"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
She is a socially awkward ideologue who has to think through how to present (or mask) her ideology in the most palatable fashion.
Thatcher didn’t have this issue because she was simply a lot more considered and had greater courage of her convictions.
Yep. This.
Also, one forgets that, until 1987 at least, Thatcher was a highly skilled politician.
Yes, I think people forget that there is such a thing as being a good politician in the same way that you have good accountants, plumbers, teachers and so on. There is just a certain skill in the job that others in the biz recognise.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I wish there was more nuance in politics today. As a candidate you sign up to front the whole programme. These days there appears to be very little space to inject your own views, think or influence. You get a lot of abuse.
However, if you do do it, it is terrific fun. You get to meet tons of people and represent their hopes. You get to see the world as it is. There is no hiding as a junior politician. The trouble for senior politicians is that they become isolated from this essential feedback and energy. .
I'm glad you had a good experience Jonathan but I don't think I'd enjoy it.
I'm half thinking about running to be a town councillor one day but that's because I love my town and am passionate about making it better and I think I could make a difference by joining the executive there.
Sure there'd be lots of politics with a small-p at that level but less with the big-P.
I broadly agree with Jonathan, as you'd expect - politics is satisfying and fun if you don't get too bothered by losing some battles.
Being a town councillor varies enormously. They can do really good work on a local level. Some TCs are intensely political with a big P, and everyone spends their time squabbling over trivia. You wouldn't get on the executive unless you threw yourself into winning the squabbles. Others are almost apolitical, and do quiet good work in broad consensus. Before plunging in, it's worth going to some meetings to find out which kind your TC is.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
The technology may have some uses, but that doesn't make the crypto scams like Tether and the other pyramid schemes propping up Bitcoin anything other than a scam. Lots of scams are built on top of technology that could be useful in the right hands, doesn't make the scams themselves valuable though.
Considering you were touting people put their savings into USDT the other day, I feel very sorry for you.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
The technology may have some uses, but that doesn't make the crypto scams like Tether and the other pyramid schemes propping up Bitcoin anything other than a scam. Lots of scams are built on top of technology that could be useful in the right hands, doesn't make the scams themselves valuable though.
Considering you were touting people put their savings into USDT the other day, I feel very sorry for you.
The interesting bit is that crypto could have many of the properties described.
That isn’t the problem.
The problem is that the space has been completed overrun by pirates and bad, bad people.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
Increasing private sector compensation at the top is also a big thing. I would get a fraction of my salary as an MP. Why take the pay cut?
This may sound extravagant but I have barely bought anything since Covid: just jeans and hoodies, and swimmers for the sun. Everything else seemed pointless
But I decided: fuck this looking like-a-slob crap. If we're all going to die, I am going out in style
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
Many people profit off of scams. Lots of people made money from Madoff.
I understand how cryptocurrencies work. They are stupid and dumb. The structure of Bitcoin is just jaw droppingly stupid for somethig that wants to replace the entire financial system.
And the whole things is propped up by Tether the most obvious scam in all of scamville
And you are very welcome to your opinion, as I hope you respect mine.
Btw, I don't think Tether is an obvious scam at all - I do, however, think it is backed by paper investments in the Chinese real estate market, but when that goes pop, a heck of a lot more than just Tether will be proved to be a "scam"...
Tether is absolutely a scam and it is backed up more by people with an almost religious belief that crypto is good, than it is by sound investments anywhere, even China.
This may sound extravagant but I have barely bought anything since Covid: just jeans and hoodies, and swimmers for the sun. Everything else seemed pointless
But I decided: fuck this looking like-a-slob crap. If we're all going to die, I am going out in style
While you’re at home rabidly typing out your paranoid bile, you could just have bought loads of underpants?
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
Increasing private sector compensation at the top is also a big thing. I would get a fraction of my salary as an MP. Why take the pay cut?
The globalisation of the private sector makes national politics look small, not only in terms of compensation.
This may sound extravagant but I have barely bought anything since Covid: just jeans and hoodies, and swimmers for the sun. Everything else seemed pointless
But I decided: fuck this looking like-a-slob crap. If we're all going to die, I am going out in style
While you’re at home rabidly typing out your paranoid bile, you could just have bought loads of underpants?
Not necessary if you are in Winnie the Pooh mode. Only if you are in Rupert Bear mode.
This may sound extravagant but I have barely bought anything since Covid: just jeans and hoodies, and swimmers for the sun. Everything else seemed pointless
But I decided: fuck this looking like-a-slob crap. If we're all going to die, I am going out in style
You got a discount on the tiny shoes though I imagine?
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
The technology may have some uses, but that doesn't make the crypto scams like Tether and the other pyramid schemes propping up Bitcoin anything other than a scam. Lots of scams are built on top of technology that could be useful in the right hands, doesn't make the scams themselves valuable though.
Considering you were touting people put their savings into USDT the other day, I feel very sorry for you.
You're free to feel sorry for me - just as I am free to enjoy the money I have made over the years I've been involved in it. I won't say how much. But, as I say, HFSP.
More importantly, for the record, what I was suggesting last week was the following: To anyone afraid that the GBP was about to sink, but would be unable to open a dollar account with their bank in time, I suggested a possible solution.
The solution was as follows: They would be able to open a bitstamp or kraken account and buy USDC (note, dear Barty, USDC, not USDT), which is a security backed by Blackrock and Fidelity, redeemable for $1. USDC is 100% backed by either cash holdings or short dated US treasury gilts, and fully audited by Grant Thornton LLP, on a monthly basis.
This would enable such a person concerned about the tanking pound to make the transfer out of GBP much faster than a conventional bank. They would then be free to trade out of USDC (e.g. by withdrawing to a conventional bank account) within a few days, i.e. once the paperwork cleared and the conventional bank account set up, say, in a week or so.
There would of course be counterparty risk involved in this action (duh!), which is why I urged anyone considering this to do their own research. But if someone's primary concern was a) getting out of GBP and b) into a security backed by US gilts with a regularly (monthly) audited structure, redeemable at a rate of 1 USDC to 1 USD, and transferrable back into actual USD as soon as the legacy banking system catches up, this would be one way of doing it.
Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of both the technology and the terminology. SAD.
Regarding Dorries all over Twitter with her complaints, didn’t she wholeheartedly support Truss about a two weeks ago?
For gods sake, woman, stop having lobotomies.
There is precious little brain left.
In 2012, on reality TV, Dorries ate, as I recall, a kangaroo testicle. Perhaps to restore balance to the universe, bollocks has been coming out of her mouth ever since.
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
The tabloidisation of politics coverage on TV has played a large part in driving away serious people too.
Sure, the fact that every interviewer wants a "gotcha" moment means that politicians just stonewall behind platitudes.
Interviews conducted by people like David Frost, Sir Robin Day, and Brian Walden were genuinely interesting to listen to.
Compare radio interviewers Sarah Montague on World at One with Nick Robinson on Today.
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
Labour 29.5% (-5.5% from August) National 36.0% (+0.5%) Greens 12.5% (+3.5%) ACT 12.5% (+2.0%) Maori 3.5% (-1.5%)
I don’t think we’ve seen Labour sub 30 before. The Māori co-governance policies are really denting Ardern’s support.
Next election is late next year.
Interesting National aren't gaining directly from Labour's problems - I'm not sure Luxon has, to use the vernacular, "sealed the deal" with the NZ electorate. On those numbers,, National and ACT will be able to form a Government.
The old "duopoly" used to poll more than 80% - now down to 65.5% and the combined Greens/ACT vote at 25% which is probably a record for any NZ poll.
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
She is a socially awkward ideologue who has to think through how to present (or mask) her ideology in the most palatable fashion.
Thatcher didn’t have this issue because she was simply a lot more considered and had greater courage of her convictions.
Maybe. But how to square her radical right dereg small state etc with her recent remainerdom?
She went for remain for the career brownie point from those running the Tories at the time, in anticipation that remain would win. The same motivation that led the clown to back leave, also in anticipation that remain would win.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
The technology may have some uses, but that doesn't make the crypto scams like Tether and the other pyramid schemes propping up Bitcoin anything other than a scam. Lots of scams are built on top of technology that could be useful in the right hands, doesn't make the scams themselves valuable though.
Considering you were touting people put their savings into USDT the other day, I feel very sorry for you.
You're free to feel sorry for me - just as I am free to enjoy the money I have made over the years I've been involved in it. I won't say how much. But, as I say, HFSP.
More importantly, for the record, what I was suggesting last week was the following: To anyone afraid that the GBP was about to sink, but would be unable to open a dollar account with their bank in time, I suggested a possible solution.
The solution was as follows: They would be able to open a bitstamp or kraken account and buy USDC (note, dear Barty, USDC, not USDT), which is a security backed by Blackrock and Fidelity, redeemable for $1. USDC is 100% backed by either cash holdings or short dated US treasury gilts, and fully audited by Grant Thornton LLP, on a monthly basis.
This would enable such a person concerned about the tanking pound to make the transfer out of GBP much faster than a conventional bank. They would then be free to trade out of USDC (e.g. by withdrawing to a conventional bank account) within a few days, i.e. once the paperwork cleared and the conventional bank account set up, say, in a week or so.
There would of course be counterparty risk involved in this action (duh!), which is why I urged anyone considering this to do their own research. But if someone's primary concern was a) getting out of GBP and b) into a security backed by US gilts with a regularly (monthly) audited structure, redeemable at a rate of 1 USDC to 1 USD, and transferrable back into actual USD as soon as the legacy banking system catches up, this would be one way of doing it.
Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of both the technology and the terminology. SAD.
"I made money from this" is not the argument you think it is that its not a scam.
Enron made a lot of people a lot of money, but when it collapsed there was a scam there with dodgy accounting and loans making money that appeared to be there when it wasn't. Madoff and other Ponzi schemes made a lot of people very rich before it all collapsed, so good for you if you're up on your "investments" but that doesn't change the fact that you've profited off a Ponzi scheme - many have done through time.
I hope you've cashed out your profits into real money though, for your own sake.
USDT claiming to have $66bn in assets has now surpassed Madoff Investment Securities as the largest Ponzi scheme in history.
This may sound extravagant but I have barely bought anything since Covid: just jeans and hoodies, and swimmers for the sun. Everything else seemed pointless
But I decided: fuck this looking like-a-slob crap. If we're all going to die, I am going out in style
You’ve been needing some more underpants from the sounds of it
Labour lead by 38% in the Red Wall, up from 15% two weeks ago. Red Wall Voting Intention (3-4 Oct.): Labour 61% (+12) Conservative 23% (-11) Reform UK 3% (-4) Liberal Democrat 7% (+2) Green 4% (–) Other 2% (+1) Changes +/- 19-20 Sept.
Liz needs to get the conference over and then start planning for the daddy of all fightbacks. But how? All out War on Woke is an option. But I'd go for Save Brexit. They can argue, with some justification, that if the Tories are wiped out to the extent the polls suggest, then the British euro-sceptic movement will be dead and buried and the Remoaners will have free rein to perpetrate no end of Brexity reversals perhaps even culminating - God forgive us - in rejoin itself. It might not prevent defeat but it might avoid total annihilation.
Labour 29.5% (-5.5% from August) National 36.0% (+0.5%) Greens 12.5% (+3.5%) ACT 12.5% (+2.0%) Maori 3.5% (-1.5%)
I don’t think we’ve seen Labour sub 30 before. The Māori co-governance policies are really denting Ardern’s support.
Next election is late next year.
Interesting National aren't gaining directly from Labour's problems - I'm not sure Luxon has, to use the vernacular, "sealed the deal" with the NZ electorate. On those numbers,, National and ACT will be able to form a Government.
The old "duopoly" used to poll more than 80% - now down to 65.5% and the combined Greens/ACT vote at 25% which is probably a record for any NZ poll.
The ACT leader is super savvy and clever. ACT’s success comes at the expense of a still lacklustre National.
I can’t really explain the Greens’ success. Left fatigue with Labour, perhaps.
I think Labour are still 60/40 to lead the next government.
From the docket: In addition to maintaining a towering standard of excellence to which the rest of the industry aspires, The Onion supports more than 350,000 full- and parttime journalism jobs in its numerous news bureaus and manual labor camps stationed around the world
Liz needs to get the conference over and then start planning for the daddy of all fightbacks. But how? All out War on Woke is an option. But I'd go for Save Brexit. They can argue, with some justification, that if the Tories are wiped out to the extent the polls suggest, then the British euro-sceptic movement will be dead and buried and the Remoaners will have free rein to perpetrate no end of Brexity reversals perhaps even culminating - God forgive us - in rejoin itself. It might not prevent defeat but it might avoid total annihilation.
Intriguingly this administration are actually going backwards on Brexit. Baker apologising to Ireland for his and the UKs approach would have got a lot more attention had it not been for the special economic operation.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
The technology may have some uses, but that doesn't make the crypto scams like Tether and the other pyramid schemes propping up Bitcoin anything other than a scam. Lots of scams are built on top of technology that could be useful in the right hands, doesn't make the scams themselves valuable though.
Considering you were touting people put their savings into USDT the other day, I feel very sorry for you.
You're free to feel sorry for me - just as I am free to enjoy the money I have made over the years I've been involved in it. I won't say how much. But, as I say, HFSP.
More importantly, for the record, what I was suggesting last week was the following: To anyone afraid that the GBP was about to sink, but would be unable to open a dollar account with their bank in time, I suggested a possible solution.
The solution was as follows: They would be able to open a bitstamp or kraken account and buy USDC (note, dear Barty, USDC, not USDT), which is a security backed by Blackrock and Fidelity, redeemable for $1. USDC is 100% backed by either cash holdings or short dated US treasury gilts, and fully audited by Grant Thornton LLP, on a monthly basis.
This would enable such a person concerned about the tanking pound to make the transfer out of GBP much faster than a conventional bank. They would then be free to trade out of USDC (e.g. by withdrawing to a conventional bank account) within a few days, i.e. once the paperwork cleared and the conventional bank account set up, say, in a week or so.
There would of course be counterparty risk involved in this action (duh!), which is why I urged anyone considering this to do their own research. But if someone's primary concern was a) getting out of GBP and b) into a security backed by US gilts with a regularly (monthly) audited structure, redeemable at a rate of 1 USDC to 1 USD, and transferrable back into actual USD as soon as the legacy banking system catches up, this would be one way of doing it.
Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of both the technology and the terminology. SAD.
"I made money from this" is not the argument you think it is that its not a scam.
Enron made a lot of people a lot of money, but when it collapsed there was a scam there with dodgy accounting and loans making money that appeared to be there when it wasn't. Madoff and other Ponzi schemes made a lot of people very rich before it all collapsed, so good for you if you're up on your "investments" but that doesn't change the fact that you've profited off a Ponzi scheme - many have done through time.
I hope you've cashed out your profits into real money though, for your own sake.
USDT claiming to have $66bn in assets has now surpassed Madoff Investment Securities as the largest Ponzi scheme in history.
Once again, I was talking about USDC, which is not USDT. USDC is a US based security that is audited on a monthly basis by Grant Thornton LLP and backed at a 1 to 1 ratio with either cash deposits or short dated US treasury gilts.
USDT professes to do the same thing, but instead of being fully audited (which is why I would never suggest to people they hold money in it), it functions more as a hedge fund, buying and selling a variety of securities that is not fully disclosed, but is largely believed to be Chinese REITs. So by holding USDT you are exposed to that risk. Because the risk of USDT collapsing is non-negligible - on here we can find a sliver of agreement - I would not recommend anyone hold it. Especially not when there is a safer and fully audited equivalent in the form of USDC.
But here I am, wasting my evening trying to explain this to someone who cannot even get through his skull the difference between USDC and USDT.
On that note, I'm off to re-watch Threads. It will be marginally less painful and tedious than continuing this argument.
Labour lead by 38% in the Red Wall, up from 15% two weeks ago. Red Wall Voting Intention (3-4 Oct.): Labour 61% (+12) Conservative 23% (-11) Reform UK 3% (-4) Liberal Democrat 7% (+2) Green 4% (–) Other 2% (+1) Changes +/- 19-20 Sept.
Lol
Strange to see Refuk halve despite the Tories losing 11%. Possibly active regret at leaving Labour rather than mere disappointment with the Tories.
Regarding Dorries all over Twitter with her complaints, didn’t she wholeheartedly support Truss about a two weeks ago?
For gods sake, woman, stop having lobotomies.
There is precious little brain left.
Apparently she is incandescent because her policies on the BBC, Channel 4, etc have been junked and is demanding an election to re-establish a mandate for them
Apart from her delusion, it is a fact how warped our politics are that she is heading for the House of Lords courtesy of Johnson
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
She is a socially awkward ideologue who has to think through how to present (or mask) her ideology in the most palatable fashion.
Thatcher didn’t have this issue because she was simply a lot more considered and had greater courage of her convictions.
Maybe. But how to square her radical right dereg small state etc with her recent remainerdom?
She went for remain for the career brownie point from those running the Tories at the time, in anticipation that remain would win. The same motivation that led the clown to back leave, also in anticipation that remain would win.
Yes. Which - as with Johnson - speaks to career over ideology. Most hard right ideologues were Leave.
Labour lead by 38% in the Red Wall, up from 15% two weeks ago. Red Wall Voting Intention (3-4 Oct.): Labour 61% (+12) Conservative 23% (-11) Reform UK 3% (-4) Liberal Democrat 7% (+2) Green 4% (–) Other 2% (+1) Changes +/- 19-20 Sept.
They may be hungry, broke and freezing, but at least they have the consolation that Corbyn didn’t get in….
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
This has gone down incredibly badly with some MPs, who see it as further trashing of the Tories’ record in government. One senior Tory MP says: “She’s the Khmer Rouge of the Tory party. It’s just scorched earth.” 😬 https://twitter.com/talktv/status/1577276325634654209
I want to know exactly how much the Lib Dems are paying her.
Exactly nothing, of course. She is doing it all off her own bat. She is just following the example of the Tory boys in the Bullingdon Club, but instead of trashing a restaurant or two, she is trashing the whole country. And the reputation of the Conservative Party too, of course, while she is at it.
First Egyptian Govt tells Liz Truss the King should go to COP climate summit. Now Alok Sharma (dedicated , credible and diplomatic) is doing same. Sharma making the point that COP is physics not politics so King can and should go https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1577388281603448834
This conference has been WAYYYY more fun than I expected
Labour 29.5% (-5.5% from August) National 36.0% (+0.5%) Greens 12.5% (+3.5%) ACT 12.5% (+2.0%) Maori 3.5% (-1.5%)
I don’t think we’ve seen Labour sub 30 before. The Māori co-governance policies are really denting Ardern’s support.
Next election is late next year.
Interesting National aren't gaining directly from Labour's problems - I'm not sure Luxon has, to use the vernacular, "sealed the deal" with the NZ electorate. On those numbers,, National and ACT will be able to form a Government.
The old "duopoly" used to poll more than 80% - now down to 65.5% and the combined Greens/ACT vote at 25% which is probably a record for any NZ poll.
The ACT leader is super savvy and clever. ACT’s success comes at the expense of a still lacklustre National.
I can’t really explain the Greens’ success. Left fatigue with Labour, perhaps.
I think Labour are still 60/40 to lead the next government.
I believe the ACT leader appeared on the NZ version of Dancing with the Stars. His opposition to Ardern's lockdowns and Covid elimination strategy has been key in boosting the ACT vote
First Egyptian Govt tells Liz Truss the King should go to COP climate summit. Now Alok Sharma (dedicated , credible and diplomatic) is doing same. Sharma making the point that COP is physics not politics so King can and should go https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1577388281603448834
This conference has been WAYYYY more fun than I expected
Well, look what Mr Thomson is reporting as well about UKG attitudes to the environment:
I keep trying to figure out what my strategy from here would be, if I was Truss.
And I just can’t.
Clinging on and hoping the storm will blow over is basically her only option.
Firstly announce benefits going up online with inflation. Then hunker down, nothing controversial, help Ukraine. Have two years and see where you are. If you lose then, it’s been 14 years in power anyway.
I keep trying to figure out what my strategy from here would be, if I was Truss.
And I just can’t.
Clinging on and hoping the storm will blow over is basically her only option.
Don’t do a fight back. Pick something in government that works, distract, bore, keep people busy with detail, take the heat out of it recover slowly. Like a boxer hugging their opponent to standup.
First Egyptian Govt tells Liz Truss the King should go to COP climate summit. Now Alok Sharma (dedicated , credible and diplomatic) is doing same. Sharma making the point that COP is physics not politics so King can and should go https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1577388281603448834
This conference has been WAYYYY more fun than I expected
This sort of fun?
(Anyone else seeing Truss as a blonder version of Disaster Girl? I think it's the nose that does it.)
Regarding Dorries all over Twitter with her complaints, didn’t she wholeheartedly support Truss about a two weeks ago?
For gods sake, woman, stop having lobotomies.
There is precious little brain left.
Apparently she is incandescent because her policies on the BBC, Channel 4, etc have been junked and is demanding an election to re-establish a mandate for them
Apart from her delusion, it is a fact how warped our politics are that she is heading for the House of Lords courtesy of Johnson
Dorries' policies on the BBC, Channel 4, which were clearly set out in the 2019 manifest... oh.
@Casino_Royale have you thought of getting involved in the organisation (you may already be). Knowing what you do for a living you would be very skilled at doing so. You also wear your heart or your sleeve so you might not be suited to the abuse you get as a politician.
I think of myself as the same. I was fortunate enough to be financially secure by the time I was forty so I packed up working for a big company. I set up my own business working part time and the rest of the time threw myself into organising for the LDs. I would dedicate 110% of my time during elections and by elections. It was great fun.
Trump praises Truss' budget 'Speaking to Laurence Fox, he said: "I like some of the things she's done, she seems very nice, a lot of times, finance is inverse.
"I cut taxes substantially and we did much more business, she's done that and she's taken some hits from it which surprises me.
"It could be that at the end of the year, there will be bigger revenues, it's going to be very interesting.
"What she did was very inverse to what some people thought, but that doesn't mean that they were right, I have a feeling that she will be right."
Labour 29.5% (-5.5% from August) National 36.0% (+0.5%) Greens 12.5% (+3.5%) ACT 12.5% (+2.0%) Maori 3.5% (-1.5%)
I don’t think we’ve seen Labour sub 30 before. The Māori co-governance policies are really denting Ardern’s support.
Next election is late next year.
Interesting National aren't gaining directly from Labour's problems - I'm not sure Luxon has, to use the vernacular, "sealed the deal" with the NZ electorate. On those numbers,, National and ACT will be able to form a Government.
The old "duopoly" used to poll more than 80% - now down to 65.5% and the combined Greens/ACT vote at 25% which is probably a record for any NZ poll.
The ACT leader is super savvy and clever. ACT’s success comes at the expense of a still lacklustre National.
I can’t really explain the Greens’ success. Left fatigue with Labour, perhaps.
I think Labour are still 60/40 to lead the next government.
I don't know much about David Seymour. How does he compare with Jamie Whyte in the cleverclogs stakes?
Trump praises Truss' budget 'Speaking to Laurence Fox, he said: "I like some of the things she's done, she seems very nice, a lot of times, finance is inverse.
"I cut taxes substantially and we did much more business, she's done that and she's taken some hits from it which surprises me.
"It could be that at the end of the year, there will be bigger revenues, it's going to be very interesting.
"What she did was very inverse to what some people thought, but that doesn't mean that they were right, I have a feeling that she will be right."
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
Controversial, I know, but isn't the salary a major part of the problem? Not many captains of industry, or lawyers etc. would apply for a job on a salary of £84k. This used to matter less for two reasons. Firstly, the unwritten use/abuse of expenses enabled a better lifestyle than the salary. Secondly, many (especially, but not only, Tories) made money elsewhere while an MP. This has been more frowned upon in recent years, and will be even more so since the Paterson case and associated scandals.
In brief - if we want MPs of all the talents, we have to pay them more, while at the same time clamping down on outside 'interests'.
I get the conflict of interest point but I don't see any harm in people staying involved in their industries/businesses and being in politics on top. In fact, it's probably quite grounding. MPs should be focused on the big national issues and represent their constituents accordingly.
What's the point in spending 100 hours a week just processing constituency casework on potholes and planning issues?
Part time MPs with good support services would be good.
Truss Seeks 20-Year Gas Deal With Norway to Avoid Winter Blackouts. Discussions may lead to locking in gas price for two decades.
Sky’s Sam Coates was clearly on to something, Truss on the cusp of her big Norway deal - is she thinking of announcing it in her speech tomorrow as the conference saving rabbit from the hat?
What would PBs advice be on this?
At what length of contract and cost does Energy Security argument fall apart and it become a risk on Value For Money?
and political risk of a huge stick opponents will bludgeon Tory LOTO with for decades to come if this is signed in haste and repented at leisure?
As I noted upthread, this has the potential to be G Brown and the gold reserves, but an order of magnitude or two bigger.
Is it really the job of a temp PM to be taking two decade bets on the commodities market ?
In defence of Liz Truss, our current PM at this time should be exploring ways of keeping the lights on through the crisis (though industry would be turned off first before hitting households I suspect). Contracts to secure supply probably do make some sense, provided they don’t prove too long and too expensive?
Could there be an element of how UK smartly stole ahead on vaccine contracts here, all signed to UK before lumbering EU even booked a meeting room to have a discussion on vaccine’s. Are the Tories again leading the way, getting energy signed up early? Might Truss by replicating that success gave Boris Tories a huge bounce from the voters?
However, like you I do sense risk here, political risk to lock us in long contracts poor value for money.
Can we put some numbers on it before we hear the numbers Liz government have agreed? How many years at what cost is good, okay, or poor can we estimate?
Fellow Tory friends, keep your nerve! Remember when we danced into the night in June 2016 when we voted to leave the ghastly EU. And then again in December 2019 when we all put the x against the Conservatives to “get Brexit done.” Yes, it may have taken 10% off our GDP and devalued our glorious GBP by 75% but don’t believe all the spin coming from the metropolitan remoaners! We now have navy blue passports with no sign of the word European on the cover! Take that, you vacuous champagne socialists!
We are free friends - free from those villainous smelly Europeans. We can repeal all workers rights so we can send 5 year olds up chimneys again. Environmental protection - wtf for? Let us frack and drill for oil anywhere and put those so called clever lefty scientists telling us the world is warming in their place! So when we all huddle round our TVs watching our great leader Liz inspire us with her rousing speech, remember your contribution in making it happen.
Wrap yourself in the union flag, puff out your chest and feel proud to be British! We ruled the world once, we can do it again and we don’t need Johnny Foreigner telling us how to do it! Good night friends!
I keep trying to figure out what my strategy from here would be, if I was Truss.
And I just can’t.
Clinging on and hoping the storm will blow over is basically her only option.
Don’t do a fight back. Pick something in government that works, distract, bore, keep people busy with detail, take the heat out of it recover slowly. Like a boxer hugging their opponent to standup.
I agree. Try to make politics as boring as possible for 2 years.
Making it all about Brexit or culture war won’t work. People voted last time to “get Brexit done” and are now bored, and a little frustrated by it. If Truss hitches her wagon to Brexit too closely she could do it damage. And culture war is a luxury for good times, besides which she won’t convince in that role.
Labour 29.5% (-5.5% from August) National 36.0% (+0.5%) Greens 12.5% (+3.5%) ACT 12.5% (+2.0%) Maori 3.5% (-1.5%)
I don’t think we’ve seen Labour sub 30 before. The Māori co-governance policies are really denting Ardern’s support.
Next election is late next year.
Interesting National aren't gaining directly from Labour's problems - I'm not sure Luxon has, to use the vernacular, "sealed the deal" with the NZ electorate. On those numbers,, National and ACT will be able to form a Government.
The old "duopoly" used to poll more than 80% - now down to 65.5% and the combined Greens/ACT vote at 25% which is probably a record for any NZ poll.
The ACT leader is super savvy and clever. ACT’s success comes at the expense of a still lacklustre National.
I can’t really explain the Greens’ success. Left fatigue with Labour, perhaps.
I think Labour are still 60/40 to lead the next government.
I don't know much about David Seymour. How does he compare with Jamie Whyte in the cleverclogs stakes?
Jamie Whyte was a complete idiot. Politically naive, ideologically purist. Trussian, even.
Seymour manages to balance a kind of political cunning with plain-talking honesty. Imagine a slightly more charismatic William Hague.
Fellow Tory friends, keep your nerve! Remember when we danced into the night in June 2016 when we voted to leave the ghastly EU. And then again in December 2019 when we all put the x against the Conservatives to “get Brexit done.” Yes, it may have taken 10% off our GDP and devalued our glorious GBP by 75% but don’t believe all the spin coming from the metropolitan remoaners! We now have navy blue passports with no sign of the word European on the cover! Take that, you vacuous champagne socialists!
We are free friends - free from those villainous smelly Europeans. We can repeal all workers rights so we can send 5 year olds up chimneys again. Environmental protection - wtf for? Let us frack and drill for oil anywhere and put those so called clever lefty scientists telling us the world is warming in their place! So when we all huddle round our TVs watching our great leader Liz inspire us with her rousing speech, remember your contribution in making it happen.
Wrap yourself in the union flag, puff out your chest and feel proud to be British! We ruled the world once, we can do it again and we don’t need Johnny Foreigner telling us how to do it! Good night friends!
I keep trying to figure out what my strategy from here would be, if I was Truss.
And I just can’t.
Clinging on and hoping the storm will blow over is basically her only option.
Firstly announce benefits going up online with inflation. Then hunker down, nothing controversial, help Ukraine. Have two years and see where you are. If you lose then, it’s been 14 years in power anyway.
And if 2024 brings UK the best growth in the G7, Labour are struggling in that autumn election?
I keep trying to figure out what my strategy from here would be, if I was Truss.
And I just can’t.
Clinging on and hoping the storm will blow over is basically her only option.
Firstly announce benefits going up online with inflation. Then hunker down, nothing controversial, help Ukraine. Have two years and see where you are. If you lose then, it’s been 14 years in power anyway.
And if 2024 brings UK the best growth in the G7, Labour are struggling in that autumn election?
Not if 1997 is anything to go by. Awful economy from 1990 to 1994, then much improved. And a labour landslide.
Labour 29.5% (-5.5% from August) National 36.0% (+0.5%) Greens 12.5% (+3.5%) ACT 12.5% (+2.0%) Maori 3.5% (-1.5%)
I don’t think we’ve seen Labour sub 30 before. The Māori co-governance policies are really denting Ardern’s support.
Next election is late next year.
Interesting National aren't gaining directly from Labour's problems - I'm not sure Luxon has, to use the vernacular, "sealed the deal" with the NZ electorate. On those numbers,, National and ACT will be able to form a Government.
The old "duopoly" used to poll more than 80% - now down to 65.5% and the combined Greens/ACT vote at 25% which is probably a record for any NZ poll.
The ACT leader is super savvy and clever. ACT’s success comes at the expense of a still lacklustre National.
I can’t really explain the Greens’ success. Left fatigue with Labour, perhaps.
I think Labour are still 60/40 to lead the next government.
I don't know much about David Seymour. How does he compare with Jamie Whyte in the cleverclogs stakes?
Jamie Whyte was a complete idiot. Politically naive, ideologically purist. Trussian, even.
Seymour manages to balance a kind of political cunning with plain-talking honesty. Imagine a slightly more charismatic William Hague.
Well I've always been impressed by Whyte's intellect so I suppose I need to consider Seymour a prodigy.
I keep trying to figure out what my strategy from here would be, if I was Truss.
And I just can’t.
Clinging on and hoping the storm will blow over is basically her only option.
Firstly announce benefits going up online with inflation. Then hunker down, nothing controversial, help Ukraine. Have two years and see where you are. If you lose then, it’s been 14 years in power anyway.
And if 2024 brings UK the best growth in the G7, Labour are struggling in that autumn election?
It would help change a narrative. Not likely, but not impossible.
It almost feels deliberate. It's as if, a month ago, Truss and Kwarteng sat down together and wrote down a very long list under the heading "Who do we really want to piss off?".
They are working their way through that list, very methodically, ticking off each group and individual on it in the "successfully pissed off" column. They are more than half way through now, with some important targets still to come.
Labour lead by 38% in the Red Wall, up from 15% two weeks ago. Red Wall Voting Intention (3-4 Oct.): Labour 61% (+12) Conservative 23% (-11) Reform UK 3% (-4) Liberal Democrat 7% (+2) Green 4% (–) Other 2% (+1) Changes +/- 19-20 Sept.
Lol
Strange to see Refuk halve despite the Tories losing 11%. Possibly active regret at leaving Labour rather than mere disappointment with the Tories.
I am glad you flagged that up. Am I now not alone in sensing “strange” in the polls. The only way the polling makes sense is if it’s not a Tory collapse at all, but Labour, like the dollar, strong against all currencies.
And Labour now mopping everyone up after their boring week and boring big speech last week makes no sense at all.
There is something about current poll shift that doesn’t add up. It’s hiding something.
Labour 29.5% (-5.5% from August) National 36.0% (+0.5%) Greens 12.5% (+3.5%) ACT 12.5% (+2.0%) Maori 3.5% (-1.5%)
I don’t think we’ve seen Labour sub 30 before. The Māori co-governance policies are really denting Ardern’s support.
Next election is late next year.
Interesting National aren't gaining directly from Labour's problems - I'm not sure Luxon has, to use the vernacular, "sealed the deal" with the NZ electorate. On those numbers,, National and ACT will be able to form a Government.
The old "duopoly" used to poll more than 80% - now down to 65.5% and the combined Greens/ACT vote at 25% which is probably a record for any NZ poll.
The ACT leader is super savvy and clever. ACT’s success comes at the expense of a still lacklustre National.
I can’t really explain the Greens’ success. Left fatigue with Labour, perhaps.
I think Labour are still 60/40 to lead the next government.
I don't know much about David Seymour. How does he compare with Jamie Whyte in the cleverclogs stakes?
Jamie Whyte was a complete idiot. Politically naive, ideologically purist. Trussian, even.
Seymour manages to balance a kind of political cunning with plain-talking honesty. Imagine a slightly more charismatic William Hague.
Well I've always been impressed by Whyte's intellect so I suppose I need to consider Seymour a prodigy.
Whyte may be a philosophical genius, but he was a politician ninny. And his twitter feed suggests nothing has changed.
This sentence is extremely misleading given that the UK announced a windfall tax in response to the Ukraine war several months ago:
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Tell it to the CEO of Shell.
That would be the CEO of Shell who is just about to step down so honestly probably doesn't give a fuck.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
Labour lead by 38% in the Red Wall, up from 15% two weeks ago. Red Wall Voting Intention (3-4 Oct.): Labour 61% (+12) Conservative 23% (-11) Reform UK 3% (-4) Liberal Democrat 7% (+2) Green 4% (–) Other 2% (+1) Changes +/- 19-20 Sept.
Lol
Strange to see Refuk halve despite the Tories losing 11%. Possibly active regret at leaving Labour rather than mere disappointment with the Tories.
I am glad you flagged that up. Am I now not alone in sensing “strange” in the polls. The only way the polling makes sense is if it’s not a Tory collapse at all, but Labour, like the dollar, strong against all currencies.
And Labour now mopping everyone up after their boring week and boring big speech last week makes no sense at all.
There is something about current poll shift that doesn’t add up. It’s hiding something.
Here's my take. Folk take little interest between elections. But they've seen the new PM. They don't like. So they want the government out. The obvious answer is therefore Labour.
Do we know why Liz is dressed as a Playmobil worker?
It's what they all do these days.
More importantly, what is on the other end of that detonator in her hand?
You could imagine her having a TV show where she goes around demolishing old buildings, like a modern Fred Dibnah.
She has implied that she wants to get Britain booming.
As for why the polls have flipped so suddenly, Danny Finkelstein has an interesting observation in tomorrow's Times;
What wasn’t realised in 1996 was just how big Labour’s victory would be. Indeed even on election day in 1997, when polls were predicting an absolutely massive landslide, lots of people anticipated a much more modest Labour victory. Indeed I think that if more people in the country realised that their neighbours actually were going to vote Labour, more of them would have done so. The 1997 landslide might have been bigger if more people had expected it.
We've had a gradual shift from blue to red, a point or so a month, for over a year now. Something has held a lot of people back, though; mistrust of Labour, an impression that Starmer is boring, Boris-worship, protecting Brexit, I don't know. But there's also a social dynamic thing- the more people do X, the easier it is for others to do it. We were probably quite close to the social(ist) tipping point, then the Gruesome Twosome of Downing Street tipped almost everyone over the edge by acting like idiots.
This sentence is extremely misleading given that the UK announced a windfall tax in response to the Ukraine war several months ago:
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Tell it to the CEO of Shell.
That would be the CEO of Shell who is just about to step down so honestly probably doesn't give a fuck.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
That’s fine, but even your last para you concede there is political merit.
Yet we kept being told a few weeks ago that Labour’s policy was in some sense undeliverable.
This sentence is extremely misleading given that the UK announced a windfall tax in response to the Ukraine war several months ago:
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Tell it to the CEO of Shell.
That would be the CEO of Shell who is just about to step down so honestly probably doesn't give a fuck.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
That’s fine, but even your last para you concede there is political merit.
Yet we kept being told a few weeks ago that Labour’s policy was in some sense undeliverable.
I don’t think people were saying that. Rather the scale didn’t match up. The estimates for how much was needed dwarfed the amount that could be taxed.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
not that i am advocating Patel of course but being 60 is just as good an age to run the country as any other- not sure why we write of 60 year olds as being too old as they will be a lot more experienced in life and career and still be sharp enough to do the job and fit enough
If the Conservatives are out for 20 years, it'll be Laura Trott (there I go again) who will be the more likely candidate.
Comments
Thatcher was indeed a highly skilled politician.
Considering you were touting people put their savings into USDT the other day, I feel very sorry for you.
That isn’t the problem.
The problem is that the space has been completed overrun by pirates and bad, bad people.
This may sound extravagant but I have barely bought anything since Covid: just jeans and hoodies, and swimmers for the sun. Everything else seemed pointless
But I decided: fuck this looking like-a-slob crap. If we're all going to die, I am going out in style
https://news.sky.com/story/cost-of-living-shell-boss-calls-on-government-to-tax-oil-and-gas-companies-to-protect-poorest-12712013
@BigG please explain.
For gods sake, woman, stop having lobotomies.
There is precious little brain left.
Good: 7% (-3)
Bad: 60% (+24)
via @YouGov, 28-29 Sep
(Changes with 25 Sep)
More importantly, for the record, what I was suggesting last week was the following: To anyone afraid that the GBP was about to sink, but would be unable to open a dollar account with their bank in time, I suggested a possible solution.
The solution was as follows: They would be able to open a bitstamp or kraken account and buy USDC (note, dear Barty, USDC, not USDT), which is a security backed by Blackrock and Fidelity, redeemable for $1. USDC is 100% backed by either cash holdings or short dated US treasury gilts, and fully audited by Grant Thornton LLP, on a monthly basis.
This would enable such a person concerned about the tanking pound to make the transfer out of GBP much faster than a conventional bank. They would then be free to trade out of USDC (e.g. by withdrawing to a conventional bank account) within a few days, i.e. once the paperwork cleared and the conventional bank account set up, say, in a week or so.
There would of course be counterparty risk involved in this action (duh!), which is why I urged anyone considering this to do their own research. But if someone's primary concern was a) getting out of GBP and b) into a security backed by US gilts with a regularly (monthly) audited structure, redeemable at a rate of 1 USDC to 1 USD, and transferrable back into actual USD as soon as the legacy banking system catches up, this would be one way of doing it.
Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of both the technology and the terminology. SAD.
"While the European Union approved emergency levies on energy firms' unusually high profits, the UK has chosen to borrow to fund consumer subsidies."
Labour 29.5% (-5.5% from August)
National 36.0% (+0.5%)
Greens 12.5% (+3.5%)
ACT 12.5% (+2.0%)
Maori 3.5% (-1.5%)
I don’t think we’ve seen Labour sub 30 before.
The Māori co-governance policies are really denting Ardern’s support.
Next election is late next year.
She wasn’t wrong.
The old "duopoly" used to poll more than 80% - now down to 65.5% and the combined Greens/ACT vote at 25% which is probably a record for any NZ poll.
Enron made a lot of people a lot of money, but when it collapsed there was a scam there with dodgy accounting and loans making money that appeared to be there when it wasn't. Madoff and other Ponzi schemes made a lot of people very rich before it all collapsed, so good for you if you're up on your "investments" but that doesn't change the fact that you've profited off a Ponzi scheme - many have done through time.
I hope you've cashed out your profits into real money though, for your own sake.
USDT claiming to have $66bn in assets has now surpassed Madoff Investment Securities as the largest Ponzi scheme in history.
Lol
"But I'm not going to cut the top rate of income tax today ... I"m going to ABOLISH IT".
Chuckle chuckle. Bray bray.
ACT’s success comes at the expense of a still lacklustre National.
I can’t really explain the Greens’ success.
Left fatigue with Labour, perhaps.
I think Labour are still 60/40 to lead the next government.
In addition to maintaining a towering standard of excellence to which the rest of the industry aspires, The Onion supports more than 350,000 full- and parttime journalism jobs in its numerous news bureaus and manual labor camps stationed around the world
USDT professes to do the same thing, but instead of being fully audited (which is why I would never suggest to people they hold money in it), it functions more as a hedge fund, buying and selling a variety of securities that is not fully disclosed, but is largely believed to be Chinese REITs. So by holding USDT you are exposed to that risk. Because the risk of USDT collapsing is non-negligible - on here we can find a sliver of agreement - I would not recommend anyone hold it. Especially not when there is a safer and fully audited equivalent in the form of USDC.
But here I am, wasting my evening trying to explain this to someone who cannot even get through his skull the difference between USDC and USDT.
On that note, I'm off to re-watch Threads. It will be marginally less painful and tedious than continuing this argument.
Apart from her delusion, it is a fact how warped our politics are that she is heading for the House of Lords courtesy of Johnson
When the new Russian government requires an IMF bailout we should make it contingent on giving up their nuclear weapons.
https://twitter.com/talktv/status/1577276325634654209
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1577388281603448834
This conference has been WAYYYY more fun than I expected
And I just can’t.
Clinging on and hoping the storm will blow over is basically her only option.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1577327920703471616
We are the only party with the determination to deliver.
Together, we can unleash the full potential of our great country.
#CPC22 https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1577388314897879057/photo/1
Then hunker down, nothing controversial, help Ukraine. Have two years and see where you are. If you lose then, it’s been 14 years in power anyway.
(Anyone else seeing Truss as a blonder version of Disaster Girl? I think it's the nose that does it.)
"I shall fight on, I fight to win!"
This from Danny today is perfect, in that it is very much not rubbish, and it is obvious, but only once you’ve read it expressed so elegantly.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-must-brace-for-a-rout-worse-than-1997-28sblqpz0?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1664900119-1 https://twitter.com/CharlotteIvers/status/1577359416516661253/photo/1
But since the mini-budget… ‘incompetent’, ‘useless’ & ‘untrustworthy’
@JLPartnersPolls https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1577357884475719692/photo/1
I think of myself as the same. I was fortunate enough to be financially secure by the time I was forty so I packed up working for a big company. I set up my own business working part time and the rest of the time threw myself into organising for the LDs. I would dedicate 110% of my time during elections and by elections. It was great fun.
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1577388314897879057
"I cut taxes substantially and we did much more business, she's done that and she's taken some hits from it which surprises me.
"It could be that at the end of the year, there will be bigger revenues, it's going to be very interesting.
"What she did was very inverse to what some people thought, but that doesn't mean that they were right, I have a feeling that she will be right."
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/donald-trump-says-he-is-surprised-by-criticism-of-liz-truss-mini-budget/373233
But there’s no plan.
Nobody’s done the hard thinking and nobody has figured out how to sell it.
Just saying “growth through deregulation and tax cuts for the richest” is not a strategy, and is offensive to boot.
https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1575419240592580608
Could there be an element of how UK smartly stole ahead on vaccine contracts here, all signed to UK before lumbering EU even booked a meeting room to have a discussion on vaccine’s. Are the Tories again leading the way, getting energy signed up early? Might Truss by replicating that success gave Boris Tories a huge bounce from the voters?
However, like you I do sense risk here, political risk to lock us in long contracts poor value for money.
Can we put some numbers on it before we hear the numbers Liz government have agreed? How many years at what cost is good, okay, or poor can we estimate?
We are free friends - free from those villainous smelly Europeans. We can repeal all workers rights so we can send 5 year olds up chimneys again. Environmental protection - wtf for? Let us frack and drill for oil anywhere and put those so called clever lefty scientists telling us the world is warming in their place! So when we all huddle round our TVs watching our great leader Liz inspire us with her rousing speech, remember your contribution in making it happen.
Wrap yourself in the union flag, puff out your chest and feel proud to be British! We ruled the world once, we can do it again and we don’t need Johnny Foreigner telling us how to do it! Good night friends!
No government has ever set out to not achieve growth.
Do we know why Liz is dressed as a Playmobil worker?
Making it all about Brexit or culture war won’t work. People voted last time to “get Brexit done” and are now bored, and a little frustrated by it. If Truss hitches her wagon to Brexit too closely she could do it damage. And culture war is a luxury for good times, besides which she won’t convince in that role.
Politically naive, ideologically purist.
Trussian, even.
Seymour manages to balance a kind of political cunning with plain-talking honesty.
Imagine a slightly more charismatic William Hague.
More importantly, what is on the other end of that detonator in her hand?
They are working their way through that list, very methodically, ticking off each group and individual on it in the "successfully pissed off" column. They are more than half way through now, with some important targets still to come.
And Labour now mopping everyone up after their boring week and boring big speech last week makes no sense at all.
There is something about current poll shift that doesn’t add up. It’s hiding something.
The same CEO of Shell who decided to move their head office from the Netherlands to the UK after Brexit specifically to avoid higher taxes inside the EU.
The CEO of Shell who actually produce only 2.5% of their worldwide production from the UK.
If you are going to quote someone it is always as well to try and work out what their angle is.
Personally I think this is such a dire situation that we should get more from the oil companies producing from the North Sea. But Shell's contribution to that will be the square root of fuck all in the grand scheme of things so it is easy for Van Beurden to come over all holy.
The obvious answer is therefore Labour.
As for why the polls have flipped so suddenly, Danny Finkelstein has an interesting observation in tomorrow's Times;
What wasn’t realised in 1996 was just how big Labour’s victory would be. Indeed even on election day in 1997, when polls were predicting an absolutely massive landslide, lots of people anticipated a much more modest Labour victory. Indeed I think that if more people in the country realised that their neighbours actually were going to vote Labour, more of them would have done so. The 1997 landslide might have been bigger if more people had expected it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-must-brace-for-a-rout-worse-than-1997-28sblqpz0
We've had a gradual shift from blue to red, a point or so a month, for over a year now. Something has held a lot of people back, though; mistrust of Labour, an impression that Starmer is boring, Boris-worship, protecting Brexit, I don't know. But there's also a social dynamic thing- the more people do X, the easier it is for others to do it. We were probably quite close to the social(ist) tipping point, then the Gruesome Twosome of Downing Street tipped almost everyone over the edge by acting like idiots.
Yet we kept being told a few weeks ago that Labour’s policy was in some sense undeliverable.