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.
You're making it much more complicated than it is. People (most) are sick of the Tories. They want them out of government (of course, this may change over the next two years).
People aren't daft. How do you make sure that you get rid of the Tories? Voting Labour is the only surefire way, as Labour is the only other viable winner at a GE. So, currently, people want to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories. And, of course, Corbyn has gone, so it's safe.
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.
It wasn't that it was undeliverable it was just 2 billion more than Sunak had already implemented
It is also misleading to quote 170 billion profits when that is worldwide and the UK are around 40 billion
However, labour seem almost certain to win a majority so they too will have to convince the markets, OBR and IMF of their fully costed plans, and they will come under much more scrutiny as their election becomes more or less inevitable
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.
You make some good points, however I can't help but think that most people pushing Crypto nowadays would have been pushing Spanish Timeshare a few decades back.
Au contraire: they would have been pushing Northern Cyprus timeshare schemes.
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.
Deeply unpopular politics combined with a leader of zero personal appeal. This is a fiendishly difficult trick to pull off but they have managed it. Anything less than a GE defeat of epic proportions would be a poor return for their efforts.
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 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.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
Braverman in her Conference speech said it would be her "dream" to see a flight take off for Rwanda before Christmas. She's written her Christmas list early - 'all I want for Christmas is to deport some dehumanised foreigners to Rwanda'. Pleasant. Of course the Conference audience loved it.
Braverman in her Conference speech said it would be her "dream" to see a flight take off for Rwanda before Christmas. She's written her Christmas list early - 'all I want for Christmas is to deport some dehumanised foreigners to Rwanda'. Pleasant. Of course the Conference audience loved it.
I didn’t think I could loathe a UK politician more than I did Johnson but Braverman is the most inhumane despicable politician , utterly without a single redeeming feature .
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
1) Starmer is not Corbyn - yes he served under him, but he has kicked him out of the parliamentary party and Corbyn's faction hates him, says it all. Probably why she has to say people 'around him' 2) What does thrive on division mean anyway? The party system is about dividing people into tribes 3) Having a vision is not as important as politicians pretend it is. It's like having principles - only a good thing if the principles, or in this case vision, are not batshit.
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.
You're making it much more complicated than it is. People (most) are sick of the Tories. They want them out of government (of course, this may change over the next two years).
People aren't daft. How do you make sure that you get rid of the Tories? Voting Labour is the only surefire way, as Labour is the only other viable winner at a GE. So, currently, people want to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories. And, of course, Corbyn has gone, so it's safe.
To make it even simpler for your mind, in the Blue Wall Lib Dems are the challenger to a Tory seat, not Labour, so voting Labour is not sure fire way to getting rid of Tories, in many places voting Labour to get rid of Tories is not even an option to voters with more than two brain cells.
Who do you think managed to get the big by election swings against the Tories this past year - not Labour they struggled v Tories in actual battles - ditto council election results where Lib Dems were the winner - for example sweeping to control of the Somerset Super Council. These opinion polls are completely out of step with all of that.
The way the polls are acting does not match a slump in Tory support, it’s more similar to the strong dollar, all of a sudden Labour are strong against all other parties - it doesn’t make sense.
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
But it seems harsh. Slavery is such a hassle for the slave owner, I think this is more about grinding people down into bondage in a more subtle way. Serves them right, the little clods.
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
Braverman in her Conference speech said it would be her "dream" to see a flight take off for Rwanda before Christmas. She's written her Christmas list early - 'all I want for Christmas is to deport some dehumanised foreigners to Rwanda'. Pleasant. Of course the Conference audience loved it.
The Tory Party are the *nasty* party again! Cruella makes Priti look like some harmless hippy lefty!
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
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 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.
You're making it much more complicated than it is. People (most) are sick of the Tories. They want them out of government (of course, this may change over the next two years).
People aren't daft. How do you make sure that you get rid of the Tories? Voting Labour is the only surefire way, as Labour is the only other viable winner at a GE. So, currently, people want to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories. And, of course, Corbyn has gone, so it's safe.
To make it even simpler for your mind, in the Blue Wall Lib Dems are the challenger to a Tory seat, not Labour, so voting Labour is not sure fire way to getting rid of Tories, in many places voting Labour to get rid of Tories is not even an option to voters with more than two brain cells.
Who do you think managed to get the big by election swings against the Tories this past year - not Labour they struggled v Tories in actual battles - ditto council election results where Lib Dems were the winner - for example sweeping to control of the Somerset Super Council. These opinion polls are completely out of step with all of that.
The way the polls are acting does not match a slump in Tory support, it’s more similar to the strong dollar, all of a sudden Labour are strong against all other parties - it doesn’t make sense.
You're talking about tactical voting, which doesn't come into play until an actual GE. Of course some of those who now tell pollsters that they are Labour will switch to the LDs in a GE where they are the better-placed party to get rid of the Tories. The current polls reflect current feeling and are not a prediction of GE shares.
As these are the dying and desperate days of this government, it will be interesting to see what they prioritise either as the last gasp attempt to be popular, or their last provision of goodies to their supporters.
So far we have a focus on
1) Helping rich people 2) For god's sake get those migrants/refugees on a plane to Africa already
I am guessing even more electoral reform stuff will be up next.
Braverman in her Conference speech said it would be her "dream" to see a flight take off for Rwanda before Christmas. She's written her Christmas list early - 'all I want for Christmas is to deport some dehumanised foreigners to Rwanda'. Pleasant. Of course the Conference audience loved it.
The Tory Party are the *nasty* party again! Cruella makes Priti look like some harmless hippy lefty!
I'm surprised you implicitly acknowledge they were not the nasty party at some point, murali!
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.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
Per capita growth under Blair and Brown never reached the level it was at under John Major.
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?
I’ll give this “rush to secure energy deals, and Truss is winning for Britain” argument a further nudge with this headline
“Germany's Scholz seeks energy partnerships with Gulf states”
It might be Germany had stepped up to the plate as the new UK in EU. Thinking the same as we are now outside, as we would surely be thinking and arguing if still inside.
Olaf Schulz announcement to spend €200B on a “gas price brake” to keep gas prices low for German consumers and businesses is receiving an angry response within the EU on the basis it could jack up prices elsewhere. EU Opponents of the package say it will distort competition inside the single market by giving an advantage to German businesses. The Dutch government also unveiled details of a planned energy price cap for households together with subsidy system aimed at easing the pain for small-to-medium-sized businesses that use a lot of power, and they also reject the route of doing it through a new EU fund. The EU are split on this.
Is there another angle on why Truss was keen to borrow a quarter of a trillion pound for schemes to keep energy prices low for households and businesses - to give UK business a competitive advantage over the EU?
The Germans call their measures “our defensive shield around our households and businesses” - an emotive phrase for your speech Liz, if you are reading this.
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
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.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
Per capita growth under Blair and Brown never reached the level it was at under John Major.
Which is why "growth", in and of itself, isn't a clincher.
Braverman in her Conference speech said it would be her "dream" to see a flight take off for Rwanda before Christmas. She's written her Christmas list early - 'all I want for Christmas is to deport some dehumanised foreigners to Rwanda'. Pleasant. Of course the Conference audience loved it.
I didn’t think I could loathe a UK politician more than I did Johnson but Braverman is the most inhumane despicable politician , utterly without a single redeeming feature .
Probably agree, though JRM runs her close. Maybe his pleasant voice gives her the edge.
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.
You're making it much more complicated than it is. People (most) are sick of the Tories. They want them out of government (of course, this may change over the next two years).
People aren't daft. How do you make sure that you get rid of the Tories? Voting Labour is the only surefire way, as Labour is the only other viable winner at a GE. So, currently, people want to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories. And, of course, Corbyn has gone, so it's safe.
Yes, I think it is that simple. All elections are 'time for a change' and 'don't risk it'.
Boris broke the party's internal unity by being generally sleazy, and the public have snapped awake at the attempt to sell us a dream restart under Truss.
My general belief is people teeter on the edge of switching support for a long time, long past when it seems like they should. Then it comes out in a torrent. We saw that, I believe, with the Red Wall going Tory. We may be seeing it all over the place the other way now.
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
One thing's for sure, Rishi certainly is sticking around in Parliament now - no point sticking around to be LoTo if you are going to be well well back.
1) The government will have to change course 2) The government will be replaced by a new government 3) The initial reaction was over the top 4) They're expecting faster interest rate rises 5) Gas prices are coming down
Braverman in her Conference speech said it would be her "dream" to see a flight take off for Rwanda before Christmas. She's written her Christmas list early - 'all I want for Christmas is to deport some dehumanised foreigners to Rwanda'. Pleasant. Of course the Conference audience loved it.
See if she can sub-contract Santa to drop them off as he'sdoing his rounds.
Braverman can’t hide her total unadulterated happiness at seeing the plane taking off to Rwanda .
I’m sure she’d be first in line to see the migrants put against a wall and executed . I’m sure her hate fest will go down well with a section of the public but the sense of wtf has happened to this country will be shared by many others .
1) The government will have to change course 2) The government will be replaced by a new government 3) The initial reaction was over the top 4) They're expecting faster interest rate rises 5) Gas prices are coming down
1) The government will have to change course 2) The government will be replaced by a new government 3) The initial reaction was over the top 4) They're expecting faster interest rate rises 5) Gas prices are coming down
UK Effective 5 year borrowing costs (orange) still elevated & still at a premium to eg Greek costs (purple) - something that only occurred on mini budget day…
Off topic, but possibly of interest: An American company is making a small contribution to the British economy: The company, "The Great Courses", sells classes in a wide variety of subjects. If you buy one of the courses, you get a small book and a DVD with a set of lectures on the subject -- or you can watch the lectures on line.
When their most recent catalog arrived in the mail yesterday, I noticed that one of the featured courses is "The Great Tours; England, Scotland and Wales", which they will sell you for 35 dollars. (Or you can buy it with a similar course on Ireland, for 60 dollars.)
Presumably, this will encourage Americans to visit Britain, perhaps even for a grand tour.
Moon Rabbit insists they are anti Tory but seems to spend their whole time telling us how great the Tories are. It’s only themself they’re kidding
Anyone can post a view of what the Truss government argument is for their policy thinking, to kick that around a to see if we all agree not with it, but that it is at least that all right, without being Team Truss or voting for the Two Nation nonsense of it. I don’t want to be cheeky, but it’s a step up than merely throwing “40% poll lead” spaghetti at the wall over and over again.
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
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.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
It was largely recovery from the previous recession, unemployment was still high and the housing market remained underwater with lots of negative equity until 1995, but my point was that an economic bounce back in the years leading to 1997 (whether you start it in 1994 or 95) didn’t result in any improvement in Tory fortunes.
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?
One thing to consider - if there is a gas shortage in Europe this winter, there will be enormous pressure on Norway to “fairly share out” it’s gas. And ignore existing contracts.
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.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
It was largely recovery from the previous recession, unemployment was still high and the housing market remained underwater with lots of negative equity until 1995, but my point was that an economic bounce back in the years leading to 1997 (whether you start it in 1994 or 95) didn’t result in any improvement in Tory fortunes.
It appears to be true. They won an election in times of recession, they lost it when the country was on the uptick. But was it the remembrance of Black Wednesday era which swayed voters, or was it split parties struggle, the party at war with itself, one half hollowing out its own leadership?
1) The government will have to change course 2) The government will be replaced by a new government 3) The initial reaction was over the top 4) They're expecting faster interest rate rises 5) Gas prices are coming down
From what I can tell;
Almost exclusively 4, with a tiny bit of 1-3 & 5
Also, the BoE’s temporary special monetary operation (QE) looks to be more limited than initially feared - and QT is very much back on the cards.
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.
You're making it much more complicated than it is. People (most) are sick of the Tories. They want them out of government (of course, this may change over the next two years).
People aren't daft. How do you make sure that you get rid of the Tories? Voting Labour is the only surefire way, as Labour is the only other viable winner at a GE. So, currently, people want to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories. And, of course, Corbyn has gone, so it's safe.
To make it even simpler for your mind, in the Blue Wall Lib Dems are the challenger to a Tory seat, not Labour, so voting Labour is not sure fire way to getting rid of Tories, in many places voting Labour to get rid of Tories is not even an option to voters with more than two brain cells.
Who do you think managed to get the big by election swings against the Tories this past year - not Labour they struggled v Tories in actual battles - ditto council election results where Lib Dems were the winner - for example sweeping to control of the Somerset Super Council. These opinion polls are completely out of step with all of that.
The way the polls are acting does not match a slump in Tory support, it’s more similar to the strong dollar, all of a sudden Labour are strong against all other parties - it doesn’t make sense.
You're talking about tactical voting, which doesn't come into play until an actual GE. Of course some of those who now tell pollsters that they are Labour will switch to the LDs in a GE where they are the better-placed party to get rid of the Tories. The current polls reflect current feeling and are not a prediction of GE shares.
Your previous post wasn't clear enough, but the latest one mankes a lot of sense. I posted pretty much the same last week after the YouGov poll, when PBers were asking why the LDs had hardly increased.
Because most of those voters who have been Tory for the last 12 years will at the moment just answer "Labour" as their "time for a change" response. As the specifics of the GE constitency become more in focus, then I would imagine that a lot of "time for a changers" will move to LD if they had double the votes in their constituency compared to Labour last time.
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.
You are completely wrong.
Grant Thornton produce a monthly attestation which is pretty equivocally stated.
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?
There are lots of countries that - or have been - big gas importers.
Japan is a big gas importer. China, South Korea, the UK, Spain, and Germany are all big gas importers.
Some of these countries have been hit hard by rising gas prices (like the UK and Germany), while others (like South Korea and Japan) have been much less hit.
Why the difference?
Well, TEPCO and KEPCO entered into twenty year LNG contracts with price caps. Irrespective of the price of natural gas or oil, the price they pay to Qatar Gas, PNG LNG, or whoever, their price is capped at a certain level.
In the UK, our generators chose not to do that, for many reasons, but the biggest of which is that if you were buying gas at $7/mmcf on a long-term contract, and the spot price of gas was $5/mmcf, then your CCGT wouldn't be running and the guy down the street who bought LNG spot cargoes made out like a bandito.
Ms Truss is just now realising the benefits of long-term fixed price supply contracts.
But here's the thing: to secure a long-term contract now, Ms Truss will be committing to... oohhh... $15-25/mmcf. (I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that won't be a million miles from the truth.) What happens if the spot price of gas is $6 again? Will she force British power stations to buy her gas at an above market rate?
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?
We've passed the "current government is done" tipping point. It does not matter what happens from here on, the country is waiting for the Tories to be gone.
Whether you think that is a logical or an illogical thing is immaterial.
1) The government will have to change course 2) The government will be replaced by a new government 3) The initial reaction was over the top 4) They're expecting faster interest rate rises 5) Gas prices are coming down
6) All of the above?
What driving the markets overall in relationship to UK policy is perceived weakness of Truss government and markets feeling they will get their way, in due course. Tory Big Beasts forcing front bench climb down on just £2B of tax cut nevertheless sent the market the signal the straightjacket of an OBR can be slipped over the government, governments preferred route of tax cuts and borrowing is still under pressure and interest rates will be 5% early summer 23. Market confidence is confidence in government losing its policy in a direction markets wants - that’s at least part of what is perking up the UK end of the market.
But if anything, other stock markets had an even better day today.
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?
We've passed the "current government is done" tipping point. It does not matter what happens from here on, the country is waiting for the Tories to be gone.
Whether you think that is a logical or an illogical thing is immaterial.
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.
I'm shocked anywhere near 2.5% of Shell's worldwide production is in the UK; I thought they'd sold off pretty much all their North Sea assets.
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.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
Per capita growth under Blair and Brown never reached the level it was at under John Major.
Shouldn't you be looking at per capita wealth not per capita growth. The steepest part of Mount Everest is not its highest point.
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?
We've passed the "current government is done" tipping point. It does not matter what happens from here on, the country is waiting for the Tories to be gone.
Whether you think that is a logical or an illogical thing is immaterial.
I agree. We might get some great growth by then, but we'll have been through a lot of pain before that, and the memory of the chaotic start will be remembered. Sucks for them if so, but that's life and politics.
Plus, you'd expect a government to lose after 14 years. It was the success of the Corbyn/Boris combo election that made the prospect of winning 5 elections in a row viable.
Off topic, but possibly of interest: An American company is making a small contribution to the British economy: The company, "The Great Courses", sells classes in a wide variety of subjects. If you buy one of the courses, you get a small book and a DVD with a set of lectures on the subject -- or you can watch the lectures on line.
When their most recent catalog arrived in the mail yesterday, I noticed that one of the featured courses is "The Great Tours; England, Scotland and Wales", which they will sell you for 35 dollars. (Or you can buy it with a similar course on Ireland, for 60 dollars.)
Presumably, this will encourage Americans to visit Britain, perhaps even for a grand tour.
(Will I be buying a copy? No. I am planning to buy a course on quantum mechanics, soon, which should keep me occupied for a while.)
There are a lot of Americans in the UK at the moment. Obviously mostly in London, but I've also noticed some of them in the sort of places tourists don't usually visit.
I do love a daily star front page! LOL! Even the thought for the day made me giggle! Call my bar for humour low if you must!
We know the dog didn't eat his homework because he and Truss have already made clear they did basically no preparation at all, hence being caught like a deer in headlights.
In unrelated news I'm pleased that Armageddon held off until at least this evening. La Dame De Pic was pretty good. One stand out sea bass dish, and everything else good, supporting my theory that 2* Michelin in the UK is basically "good cooking" (unlike 1* which is mostly "good presentation, what did you do to the flavour?")
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.
I'm shocked anywhere near 2.5% of Shell's worldwide production is in the UK; I thought they'd sold off pretty much all their North Sea assets.
They still have Jackdaw - which does about 40,000 barrels a day and they are non op partners in a lot of fields - fingers in pies. Total BOE production worldwide for them is about 3.7 million barrels a day (in 2021) and UK is about 87,000.
One issue they have is they sold off a lot of fields but retained P&A liabilities. So they have some hefty costs coming down the line at them as well.
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?
We've passed the "current government is done" tipping point. It does not matter what happens from here on, the country is waiting for the Tories to be gone.
Whether you think that is a logical or an illogical thing is immaterial.
We need by-elections!
Only time people will be eagerly awaiting Dorries' elevation to the peerage?
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.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
It was largely recovery from the previous recession, unemployment was still high and the housing market remained underwater with lots of negative equity until 1995, but my point was that an economic bounce back in the years leading to 1997 (whether you start it in 1994 or 95) didn’t result in any improvement in Tory fortunes.
It appears to be true. They won an election in times of recession, they lost it when the country was on the uptick. But was it the remembrance of Black Wednesday era which swayed voters, or was it split parties struggle, the party at war with itself, one half hollowing out its own leadership?
The incompetence of Black Wednesday played a large part. But I remember there was a strong feeling of "I'm prepared to pay a bit more tax if it means 18 long years of cuts in education, health care and other crucial public services finally comes to an end".
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.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
Per capita growth under Blair and Brown never reached the level it was at under John Major.
Which is why "growth", in and of itself, isn't a clincher.
Telling people with 15% mortgages and negative equity that the economy is doing great didn't play well to 30 year old me!
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.
Anything is deliverable. If you are the Government you just tell them what they have to pay. The problem with Labour's plan is that it will only deliver a fraction of the money they - and we - need. I am not saying that is an argument against doing it but anyone who looks at the billions of pounds profit the Majors are making and thinks they will get some of that is going to be very, very disappointed.
In the grand scheme of things the windfall taxes are just PR. They won't actually make much difference on their own. And I have yet to see any party come up with a solution that will actually deal with the issues without costing the country a fortune.
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?
There are lots of countries that - or have been - big gas importers.
Japan is a big gas importer. China, South Korea, the UK, Spain, and Germany are all big gas importers.
Some of these countries have been hit hard by rising gas prices (like the UK and Germany), while others (like South Korea and Japan) have been much less hit.
Why the difference?
Well, TEPCO and KEPCO entered into twenty year LNG contracts with price caps. Irrespective of the price of natural gas or oil, the price they pay to Qatar Gas, PNG LNG, or whoever, their price is capped at a certain level.
In the UK, our generators chose not to do that, for many reasons, but the biggest of which is that if you were buying gas at $7/mmcf on a long-term contract, and the spot price of gas was $5/mmcf, then your CCGT wouldn't be running and the guy down the street who bought LNG spot cargoes made out like a bandito.
Ms Truss is just now realising the benefits of long-term fixed price supply contracts.
But here's the thing: to secure a long-term contract now, Ms Truss will be committing to... oohhh... $15-25/mmcf. (I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that won't be a million miles from the truth.) What happens if the spot price of gas is $6 again? Will she force British power stations to buy her gas at an above market rate?
So overall you are arguing long-term fixed price supply contracts can be a good thing, but to sign up to too high a price for too long right now can prove a bad thing?
Is there such thing as a deal with variable price in it - as prices come down, what we pay on contract can come down?
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.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
Per capita growth under Blair and Brown never reached the level it was at under John Major.
Is that true?
Major took over in 1990, pretty much immediately before a recession. In 1991, the economy actually contracted, and even in 1992, it was pretty aneamic (0.4%) growth. 1993 (2.5%) and 1994 (3.8%) were good years, and then Major gets 2.5% growth in 1995 and 1996. According to Macrotrends (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-rate) this comes out to just under 10% over seven years, which is 1.2% per year.
During that period, the UK population grew only a little (57.25m to 58.38m - or 2%), so you're looking at a 8% increase in GDP per capita over seven years, or 1%.
I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the numbers for the Blair period (which does not include the GFC) probably beat that, while for the Brown period, I would expect them to lag it.
Truss really has been a bit of a surprise. I genuinely thought she'd probably be a steady, relatively competent PM.
I guess she had ambitions of being a great one, but whilst ambition can be a good thing her ambition seems to have been the kind where a rookie pilot is overconfident about whether there's enough runway to take off, but flooring it 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.
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.
No, 1993 was a good year (GDP growth of 2.5%) and 1994 was a mini-boom (nearly 4%).
It was largely recovery from the previous recession, unemployment was still high and the housing market remained underwater with lots of negative equity until 1995, but my point was that an economic bounce back in the years leading to 1997 (whether you start it in 1994 or 95) didn’t result in any improvement in Tory fortunes.
It appears to be true. They won an election in times of recession, they lost it when the country was on the uptick. But was it the remembrance of Black Wednesday era which swayed voters, or was it split parties struggle, the party at war with itself, one half hollowing out its own leadership?
The incompetence of Black Wednesday played a large part. But I remember there was a strong feeling of "I'm prepared to pay a bit more tax if it means 18 long years of cuts in education, health care and other crucial public services finally comes to an end".
There was also the effect of John Smith. Labour electing a guy who could be seen as a credible PM was the first step. The polls shifted from then.
Comments
People aren't daft. How do you make sure that you get rid of the Tories? Voting Labour is the only surefire way, as Labour is the only other viable winner at a GE. So, currently, people want to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories. And, of course, Corbyn has gone, so it's safe.
It is also misleading to quote 170 billion profits when that is worldwide and the UK are around 40 billion
However, labour seem almost certain to win a majority so they too will have to convince the markets, OBR and IMF of their fully costed plans, and they will come under much more scrutiny as their election becomes more or less inevitable
LOL
Liz Truss to push through short 'Rwanda bill' before Christmas - including overriding laws on immigration, and overturning modern slavery
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20007119/liz-truss-rwanda-home-secretary/
Badenoch says Labour still “scares” her today as much as it did under Jeremy Corbyn & adds the “people around Starmer” still “thrive on division” & don’t have a vision for the country.
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1577406089313722368
An Eton man has a dogsbody or fag to kick people for him.
Badenoch increasingly presents as an idiot.
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1577347905626800130?cxt=HHwWhIC8oYTk7uMrAAAA
1) Starmer is not Corbyn - yes he served under him, but he has kicked him out of the parliamentary party and Corbyn's faction hates him, says it all. Probably why she has to say people 'around him'
2) What does thrive on division mean anyway? The party system is about dividing people into tribes
3) Having a vision is not as important as politicians pretend it is. It's like having principles - only a good thing if the principles, or in this case vision, are not batshit.
Who do you think managed to get the big by election swings against the Tories this past year - not Labour they struggled v Tories in actual battles - ditto council election results where Lib Dems were the winner - for example sweeping to control of the Somerset Super Council. These opinion polls are completely out of step with all of that.
The way the polls are acting does not match a slump in Tory support, it’s more similar to the strong dollar, all of a sudden Labour are strong against all other parties - it doesn’t make sense.
You can't accuse this government of not having a vision...
But it seems harsh. Slavery is such a hassle for the slave owner, I think this is more about grinding people down into bondage in a more subtle way. Serves them right, the little clods.
Of
Touch
So far we have a focus on
1) Helping rich people
2) For god's sake get those migrants/refugees on a plane to Africa already
I am guessing even more electoral reform stuff will be up next.
Yes there are far more pressing problems, but I'm sick of the delay!
“Germany's Scholz seeks energy partnerships with Gulf states”
It might be Germany had stepped up to the plate as the new UK in EU. Thinking the same as we are now outside, as we would surely be thinking and arguing if still inside.
Olaf Schulz announcement to spend €200B on a “gas price brake” to keep gas prices low for German consumers and businesses is receiving an angry response within the EU on the basis it could jack up prices elsewhere. EU Opponents of the package say it will distort competition inside the single market by giving an advantage to German businesses. The Dutch government also unveiled details of a planned energy price cap for households together with subsidy system aimed at easing the pain for small-to-medium-sized businesses that use a lot of power, and they also reject the route of doing it through a new EU fund. The EU are split on this.
Is there another angle on why Truss was keen to borrow a quarter of a trillion pound for schemes to keep energy prices low for households and businesses - to give UK business a competitive advantage over the EU?
The Germans call their measures “our defensive shield around our households and businesses” - an emotive phrase for your speech Liz, if you are reading this.
Boris broke the party's internal unity by being generally sleazy, and the public have snapped awake at the attempt to sell us a dream restart under Truss.
My general belief is people teeter on the edge of switching support for a long time, long past when it seems like they should. Then it comes out in a torrent. We saw that, I believe, with the Red Wall going Tory. We may be seeing it all over the place the other way now.
Any ideas?
1) The government will have to change course
2) The government will be replaced by a new government
3) The initial reaction was over the top
4) They're expecting faster interest rate rises
5) Gas prices are coming down
The handouts are everywhere!
I’m sure she’d be first in line to see the migrants put against a wall and executed . I’m sure her hate fest will go down well with a section of the public but the sense of wtf has happened to this country will be shared by many others .
https://what3words.com/useless.incompetent.untrustworthy
Which is probably where a lot of Conservative MPs would like to dump the Cabinet.
Also relevant is fact Germany (green) announced €200 billion energy “shield” last week - no impact, yields lower now https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1577368871715094530/photo/1
When their most recent catalog arrived in the mail yesterday, I noticed that one of the featured courses is "The Great Tours; England, Scotland and Wales", which they will sell you for 35 dollars. (Or you can buy it with a similar course on Ireland, for 60 dollars.)
Presumably, this will encourage Americans to visit Britain, perhaps even for a grand tour.
Here's their site: https://www.thegreatcourses.com/
(Will I be buying a copy? No. I am planning to buy a course on quantum mechanics, soon, which should keep me occupied for a while.)
It may be escaping you horse, but this isn’t just the last alliance of elves and men against the evil of Sauron going on here - Kwarteng and Truss are criticising decades of what they call the policies of declineism - the podium at this conference is rich with challenge to orthodox thinking. We are on the same page in hating the resulting Two Nation policies, but only one of us is engaging with the philosophy and motivation of the opponent.
It will be the vaccine story all over again.
Almost exclusively 4, with a tiny bit of 1-3 & 5
Also, the BoE’s temporary special monetary operation (QE) looks to be more limited than initially feared - and QT is very much back on the cards.
Because most of those voters who have been Tory for the last 12 years will at the moment just answer "Labour" as their "time for a change" response. As the specifics of the GE constitency become more in focus, then I would imagine that a lot of "time for a changers" will move to LD if they had double the votes in their constituency compared to Labour last time.
Grant Thornton produce a monthly attestation which is pretty equivocally stated.
It is most certainly not an audit.
Japan is a big gas importer. China, South Korea, the UK, Spain, and Germany are all big gas importers.
Some of these countries have been hit hard by rising gas prices (like the UK and Germany), while others (like South Korea and Japan) have been much less hit.
Why the difference?
Well, TEPCO and KEPCO entered into twenty year LNG contracts with price caps. Irrespective of the price of natural gas or oil, the price they pay to Qatar Gas, PNG LNG, or whoever, their price is capped at a certain level.
In the UK, our generators chose not to do that, for many reasons, but the biggest of which is that if you were buying gas at $7/mmcf on a long-term contract, and the spot price of gas was $5/mmcf, then your CCGT wouldn't be running and the guy down the street who bought LNG spot cargoes made out like a bandito.
Ms Truss is just now realising the benefits of long-term fixed price supply contracts.
But here's the thing: to secure a long-term contract now, Ms Truss will be committing to... oohhh... $15-25/mmcf. (I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that won't be a million miles from the truth.) What happens if the spot price of gas is $6 again? Will she force British power stations to buy her gas at an above market rate?
Whether you think that is a logical or an illogical thing is immaterial.
But if anything, other stock markets had an even better day today.
Plus, you'd expect a government to lose after 14 years. It was the success of the Corbyn/Boris combo election that made the prospect of winning 5 elections in a row viable.
One issue they have is they sold off a lot of fields but retained P&A liabilities. So they have some hefty costs coming down the line at them as well.
Who's growth? Who's GDP? Was the question asked.
In the grand scheme of things the windfall taxes are just PR. They won't actually make much difference on their own. And I have yet to see any party come up with a solution that will actually deal with the issues without costing the country a fortune.
Is there such thing as a deal with variable price in it - as prices come down, what we pay on contract can come down?
Major took over in 1990, pretty much immediately before a recession. In 1991, the economy actually contracted, and even in 1992, it was pretty aneamic (0.4%) growth. 1993 (2.5%) and 1994 (3.8%) were good years, and then Major gets 2.5% growth in 1995 and 1996. According to Macrotrends (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-rate) this comes out to just under 10% over seven years, which is 1.2% per year.
During that period, the UK population grew only a little (57.25m to 58.38m - or 2%), so you're looking at a 8% increase in GDP per capita over seven years, or 1%.
I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the numbers for the Blair period (which does not include the GFC) probably beat that, while for the Brown period, I would expect them to lag it.
I guess she had ambitions of being a great one, but whilst ambition can be a good thing her ambition seems to have been the kind where a rookie pilot is overconfident about whether there's enough runway to take off, but flooring it anyway.
https://nakipelo.ua/v-odnij-z-kativen-na-kharkivshchyni-pravookhorontsi-znajshly-korobku-z-vyrvanymy-zubnymy-protezamy/
Also, a dildo, which sadly was probably used for torture.
Labour electing a guy who could be seen as a credible PM was the first step. The polls shifted from then.