Howdy, Stranger!

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

A Tribute Act – politicalbetting.com

1679111214

Comments

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,904
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.

    KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
    A Cambridge educated economist, arrogant?

    You'll be telling me next that a civil servant at the DfE is useless.
    He's not an economist, he's a historian.
    OK, well, in that case he's obviously quite unusual.

    The modesty of Cambridge educated historians is legendary. And historians in general are noted for our reserve, humility and lack of hubris.
    It's their attention to detail that I find so impressive.

    Personally I have always found Cambridge educated economists to be wonderful fonts of wisdom.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853



    Oh, I agree, and it's important not to turn them into holy grails. Like voting at an election: unless you're a party zealot, no one party will probably match everything you want. There will be some policies you love, and some you dislike. Ditto the people within.

    There'll be things I dislike about *any* voting system; there will be compromises to the above (except for the sanctity of the actual voting process - I won't back down on that). It's a case of being adult and picking the bext compromise.

    I'm not saying we do not have political parties; just that they should be given as little power as possible, whereas they always want to get more power.

    I agree with much of what you say, and think you'd like the Swiss system which forces voters to take direct responsibility, one issue at a time. The parties are essentially advisory bodies.

    That said, I think your perception of parties as monolithic forces detached from MPs and forcing them to act against their better judgment is exaggerated. Most MPs have been members of their parties for many years, not usually for career reasons but because they broadly agree with them. Of course there are times when MPs say to each other "Are we REALLY going ahead with this thing?" but most of the time there's a sense of common purpose and the party is voluntarily given the benefit of the doubt, so "giving parties less power" would make little difference. I make mostly pro-Labour posts here, with occasional criticisms, because it's what I think - nobody is pressing me to post.

    It was much the same as an MP, except that when I had criticisms I'd get a discussion with the Minister an, usually, some tweaks to make the policy more acceptable - much as Gove & co have done over the 45p. I was only once directly pressured by a whip - "If you won't that way, you won't get any visits from senior Ministers at election time". I laughed, and made a point of voting the way I wanted. No repercussions followed and the Chief Whip (Hilary Armstrong) privately apologised.

    It's more like a marriage. You sometimes squabble, and generally end up compromising or shrugging and getting over it. Occasionally it gets bad enough to make you split up. But it's misleading to say that one has the "power" over the other.
    When you only have two parties with any great chance of being the government, though, that "common purpose" effectively excludes quite a large range of political opinion.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,411

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.

    KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
    A Cambridge educated economist, arrogant?

    You'll be telling me next that a civil servant at the DfE is useless.
    He's not an economist, he's a historian.
    OK, well, in that case he's obviously quite unusual.

    The modesty of Cambridge educated historians is legendary. And historians in general are noted for our reserve, humility and lack of hubris.
    It's their attention to detail that I find so impressive.

    Personally I have always found Cambridge educated economists to be wonderful fonts of wisdom.
    Which 'they'? Historians, or economists?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Kwarteng like Truss: incapable of anything but the most banal copy-and-paste political sloganeering: 'What I'm focusing on' etc etc. No intellectual presence in the conversation at all.
    https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1576836990242549761

    What is jarring (to use the Schapps word) is that this such a humbling moment for the government and the chancellor, and yet the tone of @KwasiKwarteng is pure arrogance
    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1576837342077194240

    Just to note that KK used the word 'contrition' on R4 Today interview with NR. I doubt if this has yet been given proper weight. Normally politicians don't do that.

    He was, of course, in general awful.

    It was dragged out of him, though.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,243

    Scott_xP said:

    Kwarteng loses his rag with Nick Robinson after being told there is now a "Kwarteng premium" on people's mortgage rates: "What you are presenting is a complete distortion of reality."
    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1576834828984385541

    Interest rates are going up here because the US is raising interest rates. Simple as that.

    Here are a few articles if you want to check that out.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-keeps-the-u-s-from-stepping-in-to-slow-dollars-rapid-rise-11664663619?st=jjx37mmmzehwznm&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-a-strong-dollar-means-for-the-rest-of-the-world-11658482200?st=a6khdj103evbbc3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/business/economy/us-dollar-global-impact.html

    Nah. The budget increased interest rate expectations by something like an extra per cent before the Bank reversed itself and did more QE. As you would expect from a huge unfunded stimulus.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,029
    Nigelb said:



    When you only have two parties with any great chance of being the government, though, that "common purpose" effectively excludes quite a large range of political opinion.

    Yes - that's why I think PR is better...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    Scott_xP said:

    This will raise eyebrows at Buckingham Palace. Has @KwasiKwarteng forgotten that as Chancellor he is a royal trustee who, with the Prime Minister, actually sets the percentage of Crown Estate profits that are paid for the Sovereign Grant? https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1576830758018502657

    Ooh - 2012 is obviously not history in Fenland U.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    Nigelb said:



    Oh, I agree, and it's important not to turn them into holy grails. Like voting at an election: unless you're a party zealot, no one party will probably match everything you want. There will be some policies you love, and some you dislike. Ditto the people within.

    There'll be things I dislike about *any* voting system; there will be compromises to the above (except for the sanctity of the actual voting process - I won't back down on that). It's a case of being adult and picking the bext compromise.

    I'm not saying we do not have political parties; just that they should be given as little power as possible, whereas they always want to get more power.

    I agree with much of what you say, and think you'd like the Swiss system which forces voters to take direct responsibility, one issue at a time. The parties are essentially advisory bodies.

    That said, I think your perception of parties as monolithic forces detached from MPs and forcing them to act against their better judgment is exaggerated. Most MPs have been members of their parties for many years, not usually for career reasons but because they broadly agree with them. Of course there are times when MPs say to each other "Are we REALLY going ahead with this thing?" but most of the time there's a sense of common purpose and the party is voluntarily given the benefit of the doubt, so "giving parties less power" would make little difference. I make mostly pro-Labour posts here, with occasional criticisms, because it's what I think - nobody is pressing me to post.

    It was much the same as an MP, except that when I had criticisms I'd get a discussion with the Minister an, usually, some tweaks to make the policy more acceptable - much as Gove & co have done over the 45p. I was only once directly pressured by a whip - "If you won't that way, you won't get any visits from senior Ministers at election time". I laughed, and made a point of voting the way I wanted. No repercussions followed and the Chief Whip (Hilary Armstrong) privately apologised.

    It's more like a marriage. You sometimes squabble, and generally end up compromising or shrugging and getting over it. Occasionally it gets bad enough to make you split up. But it's misleading to say that one has the "power" over the other.
    When you only have two parties with any great chance of being the government, though, that "common purpose" effectively excludes quite a large range of political opinion.
    Politics is about compromise. If we only have two parties with any chance of success then that is because they are the only two parties who have decided to compromise on their ideals.

    Our system allows people to express their opinions - if the BNP or RCP had a compelling offering then they would sweep the board and form the next government.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Scott_xP said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.

    KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
    He got a bit cross, didn't he.

    Anyway it doesn't matter. He's a dead man walking. Truss's departure will be slower and more carefully timed, but there is no way the Tories can go into the next election with these two up front and centre stage.
    100mph climb down on 45p - rebels may wonder what to pick off next? https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1576812109073113088

    I wonder if the next thing they pick off is the chancellor...
    He has to go.

    Although his replacement is likely as bad, given the level of Truss appointees.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,243
    Mark Carney must be awaiting the call from King Charles to stand in as a Draghi figure bearing the political blame for the pain to come.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,389

    Elon’s certainly mastered the bloke walking very slowly because he’s shit himself mode.

    https://twitter.com/business/status/1576587825109164033?s=21&t=AN7dhJbY6Vjc3kNTiOrjow

    Good grief! That idiot Musk has built a Terminator!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
  • franklynfranklyn Posts: 273
    I was one of those who would have benefited substantially from the 45% tax band abolition, but I didn't want or deserve it.

    But the tax system does need reform. One of my employees has a performance element to pay. She worked very diligently and beyond the call of duty, and breached the 50K income level, where not only did she reach the 40% band, but she lost her child benefit. She had no financial reward for her hard work. This is NOT an incentive to improve productivity.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    "Distraction"
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    DougSeal said:

    Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.

    You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
    For a PB expert on Scotland you show a touching naïveté sometimes.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    I thought KK was not too bad this morning; positively reassuring. I can live with an incompetent government as a perhaps necessary step towards good government after the lying cheating era ended.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776
    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited October 2022
    I've cashed out of Brazil for a decent profit but looking at the first round results aren't all the Gomes voters going to go for Lula and get him a comfortable and commanding 52% without much hassle?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    What time was the @R4Today KK interview? I fancy a shot of schadenfreude.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    edited October 2022
    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Add National Trust. And now CPRE too.

    https://www.cpre.org.uk/
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    What time was the @R4Today KK interview? I fancy a shot of schadenfreude.

    8.10am
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,283
    franklyn said:

    I was one of those who would have benefited substantially from the 45% tax band abolition, but I didn't want or deserve it.

    But the tax system does need reform. One of my employees has a performance element to pay. She worked very diligently and beyond the call of duty, and breached the 50K income level, where not only did she reach the 40% band, but she lost her child benefit. She had no financial reward for her hard work. This is NOT an incentive to improve productivity.

    This captures the basic problem with redistributionist thinking. It assumes a static system rather than a dynamic system in which people's income varies over time and the pool of taxpayers changes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,411

    Scott_xP said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.

    KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
    He got a bit cross, didn't he.

    Anyway it doesn't matter. He's a dead man walking. Truss's departure will be slower and more carefully timed, but there is no way the Tories can go into the next election with these two up front and centre stage.
    100mph climb down on 45p - rebels may wonder what to pick off next? https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1576812109073113088

    I wonder if the next thing they pick off is the chancellor...
    He has to go.

    Although his replacement is likely as bad, given the level of Truss appointees.
    We've never had four chancellors in one calendar year before, or at least, not that I know of.

    She could set one record without even being the shortest serving PM.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    edited October 2022
    I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs.
    Fair's fair.
    Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101

    He has to go.

    Although his replacement is likely as bad, given the level of Truss appointees.

    If Gove* can get Truss to sack Kwasi, he can probably get her to pick the "right" candidate as a replacement...

    *pictures Gove gently stroking a white cat
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    TOPPING said:

    I thought KK was not too bad this morning; positively reassuring. I can live with an incompetent government as a perhaps necessary step towards good government after the lying cheating era ended.

    Given the rumoured spending cuts - I have to disagree with you there - Truss is making the lying cheating era appear at vaguely compassionate and sane...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Greens then? or LDs?
  • Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    It's not going to happen, is it? Because the necessary votes aren't there.

    So, are Team Truss prepared to sit there, in office but not in power, for the next two years?
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.

    KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
    He got a bit cross, didn't he.

    Anyway it doesn't matter. He's a dead man walking. Truss's departure will be slower and more carefully timed, but there is no way the Tories can go into the next election with these two up front and centre stage.
    100mph climb down on 45p - rebels may wonder what to pick off next? https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1576812109073113088

    I wonder if the next thing they pick off is the chancellor...
    He has to go.

    Although his replacement is likely as bad, given the level of Truss appointees.
    We've never had four chancellors in one calendar year before, or at least, not that I know of.

    She could set one record without even being the shortest serving PM.
    Problem is - would you really want to be Chancellor with Truss as PM... When Truss is kicked out (September next year at the latest?) that's probably your career finished as well...
  • This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,389
    edited October 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    Cabinet ministers blindsided by the 45p move. Spoke to one this morning who found out first via the media then a call around 7am confirming.

    Full cabinet wasn’t consulted when the original policy was adopted; wasn’t consulted when it was scrapped.

    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1576837571723685888

    Government by dictat which would make Ms Truss ..... :open_mouth:

    From now on we must refer to her as Supreme Leader Truss!

    And whatever you do, do not shake her hand!!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,274
    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    👀👀 eeek…

    Former work and pensions secretary Stephen Crabb tells @LBC the 45p tax rate U-turn “probably doesn’t draw a full line under the mini-budget”.

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576844924015718401
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,523
    edited October 2022

    DougSeal said:

    Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.

    You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
    Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.



    Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    Pulpstar said:

    I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs.
    Fair's fair.
    Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.

    It'd tie bankers in with the competance of their bank. If they believe in it and it's asset sheet, they'll be well rewarded.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,904
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.

    KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
    A Cambridge educated economist, arrogant?

    You'll be telling me next that a civil servant at the DfE is useless.
    He's not an economist, he's a historian.
    OK, well, in that case he's obviously quite unusual.

    The modesty of Cambridge educated historians is legendary. And historians in general are noted for our reserve, humility and lack of hubris.
    It's their attention to detail that I find so impressive.

    Personally I have always found Cambridge educated economists to be wonderful fonts of wisdom.
    Which 'they'? Historians, or economists?
    Historians. Also, in the interests of clarity, I should signal that I was being sarcastic!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,411
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.

    KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
    He got a bit cross, didn't he.

    Anyway it doesn't matter. He's a dead man walking. Truss's departure will be slower and more carefully timed, but there is no way the Tories can go into the next election with these two up front and centre stage.
    100mph climb down on 45p - rebels may wonder what to pick off next? https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1576812109073113088

    I wonder if the next thing they pick off is the chancellor...
    He has to go.

    Although his replacement is likely as bad, given the level of Truss appointees.
    We've never had four chancellors in one calendar year before, or at least, not that I know of.

    She could set one record without even being the shortest serving PM.
    Problem is - would you really want to be Chancellor with Truss as PM... When Truss is kicked out (September next year at the latest?) that's probably your career finished as well...
    Mogg or Philp would do it. Or Zahawi perhaps, although that would spoil the record.

    Their careers are over anyway when she goes so they have nothing to lose.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,243
    Pulpstar said:

    I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs.
    Fair's fair.
    Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.

    In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776
    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    They could use the Trump course in Aberdeenshire as an example. Two birds (Tories and SNP)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.

    You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
    Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.



    Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Tamson's_bairns
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    What time was the @R4Today KK interview? I fancy a shot of schadenfreude.

    NR did a very good job of eliding the fiscal and political implications of the u-turn. He was talking both about the markets being spooked by unfunded fiscal stimulus and allowed it to appear to the untrained ear that the 45p rate was at the heart of this. Which of course it wasn't.

    Fiscally the 45p rate cut was of course negligible (mindful however of course of the a billion here a billion there maxim) but politically it was devastating. NR managed to combine the two together as though the £2bn from the tax cut was what the markets were worried about.

    That said, now it's done, it may be that "the people" think well we told them and they listened which wouldn't be wholly negative for the Cons.
  • This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of a 45 billion package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy on the back of this one..

    Well indeed, as I said last week politically and media management this has been utterly mishandled and is atrocious, but economically its different.

    The idea that a £2bn tax change was responsible for rational market movements last week was absurd and I said so all along.

    The Government is potentially having to borrow £150bn for energy support, which was called for by Labour, and £43bn per annum of alternative tax cuts which the Labour Party have said they'd keep too. Plus more importantly but completely missed by the media narrative, the Bank of England had said it would engage in £80bn in Quantitative Tightening, with more QT to come.

    The notion that the Gilt markets could bear the £150bn + £43bn + £80bn but the £2bn extra was economically flawed was just absurd. It always was.

    But the media narrative and public first impression is that is that everything is going to rich people.

    Every working person just got a 2.25% tax cut between NI and Income Tax, 3.5% if you include Employers NI as you should, and the Government is going to get no credit for that at all as the £2bn has overshadowed everything else.

    Ridiculous, just ridiculous.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,007
    Nigelb said:

    With Bolsonaro coming back into play, maybe UK Tories were too quick to write Boris Johnson off?

    Maybe Brazilian election shows us too quick to write Truss off as well - this aspirational, not giving in to the long term decline caused by too much handouts, pride in your country and flag messaging seems successful the world over at the moment.

    Bolsonaro is wildly popular with a large number of Brazilians, even if he’s unpopular with a greater number.
    He’ was also running against a man who did jail time for corruption.

    Truss is comparable how, exactly ?
    Very very similar messaging Nigel, that you are too quick to dismiss claiming you know better about what happened.

    aspirational
    not giving in to decline caused by too much handouts making people idle and not entrepreneurial enough
    pride in your country and flag and striving to be best in the world
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,607

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    'Car crash'....'Corbyn'.....'absolute'?

    A bit of a strange non sequitur

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,389
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.

    You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
    Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.



    Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
    Seriously? There's millions of them, all squabbling over whisky and football. You can hear them from N Ireland now that Ian Paisley has stopped preaching and the bombs have stopped.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    I thought KK was not too bad this morning; positively reassuring. I can live with an incompetent government as a perhaps necessary step towards good government after the lying cheating era ended.

    Given the rumoured spending cuts - I have to disagree with you there - Truss is making the lying cheating era appear at vaguely compassionate and sane...
    Let's wait to see what's up her sleeve.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,904
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.

    You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
    Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.



    Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
    It was the Dandy. The Jocks were the local team (the Dandy being a Scottish publication). The tartan outfits might have provided a hint at their origins!
  • Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    EPG said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs.
    Fair's fair.
    Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.

    In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
    Looks to me when push and shove come it's the taxpayer.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Greens then? or LDs?
    Yes one of those two probably.

    Greens promising a £15 minimum wage SKS is promising what will be a real terms pay cut by 2024 ie £10.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,788
    edited October 2022
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.

    You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
    Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.



    Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
    Buy a dictionary, oh language student, that might solve your perpetual angry befuddlement.



  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.

    You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
    Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.



    Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
    Always look at the DSL. It's simply the equivalent of Jack further south (also occurs in N. England I think).

    https://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/jock
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776
    The U-turn actually reverses a significant increase in the SG budget. Interesting to see whether the SNP complain about it.

    Tax is an issue for Scotland. The country depends on high earners in Aberdeenshire and Edinburgh for revenue, and putting them off over the long-term is not ideal.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 550
    edited October 2022
    TOPPING said:

    Politics is about compromise. If we only have two parties with any chance of success then that is because they are the only two parties who have decided to compromise on their ideals.

    Our system allows people to express their opinions - if the BNP or RCP had a compelling offering then they would sweep the board and form the next government.

    No, we have two main parties because that is by far the most stable point in an FPTP system, and other parties can't get in merely by providing a "compelling offering" because, again, the system makes that a very hard uphill struggle. If you want a system where people can usefully express their opinions and third parties can be a workable vehicle for doing that in a meaningful way, you should favour some kind of voting reform.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs.
    Fair's fair.
    Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.

    It'd tie bankers in with the competance of their bank. If they believe in it and it's asset sheet, they'll be well rewarded.
    How many years would you go back - the last thing you want is for arguments that go - why should I suffer I left x years ago....
  • eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    I thought KK was not too bad this morning; positively reassuring. I can live with an incompetent government as a perhaps necessary step towards good government after the lying cheating era ended.

    Given the rumoured spending cuts - I have to disagree with you there - Truss is making the lying cheating era appear at vaguely compassionate and sane...
    I'll believe the spending cuts when I see them. Going back to a point in @Cyclefree's splendid header*, they look fine as numbers on a spreadsheet. But if the consequence is chunks of health, education, policing utterly falling over, demands on charities for food and warmth going through the roof, is the government really going to go through with them?

    Really?

    * They remind me of the traditional satirical broadside done as a straight monologue to camera. Five or so minutes of distilled relentless righteous anger directed at someone who deserves it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs.
    Fair's fair.
    Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.

    It'd tie bankers in with the competance of their bank. If they believe in it and it's asset sheet, they'll be well rewarded.
    How many years would you go back - the last thing you want is for arguments that go - why should I suffer I left x years ago....
    3.
  • eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    DWP, abolish the triple lock. That'd be a good start.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,313
    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    @Cyclefree

    Have you been following this developing issue with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?
    In a nutshell, a bill that revokes all EU regulations transposed in to UK law by the end of 2023.
    They are clearly hoping that they can restart the Brexit wars, but there might just be some perverse consequences.

    https://simonicity.com/2022/10/01/ruler/
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,243
    Pulpstar said:

    EPG said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs.
    Fair's fair.
    Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.

    In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
    Looks to me when push and shove come it's the taxpayer.
    Hopefully not next time, but either way shareholders and boards have the power to decide strategy and risk taking.
  • A U-turn is clearly the best moral decision but politically it makes them look absolutely pathetic. How can they have credibility on anything ever again?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,007
    rcs1000 said:

    nico679 said:

    If Lula doesn’t make 50% those who self indulgently voted for Tebet and Gomes have only themselves to blame if Bolsonaro embarks on a month of mayhem before the second round vote .



    Tebet has beaten Gomes. Thronicke, d avilia and Kelmon votes all go to Bolsonaro, Lula could still lose the run off quite comfortably from here. Lula supporters were right to be nervous, the right and centre parties have defied the polls to win this election the only caveat being enough Tebet centre votes breaking for Lula to pip him over the line at the end of the month.

    The drift in Brazilian Politics is clearly rightward, not even an error strewn first term from Balsonaro could stem that.
    Lula could lose the runoff, but it wouldn't be comfortably.
    Totally agree, now that it has extended to 5 points with himself on 48. Still a squeaky win in very sad polarised country. 😕

    The caveats though is getting the same vote out and no switching. There’s no room for a black swan or sort of thing Hilary suffered from, making it far from sort of bet Ping could put the mortgage on, if Ping had one.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    pm215 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Politics is about compromise. If we only have two parties with any chance of success then that is because they are the only two parties who have decided to compromise on their ideals.

    Our system allows people to express their opinions - if the BNP or RCP had a compelling offering then they would sweep the board and form the next government.

    No, we have two main parties because that is by far the most stable point in an FPTP system, and other parties can't get in merely by providing a "compelling offering" because, again, the system makes that a very hard uphill struggle. If you want a system where people can usefully express their opinions and third parties can be a workable vehicle for doing that in a meaningful way, you should favour some kind of voting reform.
    If 100% of the voters of Bootle decided to vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party then the Monster Raving Loony Party would win the seat.

    It doesn't get any more complicated than that.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
  • This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You implicitly would rather Truss over SKS if you won't vote for him.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    edited October 2022
    darkage said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    @Cyclefree

    Have you been following this developing issue with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?
    In a nutshell, a bill that revokes all EU regulations transposed in to UK law by the end of 2023.
    They are clearly hoping that they can restart the Brexit wars, but there might just be some perverse consequences.

    https://simonicity.com/2022/10/01/ruler/
    Quite so. And we are dealing with folk who think (metaphorically) an explosion is a good way to rearrange a room.

    That'll be the RSPCA on the Government's case, for one, now.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    The Yorkshire Dales is only now covering the area that was originally proposed because some landlords successfully refused for their land to be included in it was it was first created...

    Also I note that most people probably don't understand that quarry's (and reservoirs) override National parks anyway...
  • This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    Oh, I have no doubt I'm wealthy. It's more that the point about reversing the corporation tax increase may have more appeal than the "it's a sop to big business" line.

    Hope everything is good @Benpointer
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    EPG said:

    Pulpstar said:

    EPG said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs.
    Fair's fair.
    Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.

    In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
    Looks to me when push and shove come it's the taxpayer.
    Hopefully not next time, but either way shareholders and boards have the power to decide strategy and risk taking.
    With great bonuses comes great responsibility.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    Pulpstar said:

    EPG said:

    Pulpstar said:

    EPG said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs.
    Fair's fair.
    Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.

    In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
    Looks to me when push and shove come it's the taxpayer.
    Hopefully not next time, but either way shareholders and boards have the power to decide strategy and risk taking.
    With great bonuses comes great responsibility.
    Nice grammar ... all too easy to foul that up.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,480
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.

    You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
    Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.



    Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
    Is this a genuine question? Isn't Jock for Scottish a pretty common use, like Pom and Pommie for the English by Aussies? And 'sweaties' - sweaty sock = jock too?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,313

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    I thought KK was not too bad this morning; positively reassuring. I can live with an incompetent government as a perhaps necessary step towards good government after the lying cheating era ended.

    Given the rumoured spending cuts - I have to disagree with you there - Truss is making the lying cheating era appear at vaguely compassionate and sane...
    I'll believe the spending cuts when I see them. Going back to a point in @Cyclefree's splendid header*, they look fine as numbers on a spreadsheet. But if the consequence is chunks of health, education, policing utterly falling over, demands on charities for food and warmth going through the roof, is the government really going to go through with them?

    Really?

    * They remind me of the traditional satirical broadside done as a straight monologue to camera. Five or so minutes of distilled relentless righteous anger directed at someone who deserves it.
    This is essentially a clumsy and disorganised rehash of austerity, but carried out after the first attempt was branded a failure; led by people with none of the credibility of Cameron and Osborne; and with no mandate and in contradiction to what people voted for.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674
    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Ukraine performing another pincer movement, this time to the NE of Kherson.

    They do seem to be getting quite a bit of practice at this move....


    https://twitter.com/mikirede/status/1576851183813431296/photo/1
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    Oh, I have no doubt I'm wealthy. It's more that the point about reversing the corporation tax increase may have more appeal than the "it's a sop to big business" line.

    Hope everything is good @Benpointer
    I always thought you were a talking horse.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,146
    edited October 2022
    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    Yes. Find another field, or buy it yourself if you don't want it developing.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Also those hot takes on the terrible position Sturgeon found herself in after the special financial operation have aged well.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    edited October 2022
    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?

    It's a new school - i.e. a project for the good of the community and you are upset by it?????

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,389
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
  • Ukraine performing another pincer movement, this time to the NE of Kherson.

    They do seem to be getting quite a bit of practice at this move....


    https://twitter.com/mikirede/status/1576851183813431296/photo/1

    The skill and expertise the Ukrainians have shown during this war is a masterclass that will be studied for generations to come.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,901
    EPG said:

    Pulpstar said:

    EPG said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs.
    Fair's fair.
    Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.

    In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
    Looks to me when push and shove come it's the taxpayer.
    Hopefully not next time, but either way shareholders and boards have the power to decide strategy and risk taking.
    Leave the banks to manage themselves, what could possibly go wrong there?
  • https://twitter.com/edconwaysky/status/1576822189810147329

    Since the UK Government's actions don't impact the Pound, it was me having porridge this morning that caused this jump.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    Oh, I have no doubt I'm wealthy. It's more that the point about reversing the corporation tax increase may have more appeal than the "it's a sop to big business" line.

    Hope everything is good @Benpointer
    Yes all good thanks, hope it is with you too.

    Good to hear that you at least are going to benefit from these tax changes ;-)
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
  • eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    Yes. Find another field, or buy it yourself if you don't want it developing.
    It's a new school - i.e. a project for the good of the community and you are upset by it?????

    I assume you meant to tag @Eabhal in that not me? I agree with your comment 100%
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,901

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,788
    edited October 2022
    Alistair said:

    Also those hot takes on the terrible position Sturgeon found herself in after the special financial operation have aged well.

    I look forward to Scotland's leading celebrity QC making his pivot which will undoubtedly conclude with him being right all along.

    Edit: KC!
  • ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    Yes we were all wrong to do that. Although in my defence I only voted for Corbyn the second leadership election.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    Liz Truss, 21 September: "I am prepared to be unpopular."

    Liz Truss, 3 October: "I am not prepared to be THIS unpopular." ~AA

    https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1576850309309419520
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,684

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    73% as of this month for me, was 42% before then.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You implicitly would rather Truss over SKS if you won't vote for him.
    Devisive Factionalist Actions do have consequences.

  • eekeek Posts: 22,039

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
    So which departments do you want to bin

    Employment Benefit / Pensions
    Environment
    Justice
    Education
    Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power)
    Home Office

    There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....
  • This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You implicitly would rather Truss over SKS if you won't vote for him.
    Devisive Factionalist Actions do have consequences.

    You are just annoyed SKS is 33 points ahead
This discussion has been closed.