to understand, this is reality. Most of us don't understand, its just that many of us here are smart enough to recognise and accept that. The Blair anecdote of the angry man saying "you think you know more about Europe than I do" to which Blair responded "well I do don't I", having done x,y,z etc
There remains a risk that someone comes along to distil this anger and disconnection down into something worse than Brexit. As the fascists have just done in Italy.
I don't want a massive Labour landslide. The last thing we need are a bunch of people such as Jared O'Mara getting seats - people who put their name forward and then surprisingly win. Picking a figure out of the air: an 80-seat majority should be enough to get stuff done, but also keep Starmer and Labour from going too far.
I'm also still concerned about the Corbynites in Labour, though that concern is slowly decreasing as people like Jones continue to make pillocks of themselves.
And Rupa Huq's recent stupidity/nastiness (delete as applicable) shows that Labour isn't exactly fully sane, either.
It's a problem equally shared between the parties. For every crackpot among Labour MPs there's an equally loopy Tory MP.
It's funny how many of the posters on here who screeched and wailed about the evils of Europe and desired Brexit above everything else, are now condemning the government that gave them exactly what you wanted.
Your desire for Brexit got us extremists into government. Each PM has been more 'extreme' than the last: but it did not matter, as long as you got Brexit.
Although I bet most of you are fairly well-off, and so won't suffer too much in the economic downturn *your* perverted dream has caused.
Not sure about the causality here. I think this particular fuck up is discrete.
At the base of it is a concern about productivity, and that has been a problem ever since the Great Recession, not Brexit.
(I think Brexit was also a cock up, fyi)
Also, @JosiasJessop, I'm very keen that we form a Grand Alliance of Remainers and Brexiteers to ensure a Labour majority. Let's not divide down Brexit lines at this time of opportunity.
Brexit is not the issue here. That remains fixable. The issue are the *causes* of Brexit. The Minford smash everything pirate capitalists, the mouth-foamers on Tory benches obsessed with the EU being evil. The media moguls looking for favour with their people at the very very top.
And the voters of this country, sick of being ignored. Sick of being told they don't understand. Sick of being out of control of their own lives.
We can fix the first block. Cull the Tory MPs and expel the lunatics to fringe nowhere as Starmer has done with Momentum and the cultists. But the second block is harder. They voted to make things better, for most things either stayed the same or got worse, and now things will get an awful lot worse.
For all that they complained they were ignored as too stupid to understand, this is reality. Most of us don't understand, its just that many of us here are smart enough to recognise and accept that. The Blair anecdote of the angry man saying "you think you know more about Europe than I do" to which Blair responded "well I do don't I", having done x,y,z etc
There remains a risk that someone comes along to distil this anger and disconnection down into something worse than Brexit. As the fascists have just done in Italy.
I don't want a massive Labour landslide. The last thing we need are a bunch of people such as Jared O'Mara getting seats - people who put their name forward and then surprisingly win. Picking a figure out of the air: an 80-seat majority should be enough to get stuff done, but also keep Starmer and Labour from going too far.
I'm also still concerned about the Corbynites in Labour, though that concern is slowly decreasing as people like Jones continue to make pillocks of themselves.
And Rupa Huq's recent stupidity/nastiness (delete as applicable) shows that Labour isn't exactly fully sane, either.
Too true, JJ. I'm hoping the win is slim enough that they do actually have to introduce PR, which I think would help a lot with a fundamental issue.
Blair could have done it, but when he saw the size of his majority it went on the backburner.
On the pipeline sabotage, Russia seems to be the obvious suspect.
- It pushes the price of natural gas higher without affecting current Russian exports as the pipelines weren't being used, which means more income for Russia, and more pain for Europe.
- It puts more pressure on Europeans worried about energy for the winter.
- It potentially puts western countries/companies in a difficult position if anyone wants to actually repair it ever - assuming that repairs would require some sanction-busting.
- Potentially acts as a warning/trial run for attacking other pipelines/critical infrastructure in Europe. They might even have some investigators conclude it was the Norwegians blowing up a Russian pipeline, so they have an excuse to blow up a Norwegian one in retaliation if they are really determined to escalate things.
- Maybe even gets Gazprom off the hook for failing to fulfil its contracts.
- It's exactly the kind of move Putin would make.
I don't buy the argument that Russia wouldn't do it because it gives up the "leverage" Nordstream gives them. What leverage? They've already turned the gas off. It didn't work. This is actually a kind of logical next step if you're Putin.
The alternatives: - It was the US "because it will bring Germany closer to the US" (as someone posted here) seems really far-fetched. Blowing up gas pipelines in Europe is generally really unlikely to bring Germany closer to the US, and sets a terrible precedent. - It was the US to help LNG exports. More logical, but also seems a bit implausible. Especially when the administration is surely most concerned with doing well in the midterms. Other LNG exporters - eg Qatar - even less likely, not sure they would be able to even if crazy enough to think it's a good idea. - Ukraine to make it less likely for the rest of Europe to agree some kind of compromise with Russia? Maybe has some logic (though could have the opposite effect - Europeans thinking shit we'd better end this war before all the pipelines get blown up), but could Ukraine do it? And if found out, a sure way to start losing friends.
I think Russia is definitely the number 1 suspect for the reasons you've given. But what about one of the Baltic states? They opposed the pipeline precisely because they said it would give Russia leverage. Germany selling out Ukraine (and subsequently themselves) is an existential threat for them, and they have a proper passionate hatred of Russia in a way that America doesn't.
Possibly, or Poland? Just wonder if they would be capable of pulling if off independently. And does the timing make any sense?
Russia certainly has the means, and there are reports coming now of Russian military in the area recently.
Blowing up Western European infrastructure is an escalation that surely only Russia could want, even if there are others who would be happy if Nordstream never (re-)opens.
Russia are relying on the 'it's so obviously us it cannot be us' approach.
On the pipeline sabotage, Russia seems to be the obvious suspect.
- It pushes the price of natural gas higher without affecting current Russian exports as the pipelines weren't being used, which means more income for Russia, and more pain for Europe.
- It puts more pressure on Europeans worried about energy for the winter.
- It potentially puts western countries/companies in a difficult position if anyone wants to actually repair it ever - assuming that repairs would require some sanction-busting.
- Potentially acts as a warning/trial run for attacking other pipelines/critical infrastructure in Europe. They might even have some investigators conclude it was the Norwegians blowing up a Russian pipeline, so they have an excuse to blow up a Norwegian one in retaliation if they are really determined to escalate things.
- Maybe even gets Gazprom off the hook for failing to fulfil its contracts.
- It's exactly the kind of move Putin would make.
I don't buy the argument that Russia wouldn't do it because it gives up the "leverage" Nordstream gives them. What leverage? They've already turned the gas off. It didn't work. This is actually a kind of logical next step if you're Putin.
The alternatives: - It was the US "because it will bring Germany closer to the US" (as someone posted here) seems really far-fetched. Blowing up gas pipelines in Europe is generally really unlikely to bring Germany closer to the US, and sets a terrible precedent. - It was the US to help LNG exports. More logical, but also seems a bit implausible. Especially when the administration is surely most concerned with doing well in the midterms. Other LNG exporters - eg Qatar - even less likely, not sure they would be able to even if crazy enough to think it's a good idea. - Ukraine to make it less likely for the rest of Europe to agree some kind of compromise with Russia? Maybe has some logic (though could have the opposite effect - Europeans thinking shit we'd better end this war before all the pipelines get blown up), but could Ukraine do it? And if found out, a sure way to start losing friends.
I think Russia is definitely the number 1 suspect for the reasons you've given. But what about one of the Baltic states? They opposed the pipeline precisely because they said it would give Russia leverage. Germany selling out Ukraine (and subsequently themselves) is an existential threat for them, and they have a proper passionate hatred of Russia in a way that America doesn't.
Possibly, or Poland? Just wonder if they would be capable of pulling if off independently. And does the timing make any sense?
Russia certainly has the means, and there are reports coming now of Russian military in the area recently.
Blowing up Western European infrastructure is an escalation that surely only Russia could want, even if there are others who would be happy if Nordstream never (re-)opens.
Why the eff would Poland do it, when they've just got a pipeline of their own with Norway ? The one thing you can always rely on Putin for is tit for tat.
And that goes for anyone in Europe, really. We have a lot more to lose form attacks on energy infrastructure than does Russia (who know that we're not going to directly attack anything on their territory unless in retaliation for a direct attack on us). And attacks on infrastructure are a key part of Russian military doctrine.
It's funny how many of the posters on here who screeched and wailed about the evils of Europe and desired Brexit above everything else, are now condemning the government that gave them exactly what you wanted.
Your desire for Brexit got us extremists into government. Each PM has been more 'extreme' than the last: but it did not matter, as long as you got Brexit.
Although I bet most of you are fairly well-off, and so won't suffer too much in the economic downturn *your* perverted dream has caused.
Not sure about the causality here. I think this particular fuck up is discrete.
At the base of it is a concern about productivity, and that has been a problem ever since the Great Recession, not Brexit.
(I think Brexit was also a cock up, fyi)
Also, @JosiasJessop, I'm very keen that we form a Grand Alliance of Remainers and Brexiteers to ensure a Labour majority. Let's not divide down Brexit lines at this time of opportunity.
Brexit is not the issue here. That remains fixable. The issue are the *causes* of Brexit. The Minford smash everything pirate capitalists, the mouth-foamers on Tory benches obsessed with the EU being evil. The media moguls looking for favour with their people at the very very top.
And the voters of this country, sick of being ignored. Sick of being told they don't understand. Sick of being out of control of their own lives.
We can fix the first block. Cull the Tory MPs and expel the lunatics to fringe nowhere as Starmer has done with Momentum and the cultists. But the second block is harder. They voted to make things better, for most things either stayed the same or got worse, and now things will get an awful lot worse.
For all that they complained they were ignored as too stupid to understand, this is reality. Most of us don't understand, its just that many of us here are smart enough to recognise and accept that. The Blair anecdote of the angry man saying "you think you know more about Europe than I do" to which Blair responded "well I do don't I", having done x,y,z etc
There remains a risk that someone comes along to distil this anger and disconnection down into something worse than Brexit. As the fascists have just done in Italy.
I don't want a massive Labour landslide. The last thing we need are a bunch of people such as Jared O'Mara getting seats - people who put their name forward and then surprisingly win. Picking a figure out of the air: an 80-seat majority should be enough to get stuff done, but also keep Starmer and Labour from going too far.
I'm also still concerned about the Corbynites in Labour, though that concern is slowly decreasing as people like Jones continue to make pillocks of themselves.
And Rupa Huq's recent stupidity/nastiness (delete as applicable) shows that Labour isn't exactly fully sane, either.
It's a problem equally shared between the parties. For every crackpot among Labour MPs there's an equally loopy Tory MP.
Surely there must be a large amount of non-wealthy Tory MPs who are looking at the Polls, listening to Truss, looking at unemployment in two years, working out that their mortgage increase coupled with their downgraded income possibilities and realising that they are buggered and their only slight chance of keeping their jobs and paying the mortgage is to risk a change of PM.
The damage has been done. Even if the Tories dumped Truss today, the brand has been badly affected. And there aren’t enough Tory MPs to form a government by the time the Johnsonites and Trussites have both been excluded and/or go and sit in a sulk.
It's funny how many of the posters on here who screeched and wailed about the evils of Europe and desired Brexit above everything else, are now condemning the government that gave them exactly what you wanted.
Your desire for Brexit got us extremists into government. Each PM has been more 'extreme' than the last: but it did not matter, as long as you got Brexit.
Although I bet most of you are fairly well-off, and so won't suffer too much in the economic downturn *your* perverted dream has caused.
Not sure about the causality here. I think this particular fuck up is discrete.
At the base of it is a concern about productivity, and that has been a problem ever since the Great Recession, not Brexit.
(I think Brexit was also a cock up, fyi)
Also, @JosiasJessop, I'm very keen that we form a Grand Alliance of Remainers and Brexiteers to ensure a Labour majority. Let's not divide down Brexit lines at this time of opportunity.
Brexit is not the issue here. That remains fixable. The issue are the *causes* of Brexit. The Minford smash everything pirate capitalists, the mouth-foamers on Tory benches obsessed with the EU being evil. The media moguls looking for favour with their people at the very very top.
And the voters of this country, sick of being ignored. Sick of being told they don't understand. Sick of being out of control of their own lives.
We can fix the first block. Cull the Tory MPs and expel the lunatics to fringe nowhere as Starmer has done with Momentum and the cultists. But the second block is harder. They voted to make things better, for most things either stayed the same or got worse, and now things will get an awful lot worse.
For all that they complained they were ignored as too stupid to understand, this is reality. Most of us don't understand, its just that many of us here are smart enough to recognise and accept that. The Blair anecdote of the angry man saying "you think you know more about Europe than I do" to which Blair responded "well I do don't I", having done x,y,z etc
There remains a risk that someone comes along to distil this anger and disconnection down into something worse than Brexit. As the fascists have just done in Italy.
I don't want a massive Labour landslide. The last thing we need are a bunch of people such as Jared O'Mara getting seats - people who put their name forward and then surprisingly win. Picking a figure out of the air: an 80-seat majority should be enough to get stuff done, but also keep Starmer and Labour from going too far.
I'm also still concerned about the Corbynites in Labour, though that concern is slowly decreasing as people like Jones continue to make pillocks of themselves.
And Rupa Huq's recent stupidity/nastiness (delete as applicable) shows that Labour isn't exactly fully sane, either.
The difference is Starmer wouldn't be beholden to the O'Maras of the world like Truss
I don't think MPs will remove her no matter what, swapping out the leader and PM so soon would rightly look shambolic, but they're not going to vote for half of this.
I presume the 'Special Financial Operation' has to be voted through the HoC even though it's 'not a budget, oh no'?
The party comms team are quickly trying to arrange for JRM to go on loose women and the one show today to distract from Liz as it’s about the only thing that could go down worse.
It's funny how many of the posters on here who screeched and wailed about the evils of Europe and desired Brexit above everything else, are now condemning the government that gave them exactly what you wanted.
Your desire for Brexit got us extremists into government. Each PM has been more 'extreme' than the last: but it did not matter, as long as you got Brexit.
Although I bet most of you are fairly well-off, and so won't suffer too much in the economic downturn *your* perverted dream has caused.
Not sure about the causality here. I think this particular fuck up is discrete.
At the base of it is a concern about productivity, and that has been a problem ever since the Great Recession, not Brexit.
(I think Brexit was also a cock up, fyi)
Also, @JosiasJessop, I'm very keen that we form a Grand Alliance of Remainers and Brexiteers to ensure a Labour majority. Let's not divide down Brexit lines at this time of opportunity.
Brexit is not the issue here. That remains fixable. The issue are the *causes* of Brexit. The Minford smash everything pirate capitalists, the mouth-foamers on Tory benches obsessed with the EU being evil. The media moguls looking for favour with their people at the very very top.
And the voters of this country, sick of being ignored. Sick of being told they don't understand. Sick of being out of control of their own lives.
We can fix the first block. Cull the Tory MPs and expel the lunatics to fringe nowhere as Starmer has done with Momentum and the cultists. But the second block is harder. They voted to make things better, for most things either stayed the same or got worse, and now things will get an awful lot worse.
For all that they complained they were ignored as too stupid to understand, this is reality. Most of us don't understand, its just that many of us here are smart enough to recognise and accept that. The Blair anecdote of the angry man saying "you think you know more about Europe than I do" to which Blair responded "well I do don't I", having done x,y,z etc
There remains a risk that someone comes along to distil this anger and disconnection down into something worse than Brexit. As the fascists have just done in Italy.
I don't want a massive Labour landslide. The last thing we need are a bunch of people such as Jared O'Mara getting seats - people who put their name forward and then surprisingly win. Picking a figure out of the air: an 80-seat majority should be enough to get stuff done, but also keep Starmer and Labour from going too far.
I'm also still concerned about the Corbynites in Labour, though that concern is slowly decreasing as people like Jones continue to make pillocks of themselves.
And Rupa Huq's recent stupidity/nastiness (delete as applicable) shows that Labour isn't exactly fully sane, either.
We won't get a massive Labour landslide. There are roughly 100 seats where the LibDems are not only in 2nd but seem like a more obvious fit for the local demographics. And we have the SNP who own Scotland. So the Blair landslides seem very unlikely - the "not the bloody Tories" motivation will drive tactical voting. Which if the Tory vote really does collapse could see all kinds of mad winners. More greens perhaps. And even REFUK if they go after classy places like Clacton and Thurrock with a "your Brexit has been stolen" message. Farage could win Folkestone with his "I'm on a boat looking for the forrin" message.
That was the other risk of doing eight successive interviews rather than one big one. Of course the final interviewer would be aware of what had been said before.
Also- isn't it brilliant that interviews on local radio can move financial markets? Bet that couldn't have happened before the internet.
Based on the claims of the Ukrainians, Russia has now lost more troops in Ukraine in 7 months than the US lost in Vietnam in 10 years.
And far more if you also include those men who have fled Russia.
And this matters. The men who fled will be those most able to (i.e. have passports and money) - and these people will be vital to the economy. If even 10% stay abroad permanently, then Russia will have lost a significant pool of talent.
This damned war is tragic on so many levels. Putin's diminishing Russia in every way.
I don't think MPs will remove her no matter what, swapping out the leader and PM so soon would rightly look shambolic, but they're not going to vote for half of this.
I presume the 'Special Financial Operation' has to be voted through the HoC even though it's 'not a budget, oh no'?
Didn't she slip up and use the B word live on radio? ... ,yes, she did.
Paul Waugh
'Truss just referred to "the Budget". Finally admitting its true description, rather than the fake one devised to avoid OBR independent assessment'
Here's one truly off the awful Truss-o-nomics: I have just bought a new old stock Nokia mobile 'phone as it works on the old system that one truly only pays as one goes as long as it's used every couple of months or so, and it's relatively "simple".
But it's default mode for messaging uses word completion. As a test I ruthlessly typed in the message "Hello this is a message to myself" and it created instead "Hideous thighs gigs a offspring tomo oxy." At least it got right the "a".
One could use this trait to come up with pseudonyms to use on PB I suppose. For instance if I key in "Toms" it comes up with "Tomorrow" (as creeps in this petty pace from day to day). Or, keying in "SeanT" gives "Spree".
Comments
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1575175108368289799
All the time making sure that every Labour economic mistake in office is banged home to the electorate over and over again. They made 18 years worth of hay out of the winter of discontent and managed almost a decade from “Brown selling off the gold” and the global financial crisis, and are still trying to.
So give it a year or two after the next election and they will shamelessly be promoting themselves as the party of competent economic management.
The line becomes 'Remember Truss? So do we. We know how wrong we were to vote her in. Corbyn/Pidcock/Sultana would be worse.'
And sadly - they would be right.
https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1575387538545672192
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1575387454034640896
- various readers have called in to say she is “inept” or “out of her depth” or “reverse Robin Hood”
- https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1575387979941642240
https://www.planoraks.com/posts-1/investment-zones
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/09/conservatives-lost-fantasy-world-danger-country?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1664435676
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/ldi.asp
...There is not one agreed-upon approach or definition for the specific actions taken in regard to the LDI. Pension fund managers quite often use a variety of approaches under the LDI strategy banner. Broadly, however, they have two objectives. The first one is to manage or minimize risk from liabilities. These risks range from a change in interest rates to currency inflation because they have a direct effect on the funding status of the pension plan.
To do this, the firm might project current liabilities into the future in order to determine a suitable figure for risk. The second objective to generate returns from available assets. At this stage, the firm might seek out equity or debt instruments that generate returns commensurate with its estimated liabilities.
There are a number of key tactics that seem to repeat under the LDI strategy.
Hedging is often involved, either in part or in whole, to block or limit the fund’s exposure to inflation and interest rates, as these risks often take a bite out of the fund’s ability to make good on the promises it has made to members.
In the past, bonds were often used to partially hedge for interest-rate risks, but the LDI strategy tends to focus on using swaps and various other derivatives.
Whatever approach is used typically pursues a "glide path" that aims to reduce risks—such as interest rates—over time and achieve returns that either match or exceed the growth of anticipated pension plan liabilities....
It sounds more like pension funds contracting out the management of some of their assets to vehicles they don't really understand (I certainly don't, FWIW).
Their removal of anyone pro-EU has weakened the depth of the party. Competent people left because of the poison the Brexiteers spread in the party. That's why so many people available at the top now lack basic competence.
I have a certain amount of contempt for Corbyn and the defenders of his leadership and anti-Semitism. I have a really large dollop of contempt for the likes of JRM, Bone, Francois etc.
And you know what? They'll all be okay through this crisis. They won't be suffering.
Still, leaders do sometimes ignore the obvious course of action, with terminal career choices. Just look at Julius Caesar on the Ides of March.
It was politically tin-eared, controversial and poorly executed.
But it is internally consistent from a different philosophical position.
Risky yes. But not bonkers.
She is robotic. Can only say We gave people the energy package.
The media equivalent of rolling in the ranks and expecting to capture Kyiv in 3 days. She’s discovering local DJs are armed with Javelins and NLAWs.
Double down, I know best, this is the right approach, I’m not backing down, this is what I believe yadda yadda.
Truss: "That simply isn't true""
Sarah Julian: "Which bit isn't true?"
Truss:....changes subject.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1575389068493463552
Until the last five or so years, I have gravitated towards the Conservatives (and occasionally Lib Dem), as I see a sound economy as necessary to deliver social benefits.
But the Conservatives under Boris and now Truss have utterly destroyed their party's economic reputation. Boris had the Covid crisis to deal with, so can be somewhat excused. Truss has no such excuse. There's no way I can vote Conservative until someone sane is in place, and the extremists have been put out to grass (or in padded rooms, which seems more applicable).
And I doubt I am alone.
My sympathies
Excellent.
The ally on which they rely for their security - the US - has been pretty scrupulous in avoiding anything that looks like direct military confrontation with Russia, for fear of precipitating WWIII.
No way would any of them risk freelancing like that.
😱
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1575389611865653248
That's bonkers.
People dont understand economic minutiae. But they know when inflation is rampant, they know promising to increase things without bringing in money to pay for them makes little sense, and they notice when a government sets out a plan and things go immediately to hell.
Its not that people don't understand the plan. That might be true but is irrelevant. Its that people can see if the plan has worked even if they don't understand it. And it hasn't.
No we can't wait - because the damage is happening now.
Not to mention pegging all your home-owning constituents. Without lubrication.
*Very, very debatable on the extra
At least she remembered to do it in Nottingham.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1575390223248277505
https://twitter.com/MartinSLewis/status/1575250405830889499?cxt=HHwWtsC4_bz5tNwrAAAA
"V concerned to hear on #peston govt hasn't decided yet if it'll follow thru on prior administration's promise to uplift benefits with inflation
Even the dire optics of balancing that against high earner tax cuts, pales compared to devastating way it'd pull folk into real poverty"
Got a woman who is having to sell home of 25 years. Robotic. She is hopeless. Decisive action, energy bills, blah blah
Asks how tax cuts for the wealthiest will help people who can no longer afford their homes.
https://twitter.com/HannahAlOthman/status/1575390456216801286
She is someone who would do well tasked with coming up with radical or novel policies in a think tank (generally then dismissed for being too kooky). I think she’s in the wrong job.
I'm also still concerned about the Corbynites in Labour, though that concern is slowly decreasing as people like Jones continue to make pillocks of themselves.
And Rupa Huq's recent stupidity/nastiness (delete as applicable) shows that Labour isn't exactly fully sane, either.
Russia certainly has the means, and there are reports coming now of Russian military in the area recently.
Blowing up Western European infrastructure is an escalation that surely only Russia could want, even if there are others who would be happy if Nordstream never (re-)opens.
How much do you think her UC shoud be?
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1575390937064292352
Former Bank of England governor Mark Carney has accused the government of "undercutting" the UK's key economic institutions.
Mr Carney told the BBC the government's tax-cutting measures were "working at some cross-purposes" with the Bank.
He also pointed to a decision not to publish economic forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) alongside Friday's "mini-budget".
The budget sparked turmoil on financial markets and sent the pound sliding.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63070485
(As well as all of us)
The fact that some of them are still publicly debating whether the fiscal event was an idiocy, or a piece of genius they just don't quite yet understand, suggests that they're not clear sighted enough to see the oncoming train.
It would explain some of their more bizarre actions.
- investors are worried by her comments, are selling gilts and the yields rise.
- short version: they’re not reassured by her doubling down https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1575391509549023233/photo/1
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1575392087524184064
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/germanys-spd-calls-on-gerhard-schroder-to-resign-over-russia-links
“I don’t do mea culpa,” Schröder told the US broadsheet from his office in Hanover, in north-western Germany. “It’s not my thing.” The Social Democrat suggested he would resign from his board seats only if Russia chose to turn off gas deliveries to Germany, something he claimed “won’t happen”.
I don't think MPs will remove her no matter what, swapping out the leader and PM so soon would rightly look shambolic, but they're not going to vote for half of this.
Blair could have done it, but when he saw the size of his majority it went on the backburner.
https://twitter.com/PeterMannionMP/status/1575392034503917568
“so the bank of England’s intervention yesterday was Vladimir Putin’s fault was it?”
Actual prime minister: “what I’m saying is, these are difficult and stormy times.”
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1575392349949157378
99 times out of 100 the obvious answer is right.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1575392748412309504
-That is the BoE's job (paraphrase)
I think in retrospect this morning will be seen as the tipping point. Well worth listening. BBC Stoke 0852
The one thing you can always rely on Putin for is tit for tat.
And that goes for anyone in Europe, really.
We have a lot more to lose form attacks on energy infrastructure than does Russia (who know that we're not going to directly attack anything on their territory unless in retaliation for a direct attack on us).
And attacks on infrastructure are a key part of Russian military doctrine.
Yes indeed, and I give you......
Sir Christopher Chope!
Wunderbar
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1575393163522580483
Shouldn't the Police pull her over?
“What I have done is taken decisive action to deal with a very very difficult economic situation.”
@BBCRadioStoke
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1575393554314285057
Shared by no-one else.
Also- isn't it brilliant that interviews on local radio can move financial markets? Bet that couldn't have happened before the internet.
Somebody should produce a compilaton.
And this matters. The men who fled will be those most able to (i.e. have passports and money) - and these people will be vital to the economy. If even 10% stay abroad permanently, then Russia will have lost a significant pool of talent.
This damned war is tragic on so many levels. Putin's diminishing Russia in every way.
Paul Waugh
'Truss just referred to "the Budget". Finally admitting its true description, rather than the fake one devised to avoid OBR independent assessment'
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1575387689771302912?cxt=HHwWgIC8hbqw89wrAAAA
But it's default mode for messaging uses word completion. As a test I ruthlessly typed in the message "Hello this is a message to myself" and it created instead "Hideous thighs gigs a offspring tomo oxy." At least it got right the "a".
One could use this trait to come up with pseudonyms to use on PB I suppose. For instance if I key in "Toms" it comes up with "Tomorrow" (as creeps in this petty pace from day to day). Or, keying in "SeanT" gives "Spree".
Someone needs to start an intervention.