Howdy, Stranger!

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

A damning attack on Truss from ConservativeHome – politicalbetting.com

1246711

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,100
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    There's been some moves in the State polling for the Senate too. I think there is definitely a move towards the Republicans right now, the question is if it continues.
    The House is still likely going GOP, the Senate still likely staying Democrat
  • Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    Presumably an all-out NATO assault on Russian forces in Ukraine using all available conventional weapons.

    To which Putin will presumably have replied, "WW3 it is then."
    Given the "efficiency" of the Russian forces against a few bits of NATO hardware, how do you think they would manage against the full weight of NATO?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,565

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    Yebbut... that includes a +5% for GOP from, er, Trafalgar.

    538 has the overall +1.2% for the Dems
    It does, but there are worse-rated pollsters than Trafalgar included in both averages.

    Even a 1.2% Democratic lead would produce a Republican majority of 10-15.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Liz Truss is refusing to publish an independent assessment of her tax-cutting plans until the government announces more economic reforms in November.

    The prime minister and Kwasi Kwarteng, the chancellor, are resisting pressure from Tory MPs to publish analysis from the fiscal watchdog to calm the markets. Truss and Kwarteng held an emergency meeting this morning with Richard Hughes, chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

    Afterwards the OBR said it would submit its assessment to the chancellor next Friday. “The forecast will, as always, be based on our independent judgment about economic and fiscal prospects and the impact of the government’s policies,” a spokesman said.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-wont-publish-watchdogs-budget-verdict-for-weeks-n90lqlgf7

    Why can't the OBR publish its assessment publicly at the same time as submitting it to KK? Is it allowed to?
    It literally is not allowed. Its charter requires it to publish two reports a year, but the timings are set by the Chancellor timed to policy announcements.

    So what we have - and be we I mean the Tories - is the worst of both worlds. OBR produces a report. Which nobody is allowed to see. Which makes jittery markets assume (with good reason) it to be bad. Then chunks of it somehow get leaked. And show its worse...
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,501
    edited September 2022

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    Presumably an all-out NATO assault on Russian forces in Ukraine using all available conventional weapons.

    To which Putin will presumably have replied, "WW3 it is then."
    Given the "efficiency" of the Russian forces against a few bits of NATO hardware, how do you think they would manage against the full weight of NATO?
    Not very well at all. But they could probably still manage to vaporise a few Western cities on their way down.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,808
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    There's been some moves in the State polling for the Senate too. I think there is definitely a move towards the Republicans right now, the question is if it continues.
    All the stuff that is driving voters to Labour in the UK will be driving voters to the GOP in the USA

    Cost of living, mortgage rates, housing crash, general instability - plus immigration in the USA

    As you said the other day, this is a general headwind against all governing parties in the West
    Er... have the Dems announced real tax cuts only for the richest?
  • HYUFD said:

    People Polling, working on behalf of that pinko bastion of Wokeness, GB News, also give Labour a 30pt lead!

    https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202209_GBN_W39_full.pdf#subsection*.12

    Lab 50 (!)
    Con 20
    LD 9
    Grn 8
    SNP 5
    Ref 3
    PC 0
    Other 4

    … and the SNP a 31 point lead (!)
    No a 12% lead, a swing from SNP to Labour since 2019
    SNP 56%
    SLab 25%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    SCon 3%
    Ref 2%
    oth (presumably Alba) 2%

    Total pro-independence 64%
    Total Unionists 35%
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    On the new war against ‘orthodoxy’ - by the people who’ve still ‘had enough of experts’ and who are, as always, completely, utterly and hopelessly wrong. https://twitter.com/IndyVoices/status/1575846835557748738
  • Scott_xP said:

    What I don’t really understand is that about three weeks ago we were meant to finally be getting the ‘real’ Brexit that ‘people actually voted for’, and yet somehow now it’s here absolutely no one would vote for it if you paid them. https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1575813482024665088

    That's why they were sold a bullshit "more money for the NHS" version instead of the real "actually we are shutting down the NHS" version.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,692
    edited September 2022
    Electricity bill £1.50 pcm for the next few months.

    I'd like to thank the generosity of the current tax payers, their children, and their children's children. Cheers!

    Edit
    So in the spirit of the balance of payments. I've decided to pre-order Open Circuits: The Inner Beauty of Electronic Components. From America.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    There's been some moves in the State polling for the Senate too. I think there is definitely a move towards the Republicans right now, the question is if it continues.
    All the stuff that is driving voters to Labour in the UK will be driving voters to the GOP in the USA

    Cost of living, mortgage rates, housing crash, general instability - plus immigration in the USA

    As you said the other day, this is a general headwind against all governing parties in the West
    Er... have the Dems announced real tax cuts only for the richest?
    The Dems have the greenback.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,808
    Great graphic:

    https://kamikwasi.tax
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    There's been some moves in the State polling for the Senate too. I think there is definitely a move towards the Republicans right now, the question is if it continues.
    All the stuff that is driving voters to Labour in the UK will be driving voters to the GOP in the USA

    Cost of living, mortgage rates, housing crash, general instability - plus immigration in the USA

    As you said the other day, this is a general headwind against all governing parties in the West
    Er... have the Dems announced real tax cuts only for the richest?
    Oh sure, there is an extra dash of folly in the latest incarnation of HMG, but the overall truth abides

    We are all headed for the karzi, it’s a bad time to be in power

    I’m not sure this evolution specifically benefits left or right, it probably doesn’t distinguish between them. It’s merely a howl of discontent, which will get louder
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422

    Electricity bill £1.50 pcm for the next few months.

    I'd like to thank the generosity of the current tax payers, their children, and their children's children. Cheers!

    Thank your future self too.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,565
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    There's been some moves in the State polling for the Senate too. I think there is definitely a move towards the Republicans right now, the question is if it continues.
    Wisconsin looks secure for the Republicans now. That leaves Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada, to decide who holds the Senate.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    That speech was Putin preparing his people for total war with the West. He might not especially care if he loses, say, his Black Sea Fleet because then he can paint it as Russia versus All Of NATO, we are bound to suffer

    This is how he survives his colossal error of invasion. He escalates it insanely. But exactly how crazy does it get?
    paradoxically if ww3 breaks out and DOESNT go nuclear could be good for the economy with all the orders for arms supplies as we transform into a war economy
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    That speech was Putin preparing his people for total war with the West. He might not especially care if he loses, say, his Black Sea Fleet because then he can paint it as Russia versus All Of NATO, we are bound to suffer

    This is how he survives his colossal error of invasion. He escalates it insanely. But exactly how crazy does it get?
    paradoxically if ww3 breaks out and DOESNT go nuclear could be good for the economy with all the orders for arms supplies as we transform into a war economy
    "Buy on war" has long been a maxim in the markets.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Liz Truss is refusing to publish an independent assessment of her tax-cutting plans until the government announces more economic reforms in November.

    The prime minister and Kwasi Kwarteng, the chancellor, are resisting pressure from Tory MPs to publish analysis from the fiscal watchdog to calm the markets. Truss and Kwarteng held an emergency meeting this morning with Richard Hughes, chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

    Afterwards the OBR said it would submit its assessment to the chancellor next Friday. “The forecast will, as always, be based on our independent judgment about economic and fiscal prospects and the impact of the government’s policies,” a spokesman said.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-wont-publish-watchdogs-budget-verdict-for-weeks-n90lqlgf7

    Why can't the OBR publish its assessment publicly at the same time as submitting it to KK? Is it allowed to?
    It literally is not allowed. Its charter requires it to publish two reports a year, but the timings are set by the Chancellor timed to policy announcements.

    So what we have - and be we I mean the Tories - is the worst of both worlds. OBR produces a report. Which nobody is allowed to see. Which makes jittery markets assume (with good reason) it to be bad. Then chunks of it somehow get leaked. And show its worse...
    The problem with modelling is GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. People spend a lot of time discussing what the models "show" but very little time discussing the models assumptions. If your assumptions are wrong, then your model will be wrong too, no matter how good a model you have designed.

    A bit like the SAGE models at Christmas 2021 showing a horrid situation if we didn't lockdown which got NI, Scotland and Wales to announce lockdown, while England didn't. But the models were wrong and their outcomes never happened.

    The OBR can come up with a model based upon their assumptions. The IEA or CEBR can come up with a very different model with a very different outcome based upon theirs. While the IFS can come up with a different one again.

    Whose assumptions are right, and whose are wrong, is never certain. Which is not to say the OBR are wrong, or right, but their models are no more the gospel truth than SAGE models are either.
  • For those who think the PM is being blamed unfairly for putting mortgage rates up 1%, you might NOT want to watch this (unless you are comfortable with being slapped by an enormo-haddock)

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1575612311145807872
  • Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    That speech was Putin preparing his people for total war with the West. He might not especially care if he loses, say, his Black Sea Fleet because then he can paint it as Russia versus All Of NATO, we are bound to suffer

    This is how he survives his colossal error of invasion. He escalates it insanely. But exactly how crazy does it get?
    Do you know, I didn’t get that impression at all. It sounded to me all rather desperate. Less gearing up for total war and more poor little old me bullied by the nasty west, I wish they weren’t so horrible and that they’d come to the table and sign these bits of Ukraine over to me.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,009
    Leon said:
    Well, having made a greater Russia, he can now die happy.

    About tea-time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,375
    edited September 2022

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    HSBC release statement warn mass forced house sales as mortgage rise by £6,000 ps

    Truss needs to go now

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/hsbc-warns-mass-forced-sales-mortgage-costs-jump-5000-year/

    The government cannot underwrite everybody's bloody mortgage. Changes in mortgage rates are a known risk. There may be lots of reasons for her to go but this is simply not one.
    If you read the article there are £1500 reasons for her to go....
    What, the PM should go because mortgage rates go up 1%. I mean, are you serious?
    Thanks to her ill considered plans, botched announcements and cack-handed approach she will have nearly doubled mortgage rates from 2.7% to 5.5%

    If she had kept her big gob shut and let the OBR do its job then this would not be happening.
    She is incompetent and she has made a very bad situation worse but a major part of our problem was the failure of the BoE to follow the Fed with a 0.75% increase in rates about 10 days ago. Sterling was already under continuous pressure before the episode of loony tunes last week. This was aggravating inflation, not least in fuel costs, and was a clear breach of the Bank's mandate. The era of ultra low interest rates is at an end and there is nothing the government can do about it.
    I am not disagreeing with the fact that rates were going up, but even a total moron would have known not to do something that makes them rise faster.

    Besides, putting all that to one side, who the hell borrows £100bn in a time of rising rates?, especially when it is a loan she did not need to make.
    Germany yesterday borrowed 200 billion euros to help consumers

    The 100 billion energy relief was fine it was the tax borrowed measures that were ill judged

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    HSBC release statement warn mass forced house sales as mortgage rise by £6,000 ps

    Truss needs to go now

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/hsbc-warns-mass-forced-sales-mortgage-costs-jump-5000-year/

    The government cannot underwrite everybody's bloody mortgage. Changes in mortgage rates are a known risk. There may be lots of reasons for her to go but this is simply not one.
    If you read the article there are £1500 reasons for her to go....
    What, the PM should go because mortgage rates go up 1%. I mean, are you serious?
    Thanks to her ill considered plans, botched announcements and cack-handed approach she will have nearly doubled mortgage rates from 2.7% to 5.5%

    If she had kept her big gob shut and let the OBR do its job then this would not be happening.
    She is incompetent and she has made a very bad situation worse but a major part of our problem was the failure of the BoE to follow the Fed with a 0.75% increase in rates about 10 days ago. Sterling was already under continuous pressure before the episode of loony tunes last week. This was aggravating inflation, not least in fuel costs, and was a clear breach of the Bank's mandate. The era of ultra low interest rates is at an end and there is nothing the government can do about it.
    I am not disagreeing with the fact that rates were going up, but even a total moron would have known not to do something that makes them rise faster.

    Besides, putting all that to one side, who the hell borrows £100bn in a time of rising rates?, especially when it is a loan she did not need to make.
    Germany yesterday borrowed 200 billion euros to help consumers

    The 100 billion energy relief was fine it was the tax borrowed measures that were ill judged
    Sorry Big G, but to be fair I have to do the same to you as I did to Eek yesterday - you are both very nice posters but my claim is you are talking absolute bollocks and spin and I’m asking you for some citation to support your argument.

    “The 100 billion energy relief was fine”.

    Firstly, where are you getting the tiddly £100B figure from, thru life costs to meet Truss promise all up to the election is nearer on quarter of a trillion in borrowing.

    I want evidence everyone else in Europe is borrowing a quarter of a trillion to freeze their energy bills for everybody, “just the same” as We are doing it.

    I want evidence it’s been built into the market for weeks. It was announced with zero detail. What detail about cost and payment mechanism has the Uk shared before Queens death and during mourning, that wasn’t still being waited on last Friday, truth is they fobbed the whole world off as far as Kwasi’s budget before the madness of this type of freezing plan was moved against.
    The fiscal statement was on the 23rd.

    Most of the details of the scheme had been published at least a couple of days beforehand.
    This is the business one, which was announced well after the domestic subsidy had been outlined.
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/energy-bill-relief-scheme-help-for-businesses-and-other-non-domestic-customers
    Interesting that the government have fixed the business rate for electricity at 21.1p per kWh, whereas the average domestic cap is 34.5p IIRC

    Edit: I think I must have that wrong so feel free to correct me.
    21.1p is the "commodity" element of the price.
    The total is well over 30p, similar to the domestic.
    And the subsidy id also capped so if the market price goes completely haywire, it can go above that.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    TOPPING said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    That speech was Putin preparing his people for total war with the West. He might not especially care if he loses, say, his Black Sea Fleet because then he can paint it as Russia versus All Of NATO, we are bound to suffer

    This is how he survives his colossal error of invasion. He escalates it insanely. But exactly how crazy does it get?
    paradoxically if ww3 breaks out and DOESNT go nuclear could be good for the economy with all the orders for arms supplies as we transform into a war economy
    "Buy on war" has long been a maxim in the markets.
    indeed there was a huge market rally on outbreak of ww2, and fist and 2nd gulf wars..rothschild maxim buy the cannons sell the trumpets
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    That speech was Putin preparing his people for total war with the West. He might not especially care if he loses, say, his Black Sea Fleet because then he can paint it as Russia versus All Of NATO, we are bound to suffer

    This is how he survives his colossal error of invasion. He escalates it insanely. But exactly how crazy does it get?
    paradoxically if ww3 breaks out and DOESNT go nuclear could be good for the economy with all the orders for arms supplies as we transform into a war economy
    If actual WW3 breaks out, it will inevitably go nuclear as the war will be existential, and neither side can afford to lose

    However I think WW3 is quite unlikely (tho sadly not impossible). 3%?

    it is pretty horrifying that I have just this minute assessed the chances of the world as we know it coming to an end, and I reckon it is 1 in 30. But that’s the case. The risk of accidents, leading to a war absolutely no one wants, is now non trivial
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,996
    Are we waiting for the men in grey suits or flapping white coats?
  • ohnotnow said:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/28/world/europe/russian-soldiers-phone-calls-ukraine.html?campaign_id=190

    "‘Putin Is a Fool’: Intercepted Calls Reveal Russian Army in Disarray

    In phone calls to friends and relatives at home, Russian soldiers gave damning insider accounts of battlefield failures and civilian executions, excoriating their leaders just weeks into the campaign to take Kyiv.

    Yevgeniy: We are positioned in Bucha town.

    Sergey: Our offense has stalled. We’re losing this war.

    Andrey: Half of our regiment is gone.

    Sergey: We were given an order to kill everyone we see.

    ...

    Sergey to girlfriend: They told us that, where we’re going, there’s a lot of civilians walking around. And they gave us the order to kill everyone we see.

    Why the f**k?

    Because they might give away our positions. … That’s what we’re f**king going to do, it seems. Kill any civilian that walks by and drag them into the forest. … I’ve already become a murderer. That’s why I don’t want to kill any more people, especially ones I will have to look in the eyes."

    You almost feel sorry for the Sergeis of this world
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,209
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    Yebbut... that includes a +5% for GOP from, er, Trafalgar.

    538 has the overall +1.2% for the Dems
    It does, but there are worse-rated pollsters than Trafalgar included in both averages.

    Even a 1.2% Democratic lead would produce a Republican majority of 10-15.
    538 have this:
    "Republicans are favored to win a majority of seats if they win the popular vote by at least 0.4 points"

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/?cid=rrpromo

    which might not make sense, but it's been fairly consistent in this year's House forecast.
  • Zelensky response: He says Ukraine is de facto part of NATO alliance. “Today, Ukraine is applying to make it de jure… We are taking our decisive step by signing Ukraine's application for accelerated accession to NATO.”

    https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1575848676634726400
  • Great graphic:

    https://kamikwasi.tax

    That is really good. Made me think Denise Coates alone is getting something like a £20m or so tax cut. Quite incredible and unnecessary.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    There's been some moves in the State polling for the Senate too. I think there is definitely a move towards the Republicans right now, the question is if it continues.
    Wisconsin looks secure for the Republicans now. That leaves Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada, to decide who holds the Senate.
    I think Pennsylvania will be a Democrat gain (not least because they are polling very strongly in the Governor race also)

    But I think you need to also include Arizona on your list, where the Democrats should be only the narrowest of favorites.

    This means the Republicans need to win two of Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.

    It's going to be very close.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,375

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    Presumably an all-out NATO assault on Russian forces in Ukraine using all available conventional weapons.

    To which Putin will presumably have replied, "WW3 it is then."
    Given the "efficiency" of the Russian forces against a few bits of NATO hardware, how do you think they would manage against the full weight of NATO?
    This presumably was also part of the calculation in limiting what the US supplied to Ukraine.
    The threat of what they held back is quite considerable.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    That speech was Putin preparing his people for total war with the West. He might not especially care if he loses, say, his Black Sea Fleet because then he can paint it as Russia versus All Of NATO, we are bound to suffer

    This is how he survives his colossal error of invasion. He escalates it insanely. But exactly how crazy does it get?
    Do you know, I didn’t get that impression at all. It sounded to me all rather desperate. Less gearing up for total war and more poor little old me bullied by the nasty west, I wish they weren’t so horrible and that they’d come to the table and sign these bits of Ukraine over to me.
    It is surely both

    He is a frightened little man who has made a fatal error, and also a despotic autocrat who is bullying his people towards war
  • PeterM said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    DavidL said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    "This may seem weird, but I'm OK with that:

    I think the most important investment question for the next 6 months is "does Russia use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine?".

    I'm concerned the odds are up to maybe 35% likely, & rising.

    Where do you come out?"

    https://twitter.com/GaryHaubold/status/1575818826402263040?s=20&t=uvrhpasizW4QbkYJr3P_tQ

    iirc I predicted on here a few months ago that v sadly he would use a battlefield nuke in late summer. So I was wrong. We can only hope that I was completely wrong rather than just out by a month or two.

    Bleak times.
    I reckon this market analyst is actually understating the chances. More like 50-60%. Dropping a small nuke is an incredible risk for Putin - but the alternatives are equally dismal, and probably less likely to save him short term. He cannot afford to lose, and he is losing

    Everything points to him getting desperate. eg now mobilising in Moscow. A massive red warning sign

    Bleak indeed. The best outcome now - BEST - is maybe the war grinds on over winter, we have a horrible economic crisis - around the world - economies lurch into steep recession, million lose jobs, poor countries tip into civil strife, but then the war fades away in spring - somehow - fuel prices drop, economies pick up, we return slowly to something like normal: but quite a lot poorer

    And yet I see the future being worse. The number of grave systemic threats to the world as we know it are too many and too fearsome. It is hard not to despair, or get completely laughingly drunk all the time*

    *I don't actually do this, but I might start now




    Im seeing lots of rolled eyes in the audience for vlads speech
    Heads, surely? Ed
    FWIW there is growing sense among people who deal with Russia on a daily basis that if this (frankly laughable) attempt to annex territory they don´t control does not stop the war within a few weeks, then Putin will be put through a window.

    Any use of even a "tactical nuke" would speed up his exit to hours or days rather than weeks.
    We can only pray that even the expressed intention of using a tactical nuke would be his death sentence.
    Like everyone i am heartily sick of this war now...even with ukraine winning the cost is enormous
    I’m calling you as the new variant Russian poster… I’m tired… give peace a chance… let Ukraine stop being obstinate and negotiate
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,779

    ohnotnow said:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/28/world/europe/russian-soldiers-phone-calls-ukraine.html?campaign_id=190

    "‘Putin Is a Fool’: Intercepted Calls Reveal Russian Army in Disarray

    In phone calls to friends and relatives at home, Russian soldiers gave damning insider accounts of battlefield failures and civilian executions, excoriating their leaders just weeks into the campaign to take Kyiv.

    Yevgeniy: We are positioned in Bucha town.

    Sergey: Our offense has stalled. We’re losing this war.

    Andrey: Half of our regiment is gone.

    Sergey: We were given an order to kill everyone we see.

    ...

    Sergey to girlfriend: They told us that, where we’re going, there’s a lot of civilians walking around. And they gave us the order to kill everyone we see.

    Why the f**k?

    Because they might give away our positions. … That’s what we’re f**king going to do, it seems. Kill any civilian that walks by and drag them into the forest. … I’ve already become a murderer. That’s why I don’t want to kill any more people, especially ones I will have to look in the eyes."

    You almost feel sorry for the Sergeis of this world
    Completely sorry. I'm sure it would take more courage for a serving soldier of the Russian army to refuse to fight than most people here posess.
  • Zelensky response: He says Ukraine is de facto part of NATO alliance. “Today, Ukraine is applying to make it de jure… We are taking our decisive step by signing Ukraine's application for accelerated accession to NATO.”

    https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1575848676634726400

    Worth bringing this back out.
    https://twitter.com/darthputinkgb/status/1524714109073297409
  • Roger said:

    Are we waiting for the men in grey suits or flapping white coats?

    For Putin and Truss - absolutely
  • HYUFD said:

    People Polling, working on behalf of that pinko bastion of Wokeness, GB News, also give Labour a 30pt lead!

    https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202209_GBN_W39_full.pdf#subsection*.12

    Lab 50 (!)
    Con 20
    LD 9
    Grn 8
    SNP 5
    Ref 3
    PC 0
    Other 4

    … and the SNP a 31 point lead (!)
    No a 12% lead, a swing from SNP to Labour since 2019
    SNP 56%
    SLab 25%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    SCon 3%
    Ref 2%
    oth (presumably Alba) 2%

    Total pro-independence 64%
    Total Unionists 35%
    What happened to, "only YouGov properly weight their subsamples?"

    If you want anyone to take your seriously you have to avoid cherry-picking only the best figures for your side.

    Latest YouGov Scotland subsample: SNP 44 - Lab 38. Pro-independence parties 49 (assuming Other are Alba).
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,650
    edited September 2022

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    HSBC release statement warn mass forced house sales as mortgage rise by £6,000 ps

    Truss needs to go now

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/hsbc-warns-mass-forced-sales-mortgage-costs-jump-5000-year/

    The government cannot underwrite everybody's bloody mortgage. Changes in mortgage rates are a known risk. There may be lots of reasons for her to go but this is simply not one.
    If you read the article there are £1500 reasons for her to go....
    What, the PM should go because mortgage rates go up 1%. I mean, are you serious?
    Thanks to her ill considered plans, botched announcements and cack-handed approach she will have nearly doubled mortgage rates from 2.7% to 5.5%

    If she had kept her big gob shut and let the OBR do its job then this would not be happening.
    She is incompetent and she has made a very bad situation worse but a major part of our problem was the failure of the BoE to follow the Fed with a 0.75% increase in rates about 10 days ago. Sterling was already under continuous pressure before the episode of loony tunes last week. This was aggravating inflation, not least in fuel costs, and was a clear breach of the Bank's mandate. The era of ultra low interest rates is at an end and there is nothing the government can do about it.
    I am not disagreeing with the fact that rates were going up, but even a total moron would have known not to do something that makes them rise faster.

    Besides, putting all that to one side, who the hell borrows £100bn in a time of rising rates?, especially when it is a loan she did not need to make.
    Germany yesterday borrowed 200 billion euros to help consumers

    The 100 billion energy relief was fine it was the tax borrowed measures that were ill judged

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    HSBC release statement warn mass forced house sales as mortgage rise by £6,000 ps

    Truss needs to go now

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/hsbc-warns-mass-forced-sales-mortgage-costs-jump-5000-year/

    The government cannot underwrite everybody's bloody mortgage. Changes in mortgage rates are a known risk. There may be lots of reasons for her to go but this is simply not one.
    If you read the article there are £1500 reasons for her to go....
    What, the PM should go because mortgage rates go up 1%. I mean, are you serious?
    Thanks to her ill considered plans, botched announcements and cack-handed approach she will have nearly doubled mortgage rates from 2.7% to 5.5%

    If she had kept her big gob shut and let the OBR do its job then this would not be happening.
    She is incompetent and she has made a very bad situation worse but a major part of our problem was the failure of the BoE to follow the Fed with a 0.75% increase in rates about 10 days ago. Sterling was already under continuous pressure before the episode of loony tunes last week. This was aggravating inflation, not least in fuel costs, and was a clear breach of the Bank's mandate. The era of ultra low interest rates is at an end and there is nothing the government can do about it.
    I am not disagreeing with the fact that rates were going up, but even a total moron would have known not to do something that makes them rise faster.

    Besides, putting all that to one side, who the hell borrows £100bn in a time of rising rates?, especially when it is a loan she did not need to make.
    Germany yesterday borrowed 200 billion euros to help consumers

    The 100 billion energy relief was fine it was the tax borrowed measures that were ill judged
    Sorry Big G, but to be fair I have to do the same to you as I did to Eek yesterday - you are both very nice posters but my claim is you are talking absolute bollocks and spin and I’m asking you for some citation to support your argument.

    “The 100 billion energy relief was fine”.

    Firstly, where are you getting the tiddly £100B figure from, thru life costs to meet Truss promise all up to the election is nearer on quarter of a trillion in borrowing.

    I want evidence everyone else in Europe is borrowing a quarter of a trillion to freeze their energy bills for everybody, “just the same” as We are doing it.

    I want evidence it’s been built into the market for weeks. It was announced with zero detail. What detail about cost and payment mechanism has the Uk shared before Queens death and during mourning, that wasn’t still being waited on last Friday, truth is they fobbed the whole world off as far as Kwasi’s budget before the madness of this type of freezing plan was moved against.
    The announcement of the energy cap came in early September.

    The announcement of the business energy cap was made last Wednesday (the 21st).

    So yep you are talking complete and utter rubbish....
    You can announce a moon programme, but not announce how much it’s going to cost and how it’s going to be paid for.

    When Kwarteng stood up last week, how much those energy price freeze announcements would cost and how they would be paid for was still being waited on. In fact I’ll take it further, the markets still don’t know, part of the market reaction is no one knows how much the energy freeze policy costs thru life and exit plan for it - how it is to be paid for is definitely not set in stone as government could announce windfall tax or a tax rise at any moment to part fund it reducing borrowing.

    You are wrong to claim all these things were known so priced in when Kwarteng rose to speak last Friday.
    Not to forget the Bank of England only announced their QT etc on Thursday, with the markets then waiting for Kwarteng to speak. Their QT represented in one year 40 years worth of what the 45p tax change is supposed to represent.

    Ultimately the situation is complicated and to suggest that it is all one thing or another is missing the woods for the trees.
    It is complicated, because it does tie in with how you actually borrow a quarter of a trillion to pay for things - my understanding is you wrap it up into little pasta wraps and sell them on little pasta wraps of debt market, where the exchange rate can be variable for you based on assessment how risky your pasta pockets are.

    Certainly detail was lacking in the first week before queens death, and before, and didn’t come during mourning, so all eyes were on the period with the flags at full mask again, so I find it hard how everything was known and already priced in.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,808
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    There's been some moves in the State polling for the Senate too. I think there is definitely a move towards the Republicans right now, the question is if it continues.
    All the stuff that is driving voters to Labour in the UK will be driving voters to the GOP in the USA

    Cost of living, mortgage rates, housing crash, general instability - plus immigration in the USA

    As you said the other day, this is a general headwind against all governing parties in the West
    Er... have the Dems announced real tax cuts only for the richest?
    Oh sure, there is an extra dash of folly in the latest incarnation of HMG, but the overall truth abides

    We are all headed for the karzi, it’s a bad time to be in power

    I’m not sure this evolution specifically benefits left or right, it probably doesn’t distinguish between them. It’s merely a howl of discontent, which will get louder
    I was pondering just how shite these current times are compared to other periods in history?

    Maybe we have all lived through a golden period of stability, prosperity and growth (relatively). In Britain, neither 1914-1920 nor 1926-45 were that great. Nor the 1970s tbf.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    There's been some moves in the State polling for the Senate too. I think there is definitely a move towards the Republicans right now, the question is if it continues.
    Wisconsin looks secure for the Republicans now. That leaves Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada, to decide who holds the Senate.
    I think Pennsylvania will be a Democrat gain (not least because they are polling very strongly in the Governor race also)

    But I think you need to also include Arizona on your list, where the Democrats should be only the narrowest of favorites.

    This means the Republicans need to win two of Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.

    It's going to be very close.
    KARI LAKE! KARI LAKE!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Sorry, Putin announced the annexation of Zaporizhzhia, and oblast he doesn't even control the admin centre of?

    What an absolute pussy.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,009
    AlistairM said:

    TimS said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    I would love to find out if if involved 100% probability of success knocking out Russia’s entire nuclear capability. That would be nice.

    Somewhere outside San Diego Tom Cruise and an elite corps of fighter pilots are busy planning their most daring adventure yet…
    Yet for some strange reason the ultra-manoeuvrable fifth gen planes won't do the job but F/A-18s will.
    Especially when all other planes have been destroyed on the ground - but the one F-18 has been fully fuelled and armed and is ready to rock and roll....
  • Alistair said:

    Sorry, Putin announced the annexation of Zaporizhzhia, and oblast he doesn't even control the admin centre of?

    What an absolute pussy.

    Ha, a bit like the Nazis announcing the annexation of Belgium and Nord-Pas de Calais in December 1944!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Real Clear Politics is not a neutral poll aggregator and have not be so for the last decade.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,565
    kamski said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    Yebbut... that includes a +5% for GOP from, er, Trafalgar.

    538 has the overall +1.2% for the Dems
    It does, but there are worse-rated pollsters than Trafalgar included in both averages.

    Even a 1.2% Democratic lead would produce a Republican majority of 10-15.
    538 have this:
    "Republicans are favored to win a majority of seats if they win the popular vote by at least 0.4 points"

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/?cid=rrpromo

    which might not make sense, but it's been fairly consistent in this year's House forecast.
    I think 538 are wrong.

    Sean Trende has crunched the numbers, No change on 2020 would probably put the Republicans on 224 seats.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/09/29/setting_expectations_for_the_house_in_2022_midterms.html
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    Presumably an all-out NATO assault on Russian forces in Ukraine using all available conventional weapons.

    To which Putin will presumably have replied, "WW3 it is then."
    Given the "efficiency" of the Russian forces against a few bits of NATO hardware, how do you think they would manage against the full weight of NATO?
    This presumably was also part of the calculation in limiting what the US supplied to Ukraine.
    The threat of what they held back is quite considerable.
    That's hardly the point. We all know that NATO forces are perfectly capable of annihilating the Russian forces in Ukraine and probably Russia itself. The question is how much of the West Russia could take out on its way down and whether Putin and his generals would be bonkers enough to go down that road.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,338

    nova said:

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1575816156937875456

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 50% (+10)
    CON: 20% (-8)
    LDM: 9% (-1)
    GRN: 8% (=)
    SNP: 5% (-1)

    Via
    @PeoplePolling
    , 29 Sep.
    Changes w/ 21 Sep.

    Scottish break catastrophic for the Unionists:

    SNP 56%
    SLab 25%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    SCon 3%
    Ref 2%
    oth (presumably Alba) 2%

    Total pro-independence 64%
    Total Unionists 35%
    3%!
    That. Is. A. etc
    There has been a lot of talk about Tory > Labour movement recently, but there are still a LOT of don't knows in the 2019 Tory voter column and they're driving the huge leads.

    In total, of the 2019 Tories, 17% say Labour, 38% still Tory, but a ridiculous 29% saying Don't Know.

    Of Labour 2019 voters the comparable figure is 7%, so it'll be interesting to see whether the Don't Knows will get over their shock and move back to the Tories. I suspect so, and it's one reason why we don't get 30pt leads in actual elections.
    Wouldn't need much of a nudge (ie anyone not Truss leading the Tory party) to get these guys back on board.
    I imagine the same was said before Johnson got deposed...that didn't quite turn out as envisaged though!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    There's been some moves in the State polling for the Senate too. I think there is definitely a move towards the Republicans right now, the question is if it continues.
    All the stuff that is driving voters to Labour in the UK will be driving voters to the GOP in the USA

    Cost of living, mortgage rates, housing crash, general instability - plus immigration in the USA

    As you said the other day, this is a general headwind against all governing parties in the West
    Er... have the Dems announced real tax cuts only for the richest?
    Oh sure, there is an extra dash of folly in the latest incarnation of HMG, but the overall truth abides

    We are all headed for the karzi, it’s a bad time to be in power

    I’m not sure this evolution specifically benefits left or right, it probably doesn’t distinguish between them. It’s merely a howl of discontent, which will get louder
    I was pondering just how shite these current times are compared to other periods in history?

    Maybe we have all lived through a golden period of stability, prosperity and growth (relatively). In Britain, neither 1914-1920 nor 1926-45 were that great. Nor the 1970s tbf.
    I also had this conversation with my friend last night, We were lucky enough to be young in probably the best time to be young - at least in the West - in human history

    From about 1985-2010?

    Nearly three decades when the world seemed to get continuously richer, freer, brighter, happier, Communism fell. China rose: but peacefully. Democracy spread. Music was good. Food got better. The internet was amazing. Social media meant FriendsReunited. Smartphones are fun! World war became unthinkable

    And here we are
  • AlistairM said:

    TimS said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    I would love to find out if if involved 100% probability of success knocking out Russia’s entire nuclear capability. That would be nice.

    Somewhere outside San Diego Tom Cruise and an elite corps of fighter pilots are busy planning their most daring adventure yet…
    Yet for some strange reason the ultra-manoeuvrable fifth gen planes won't do the job but F/A-18s will.
    Especially when all other planes have been destroyed on the ground - but the one F-18 has been fully fuelled and armed and is ready to rock and roll....
    "Hello, boys! I'm ba-ack!"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,565
    Alistair said:

    Real Clear Politics is not a neutral poll aggregator and have not be so for the last decade.

    They're partisan, but you can trust Sean Trende completely when it comes to crunching the numbers.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    Do you think Liz Truss should resign from her role as Prime Minister, or should she remain in her role?

    All Britons
    Resign: 51%
    Stay: 25%

    Con voters
    Resign: 36%
    Stay: 43%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/09/30/fee3a/1 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1575852726944399360/photo/1
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,650
    edited September 2022
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    HSBC release statement warn mass forced house sales as mortgage rise by £6,000 ps

    Truss needs to go now

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/hsbc-warns-mass-forced-sales-mortgage-costs-jump-5000-year/

    The government cannot underwrite everybody's bloody mortgage. Changes in mortgage rates are a known risk. There may be lots of reasons for her to go but this is simply not one.
    If you read the article there are £1500 reasons for her to go....
    What, the PM should go because mortgage rates go up 1%. I mean, are you serious?
    Thanks to her ill considered plans, botched announcements and cack-handed approach she will have nearly doubled mortgage rates from 2.7% to 5.5%

    If she had kept her big gob shut and let the OBR do its job then this would not be happening.
    She is incompetent and she has made a very bad situation worse but a major part of our problem was the failure of the BoE to follow the Fed with a 0.75% increase in rates about 10 days ago. Sterling was already under continuous pressure before the episode of loony tunes last week. This was aggravating inflation, not least in fuel costs, and was a clear breach of the Bank's mandate. The era of ultra low interest rates is at an end and there is nothing the government can do about it.
    I am not disagreeing with the fact that rates were going up, but even a total moron would have known not to do something that makes them rise faster.

    Besides, putting all that to one side, who the hell borrows £100bn in a time of rising rates?, especially when it is a loan she did not need to make.
    Germany yesterday borrowed 200 billion euros to help consumers

    The 100 billion energy relief was fine it was the tax borrowed measures that were ill judged

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    HSBC release statement warn mass forced house sales as mortgage rise by £6,000 ps

    Truss needs to go now

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/hsbc-warns-mass-forced-sales-mortgage-costs-jump-5000-year/

    The government cannot underwrite everybody's bloody mortgage. Changes in mortgage rates are a known risk. There may be lots of reasons for her to go but this is simply not one.
    If you read the article there are £1500 reasons for her to go....
    What, the PM should go because mortgage rates go up 1%. I mean, are you serious?
    Thanks to her ill considered plans, botched announcements and cack-handed approach she will have nearly doubled mortgage rates from 2.7% to 5.5%

    If she had kept her big gob shut and let the OBR do its job then this would not be happening.
    She is incompetent and she has made a very bad situation worse but a major part of our problem was the failure of the BoE to follow the Fed with a 0.75% increase in rates about 10 days ago. Sterling was already under continuous pressure before the episode of loony tunes last week. This was aggravating inflation, not least in fuel costs, and was a clear breach of the Bank's mandate. The era of ultra low interest rates is at an end and there is nothing the government can do about it.
    I am not disagreeing with the fact that rates were going up, but even a total moron would have known not to do something that makes them rise faster.

    Besides, putting all that to one side, who the hell borrows £100bn in a time of rising rates?, especially when it is a loan she did not need to make.
    Germany yesterday borrowed 200 billion euros to help consumers

    The 100 billion energy relief was fine it was the tax borrowed measures that were ill judged
    Sorry Big G, but to be fair I have to do the same to you as I did to Eek yesterday - you are both very nice posters but my claim is you are talking absolute bollocks and spin and I’m asking you for some citation to support your argument.

    “The 100 billion energy relief was fine”.

    Firstly, where are you getting the tiddly £100B figure from, thru life costs to meet Truss promise all up to the election is nearer on quarter of a trillion in borrowing.

    I want evidence everyone else in Europe is borrowing a quarter of a trillion to freeze their energy bills for everybody, “just the same” as We are doing it.

    I want evidence it’s been built into the market for weeks. It was announced with zero detail. What detail about cost and payment mechanism has the Uk shared before Queens death and during mourning, that wasn’t still being waited on last Friday, truth is they fobbed the whole world off as far as Kwasi’s budget before the madness of this type of freezing plan was moved against.
    The announcement of the energy cap came in early September.

    The announcement of the business energy cap was made last Wednesday (the 21st).

    So yep you are talking complete and utter rubbish....
    You can announce a moon programme, but not announce how much it’s going to cost and how it’s going to be paid for.

    When Kwarteng stood up last week, how much those energy price freeze announcements would cost and how they would be paid for was still being waited on. In fact I’ll take it further, the markets still don’t know, know one knows how much the energy freeze policy costs thru life and exit plan for it - how it is to be paid for is definitely not set in stone government could announce windfall tax or a tax rise at any moment.

    You are wrong to claim all these things were known so priced in when Kwarteng rose to speak last Friday.
    Well of course they don't, since the cost of the intervention is partly dependent on market prices over the winter.
    I know you dislike the scheme, but I think your analysis is just wrong. Not least as it ignores the economic cost - and resultant revenue downside for the Treasury - of the deep recession which would follow no intervention.
    My dislike for the evil lazyness of going for a rubbish scheme when better we’re available, even current scheme can be improved over time, has nothing to do with it. I’m calling you out for claiming markets had everything they need to know priced it all in before Kwarteng spoke. They simply didn’t. And still don’t.

    Let me put it like this, what did the OBR say about the governments energy price freeze plans?

    Exactly. You can’t tell me can you.

    On tge other point, why it’s hideous, If the OBR comments on those plans, they will back me not you.

    In the negative column
    Borrow quarter of trillion to pay back via tax and higher bills for decades, the problems that gives us with the markets, and no way of knowing who future governments tax to pay it back, progressive or regressive.
    Borrowing eye watering sums to give further eye watering sums to many who don’t need a hand out whilst not properly targeting the money available on those who definitely do.

    In the positive column
    it was “fairly simple to administer” so we went with it without much further thought and imagination.

    At the very least I would expect OBR to question the economical argument of why does it actually have to be all up to the election, if reduce to 1 year or even 6 months initially, can extend same thing but use the period to improve it, give it a hair cut, work out how to better target it though use of variable energy price cap. Straight away you are telling the world the plan now is not to borrow nearly as much.

    Am I talking absolute utter nonsense? 😎
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,338
    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    HSBC release statement warn mass forced house sales as mortgage rise by £6,000 ps

    Truss needs to go now

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/hsbc-warns-mass-forced-sales-mortgage-costs-jump-5000-year/

    The government cannot underwrite everybody's bloody mortgage. Changes in mortgage rates are a known risk. There may be lots of reasons for her to go but this is simply not one.
    If you read the article there are £1500 reasons for her to go....
    What, the PM should go because mortgage rates go up 1%. I mean, are you serious?
    The PM managed to create a scenario where base rates that were expected to hit 5% are now going to hit 7%.

    That is something that she will be blamed for
    Sure, she's incompetent and economically illiterate. No arguments from me on that one. But people entering long term loans must surely realise that they have no right to base rates staying at 1% indefinitely.
    Yeah but they do have a right to expect a government, in the context of rising rates, not to make the situation £1500 worse than it needs to be.

    I know you're making a wider point (with which I agree) but your response to Big G missed his point I think.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    Do you think Kwasi Kwarteng should resign from his role as Chancellor, or should he remain in his role?

    All Britons
    Resign: 54%
    Stay: 19%

    Con voters
    Resign: 42%
    Stay: 35%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/09/30/fee3a/2 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1575852736653860871/photo/1
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,965
    Interesting that the MOD have deliberately equated Crimea with the newly annexed oblasts.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687
    Driver said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

    O/T but for those betting on the House, the generic vote has shifted back towards the Republicans.

    Yebbut... that includes a +5% for GOP from, er, Trafalgar.

    538 has the overall +1.2% for the Dems
    That's pretty close to a GOP majority, is it not?
    Yes, the Republicans are going to end up with a majority in the House, the only question is will it be a small one or a large one.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    well ive now found out from my energy supplier i will be paying less for energy per month this year than last year....crisis what crisis
  • I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    We discussed a number of options today. I didn’t think that the removal of the range limitations on equipment would be understood by the West’s voters. He was concerned boots on the ground runs the risk of escalation if there are casualties.

    One of his alternatives was complicated and I think unpalatable. The other was intriguing.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,960
    edited September 2022

    Zelensky response: He says Ukraine is de facto part of NATO alliance. “Today, Ukraine is applying to make it de jure… We are taking our decisive step by signing Ukraine's application for accelerated accession to NATO.”

    https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1575848676634726400

    There have been some more ratifications of Sweden and Finland's accession to NATO. Only Hungary and Türkiye to go.

    https://www.nato-pa.int/content/finland-sweden-accession
  • glwglw Posts: 9,957
    If rumours online are correct it looks like Ukraine could be under NATO protection quite shortly.
  • AlistairM said:

    TimS said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    I would love to find out if if involved 100% probability of success knocking out Russia’s entire nuclear capability. That would be nice.

    Somewhere outside San Diego Tom Cruise and an elite corps of fighter pilots are busy planning their most daring adventure yet…
    Yet for some strange reason the ultra-manoeuvrable fifth gen planes won't do the job but F/A-18s will.
    Especially when all other planes have been destroyed on the ground - but the one F-18 has been fully fuelled and armed and is ready to rock and roll....
    "Hello, boys! I'm ba-ack!"
    Great
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,009

    AlistairM said:

    TimS said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    I would love to find out if if involved 100% probability of success knocking out Russia’s entire nuclear capability. That would be nice.

    Somewhere outside San Diego Tom Cruise and an elite corps of fighter pilots are busy planning their most daring adventure yet…
    Yet for some strange reason the ultra-manoeuvrable fifth gen planes won't do the job but F/A-18s will.
    Especially when all other planes have been destroyed on the ground - but the one F-18 has been fully fuelled and armed and is ready to rock and roll....
    "Hello, boys! I'm ba-ack!"
    The use of an American suicide bomber using a plane to defeat their adversary always felt a bit off after 9/11....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422
    Soumillon's punishment looks light to me. Elbowing another jockey off the horse !
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,009
    glw said:

    If rumours online are correct it looks like Ukraine could be under NATO protection quite shortly.

    Your move, Vlad....

    (Can I suggest you move your troops back to pre September 30th 2022 Russian borders?)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,855

    glw said:

    If rumours online are correct it looks like Ukraine could be under NATO protection quite shortly.

    Your move, Vlad....

    (Can I suggest you move your troops back to pre September 30th 2022 Russian borders?)
    Or better still, the 2013 borders.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    does that mean if russia is continuing the war they are attacking nato then...thats ww3
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,089

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1575816156937875456

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 50% (+10)
    CON: 20% (-8)
    LDM: 9% (-1)
    GRN: 8% (=)
    SNP: 5% (-1)

    Via
    @PeoplePolling
    , 29 Sep.
    Changes w/ 21 Sep.

    Scottish break catastrophic for the Unionists:

    SNP 56%
    SLab 25%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    SCon 3%
    Ref 2%
    oth (presumably Alba) 2%

    Total pro-independence 64%
    Total Unionists 35%
    Tories 3% !!
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,089
    Scott_xP said:
    Fucking tell me about it !!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    edited September 2022
    glw said:

    If rumours online are correct it looks like Ukraine could be under NATO protection quite shortly.

    So NATO is saying all of Ukraine is NATO territory, and under the protection of Article 5, and Russia is saying the newly Russian bits of Ukraine are Russia, and therefore protected by Russian nuclear doctrine

    I am raising my chances of total nuclear war to 6%. It is quite easy to see how this goes terribly wrong
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,009
    glw said:

    If rumours online are correct it looks like Ukraine could be under NATO protection quite shortly.

    Ukraine only gave up its nukes because its security was guaranteed by amongst others, the USA and Russia. Seems only fair that they get under the NATO nuclear shield now that Russia has fucked them over on that promise.

  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    Leon said:

    glw said:

    If rumours online are correct it looks like Ukraine could be under NATO protection quite shortly.

    So NATO is saying all of Ukraine is NATO territory, and under the protection of Article 5, and Russia is saying the newly Russian bits of Ukraine are Russia, and therefore protected by Russian nuclear doctrine

    I am raising my chances of total nuclear war to 6%. It is quite easy to see how this goes terribly wrong
    i think we have a repeat of the cuban missile crisis of october 1962 60 years later...history certainly rhymes
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,228
    Leon said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    That speech was Putin preparing his people for total war with the West. He might not especially care if he loses, say, his Black Sea Fleet because then he can paint it as Russia versus All Of NATO, we are bound to suffer

    This is how he survives his colossal error of invasion. He escalates it insanely. But exactly how crazy does it get?
    paradoxically if ww3 breaks out and DOESNT go nuclear could be good for the economy with all the orders for arms supplies as we transform into a war economy
    If actual WW3 breaks out, it will inevitably go nuclear as the war will be existential, and neither side can afford to lose

    However I think WW3 is quite unlikely (tho sadly not impossible). 3%?

    it is pretty horrifying that I have just this minute assessed the chances of the world as we know it coming to an end, and I reckon it is 1 in 30. But that’s the case. The risk of accidents, leading to a war absolutely no one wants, is now non trivial
    The strange thing about WW3, if it does happen, is that it will be a world war in name only - possibly more geographically limited than even WW1.

    The nature of the conflict between Russia and NATO, the nuclear disarmament since the cold war and the amount of munitions likely to be used on Ukraine and Eastern Europe (and the evil UK no doubt) means a large part of the world would most likely be untouched. Perhaps 70% or so.

    Whole of Latin America and most of the Caribbean, whole of Africa, bits of the Middle East (but I would expect parts of it would get drawn in), all of Asia and I would expect, unless some Russian subs decide to go on a detour, Australia and NZ would be unscathed. Japan and Korea, who knows.

    So the majority of the global population would face a significant financial and food supply crisis but would rebuild . Russia would be gone, but "the West" would live on.
  • There's an exit ramp:

    Zelensky: “We are ready for dialogue with Russia, but with a different Russian president”

    https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/1575855501140639746
  • Alistair said:

    Sorry, Putin announced the annexation of Zaporizhzhia, and oblast he doesn't even control the admin centre of?

    What an absolute pussy.

    Presumably so he can compromise and just end up with Donetsk and Luhansk?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,009
    ydoethur said:

    glw said:

    If rumours online are correct it looks like Ukraine could be under NATO protection quite shortly.

    Your move, Vlad....

    (Can I suggest you move your troops back to pre September 30th 2022 Russian borders?)
    Or better still, the 2013 borders.
    Same thing.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,957
    PeterM said:

    does that mean if russia is continuing the war they are attacking nato then...thats ww3

    I think the intention is that Ukraine will have the same sort of protection that Sweden and Finland currently do. As an applicant there will be a series of multilateral security agreements.

    So if occupied Ukraine is "Russia", unoccupied Ukraine is de facto NATO or as near as dammit.

    Apparently there are going to be some big announcements this evening.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    Presumably an all-out NATO assault on Russian forces in Ukraine using all available conventional weapons.

    To which Putin will presumably have replied, "WW3 it is then."
    Given the "efficiency" of the Russian forces against a few bits of NATO hardware, how do you think they would manage against the full weight of NATO?
    This presumably was also part of the calculation in limiting what the US supplied to Ukraine.
    The threat of what they held back is quite considerable.
    That's hardly the point. We all know that NATO forces are perfectly capable of annihilating the Russian forces in Ukraine and probably Russia itself. The question is how much of the West Russia could take out on its way down and whether Putin and his generals would be bonkers enough to go down that road.
    Well least say Vlad does go full-on MAD and launches all of his strategic nukes.

    Don’t think UK is in a great place tbh. We are small and urban. Presumably population centres and military installations are targeted as they were intended to be in the Cold War. Leaves very small parts of the country actually inhabitable post-bomb.

    That said, Russia doesn’t have as many useable nukes as the Soviet Union had and even the declared number is likely to be smaller (as I suspect a number aren’t likely to be primed/operational). So you never know, some places might get lucky.

    Happy Friday!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,235
    Scott_xP said:

    Do you think Liz Truss should resign from her role as Prime Minister, or should she remain in her role?

    All Britons
    Resign: 51%
    Stay: 25%

    Con voters
    Resign: 36%
    Stay: 43%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/09/30/fee3a/1 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1575852726944399360/photo/1

    A plurality of Con voters want KK to resign.

    The oddest thing was 6% of Lab voters thinking the budget had the right ideas and was well communicated, compared with 1% of Con voters. 🤔
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422
    Taz said:

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1575816156937875456

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 50% (+10)
    CON: 20% (-8)
    LDM: 9% (-1)
    GRN: 8% (=)
    SNP: 5% (-1)

    Via
    @PeoplePolling
    , 29 Sep.
    Changes w/ 21 Sep.

    Scottish break catastrophic for the Unionists:

    SNP 56%
    SLab 25%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    SCon 3%
    Ref 2%
    oth (presumably Alba) 2%

    Total pro-independence 64%
    Total Unionists 35%
    Tories 3% !!
    Arise Lord Fluffy !
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,131
    A few developments after Putin´s ridiculous rant this morning.

    A few comments from a Russian friend:

    The faces on the people in the audience during the speech. Holy shit.

    I think everyone there is feeling like they are captives.

    The rhetoric is obvious and boring. West is terrible, bla bla, we defend the big Russia, bla bla.

    Nothing new was said except laying blame for NS on the US.

    But the audience looks like they wish they were anywhere else but there.

    The reluctance in going ahead with it all is palpable.

    General feeling is that this is bluff and that the regime is in a real mess with no way of exiting the disaster.

    Also Kiril, the warmonger and supposed Russian Patriarch, is seriously ill with Covid. If the b%¤#%"& snuffs it, it will add to the sense of utter doom in the Kremlin. Sooner or later someone is going to but Putin out of our misery,
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,235
    PeterM said:

    well ive now found out from my energy supplier i will be paying less for energy per month this year than last year....crisis what crisis

    Gazprom have some great deals!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    A prime minister who insists her government has the intellectual high ground yet has no answers when asked basic questions on borrowing or mortgage rates, has no place being prime minister, writes @RMCunliffe. https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/09/liz-truss-economic-plans-markets-growth?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1664521944-2
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    Presumably an all-out NATO assault on Russian forces in Ukraine using all available conventional weapons.

    To which Putin will presumably have replied, "WW3 it is then."
    Given the "efficiency" of the Russian forces against a few bits of NATO hardware, how do you think they would manage against the full weight of NATO?
    This presumably was also part of the calculation in limiting what the US supplied to Ukraine.
    The threat of what they held back is quite considerable.
    That's hardly the point. We all know that NATO forces are perfectly capable of annihilating the Russian forces in Ukraine and probably Russia itself. The question is how much of the West Russia could take out on its way down and whether Putin and his generals would be bonkers enough to go down that road.
    Well least say Vlad does go full-on MAD and launches all of his strategic nukes.

    Don’t think UK is in a great place tbh. We are small and urban. Presumably population centres and military installations are targeted as they were intended to be in the Cold War. Leaves very small parts of the country actually inhabitable post-bomb.

    That said, Russia doesn’t have as many useable nukes as the Soviet Union had and even the declared number is likely to be smaller (as I suspect a number aren’t likely to be primed/operational). So you never know, some places might get lucky.

    Happy Friday!
    think scottish highlands would be best place to be
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507
    PeterM said:

    well ive now found out from my energy supplier i will be paying less for energy per month this year than last year....crisis what crisis

    Crime of the century more like.
  • Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Do you think Liz Truss should resign from her role as Prime Minister, or should she remain in her role?

    All Britons
    Resign: 51%
    Stay: 25%

    Con voters
    Resign: 36%
    Stay: 43%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/09/30/fee3a/1 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1575852726944399360/photo/1

    A plurality of Con voters want KK to resign.

    The oddest thing was 6% of Lab voters thinking the budget had the right ideas and was well communicated, compared with 1% of Con voters. 🤔
    Fans of lower house prices?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,009
    Presumably Hungary under Orban will block Ukraine membership of NATO? Not sure what Turkey will say on it either (although Erdogan has told Russia to get out of Ukraine, so maybe he is not going to block it?)
  • Heart of stone.....

    Lol Putin prepares a big production for weeks and is upended by a few seconds of Zelensky on his phone

    https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1575855678698053632
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    That speech was Putin preparing his people for total war with the West. He might not especially care if he loses, say, his Black Sea Fleet because then he can paint it as Russia versus All Of NATO, we are bound to suffer

    This is how he survives his colossal error of invasion. He escalates it insanely. But exactly how crazy does it get?
    paradoxically if ww3 breaks out and DOESNT go nuclear could be good for the economy with all the orders for arms supplies as we transform into a war economy
    If actual WW3 breaks out, it will inevitably go nuclear as the war will be existential, and neither side can afford to lose

    However I think WW3 is quite unlikely (tho sadly not impossible). 3%?

    it is pretty horrifying that I have just this minute assessed the chances of the world as we know it coming to an end, and I reckon it is 1 in 30. But that’s the case. The risk of accidents, leading to a war absolutely no one wants, is now non trivial
    The strange thing about WW3, if it does happen, is that it will be a world war in name only - possibly more geographically limited than even WW1.

    The nature of the conflict between Russia and NATO, the nuclear disarmament since the cold war and the amount of munitions likely to be used on Ukraine and Eastern Europe (and the evil UK no doubt) means a large part of the world would most likely be untouched. Perhaps 70% or so.

    Whole of Latin America and most of the Caribbean, whole of Africa, bits of the Middle East (but I would expect parts of it would get drawn in), all of Asia and I would expect, unless some Russian subs decide to go on a detour, Australia and NZ would be unscathed. Japan and Korea, who knows.

    So the majority of the global population would face a significant financial and food supply crisis but would rebuild . Russia would be gone, but "the West" would live on.
    I don’t believe that. All our experience of world wars says that other powers get drawn in, even if they struggle manfully to stay out. They perceive advantages to be exploited, and rights to be defended, and allies, seas, trade to be protected

    This was true in World War One, was even more true in World War Two and would be absolutely true in WW3

    Eg Taiwan would immediately move to nuclear weapons as the conflict unfolded, realising that guarantor America could get wiped out, so China would move on Taiwan. See the same for Korea and Japan. That’s Asia engulfed

    A rush for resources would mean Oz would certainly get dragged in, also Africa: basically everywhere

    And the systemic shock to the world would be catastrophic. Possibly back to the Middle Ages kinda shit

    And all the radiation? And then the aliens
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    HSBC release statement warn mass forced house sales as mortgage rise by £6,000 ps

    Truss needs to go now

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/hsbc-warns-mass-forced-sales-mortgage-costs-jump-5000-year/

    The government cannot underwrite everybody's bloody mortgage. Changes in mortgage rates are a known risk. There may be lots of reasons for her to go but this is simply not one.
    If you read the article there are £1500 reasons for her to go....
    What, the PM should go because mortgage rates go up 1%. I mean, are you serious?
    Thanks to her ill considered plans, botched announcements and cack-handed approach she will have nearly doubled mortgage rates from 2.7% to 5.5%

    If she had kept her big gob shut and let the OBR do its job then this would not be happening.
    She is incompetent and she has made a very bad situation worse but a major part of our problem was the failure of the BoE to follow the Fed with a 0.75% increase in rates about 10 days ago. Sterling was already under continuous pressure before the episode of loony tunes last week. This was aggravating inflation, not least in fuel costs, and was a clear breach of the Bank's mandate. The era of ultra low interest rates is at an end and there is nothing the government can do about it.
    I am not disagreeing with the fact that rates were going up, but even a total moron would have known not to do something that makes them rise faster.

    Besides, putting all that to one side, who the hell borrows £100bn in a time of rising rates?, especially when it is a loan she did not need to make.
    Germany yesterday borrowed 200 billion euros to help consumers

    The 100 billion energy relief was fine it was the tax borrowed measures that were ill judged

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    HSBC release statement warn mass forced house sales as mortgage rise by £6,000 ps

    Truss needs to go now

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/hsbc-warns-mass-forced-sales-mortgage-costs-jump-5000-year/

    The government cannot underwrite everybody's bloody mortgage. Changes in mortgage rates are a known risk. There may be lots of reasons for her to go but this is simply not one.
    If you read the article there are £1500 reasons for her to go....
    What, the PM should go because mortgage rates go up 1%. I mean, are you serious?
    Thanks to her ill considered plans, botched announcements and cack-handed approach she will have nearly doubled mortgage rates from 2.7% to 5.5%

    If she had kept her big gob shut and let the OBR do its job then this would not be happening.
    She is incompetent and she has made a very bad situation worse but a major part of our problem was the failure of the BoE to follow the Fed with a 0.75% increase in rates about 10 days ago. Sterling was already under continuous pressure before the episode of loony tunes last week. This was aggravating inflation, not least in fuel costs, and was a clear breach of the Bank's mandate. The era of ultra low interest rates is at an end and there is nothing the government can do about it.
    I am not disagreeing with the fact that rates were going up, but even a total moron would have known not to do something that makes them rise faster.

    Besides, putting all that to one side, who the hell borrows £100bn in a time of rising rates?, especially when it is a loan she did not need to make.
    Germany yesterday borrowed 200 billion euros to help consumers

    The 100 billion energy relief was fine it was the tax borrowed measures that were ill judged
    Sorry Big G, but to be fair I have to do the same to you as I did to Eek yesterday - you are both very nice posters but my claim is you are talking absolute bollocks and spin and I’m asking you for some citation to support your argument.

    “The 100 billion energy relief was fine”.

    Firstly, where are you getting the tiddly £100B figure from, thru life costs to meet Truss promise all up to the election is nearer on quarter of a trillion in borrowing.

    I want evidence everyone else in Europe is borrowing a quarter of a trillion to freeze their energy bills for everybody, “just the same” as We are doing it.

    I want evidence it’s been built into the market for weeks. It was announced with zero detail. What detail about cost and payment mechanism has the Uk shared before Queens death and during mourning, that wasn’t still being waited on last Friday, truth is they fobbed the whole world off as far as Kwasi’s budget before the madness of this type of freezing plan was moved against.
    The announcement of the energy cap came in early September.

    The announcement of the business energy cap was made last Wednesday (the 21st).

    So yep you are talking complete and utter rubbish....
    You can announce a moon programme, but not announce how much it’s going to cost and how it’s going to be paid for.

    When Kwarteng stood up last week, how much those energy price freeze announcements would cost and how they would be paid for was still being waited on. In fact I’ll take it further, the markets still don’t know, know one knows how much the energy freeze policy costs thru life and exit plan for it - how it is to be paid for is definitely not set in stone government could announce windfall tax or a tax rise at any moment.

    You are wrong to claim all these things were known so priced in when Kwarteng rose to speak last Friday.
    Well of course they don't, since the cost of the intervention is partly dependent on market prices over the winter.
    I know you dislike the scheme, but I think your analysis is just wrong. Not least as it ignores the economic cost - and resultant revenue downside for the Treasury - of the deep recession which would follow no intervention.
    My dislike for the evil lazyness of going for a rubbish scheme when better we’re available, even current scheme can be improved over time, has nothing to do with it. I’m calling you out for claiming markets had everything they need to know priced it all in before Kwarteng spoke. They simply didn’t. And still don’t.

    Let me put it like this, what did the OBR say about the governments energy price freeze plans?

    Exactly. You can’t tell me can you.

    On tge other point, why it’s hideous, If the OBR comments on those plans, they will back me not you.

    In the negative column
    Borrow quarter of trillion to pay back via tax and higher bills for decades, the problems that gives us with the markets, and no way of knowing who future governments tax to pay it back, progressive or regressive.
    Borrowing eye watering sums to give further eye watering sums to many who don’t need a hand out whilst not properly targeting the money available on those who definitely do.

    In the positive column
    it was “fairly simple to administer” so we went with it without much further thought and imagination.

    At the very least I would expect OBR to question the economical argument of why does it actually have to be all up to the election, if reduce to 1 year or even 6 months initially, can extend same thing but use the period to improve it, give it a hair cut, work out how to better target it though use of variable energy price cap. Straight away you are telling the world the plan now is not to borrow nearly as much.

    Am I talking absolute utter nonsense? 😎
    I think you are right that the fuel scheme shouldn't be set in stone for more than 6 months.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,733
    PeterM said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    Presumably an all-out NATO assault on Russian forces in Ukraine using all available conventional weapons.

    To which Putin will presumably have replied, "WW3 it is then."
    Given the "efficiency" of the Russian forces against a few bits of NATO hardware, how do you think they would manage against the full weight of NATO?
    This presumably was also part of the calculation in limiting what the US supplied to Ukraine.
    The threat of what they held back is quite considerable.
    That's hardly the point. We all know that NATO forces are perfectly capable of annihilating the Russian forces in Ukraine and probably Russia itself. The question is how much of the West Russia could take out on its way down and whether Putin and his generals would be bonkers enough to go down that road.
    Well least say Vlad does go full-on MAD and launches all of his strategic nukes.

    Don’t think UK is in a great place tbh. We are small and urban. Presumably population centres and military installations are targeted as they were intended to be in the Cold War. Leaves very small parts of the country actually inhabitable post-bomb.

    That said, Russia doesn’t have as many useable nukes as the Soviet Union had and even the declared number is likely to be smaller (as I suspect a number aren’t likely to be primed/operational). So you never know, some places might get lucky.

    Happy Friday!
    think scottish highlands would be best place to be
    Faslane. Benbecula. Lossiemouth. Aberdeen. Shetland.

    Fallout inevitable.

    Annoyingly Ireland may fare much better.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    ...
  • PeterM said:

    does that mean if russia is continuing the war they are attacking nato then...thats ww3

    I don't think you could call it WWIII with neither China or India involved. Probably Japan also not involved.

    Anyway, Putin's bluff is being called.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,009
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    I would dearly love to know what the West's (i.e. the US's) response would be were Putin to use a tactical nuke.

    At the same time, I would dearly love never to find out.

    As has been pointed out, though, Putin will have been told in broad terms what to expect.
    That speech was Putin preparing his people for total war with the West. He might not especially care if he loses, say, his Black Sea Fleet because then he can paint it as Russia versus All Of NATO, we are bound to suffer

    This is how he survives his colossal error of invasion. He escalates it insanely. But exactly how crazy does it get?
    paradoxically if ww3 breaks out and DOESNT go nuclear could be good for the economy with all the orders for arms supplies as we transform into a war economy
    If actual WW3 breaks out, it will inevitably go nuclear as the war will be existential, and neither side can afford to lose

    However I think WW3 is quite unlikely (tho sadly not impossible). 3%?

    it is pretty horrifying that I have just this minute assessed the chances of the world as we know it coming to an end, and I reckon it is 1 in 30. But that’s the case. The risk of accidents, leading to a war absolutely no one wants, is now non trivial
    The strange thing about WW3, if it does happen, is that it will be a world war in name only - possibly more geographically limited than even WW1.

    The nature of the conflict between Russia and NATO, the nuclear disarmament since the cold war and the amount of munitions likely to be used on Ukraine and Eastern Europe (and the evil UK no doubt) means a large part of the world would most likely be untouched. Perhaps 70% or so.

    Whole of Latin America and most of the Caribbean, whole of Africa, bits of the Middle East (but I would expect parts of it would get drawn in), all of Asia and I would expect, unless some Russian subs decide to go on a detour, Australia and NZ would be unscathed. Japan and Korea, who knows.

    So the majority of the global population would face a significant financial and food supply crisis but would rebuild . Russia would be gone, but "the West" would live on.
    Not sure about Asia. China could decide to go for far more of a land grab than Taiwan. Russia is wide open. China could just disown its Russian "friend" as a nuclear lunatic. And take everything east of the Urals.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Do you think Liz Truss should resign from her role as Prime Minister, or should she remain in her role?

    All Britons
    Resign: 51%
    Stay: 25%

    Con voters
    Resign: 36%
    Stay: 43%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/09/30/fee3a/1 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1575852726944399360/photo/1

    A plurality of Con voters want KK to resign.

    The oddest thing was 6% of Lab voters thinking the budget had the right ideas and was well communicated, compared with 1% of Con voters. 🤔
    Maybe the Lab voters liked it because it leads to a Labour government.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,100
    edited September 2022

    HYUFD said:

    People Polling, working on behalf of that pinko bastion of Wokeness, GB News, also give Labour a 30pt lead!

    https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202209_GBN_W39_full.pdf#subsection*.12

    Lab 50 (!)
    Con 20
    LD 9
    Grn 8
    SNP 5
    Ref 3
    PC 0
    Other 4

    … and the SNP a 31 point lead (!)
    No a 12% lead, a swing from SNP to Labour since 2019
    SNP 56%
    SLab 25%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    SCon 3%
    Ref 2%
    oth (presumably Alba) 2%

    Total pro-independence 64%
    Total Unionists 35%
    Amongst all cases of voters the SNP is only on 38% in that poll and Labour on 26%
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    Confirms that Truss and Kwarteng can’t turn things around, in my view
    https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1575843389756829701
  • Nine council by-elections last night

    Lab gain from Con
    Con hold x2
    Lab hold
    LDm hold x3
    PC hold
    Ind hold

    Good week/Bad Week Index

    LDm +172
    Lab +72
    PC +51
    Con +13
    Grn -2
    SNP -18

    Adjusted Seat Value

    LDm +2.2
    Lab +1.2
    PC +0.9
    Con +0.2
    Grn -0.0
    SNP -0.3
This discussion has been closed.