Howdy, Stranger!

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

Another October 2008? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 20 in General
imageAnother October 2008? – politicalbetting.com

What is happening in the financial markets now is as dangerous as what happened in October 2008. Unlike then, this does not relate to one or two failing institutions (though that is a crude summary of what happened). Rather, it is two-fold: on the financial side, the issue of government borrowing, how it is to be paid for and how a path back to some sort of fiscal stability to lay the foundations for growth are to be achieved. Politically, it is whether Britain’s governing and regulatory institutions have the authority to cope. 

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • First.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I am not watching the Supreme Court hearings, but my personal view is that even an advisory referendum on constitutional matters falls outside the Scottish government’s remit.

    As would, for example, advertising in support of independence.

    I think on balance I agree, although you end up at a thorny situation. In 19th century USA, I believe that the southern states had the right to secede from the union. Does Scotland have the right to do the same from the UK? I assume there was no article 50 in the act of Union?
    You only have to read the words of the statute. 'Reserved' means reserved to the UK parliament and therefore not delegated.

    "General reservations
    The Constitution
    1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

    (a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,

    (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England......"




    A referendum (whether binding or not) as to whether the balance of opinion in Scotland favours change in the constitutional matter of the union, and organised according to law (ie not a large opinion poll but a legislated matter) is so plainly a reserved matter that I would say the Scottish government's case has virtually Zero chance of success.

    BTW by parity of reasoning if the Scottish government can do this, they can also hold a referendum on abolishing the monarchy for Scotland, and removing all armed forces.

    I would put it as 66/1 the Scots to win this case.

    Even the Lord Advocate clearly does not believe that this falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP's own written submissions really failed to address the wording of the legislation which the SC has to apply, relying instead on inherent rights to self determination which in some way require the SC to ignore the law as it is and recognise some amorphous, overwhelming principle. It's an offer they have declined before and they will do so this time too.
    I don't think that's what their written submission does at all.

    Their written submissions seems to me to suggest

    That the legislation could be interpreted broadly (anything even remotely connected to the reserved matter is reserved, even if it doesn't affect the law on reserved matters) or narrowly (only legal changes on reserved matters are reserved).
    This referendum being advisory only doesn't change any reserved matters, so would be legal under a narrow reading.
    That under international law Scotland should have a right to self-determination.
    UK law is normally interpreted where it can be to be consistent in both national and international law.
    Therefore the narrow interpretation should be used.

    Seems to me to be a reasonable argument. Where is the flaw on that, how is a narrow reading of the legislation inappropriate?

    If this from the BBC Coverage earlier is accurate then surely SC precedent would say that an advisory-only referendum is not reserved?
    Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain continues to cite case law in reference to whether provisions in legislation "relate to" reserved matters.

    She speaks about the European Union (Continuity) Bill which was passed by the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit.

    She says the Supreme Court placed considerable emphasis on the need for there to be some form of practical or legal effect on the law on the reserved matter.

    The lord advocate says it is implicit in the reasoning of the Supreme Court when it dealt with the reference on the European Union (Continuity) Bill that it would be reasonable to suggest that holding an advisory referendum on an issue of international affairs would not relate to a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament.

    I can only speak as a layman, but as someone who thinks the government should grant a referendum as that is the will of the elected representatives of the Scottish nation, the UK government's case does seem pretty persuasive to me.

    Whilst the draft of any bill is unlikely to change, as even a Justice pointed out, it seems as though it is the job of the Lord Advocate to take a view on the competence, and she is simply reluctant to do so. If she is not willing to offer a firm view that it is or is not, then surely it falls by default? Why is it the job of the court to provide an answer to a question she is not even willing to answer? (I know there's a whole bunch of arguments about when she is able to refer a matter and what on as well, but at its heart this seems to be her job is to take a view, and she is unwilling to offer one at the moment).

    The BBC live text updates also then includes a lot of stuff about how this is important, and a festering sore, which are both true, but doesn't seem like it would overrule matters of legislative procedure and whether that has been followed properly - you see that sort of argument at much much lower levels with things like public sector equality duty, or duty of care, meaning (people argue) any other rules are not relevant. And its the sort of thing the government lost, when trying to argue Brexit was really important and thus little things like parliamentayr consent were not necessary.

    Coronation will take place 6 May 2023.

    I hope they go big. It's not as though going slimmed down will turn republicans into monarchists, and being over the top silly is part of the brand.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    For a Republican you seem very interested in the workings of the monarchy.

    What about the coronation feast? Do you suppose he'll serve Hawaiian pizzas?
  • Right after the locals.

    Could save Liz Truss.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468
    ydoethur said:

    Coronation will take place 6 May 2023.

    Incisive journalism from the Graun...

    "Security will be heightened on the day."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/11/king-charles-iii-coronation-date-6-may-2023
    There's me thinking they were going to send all police and army on gardening leave.
    Surely Charles would approve that as a good use of time?
  • ydoethur said:

    For a Republican you seem very interested in the workings of the monarchy.

    What about the coronation feast? Do you suppose he'll serve Hawaiian pizzas?
    I have news alerts from BBC, Sky News, The Times, Guardian, FT, WSJ, and others.

    Most of sent notifications about it.
  • Kamikaze still refusing to commit to maintaining welfare payments or maintaining public service funding. That kind of shenanigans is what is upsetting the markets and his MPs.

    What a berk.
  • IshmaelZ said:
    The last day of the EFL season though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    IshmaelZ said:
    The last day of the EFL season though.
    Perhaps he's a Liverpool fan?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,320
    Boo. No additional bank holiday presumably
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Kamikaze still refusing to commit to maintaining welfare payments or maintaining public service funding. That kind of shenanigans is what is upsetting the markets and his MPs.

    What a berk.

    Indeed. An unbelievable prick.

    bright side, this must trash the Etonian as well as the Tory brand for a generation.
  • ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    The last day of the EFL season though.
    Perhaps he's a Liverpool fan?
    Nah, this is the EFL not the EPL.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468

    Kamikaze still refusing to commit to maintaining welfare payments or maintaining public service funding. That kind of shenanigans is what is upsetting the markets and his MPs.

    What a berk.

    So out of character for an Eton man.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 11
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I am not watching the Supreme Court hearings, but my personal view is that even an advisory referendum on constitutional matters falls outside the Scottish government’s remit.

    As would, for example, advertising in support of independence.

    I think on balance I agree, although you end up at a thorny situation. In 19th century USA, I believe that the southern states had the right to secede from the union. Does Scotland have the right to do the same from the UK? I assume there was no article 50 in the act of Union?
    You only have to read the words of the statute. 'Reserved' means reserved to the UK parliament and therefore not delegated.

    "General reservations
    The Constitution
    1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

    (a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,

    (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England......"




    A referendum (whether binding or not) as to whether the balance of opinion in Scotland favours change in the constitutional matter of the union, and organised according to law (ie not a large opinion poll but a legislated matter) is so plainly a reserved matter that I would say the Scottish government's case has virtually Zero chance of success.

    BTW by parity of reasoning if the Scottish government can do this, they can also hold a referendum on abolishing the monarchy for Scotland, and removing all armed forces.

    I would put it as 66/1 the Scots to win this case.

    Even the Lord Advocate clearly does not believe that this falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP's own written submissions really failed to address the wording of the legislation which the SC has to apply, relying instead on inherent rights to self determination which in some way require the SC to ignore the law as it is and recognise some amorphous, overwhelming principle. It's an offer they have declined before and they will do so this time too.
    I don't think that's what their written submission does at all.

    Their written submissions seems to me to suggest

    That the legislation could be interpreted broadly (anything even remotely connected to the reserved matter is reserved, even if it doesn't affect the law on reserved matters) or narrowly (only legal changes on reserved matters are reserved).
    This referendum being advisory only doesn't change any reserved matters, so would be legal under a narrow reading.
    That under international law Scotland should have a right to self-determination.
    UK law is normally interpreted where it can be to be consistent in both national and international law.
    Therefore the narrow interpretation should be used.

    Seems to me to be a reasonable argument. Where is the flaw on that, how is a narrow reading of the legislation inappropriate?

    If this from the BBC Coverage earlier is accurate then surely SC precedent would say that an advisory-only referendum is not reserved?
    Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain continues to cite case law in reference to whether provisions in legislation "relate to" reserved matters.

    She speaks about the European Union (Continuity) Bill which was passed by the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit.

    She says the Supreme Court placed considerable emphasis on the need for there to be some form of practical or legal effect on the law on the reserved matter.

    The lord advocate says it is implicit in the reasoning of the Supreme Court when it dealt with the reference on the European Union (Continuity) Bill that it would be reasonable to suggest that holding an advisory referendum on an issue of international affairs would not relate to a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament.

    I can only speak as a layman, but as someone who thinks the government should grant a referendum as that is the will of the elected representatives of the Scottish nation, the UK government's case does seem pretty persuasive to me.

    Whilst the draft of any bill is unlikely to change, as even a Justice pointed out, it seems as though it is the job of the Lord Advocate to take a view on the competence, and she is simply reluctant to do so. If she is not willing to offer a firm view that it is or is not, then surely it falls by default? Why is it the job of the court to provide an answer to a question she is not even willing to answer? (I know there's a whole bunch of arguments about when she is able to refer a matter and what on as well, but at its heart this seems to be her job is to take a view, and she is unwilling to offer one at the moment).

    The BBC live text updates also then includes a lot of stuff about how this is important, and a festering sore, which are both true, but doesn't seem like it would overrule matters of legislative procedure and whether that has been followed properly - you see that sort of argument at much much lower levels with things like public sector equality duty, or duty of care, meaning (people argue) any other rules are not relevant. And its the sort of thing the government lost, when trying to argue Brexit was really important and thus little things like parliamentayr consent were not necessary.

    Coronation will take place 6 May 2023.

    I hope they go big. It's not as though going slimmed down will turn republicans into monarchists, and being over the top silly is part of the brand.
    It will be a big event but not as big as the Queen's coronation was and given the cost of living.

    The crowning of the King and Queen Consort will also take a slightly more informal tone, more in suits etc and reflect the modern age more while still keeping the key elements
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,095

    Boo. No additional bank holiday presumably
    The proles must work. They certainly will need to by then.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    Boo. No additional bank holiday presumably
    The proles must work. They certainly will need to by then.
    800 calories a day for reconstruction workers, 500 otherwise. Rats officer class only.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468

    Kamikaze still refusing to commit to maintaining welfare payments or maintaining public service funding. That kind of shenanigans is what is upsetting the markets and his MPs.

    What a berk.

    He can't commit to keeping public spending on track, because then the tax cuts die as well.

    We come back to the reason that the tax bit of the triad was announced without anything on spending, or OBR analysis of resulting borrowing. Because one or both those numbers is going to be impossibly grisly. Which is why Rishi planned to increase NI and Corporation Tax in the first place.

    And saying "but I don't want to" doesn't changes the laws of arithmetic.
    It feels like a plan he and Liz came up with before they looked at any figures, and they've refused to amend it even after doing so.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    edited October 11

    Boo. No additional bank holiday presumably
    Good job. There are far too many bank holidays in this (retiree's) opinion!
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Kamikaze still refusing to commit to maintaining welfare payments or maintaining public service funding. That kind of shenanigans is what is upsetting the markets and his MPs.

    What a berk.

    Indeed. An unbelievable prick.

    bright side, this must trash the Etonian as well as the Tory brand for a generation.
    There have been plenty of Etonians who are not amoral sociopaths like Kwarteng so I think it is unfair to go after the school.

    For the rest of the month and the weeks already passed, anyone reliant on Universal Credit, on disability benefits, on a functioning education or health system or the myriad other support services has sat there seriously worried.

    Not only does this government threaten their ability to live rather than exist or even starve, they do so with a dripping smirking arrogance that makes the Victorians look kind. When Nadine fucking Dorries is made to look moral you really know the cabinet are a long long way out of line.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    IshmaelZ said:

    Kamikaze still refusing to commit to maintaining welfare payments or maintaining public service funding. That kind of shenanigans is what is upsetting the markets and his MPs.

    What a berk.

    Indeed. An unbelievable prick.

    bright side, this must trash the Etonian as well as the Tory brand for a generation.
    We should be so lucky. You would have thought the Wars of the Roses might have rung alarm bells but 550 years later people still rate Eton.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    edited October 11

    IshmaelZ said:

    Kamikaze still refusing to commit to maintaining welfare payments or maintaining public service funding. That kind of shenanigans is what is upsetting the markets and his MPs.

    What a berk.

    Indeed. An unbelievable prick.

    bright side, this must trash the Etonian as well as the Tory brand for a generation.
    There have been plenty of Etonians who are not amoral sociopaths like Kwarteng so I think it is unfair to go after the school.

    For the rest of the month and the weeks already passed, anyone reliant on Universal Credit, on disability benefits, on a functioning education or health system or the myriad other support services has sat there seriously worried.

    Not only does this government threaten their ability to live rather than exist or even starve, they do so with a dripping smirking arrogance that makes the Victorians look kind. When Nadine fucking Dorries is made to look moral you really know the cabinet are a long long way out of line.
    Not to mention mortgage holders (of which I am one).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Kamikaze still refusing to commit to maintaining welfare payments or maintaining public service funding. That kind of shenanigans is what is upsetting the markets and his MPs.

    What a berk.

    Indeed. An unbelievable prick.

    bright side, this must trash the Etonian as well as the Tory brand for a generation.
    We should be so lucky. You would have thought the Wars of the Roses might have rung alarm bells but 550 years later people still rate Eton.
    If you want your child to grow up to be PM it's still a pretty decent choice. At the least they might fag a future PM, which could pay off.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    edited October 11
    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I am not watching the Supreme Court hearings, but my personal view is that even an advisory referendum on constitutional matters falls outside the Scottish government’s remit.

    As would, for example, advertising in support of independence.

    I think on balance I agree, although you end up at a thorny situation. In 19th century USA, I believe that the southern states had the right to secede from the union. Does Scotland have the right to do the same from the UK? I assume there was no article 50 in the act of Union?
    You only have to read the words of the statute. 'Reserved' means reserved to the UK parliament and therefore not delegated.

    "General reservations
    The Constitution
    1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

    (a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,

    (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England......"




    A referendum (whether binding or not) as to whether the balance of opinion in Scotland favours change in the constitutional matter of the union, and organised according to law (ie not a large opinion poll but a legislated matter) is so plainly a reserved matter that I would say the Scottish government's case has virtually Zero chance of success.

    BTW by parity of reasoning if the Scottish government can do this, they can also hold a referendum on abolishing the monarchy for Scotland, and removing all armed forces.

    I would put it as 66/1 the Scots to win this case.

    Even the Lord Advocate clearly does not believe that this falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP's own written submissions really failed to address the wording of the legislation which the SC has to apply, relying instead on inherent rights to self determination which in some way require the SC to ignore the law as it is and recognise some amorphous, overwhelming principle. It's an offer they have declined before and they will do so this time too.
    I don't think that's what their written submission does at all.

    Their written submissions seems to me to suggest

    That the legislation could be interpreted broadly (anything even remotely connected to the reserved matter is reserved, even if it doesn't affect the law on reserved matters) or narrowly (only legal changes on reserved matters are reserved).
    This referendum being advisory only doesn't change any reserved matters, so would be legal under a narrow reading.
    That under international law Scotland should have a right to self-determination.
    UK law is normally interpreted where it can be to be consistent in both national and international law.
    Therefore the narrow interpretation should be used.

    Seems to me to be a reasonable argument. Where is the flaw on that, how is a narrow reading of the legislation inappropriate?

    If this from the BBC Coverage earlier is accurate then surely SC precedent would say that an advisory-only referendum is not reserved?
    Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain continues to cite case law in reference to whether provisions in legislation "relate to" reserved matters.

    She speaks about the European Union (Continuity) Bill which was passed by the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit.

    She says the Supreme Court placed considerable emphasis on the need for there to be some form of practical or legal effect on the law on the reserved matter.

    The lord advocate says it is implicit in the reasoning of the Supreme Court when it dealt with the reference on the European Union (Continuity) Bill that it would be reasonable to suggest that holding an advisory referendum on an issue of international affairs would not relate to a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament.

    I can only speak as a layman, but as someone who thinks the government should grant a referendum as that is the will of the elected representatives of the Scottish nation, the UK government's case does seem pretty persuasive to me.

    Whilst the draft of any bill is unlikely to change, as even a Justice pointed out, it seems as though it is the job of the Lord Advocate to take a view on the competence, and she is simply reluctant to do so. If she is not willing to offer a firm view that it is or is not, then surely it falls by default? Why is it the job of the court to provide an answer to a question she is not even willing to answer? (I know there's a whole bunch of arguments about when she is able to refer a matter and what on as well, but at its heart this seems to be her job is to take a view, and she is unwilling to offer one at the moment).

    The BBC live text updates also then includes a lot of stuff about how this is important, and a festering sore, which are both true, but doesn't seem like it would overrule matters of legislative procedure and whether that has been followed properly - you see that sort of argument at much much lower levels with things like public sector equality duty, or duty of care, meaning (people argue) any other rules are not relevant. And its the sort of thing the government lost, when trying to argue Brexit was really important and thus little things like parliamentayr consent were not necessary.

    Coronation will take place 6 May 2023.

    I hope they go big. It's not as though going slimmed down will turn republicans into monarchists, and being over the top silly is part of the brand.
    It will be a big event but not as big as the Queen's coronation was and given the cost of living.

    The crowning of the King and Queen Consort will also take a slightly more informal tone, more in suits etc and reflect the modern age more while still keeping the key elements
    Although... real UK GDP per capita today is roughly four times what it was in 1953 (even with the relative stagnation of the last 12 years of Tory incompetence).

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270?time=1848..2016
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,453
    Seattle Times ($) - Some Republicans buck party, backing Marie Gluesenkamp Perez for Congress vs. Joe Kent

    [SSI - Joe Kent defeated incumbent Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler (who voted to impeach Trump after his attempted Jan 2021 coup) in August 2022 WA "Top Two" Primary; she came in third behind Gluesenkamp Perez and Kent.]

    Until last month, Kathy McDonald was vice chair of the Clark County Republican Party, describing herself as a die-hard Donald Trump supporter with a long record of activism in the GOP.

    But this week, McDonald is co-hosting a meet-and-greet fundraiser for Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, the Democratic candidate for Congress in southwest Washington’s 3rd Congressional District.

    What’s going on?

    McDonald says she can’t bring herself to support Joe Kent, the Republican candidate, citing his extreme rhetoric and plans to focus on ideological warfare against Democrats and establishment Republicans if elected.

    Such talk might garner Kent national attention as a flamethrower like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz — both of whom Kent has campaigned with — but McDonald said it’s not a recipe for addressing local concerns, such as replacing the Interstate 5 bridge between Vancouver, Wash., and Portland.

    “If you piss everybody in the world off, like Joe will do, you can’t move the ball forward,” said McDonald, who resigned her county party position Sept. 25. “How much is Marjorie Taylor Greene getting done?”

    McDonald’s defection, which caught other Clark County GOP leaders by surprise, spotlights the discomfort Kent has generated for a segment of Republicans — and some independents — who backed U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, only to see her ousted in the August primary in a backlash over her Trump impeachment vote.
    Kent, an ex-Green Beret combat veteran who has vowed to impeach Joe Biden and refuse to compromise with Democrats, dismisses such defections as few and far between, saying they mostly consist of “Never Trump” Republicans who were never going to back him.

    It’s not clear how many Herrera Beutler voters will cross party lines to vote for Gluesenkamp Perez in November. McDonald is among only a relative few who have publicly vowed to cross over.

    Another is Julie Olson, a two-term Republican member of the Clark County Council, who strongly supported Herrera Beutler for reelection but is now endorsing Gluesenkamp Perez. . . .

    SSI- Personally think that Joe Kent is likely to prevail in the general election, but will be VERY interesting to see what does happen in this part of the world.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    There was literally rationing in 1953.

    On the other hand, the future looked shiny.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045
    edited October 11
    There isn't going to be a general election in the UK until 2024 at the earliest, regardless of whether or not the Tories change their leader again. Thanks to Cyclefree for the header.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,451
    Carnyx said:

    Boo. No additional bank holiday presumably
    The proles must work. They certainly will need to by then.
    Will they move it from Monday 1st to Friday 5th?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    Andy_JS said:

    There isn't going to be a general election in the UK until 2024 at the earliest, regardless of whether or not the Tories change their leader again.

    Depends whether the government can pass money bills.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    Boo. No additional bank holiday presumably
    The proles must work. They certainly will need to by then.
    800 calories a day for reconstruction workers, 500 otherwise. Rats officer class only.
    That would fix the diabetes epidemic too.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,930
    On topic. It’s not a surprise that three members of the BOE are seeking to blame the govt. The Bank was not only asleep at the wheel at its prudential responsibilities but was incontinent with its actions since 2020 and far far too slow to pivot to tightening. That they didn’t match the Fed (and ECB) the week of the fiscal statement is incredulous, until you look at the voting record and past statements and mediocre cvs of some of the individuals.

    This is not to absolve the government from blame. They should of course have announced the tax cuts at the same time as fiscal cuts and supply side reform in a proper budget with appropriate oversight, as you say. Not in a period when we were already seeing the QE and rock bottom yields experiment unwinding on both sides of the Atlantic.

    The comi-tragedy is that in broad strokes Truss is right. High tax has no doubt impeded growth and low interest rates have been among the most ruinous policies for wealth equality of the last century (special mention to 1990s Russia privatisation process). The Labour Party should have been screaming blue murder for a decade that it must end but perhaps it found it hard because a) it started on their watch, b) they didn’t want to make the hard choices either.

    We seem now to be stuck in a loop where spending can’t be cut, tax rises aren’t going to increase the take much, and the bank doesn’t dare raising rates or unwinding QE (in part because of the liquidity crisis it has overseen with DB pensions).

    The reckoning from 2008 is almost upon the world and a lot of people are going to be substantially poorer as a result. The only quibble now is how that pain is shared and to make sure boneheaded politicians and officials don’t make it worse than it needs to be.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,930

    Thanks Cyclefree.

    Frankly I find your warnings far more worrying than anything I read about WW3.

    Totally agree
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,095

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    Boo. No additional bank holiday presumably
    The proles must work. They certainly will need to by then.
    800 calories a day for reconstruction workers, 500 otherwise. Rats officer class only.
    That would fix the diabetes epidemic too.
    Always look on the bright side.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,930

    We need a total ban on Etonians until we can figure out what’s going on.

    What’s odd is I’ve come across a few old etonians over the years and in general found them to be intelligent, modest and in some cases intellectually brilliant (wider than academically, across the board). Perhaps I’ve been lucky and the country has been unlucky.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    moonshine said:

    We need a total ban on Etonians until we can figure out what’s going on.

    What’s odd is I’ve come across a few old etonians over the years and in general found them to be intelligent, modest and in some cases intellectually brilliant (wider than academically, across the board). Perhaps I’ve been lucky and the country has been unlucky.
    Or perhaps it's the twats who go into politics?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048

    We need a total ban on Etonians until we can figure out what’s going on.

    We need a total ban on Elon-ians until we can figure out what’s going on. ;)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,095

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I am not watching the Supreme Court hearings, but my personal view is that even an advisory referendum on constitutional matters falls outside the Scottish government’s remit.

    As would, for example, advertising in support of independence.

    I think on balance I agree, although you end up at a thorny situation. In 19th century USA, I believe that the southern states had the right to secede from the union. Does Scotland have the right to do the same from the UK? I assume there was no article 50 in the act of Union?
    You only have to read the words of the statute. 'Reserved' means reserved to the UK parliament and therefore not delegated.

    "General reservations
    The Constitution
    1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

    (a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,

    (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England......"




    A referendum (whether binding or not) as to whether the balance of opinion in Scotland favours change in the constitutional matter of the union, and organised according to law (ie not a large opinion poll but a legislated matter) is so plainly a reserved matter that I would say the Scottish government's case has virtually Zero chance of success.

    BTW by parity of reasoning if the Scottish government can do this, they can also hold a referendum on abolishing the monarchy for Scotland, and removing all armed forces.

    I would put it as 66/1 the Scots to win this case.

    Even the Lord Advocate clearly does not believe that this falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP's own written submissions really failed to address the wording of the legislation which the SC has to apply, relying instead on inherent rights to self determination which in some way require the SC to ignore the law as it is and recognise some amorphous, overwhelming principle. It's an offer they have declined before and they will do so this time too.
    I don't think that's what their written submission does at all.

    Their written submissions seems to me to suggest

    That the legislation could be interpreted broadly (anything even remotely connected to the reserved matter is reserved, even if it doesn't affect the law on reserved matters) or narrowly (only legal changes on reserved matters are reserved).
    This referendum being advisory only doesn't change any reserved matters, so would be legal under a narrow reading.
    That under international law Scotland should have a right to self-determination.
    UK law is normally interpreted where it can be to be consistent in both national and international law.
    Therefore the narrow interpretation should be used.

    Seems to me to be a reasonable argument. Where is the flaw on that, how is a narrow reading of the legislation inappropriate?

    If this from the BBC Coverage earlier is accurate then surely SC precedent would say that an advisory-only referendum is not reserved?
    Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain continues to cite case law in reference to whether provisions in legislation "relate to" reserved matters.

    She speaks about the European Union (Continuity) Bill which was passed by the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit.

    She says the Supreme Court placed considerable emphasis on the need for there to be some form of practical or legal effect on the law on the reserved matter.

    The lord advocate says it is implicit in the reasoning of the Supreme Court when it dealt with the reference on the European Union (Continuity) Bill that it would be reasonable to suggest that holding an advisory referendum on an issue of international affairs would not relate to a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament.

    I can only speak as a layman, but as someone who thinks the government should grant a referendum as that is the will of the elected representatives of the Scottish nation, the UK government's case does seem pretty persuasive to me.

    Whilst the draft of any bill is unlikely to change, as even a Justice pointed out, it seems as though it is the job of the Lord Advocate to take a view on the competence, and she is simply reluctant to do so. If she is not willing to offer a firm view that it is or is not, then surely it falls by default? Why is it the job of the court to provide an answer to a question she is not even willing to answer? (I know there's a whole bunch of arguments about when she is able to refer a matter and what on as well, but at its heart this seems to be her job is to take a view, and she is unwilling to offer one at the moment).

    The BBC live text updates also then includes a lot of stuff about how this is important, and a festering sore, which are both true, but doesn't seem like it would overrule matters of legislative procedure and whether that has been followed properly - you see that sort of argument at much much lower levels with things like public sector equality duty, or duty of care, meaning (people argue) any other rules are not relevant. And its the sort of thing the government lost, when trying to argue Brexit was really important and thus little things like parliamentayr consent were not necessary.

    Coronation will take place 6 May 2023.

    I hope they go big. It's not as though going slimmed down will turn republicans into monarchists, and being over the top silly is part of the brand.
    It will be a big event but not as big as the Queen's coronation was and given the cost of living.

    The crowning of the King and Queen Consort will also take a slightly more informal tone, more in suits etc and reflect the modern age more while still keeping the key elements
    Although... real UK GDP per capita today is roughly four times what it was in 1953 (even with the relative stagnation of the last 12 years of Tory incompetence).

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270?time=1848..2016
    Presumably they have the silverware already anyway. All you need to do is to polish it up and nip out for some sunflower oil from Lidl, no need to get a jug and spoon from Lakeland.

    Trouble is, a cutprice coronation will look crap. But so will an upmarket, ermine vermin laden, one, for different reasons and to different people - or even with an overlap of the two sets. An interesting dilemma to navigate.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,930

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    I wonder whether Poland might end up attacking Belarus’s western flank if Luka drives south to Ukraine.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,755

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    Belarus has long felt like the solution to the Ukraine war. A revolution and a new anti-Russian leadership, domino effect on Russia and its republics, and in due course another newly prosperous EU-facing country. If and when Russia does implode it should be fairly easy for Moldova to kick the soldiers out of transnistria too.
  • There was literally rationing in 1953.

    On the other hand, the future looked shiny.

    I remember it as if it was yesterday and yes there was rationing, but we were fortunate not to suffer 24/7 news cycles and social media

    My grandmother was up and down like a yo yo as the national anthem was played on repeat

    Times were very different and having less was not an issue - we were more content
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    edited October 11
    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I am not surprised. It's obvious that extremely low gilt yields = extremely low annuity rates = very expensive funding for DB annuities.

    As gilt yields rise many DB funds will find their funding position improve dramatically, will they not?

    Surprised @MaxPB has not recognised that in his woe-is-me lamentations about DB pensions.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,451
    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Have transfer values of DB pensions fallen significantly since the mini-budget?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    moonshine said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    I wonder whether Poland might end up attacking Belarus’s western flank if Luka drives south to Ukraine.
    No.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    moonshine said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    I wonder whether Poland might end up attacking Belarus’s western flank if Luka drives south to Ukraine.
    A NATO member won't attack a Russian ally. Or at least, not unless Biden authorises it. And he will only do that if he believes it's (a) going to work and (b) is the only way to end the war.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    edited October 11
    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I agree very mostly with this.

    I would just say though that a forced crash in the housing market will cause a significant recession that will scar the country for a decade or more (and affect all workers whether they are house owners or not).

    So the way out is some combination of higher tax rises, lower spending, higher interest rates, and lower pound.

    And, of course, the defenestration of Truss-Kwarteng, who have no support from the markets, the public, or even their own party.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I am not surprised. It's obvious that extremely low gilt yields = extremely low annuity rates = very expensive funding for DB annuities.

    As gilt yields rise many DB funds will find their funding position improve dramatically, will they not?
    Yes, which is why I have been surprised that it was being claimed that our pension funds are at risk. They have been at risk for the last 14 years and many have failed in that time as a result. For pension funds this is the relief of Mafeking.

    Of course those who are highly geared, whether for mortgages or other investments will be in trouble. So there will be many losers as well as gainers. But many savers will welcome a higher return on their money, even if interest rates remain severely negative in real terms.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    TimS said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    Belarus has long felt like the solution to the Ukraine war. A revolution and a new anti-Russian leadership, domino effect on Russia and its republics, and in due course another newly prosperous EU-facing country. If and when Russia does implode it should be fairly easy for Moldova to kick the soldiers out of transnistria too.
    Before the invasion, one theory was that Putin was massing his troops in Belarus as a precursor to annexing it and that threatening Ukraine was just a sideshow. It would be ironic if Belarus instead ended up being the first domino to fall.
  • Have just watched a clip reel on Twitter of this afternoon. SNP MP gives an example of a local business whose leccy bill rises from £100k+ to £900k+ despite the 6 months of help. Kwarteng says "we have helped" and sneers at the MP for daring to ask the question. Other MPs ask similar, junior Treasury ministers similarly sneering dismissals.

    You can't tell people that your ideology trumps their lived reality. They will destroy you at the ballot box. Why don't KT understand this?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    edited October 11
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I am not watching the Supreme Court hearings, but my personal view is that even an advisory referendum on constitutional matters falls outside the Scottish government’s remit.

    As would, for example, advertising in support of independence.

    I think on balance I agree, although you end up at a thorny situation. In 19th century USA, I believe that the southern states had the right to secede from the union. Does Scotland have the right to do the same from the UK? I assume there was no article 50 in the act of Union?
    You only have to read the words of the statute. 'Reserved' means reserved to the UK parliament and therefore not delegated.

    "General reservations
    The Constitution
    1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

    (a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,

    (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England......"



    A referendum (whether binding or not) as to whether the balance of opinion in Scotland favours change in the constitutional matter of the union, and organised according to law (ie not a large opinion poll but a legislated matter) is so plainly a reserved matter that I would say the Scottish government's case has virtually Zero chance of success.

    BTW by parity of reasoning if the Scottish government can do this, they can also hold a referendum on abolishing the monarchy for Scotland, and removing all armed forces.

    I would put it as 66/1 the Scots to win this case.

    Even the Lord Advocate clearly does not believe that this falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP's own written submissions really failed to address the wording of the legislation which the SC has to apply, relying instead on inherent rights to self determination which in some way require the SC to ignore the law as it is and recognise some amorphous, overwhelming principle. It's an offer they have declined before and they will do so this time too.
    I don't think that's what their written submission does at all.

    Their written submissions seems to me to suggest

    That the legislation could be interpreted broadly (anything even remotely connected to the reserved matter is reserved, even if it doesn't affect the law on reserved matters) or narrowly (only legal changes on reserved matters are reserved).
    This referendum being advisory only doesn't change any reserved matters, so would be legal under a narrow reading.
    That under international law Scotland should have a right to self-determination.
    UK law is normally interpreted where it can be to be consistent in both national and international law.
    Therefore the narrow interpretation should be used.

    Seems to me to be a reasonable argument. Where is the flaw on that, how is a narrow reading of the legislation inappropriate?

    If this from the BBC Coverage earlier is accurate then surely SC precedent would say that an advisory-only referendum is not reserved?
    Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain continues to cite case law in reference to whether provisions in legislation "relate to" reserved matters.

    She speaks about the European Union (Continuity) Bill which was passed by the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit.

    She says the Supreme Court placed considerable emphasis on the need for there to be some form of practical or legal effect on the law on the reserved matter.

    The lord advocate says it is implicit in the reasoning of the Supreme Court when it dealt with the reference on the European Union (Continuity) Bill that it would be reasonable to suggest that holding an advisory referendum on an issue of international affairs would not relate to a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament.

    I can only speak as a layman, but as someone who thinks the government should grant a referendum as that is the will of the elected representatives of the Scottish nation, the UK government's case does seem pretty persuasive to me.

    Whilst the draft of any bill is unlikely to change, as even a Justice pointed out, it seems as though it is the job of the Lord Advocate to take a view on the competence, and she is simply reluctant to do so. If she is not willing to offer a firm view that it is or is not, then surely it falls by default? Why is it the job of the court to provide an answer to a question she is not even willing to answer? (I know there's a whole bunch of arguments about when she is able to refer a matter and what on as well, but at its heart this seems to be her job is to take a view, and she is unwilling to offer one at the moment).

    The BBC live text updates also then includes a lot of stuff about how this is important, and a festering sore, which are both true, but doesn't seem like it would overrule matters of legislative procedure and whether that has been followed properly - you see that sort of argument at much much lower levels with things like public sector equality duty, or duty of care, meaning (people argue) any other rules are not relevant. And its the sort of thing the government lost, when trying to argue Brexit was really important and thus little things like parliamentayr consent were not necessary.

    Coronation will take place 6 May 2023.

    I hope they go big. It's not as though going slimmed down will turn republicans into monarchists, and being over the top silly is part of the brand.
    It will be a big event but not as big as the Queen's coronation was and given the cost of living.

    The crowning of the King and Queen Consort will also take a slightly more informal tone, more in suits etc and reflect the modern age more while still keeping the key elements
    Although... real UK GDP per capita today is roughly four times what it was in 1953 (even with the relative stagnation of the last 12 years of Tory incompetence).

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270?time=1848..2016
    Presumably they have the silverware already anyway. All you need to do is to polish it up and nip out for some sunflower oil from Lidl, no need to get a jug and spoon from Lakeland.

    Trouble is, a cutprice coronation will look crap. But so will an upmarket, ermine vermin laden, one, for different reasons and to different people - or even with an overlap of the two sets. An interesting dilemma to navigate.
    What is needed is a less stuffy but more lavish coronation. Also it would be good to make it in some way more inclusive for the nation as a whole. Something like the Olympic Torch progression around the country would be good.

    In fact, which not have Coronation Torches from all corners of the nation being run by local heroes to congregate on Buckingham Palace...

    ... then burn the lot down in a massive republican bonfire?*.

    (*For the avoidance of doubt, the last part is a joke.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I agree very mostly with this.

    I would just say though that a forced crash in the housing market will cause a significant recession that will scar the country for a decade or more (and affect all workers whether they are house owners or not).

    So the way out is some combination of higher tax rises, lower spending, higher interest rates, and lower pound.

    And, of course, the defenestration of Truss-Kwarteng, who have no support from the markets, the public, or even their own party.
    We don't want a housing crash, I saw that in the early 90s and it did indeed scar many lives. But higher inflation should allow nominal values to rise, avoiding negative equity, whilst falling significantly in real terms.
  • pingping Posts: 3,201
    edited October 11
    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Yep.

    We should have done an Iceland in 2008.

    14 stupid, wasted years of financial repression with huge consequences for the young.

    As someone who graduated in July 2008, into the great financial crisis, I feel really sorry for my contemporaries - those in their late 20’s and 30’s who have had to swim against an incredible tide, for the last decade and a half and have had to load themselves up with massive mortgages, just to get some kind of stability and raise a family.

    They’re now left holding the can.

    Political choices have made life very unfair for my generation.

    It all could have been so different.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Have transfer values of DB pensions fallen significantly since the mini-budget?
    Not sure but that would be logical.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,121

    TimS said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    Belarus has long felt like the solution to the Ukraine war. A revolution and a new anti-Russian leadership, domino effect on Russia and its republics, and in due course another newly prosperous EU-facing country. If and when Russia does implode it should be fairly easy for Moldova to kick the soldiers out of transnistria too.
    Before the invasion, one theory was that Putin was massing his troops in Belarus as a precursor to annexing it and that threatening Ukraine was just a sideshow. It would be ironic if Belarus instead ended up being the first domino to fall.
    It must be tottering on the brink. In 2020 many thought Lukaschenko managed to hold on because of the fear Russian intervention could follow any fall of the government.

    Russia currently has no means to hold back the tide in Belarus. It is focussed on Ukraine.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    I wonder whether Poland might end up attacking Belarus’s western flank if Luka drives south to Ukraine.
    A NATO member won't attack a Russian ally. Or at least, not unless Biden authorises it. And he will only do that if he believes it's (a) going to work and (b) is the only way to end the war.
    Inneressingly neither Art 5 nor 6 excludes armed counter-attack from the definition of armed attack.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    ping said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Yep.

    We should have done an Iceland in 2008.

    14 stupid, wasted years of financial repression with huge consequences for the young.

    As someone who graduated in July 2008, into the great financial crisis, I feel really sorry for my contemporaries - those in their late 20’s and 30’s who have had to swim against an incredible tide, for the last decade and a half and have had to load themselves up with massive mortgages, just to get some kind of stability and raise a family.

    They’re now left holding the can.

    Political choices have made life very unfair for my generation.

    It all could have been so different.
    Completely agree. Add in the massive increase of student debt for those that immediately followed and you have a life of at least limited means, if not absolute poverty, pretty much guaranteed.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,367

    IshmaelZ said:
    The last day of the EFL season though.
    And the 2,000 Guineas on the Newmarket turf, the first Classic horserace of the season.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,095

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I am not watching the Supreme Court hearings, but my personal view is that even an advisory referendum on constitutional matters falls outside the Scottish government’s remit.

    As would, for example, advertising in support of independence.

    I think on balance I agree, although you end up at a thorny situation. In 19th century USA, I believe that the southern states had the right to secede from the union. Does Scotland have the right to do the same from the UK? I assume there was no article 50 in the act of Union?
    You only have to read the words of the statute. 'Reserved' means reserved to the UK parliament and therefore not delegated.

    "General reservations
    The Constitution
    1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

    (a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,

    (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England......"



    A referendum (whether binding or not) as to whether the balance of opinion in Scotland favours change in the constitutional matter of the union, and organised according to law (ie not a large opinion poll but a legislated matter) is so plainly a reserved matter that I would say the Scottish government's case has virtually Zero chance of success.

    BTW by parity of reasoning if the Scottish government can do this, they can also hold a referendum on abolishing the monarchy for Scotland, and removing all armed forces.

    I would put it as 66/1 the Scots to win this case.

    Even the Lord Advocate clearly does not believe that this falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP's own written submissions really failed to address the wording of the legislation which the SC has to apply, relying instead on inherent rights to self determination which in some way require the SC to ignore the law as it is and recognise some amorphous, overwhelming principle. It's an offer they have declined before and they will do so this time too.
    I don't think that's what their written submission does at all.

    Their written submissions seems to me to suggest

    That the legislation could be interpreted broadly (anything even remotely connected to the reserved matter is reserved, even if it doesn't affect the law on reserved matters) or narrowly (only legal changes on reserved matters are reserved).
    This referendum being advisory only doesn't change any reserved matters, so would be legal under a narrow reading.
    That under international law Scotland should have a right to self-determination.
    UK law is normally interpreted where it can be to be consistent in both national and international law.
    Therefore the narrow interpretation should be used.

    Seems to me to be a reasonable argument. Where is the flaw on that, how is a narrow reading of the legislation inappropriate?

    If this from the BBC Coverage earlier is accurate then surely SC precedent would say that an advisory-only referendum is not reserved?
    Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain continues to cite case law in reference to whether provisions in legislation "relate to" reserved matters.

    She speaks about the European Union (Continuity) Bill which was passed by the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit.

    She says the Supreme Court placed considerable emphasis on the need for there to be some form of practical or legal effect on the law on the reserved matter.

    The lord advocate says it is implicit in the reasoning of the Supreme Court when it dealt with the reference on the European Union (Continuity) Bill that it would be reasonable to suggest that holding an advisory referendum on an issue of international affairs would not relate to a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament.

    I can only speak as a layman, but as someone who thinks the government should grant a referendum as that is the will of the elected representatives of the Scottish nation, the UK government's case does seem pretty persuasive to me.

    Whilst the draft of any bill is unlikely to change, as even a Justice pointed out, it seems as though it is the job of the Lord Advocate to take a view on the competence, and she is simply reluctant to do so. If she is not willing to offer a firm view that it is or is not, then surely it falls by default? Why is it the job of the court to provide an answer to a question she is not even willing to answer? (I know there's a whole bunch of arguments about when she is able to refer a matter and what on as well, but at its heart this seems to be her job is to take a view, and she is unwilling to offer one at the moment).

    The BBC live text updates also then includes a lot of stuff about how this is important, and a festering sore, which are both true, but doesn't seem like it would overrule matters of legislative procedure and whether that has been followed properly - you see that sort of argument at much much lower levels with things like public sector equality duty, or duty of care, meaning (people argue) any other rules are not relevant. And its the sort of thing the government lost, when trying to argue Brexit was really important and thus little things like parliamentayr consent were not necessary.

    Coronation will take place 6 May 2023.

    I hope they go big. It's not as though going slimmed down will turn republicans into monarchists, and being over the top silly is part of the brand.
    It will be a big event but not as big as the Queen's coronation was and given the cost of living.

    The crowning of the King and Queen Consort will also take a slightly more informal tone, more in suits etc and reflect the modern age more while still keeping the key elements
    Although... real UK GDP per capita today is roughly four times what it was in 1953 (even with the relative stagnation of the last 12 years of Tory incompetence).

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270?time=1848..2016
    Presumably they have the silverware already anyway. All you need to do is to polish it up and nip out for some sunflower oil from Lidl, no need to get a jug and spoon from Lakeland.

    Trouble is, a cutprice coronation will look crap. But so will an upmarket, ermine vermin laden, one, for different reasons and to different people - or even with an overlap of the two sets. An interesting dilemma to navigate.
    What is needed is a less stuffy but more lavish coronation. Also it would be good to make it in some way more inclusive for the nation as a whole. Something like the Olympic Torch progression around the country would be good.

    In fact, which not have Coronation Torches from all corners of the nation being run by local heroes to congregate on Buckingham Palace...

    ... then burn the lot down in a massive republican bonfire?*.

    (*For the avoidance of doubt, the last part is a joke.)
    Hmm, that's a good point. Trouble is, it now occurs to me, the Brexiters and Tory Party would want it just like it was in 1953, when they sat at daddy's knee and watched it on TV. And as evewryone else "doesn't count" it will be interesting to see what happens.

    Maybe we will see the return of the King's Champion to the ceremony? He's still being appointed, he might as well do something in return.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    edited October 11
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Have transfer values of DB pensions fallen significantly since the mini-budget?
    Not sure but that would be logical.
    Surely the transfer value of a DB pension is driven by the cost of buying the benefit - which will have fallen dramatically since the budget? So I would expect transfer values to have tumbled.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I agree very mostly with this.

    I would just say though that a forced crash in the housing market will cause a significant recession that will scar the country for a decade or more (and affect all workers whether they are house owners or not).

    So the way out is some combination of higher tax rises, lower spending, higher interest rates, and lower pound.

    And, of course, the defenestration of Truss-Kwarteng, who have no support from the markets, the public, or even their own party.
    Brown, Darling, Cameron and Osborne are the guilty parties for doing everything they could to keep the bubble inflated after the financial crisis.

    In Ireland, house prices fell 35% and new home loan volumes fell 75%, but Irish growth then decoupled from the UK (and before you blame Brexit, this was evident long before then). We just kept putting off the reckoning.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,095

    Have just watched a clip reel on Twitter of this afternoon. SNP MP gives an example of a local business whose leccy bill rises from £100k+ to £900k+ despite the 6 months of help. Kwarteng says "we have helped" and sneers at the MP for daring to ask the question. Other MPs ask similar, junior Treasury ministers similarly sneering dismissals.

    You can't tell people that your ideology trumps their lived reality. They will destroy you at the ballot box. Why don't KT understand this?

    Was it just Alison Thewliss from the SNP and were the other MPs from other parties?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Have transfer values of DB pensions fallen significantly since the mini-budget?
    Not sure but that would be logical.
    Surely the transfer value of a DB pension is driven by the cost of buying the benefit - which will have fallen dramatically since the budget? So I would expect transfer values to have tumbled.
    Yes, I am agreeing with you.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    ping said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Yep.

    We should have done an Iceland in 2008.

    14 stupid, wasted years of financial repression with huge consequences for the young.

    As someone who graduated in July 2008, into the great financial crisis, I feel really sorry for my contemporaries - those in their late 20’s and 30’s who have had to swim against an incredible tide, for the last decade and a half and have had to load themselves up with massive mortgages, just to get some kind of stability and raise a family.

    They’re now left holding the can.

    Political choices have made life very unfair for my generation.

    It all could have been so different.
    Personally I think the entire generation under 50 have been sacrificed.

    You either can’t afford to buy a house, or you’ve bought with heavy leverage and even then are unlikely to have been able to afford a standard of accommodation accessible to the generation before you.

    Even QCs now live in Archway, not Hampstead. And so on, all the way down the ladder.

    The only winners are those who’ve inherited or been gifted by their parents.
    And they aren't winning, they are merely breaking even.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,451
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Have transfer values of DB pensions fallen significantly since the mini-budget?
    Not sure but that would be logical.
    Thanks. I have a few years of one from years ago. No idea whether I'll want to transfer it but annuity rates were so crap until recently.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I agree very mostly with this.

    I would just say though that a forced crash in the housing market will cause a significant recession that will scar the country for a decade or more (and affect all workers whether they are house owners or not).

    So the way out is some combination of higher tax rises, lower spending, higher interest rates, and lower pound.

    And, of course, the defenestration of Truss-Kwarteng, who have no support from the markets, the public, or even their own party.
    Brown, Darling, Cameron and Osborne are the guilty parties for doing everything they could to keep the bubble inflated after the financial crisis.

    In Ireland, house prices fell 35% and new home loan volumes fell 75%, but Irish growth then decoupled from the UK (and before you blame Brexit, this was evident long before then). We just kept putting off the reckoning.
    I think Brown et al did what they could to stave off an almighty and profound disaster.

    If Ireland outgrew the UK in the years after 2008 I would argue it was because it had fallen so far (similar to the UK’s Covid bounce back which flattered to deceive).

    The turning point was probably around 2015. A course correction was required, but the UK spent all its energy Brexiting instead.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046
    Iceland's banking debts were a giant multiple of its economy, and foreigners bore the brunt of bank failures. Letting all the UK banks fail would have devastated depositors and left UK banking as a political state-owned sector, under even more pressure to service zombie firms, pensioners and other Tory vote blocs.
  • Have just watched a clip reel on Twitter of this afternoon. SNP MP gives an example of a local business whose leccy bill rises from £100k+ to £900k+ despite the 6 months of help. Kwarteng says "we have helped" and sneers at the MP for daring to ask the question. Other MPs ask similar, junior Treasury ministers similarly sneering dismissals.

    You can't tell people that your ideology trumps their lived reality. They will destroy you at the ballot box. Why don't KT understand this?

    Because, if they did, they would suffer a mental breakdown.

    I’m serious.

    They’ve fucked the country so badly, to take it on board would be psychologically disastrous.
    Any precedent in a modern democracy for screwing up this badly with this quick a feedback loop? (Not ERM, that worked by its own lights until it didn't. Not Vote Leave ashen faces.)

    Because psychologically the only hope the government have is to bluff and fake it in the hope of making it. But that will dig them deeper into their hole...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Have transfer values of DB pensions fallen significantly since the mini-budget?
    Not sure but that would be logical.
    Surely the transfer value of a DB pension is driven by the cost of buying the benefit - which will have fallen dramatically since the budget? So I would expect transfer values to have tumbled.
    Yes, I am agreeing with you.
    Sorry, yes, I misread your post - missed the important 'but'.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,472
    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Yep.

    We should have done an Iceland in 2008.

    14 stupid, wasted years of financial repression with huge consequences for the young.

    As someone who graduated in July 2008, into the great financial crisis, I feel really sorry for my contemporaries - those in their late 20’s and 30’s who have had to swim against an incredible tide, for the last decade and a half and have had to load themselves up with massive mortgages, just to get some kind of stability and raise a family.

    They’re now left holding the can.

    Political choices have made life very unfair for my generation.

    It all could have been so different.
    Personally I think the entire generation under 50 have been sacrificed.

    You either can’t afford to buy a house, or you’ve bought with heavy leverage and even then are unlikely to have been able to afford a standard of accommodation accessible to the generation before you.

    Even QCs now live in Archway, not Hampstead. And so on, all the way down the ladder.

    The only winners are those who’ve inherited or been gifted by their parents.
    And they aren't winning, they are merely breaking even.
    I rather disagree. You can work very hard all of you life and achieve a reasonable modesty of an existance in the UK. The inheritors of wealth are way beyond such troubles.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    TimS said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    Belarus has long felt like the solution to the Ukraine war. A revolution and a new anti-Russian leadership, domino effect on Russia and its republics, and in due course another newly prosperous EU-facing country. If and when Russia does implode it should be fairly easy for Moldova to kick the soldiers out of transnistria too.
    Before the invasion, one theory was that Putin was massing his troops in Belarus as a precursor to annexing it and that threatening Ukraine was just a sideshow. It would be ironic if Belarus instead ended up being the first domino to fall.
    It must be tottering on the brink. In 2020 many thought Lukaschenko managed to hold on because of the fear Russian intervention could follow any fall of the government.

    Russia currently has no means to hold back the tide in Belarus. It is focussed on Ukraine.
    OK I am lost now. Tsikhanouskaya is the PM, yes?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,591
    Guys. Must we endure @HYUFD 's masturbatory sedition fantasy yet again?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I agree very mostly with this.

    I would just say though that a forced crash in the housing market will cause a significant recession that will scar the country for a decade or more (and affect all workers whether they are house owners or not).

    So the way out is some combination of higher tax rises, lower spending, higher interest rates, and lower pound.

    And, of course, the defenestration of Truss-Kwarteng, who have no support from the markets, the public, or even their own party.
    Brown, Darling, Cameron and Osborne are the guilty parties for doing everything they could to keep the bubble inflated after the financial crisis.

    In Ireland, house prices fell 35% and new home loan volumes fell 75%, but Irish growth then decoupled from the UK (and before you blame Brexit, this was evident long before then). We just kept putting off the reckoning.
    I think Brown et al did what they could to stave off an almighty and profound disaster.

    If Ireland outgrew the UK in the years after 2008 I would argue it was because it had fallen so far (similar to the UK’s Covid bounce back which flattered to deceive).

    The turning point was probably around 2015. A course correction was required, but the UK spent all its energy Brexiting instead.
    No, it was nothing like the UK's covid bounce back and they did a lot more than catch up with where they were before.

    When you have malinvestment, you need people to take their losses, otherwise you end up with a zombified economy.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Omnium said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    Yep.

    We should have done an Iceland in 2008.

    14 stupid, wasted years of financial repression with huge consequences for the young.

    As someone who graduated in July 2008, into the great financial crisis, I feel really sorry for my contemporaries - those in their late 20’s and 30’s who have had to swim against an incredible tide, for the last decade and a half and have had to load themselves up with massive mortgages, just to get some kind of stability and raise a family.

    They’re now left holding the can.

    Political choices have made life very unfair for my generation.

    It all could have been so different.
    Personally I think the entire generation under 50 have been sacrificed.

    You either can’t afford to buy a house, or you’ve bought with heavy leverage and even then are unlikely to have been able to afford a standard of accommodation accessible to the generation before you.

    Even QCs now live in Archway, not Hampstead. And so on, all the way down the ladder.

    The only winners are those who’ve inherited or been gifted by their parents.
    And they aren't winning, they are merely breaking even.
    I rather disagree. You can work very hard all of you life and achieve a reasonable modesty of an existance in the UK. The inheritors of wealth are way beyond such troubles.
    Well, it is a graded scale, innit? Someone who inherits or is given £100,000 - and no more - is only put in the same position if they want to buy a flat in London, as we were 30 years ago by virtue of having jobs.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    IshmaelZ said:

    TimS said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    Belarus has long felt like the solution to the Ukraine war. A revolution and a new anti-Russian leadership, domino effect on Russia and its republics, and in due course another newly prosperous EU-facing country. If and when Russia does implode it should be fairly easy for Moldova to kick the soldiers out of transnistria too.
    Before the invasion, one theory was that Putin was massing his troops in Belarus as a precursor to annexing it and that threatening Ukraine was just a sideshow. It would be ironic if Belarus instead ended up being the first domino to fall.
    It must be tottering on the brink. In 2020 many thought Lukaschenko managed to hold on because of the fear Russian intervention could follow any fall of the government.

    Russia currently has no means to hold back the tide in Belarus. It is focussed on Ukraine.
    OK I am lost now. Tsikhanouskaya is the PM, yes?
    There's this wonderful resource called Wikipedia which can sometimes help in such moments of confusion. You should try it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sviatlana_Tsikhanouskaya
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,472

    Guys. Must we endure @HYUFD 's masturbatory sedition fantasy yet again?

    I'm surpised at you GG.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I agree very mostly with this.

    I would just say though that a forced crash in the housing market will cause a significant recession that will scar the country for a decade or more (and affect all workers whether they are house owners or not).

    So the way out is some combination of higher tax rises, lower spending, higher interest rates, and lower pound.

    And, of course, the defenestration of Truss-Kwarteng, who have no support from the markets, the public, or even their own party.
    Brown, Darling, Cameron and Osborne are the guilty parties for doing everything they could to keep the bubble inflated after the financial crisis.

    In Ireland, house prices fell 35% and new home loan volumes fell 75%, but Irish growth then decoupled from the UK (and before you blame Brexit, this was evident long before then). We just kept putting off the reckoning.
    I think Brown et al did what they could to stave off an almighty and profound disaster.

    If Ireland outgrew the UK in the years after 2008 I would argue it was because it had fallen so far (similar to the UK’s Covid bounce back which flattered to deceive).

    The turning point was probably around 2015. A course correction was required, but the UK spent all its energy Brexiting instead.
    Also worth noting, Ireland's house prices hit an all-time high just before the recent interest rate hikes, so it makes no sense to credit low house prices for prosperity there. (You can have cheap houses when people have no money to bid for them. It's very hard when people are able and willing to bid prices up.)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,367
    EPG said:

    Iceland's banking debts were a giant multiple of its economy, and foreigners bore the brunt of bank failures. Letting all the UK banks fail would have devastated depositors and left UK banking as a political state-owned sector, under even more pressure to service zombie firms, pensioners and other Tory vote blocs.

    If the banking system had seized up, it would have been worse than a few shareholders taking a haircut. How would you withdraw cash? How would your salary be paid? How would you pay in shops with a credit or debit card? It doesn't bear thinking about. Luckily, Gordon Brown stepped up and saved the world. :wink:
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    IshmaelZ said:

    TimS said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    Belarus has long felt like the solution to the Ukraine war. A revolution and a new anti-Russian leadership, domino effect on Russia and its republics, and in due course another newly prosperous EU-facing country. If and when Russia does implode it should be fairly easy for Moldova to kick the soldiers out of transnistria too.
    Before the invasion, one theory was that Putin was massing his troops in Belarus as a precursor to annexing it and that threatening Ukraine was just a sideshow. It would be ironic if Belarus instead ended up being the first domino to fall.
    It must be tottering on the brink. In 2020 many thought Lukaschenko managed to hold on because of the fear Russian intervention could follow any fall of the government.

    Russia currently has no means to hold back the tide in Belarus. It is focussed on Ukraine.
    OK I am lost now. Tsikhanouskaya is the PM, yes?
    She is the opposition leader in exile.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    EPG said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I agree very mostly with this.

    I would just say though that a forced crash in the housing market will cause a significant recession that will scar the country for a decade or more (and affect all workers whether they are house owners or not).

    So the way out is some combination of higher tax rises, lower spending, higher interest rates, and lower pound.

    And, of course, the defenestration of Truss-Kwarteng, who have no support from the markets, the public, or even their own party.
    Brown, Darling, Cameron and Osborne are the guilty parties for doing everything they could to keep the bubble inflated after the financial crisis.

    In Ireland, house prices fell 35% and new home loan volumes fell 75%, but Irish growth then decoupled from the UK (and before you blame Brexit, this was evident long before then). We just kept putting off the reckoning.
    I think Brown et al did what they could to stave off an almighty and profound disaster.

    If Ireland outgrew the UK in the years after 2008 I would argue it was because it had fallen so far (similar to the UK’s Covid bounce back which flattered to deceive).

    The turning point was probably around 2015. A course correction was required, but the UK spent all its energy Brexiting instead.
    Also worth noting, Ireland's house prices hit an all-time high just before the recent interest rate hikes, so it makes no sense to credit low house prices for prosperity there. (You can have cheap houses when people have no money to bid for them. It's very hard when people are able and willing to bid prices up.)
    I agree with WG’s belief that a large part of the problem is what he calls malinvestment, and I’d call rentierism and zombie businesses.

    I don’t agree that we should have let the economy crash into depression, and I think Ireland is not a terribly useful comparator for all sorts of reasons.

    Also, nobody seriously looking at the UK economy today can avoid Brexit as an major exacerbating issue.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    TimS said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    Belarus has long felt like the solution to the Ukraine war. A revolution and a new anti-Russian leadership, domino effect on Russia and its republics, and in due course another newly prosperous EU-facing country. If and when Russia does implode it should be fairly easy for Moldova to kick the soldiers out of transnistria too.
    Before the invasion, one theory was that Putin was massing his troops in Belarus as a precursor to annexing it and that threatening Ukraine was just a sideshow. It would be ironic if Belarus instead ended up being the first domino to fall.
    It must be tottering on the brink. In 2020 many thought Lukaschenko managed to hold on because of the fear Russian intervention could follow any fall of the government.

    Russia currently has no means to hold back the tide in Belarus. It is focussed on Ukraine.
    OK I am lost now. Tsikhanouskaya is the PM, yes?
    There's this wonderful resource called Wikipedia which can sometimes help in such moments of confusion. You should try it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sviatlana_Tsikhanouskaya
    Fuck me, that is so devastating I am going to flounce for the evening and watch the Argento cut of Dawn of the Dead.

    The question behind my question was, is she just a figurehead, and Lukashenko calls the shots? Not much help from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/is Sviatlana_Tsikhanouskaya just a figurehead, and Lukashenko calls the shots?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    TimS said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    Belarus has long felt like the solution to the Ukraine war. A revolution and a new anti-Russian leadership, domino effect on Russia and its republics, and in due course another newly prosperous EU-facing country. If and when Russia does implode it should be fairly easy for Moldova to kick the soldiers out of transnistria too.
    Before the invasion, one theory was that Putin was massing his troops in Belarus as a precursor to annexing it and that threatening Ukraine was just a sideshow. It would be ironic if Belarus instead ended up being the first domino to fall.
    It must be tottering on the brink. In 2020 many thought Lukaschenko managed to hold on because of the fear Russian intervention could follow any fall of the government.

    Russia currently has no means to hold back the tide in Belarus. It is focussed on Ukraine.
    OK I am lost now. Tsikhanouskaya is the PM, yes?
    She is the opposition leader in exile.
    Ah thank you.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    EPG said:

    Iceland's banking debts were a giant multiple of its economy, and foreigners bore the brunt of bank failures. Letting all the UK banks fail would have devastated depositors and left UK banking as a political state-owned sector, under even more pressure to service zombie firms, pensioners and other Tory vote blocs.

    If the banking system had seized up, it would have been worse than a few shareholders taking a haircut. How would you withdraw cash? How would your salary be paid? How would you pay in shops with a credit or debit card? It doesn't bear thinking about. Luckily, Gordon Brown stepped up and saved the world. :wink:
    The true hero was Alistair Darling for bailing out the greedy fuckwits with much more money than was sensible on deposit with Iceland Bank, Gawd bless him.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TimS said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    Belarus has long felt like the solution to the Ukraine war. A revolution and a new anti-Russian leadership, domino effect on Russia and its republics, and in due course another newly prosperous EU-facing country. If and when Russia does implode it should be fairly easy for Moldova to kick the soldiers out of transnistria too.
    Before the invasion, one theory was that Putin was massing his troops in Belarus as a precursor to annexing it and that threatening Ukraine was just a sideshow. It would be ironic if Belarus instead ended up being the first domino to fall.
    It must be tottering on the brink. In 2020 many thought Lukaschenko managed to hold on because of the fear Russian intervention could follow any fall of the government.

    Russia currently has no means to hold back the tide in Belarus. It is focussed on Ukraine.
    OK I am lost now. Tsikhanouskaya is the PM, yes?
    There's this wonderful resource called Wikipedia which can sometimes help in such moments of confusion. You should try it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sviatlana_Tsikhanouskaya
    Fuck me, that is so devastating I am going to flounce for the evening and watch the Argento cut of Dawn of the Dead.

    The question behind my question was, is she just a figurehead, and Lukashenko calls the shots? Not much help from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/is Sviatlana_Tsikhanouskaya just a figurehead, and Lukashenko calls the shots?
    She’s the opposition leader in exile who stood against Lukashenko last time and most likely had the election stolen from her.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046

    EPG said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I agree very mostly with this.

    I would just say though that a forced crash in the housing market will cause a significant recession that will scar the country for a decade or more (and affect all workers whether they are house owners or not).

    So the way out is some combination of higher tax rises, lower spending, higher interest rates, and lower pound.

    And, of course, the defenestration of Truss-Kwarteng, who have no support from the markets, the public, or even their own party.
    Brown, Darling, Cameron and Osborne are the guilty parties for doing everything they could to keep the bubble inflated after the financial crisis.

    In Ireland, house prices fell 35% and new home loan volumes fell 75%, but Irish growth then decoupled from the UK (and before you blame Brexit, this was evident long before then). We just kept putting off the reckoning.
    I think Brown et al did what they could to stave off an almighty and profound disaster.

    If Ireland outgrew the UK in the years after 2008 I would argue it was because it had fallen so far (similar to the UK’s Covid bounce back which flattered to deceive).

    The turning point was probably around 2015. A course correction was required, but the UK spent all its energy Brexiting instead.
    Also worth noting, Ireland's house prices hit an all-time high just before the recent interest rate hikes, so it makes no sense to credit low house prices for prosperity there. (You can have cheap houses when people have no money to bid for them. It's very hard when people are able and willing to bid prices up.)
    I agree with WG’s belief that a large part of the problem is what he calls malinvestment, and I’d call rentierism and zombie businesses.

    I don’t agree that we should have let the economy crash into depression, and I think Ireland is not a terribly useful comparator for all sorts of reasons.

    Also, nobody seriously looking at the UK economy today can avoid Brexit as an major exacerbating issue.
    The evidence that zombie businesses are a problem is very, very, mixed. There were promising results from Japan in the 2000s but on aggregate a lot of top researchers reckon working-age population explains its trajectory, and I don't mean soft lefties but Chicago boys like Luigi Zingales. And there is no evidence at all that low house prices cause better business investment.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,600
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I am not watching the Supreme Court hearings, but my personal view is that even an advisory referendum on constitutional matters falls outside the Scottish government’s remit.

    As would, for example, advertising in support of independence.

    I think on balance I agree, although you end up at a thorny situation. In 19th century USA, I believe that the southern states had the right to secede from the union. Does Scotland have the right to do the same from the UK? I assume there was no article 50 in the act of Union?
    You only have to read the words of the statute. 'Reserved' means reserved to the UK parliament and therefore not delegated.

    "General reservations
    The Constitution
    1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

    (a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,

    (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England......"



    A referendum (whether binding or not) as to whether the balance of opinion in Scotland favours change in the constitutional matter of the union, and organised according to law (ie not a large opinion poll but a legislated matter) is so plainly a reserved matter that I would say the Scottish government's case has virtually Zero chance of success.

    BTW by parity of reasoning if the Scottish government can do this, they can also hold a referendum on abolishing the monarchy for Scotland, and removing all armed forces.

    I would put it as 66/1 the Scots to win this case.

    Even the Lord Advocate clearly does not believe that this falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP's own written submissions really failed to address the wording of the legislation which the SC has to apply, relying instead on inherent rights to self determination which in some way require the SC to ignore the law as it is and recognise some amorphous, overwhelming principle. It's an offer they have declined before and they will do so this time too.
    I don't think that's what their written submission does at all.

    Their written submissions seems to me to suggest

    That the legislation could be interpreted broadly (anything even remotely connected to the reserved matter is reserved, even if it doesn't affect the law on reserved matters) or narrowly (only legal changes on reserved matters are reserved).
    This referendum being advisory only doesn't change any reserved matters, so would be legal under a narrow reading.
    That under international law Scotland should have a right to self-determination.
    UK law is normally interpreted where it can be to be consistent in both national and international law.
    Therefore the narrow interpretation should be used.

    Seems to me to be a reasonable argument. Where is the flaw on that, how is a narrow reading of the legislation inappropriate?

    If this from the BBC Coverage earlier is accurate then surely SC precedent would say that an advisory-only referendum is not reserved?
    Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain continues to cite case law in reference to whether provisions in legislation "relate to" reserved matters.

    She speaks about the European Union (Continuity) Bill which was passed by the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit.

    She says the Supreme Court placed considerable emphasis on the need for there to be some form of practical or legal effect on the law on the reserved matter.

    The lord advocate says it is implicit in the reasoning of the Supreme Court when it dealt with the reference on the European Union (Continuity) Bill that it would be reasonable to suggest that holding an advisory referendum on an issue of international affairs would not relate to a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament.

    I can only speak as a layman, but as someone who thinks the government should grant a referendum as that is the will of the elected representatives of the Scottish nation, the UK government's case does seem pretty persuasive to me.

    Whilst the draft of any bill is unlikely to change, as even a Justice pointed out, it seems as though it is the job of the Lord Advocate to take a view on the competence, and she is simply reluctant to do so. If she is not willing to offer a firm view that it is or is not, then surely it falls by default? Why is it the job of the court to provide an answer to a question she is not even willing to answer? (I know there's a whole bunch of arguments about when she is able to refer a matter and what on as well, but at its heart this seems to be her job is to take a view, and she is unwilling to offer one at the moment).

    The BBC live text updates also then includes a lot of stuff about how this is important, and a festering sore, which are both true, but doesn't seem like it would overrule matters of legislative procedure and whether that has been followed properly - you see that sort of argument at much much lower levels with things like public sector equality duty, or duty of care, meaning (people argue) any other rules are not relevant. And its the sort of thing the government lost, when trying to argue Brexit was really important and thus little things like parliamentayr consent were not necessary.

    Coronation will take place 6 May 2023.

    I hope they go big. It's not as though going slimmed down will turn republicans into monarchists, and being over the top silly is part of the brand.
    It will be a big event but not as big as the Queen's coronation was and given the cost of living.

    The crowning of the King and Queen Consort will also take a slightly more informal tone, more in suits etc and reflect the modern age more while still keeping the key elements
    Although... real UK GDP per capita today is roughly four times what it was in 1953 (even with the relative stagnation of the last 12 years of Tory incompetence).

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270?time=1848..2016
    Presumably they have the silverware already anyway. All you need to do is to polish it up and nip out for some sunflower oil from Lidl, no need to get a jug and spoon from Lakeland.

    Trouble is, a cutprice coronation will look crap. But so will an upmarket, ermine vermin laden, one, for different reasons and to different people - or even with an overlap of the two sets. An interesting dilemma to navigate.
    What is needed is a less stuffy but more lavish coronation. Also it would be good to make it in some way more inclusive for the nation as a whole. Something like the Olympic Torch progression around the country would be good.

    In fact, which not have Coronation Torches from all corners of the nation being run by local heroes to congregate on Buckingham Palace...

    ... then burn the lot down in a massive republican bonfire?*.

    (*For the avoidance of doubt, the last part is a joke.)
    Hmm, that's a good point. Trouble is, it now occurs to me, the Brexiters and Tory Party would want it just like it was in 1953, when they sat at daddy's knee and watched it on TV. And as evewryone else "doesn't count" it will be interesting to see what happens.

    Maybe we will see the return of the King's Champion to the ceremony? He's still being appointed, he might as well do something in return.
    Trot forward Sir Gavin Williamson?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Why should I give a shit about yesterday's man, Aaron Banks?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I agree very mostly with this.

    I would just say though that a forced crash in the housing market will cause a significant recession that will scar the country for a decade or more (and affect all workers whether they are house owners or not).

    So the way out is some combination of higher tax rises, lower spending, higher interest rates, and lower pound.

    And, of course, the defenestration of Truss-Kwarteng, who have no support from the markets, the public, or even their own party.
    Brown, Darling, Cameron and Osborne are the guilty parties for doing everything they could to keep the bubble inflated after the financial crisis.

    In Ireland, house prices fell 35% and new home loan volumes fell 75%, but Irish growth then decoupled from the UK (and before you blame Brexit, this was evident long before then). We just kept putting off the reckoning.
    I think Brown et al did what they could to stave off an almighty and profound disaster.

    If Ireland outgrew the UK in the years after 2008 I would argue it was because it had fallen so far (similar to the UK’s Covid bounce back which flattered to deceive).

    The turning point was probably around 2015. A course correction was required, but the UK spent all its energy Brexiting instead.
    Also worth noting, Ireland's house prices hit an all-time high just before the recent interest rate hikes, so it makes no sense to credit low house prices for prosperity there. (You can have cheap houses when people have no money to bid for them. It's very hard when people are able and willing to bid prices up.)
    I agree with WG’s belief that a large part of the problem is what he calls malinvestment, and I’d call rentierism and zombie businesses.

    I don’t agree that we should have let the economy crash into depression, and I think Ireland is not a terribly useful comparator for all sorts of reasons.

    Also, nobody seriously looking at the UK economy today can avoid Brexit as an major exacerbating issue.
    The evidence that zombie businesses are a problem is very, very, mixed. There were promising results from Japan in the 2000s but on aggregate a lot of top researchers reckon working-age population explains its trajectory, and I don't mean soft lefties but Chicago boys like Luigi Zingales. And there is no evidence at all that low house prices cause better business investment.
    I remain unconvinced. Just from my own anecdotage, which I get is not allowed.

    As for demographics, I’m interested in what this says about European immigration; did it “stave off” a decline in the growth rate? To what extent?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,453
    Courthouse News.com - Audio leak of profane, racist remarks leaves LA City Hall in disarray
    LA City Council President Nury Martinez has stepped down as president, after the audio recording of her making racist remarks surfaced.

    LOS ANGELES (CN) — A leaked audio recording of an expletive-filled meeting between three Los Angeles City Council members and a labor leader, who can be heard making numerous racist slurs, some about their City Hall colleagues, has sent shockwaves through LA's political establishment.

    On Monday, the day after the news broke, City Council President Nury Martinez announced she was stepping down as president. Many Southern California politicians, including Mayor Eric Garcetti, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla and both mayoral candidates have called for the three council members — Martinez, Kevin de Leon, and Gil Cedillo — to resign from office, as has the Los Angeles Times editorial board.

    The 80-minute audio clip, which has been uploaded to YouTube by the progressive news site KnockLA, provides a rare peak into the coarse, cynical and mean ways in which the city's elected officials relate to one another. The four Latino officials speak openly and cynically about defending their political turf from their enemies — namely, from Black and white politicians.

    Referring to progressive District Attorney George Gascón, Martinez says, "Fuck that guy. He's with the Blacks."

    Martinez calls progressive City Councilman Mike Bonin, a white gay man, a "little bitch." Perhaps the most shocking part of the conversation is when it turns to Bonin's adopted [Black] son . . . .

    "They're raising him like a little white kid," Martinez says. "I was like, this kid needs a beatdown. Let me take him around the corner and then I’ll bring him back.” Martinez . . . describes the child as "parece changuito," or "like a monkey." . . .

    "It's the white members on this council that will motherfuck you in a heartbeat," Martinez says, referring to the potential of City Controller Ron Galperin to stop paying suspended City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas' salary — which he did do. "That's what they do."

    De Leon agrees, comparing the situation to when his former colleague in the Legislature, Tony Mendoza, was accused of sexual harassment.

    "The white folks will cut you in a heartbeat," De Leon says. "And then when it's them, they figure out some shit." . . .

    "They get a PR firm," Martinez agrees. "They get the best attorneys."

    The council members go on to insult Armenians, a few other City Council members, even a reporter for the LA Times, whom Martinez calls a "fucking little piece of shit."

    https://www.courthousenews.com/audio-leak-of-profane-racist-remarks-leaves-la-city-hall-in-disarray/

    SSI - Los Angeles Times & many others calling for these clowns to resign. My guess is that they will indeed be forced to walk the plank. Certainly hope so!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    rcs1000 said:

    Why should I give a shit about yesterday's man, Aaron Banks?

    Arron?

    Is this really like 2008?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    rcs1000 said:

    Why should I give a shit about yesterday's man, Aaron Banks?

    I don’t know.
    You literally brought him up.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,600
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TimS said:

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
    @Tsihanouskaya
    I addressed President Zelenskyy today & proposed to build an alliance between Ukraine & democratic Belarus. To establish political & diplomatic relations. Because the fates of our nations are intertwined. We are ready for cooperation & we #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦


    https://twitter.com/Tsihanouskaya/status/1579873938783752192

    Belarus has long felt like the solution to the Ukraine war. A revolution and a new anti-Russian leadership, domino effect on Russia and its republics, and in due course another newly prosperous EU-facing country. If and when Russia does implode it should be fairly easy for Moldova to kick the soldiers out of transnistria too.
    Before the invasion, one theory was that Putin was massing his troops in Belarus as a precursor to annexing it and that threatening Ukraine was just a sideshow. It would be ironic if Belarus instead ended up being the first domino to fall.
    It must be tottering on the brink. In 2020 many thought Lukaschenko managed to hold on because of the fear Russian intervention could follow any fall of the government.

    Russia currently has no means to hold back the tide in Belarus. It is focussed on Ukraine.
    OK I am lost now. Tsikhanouskaya is the PM, yes?
    There's this wonderful resource called Wikipedia which can sometimes help in such moments of confusion. You should try it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sviatlana_Tsikhanouskaya
    Fuck me, that is so devastating I am going to flounce for the evening and watch the Argento cut of Dawn of the Dead.

    The question behind my question was, is she just a figurehead, and Lukashenko calls the shots? Not much help from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/is Sviatlana_Tsikhanouskaya just a figurehead, and Lukashenko calls the shots?
    You should try to get a greater allowance of non-violent programming in your daily viewing habits. You'll rot your brain.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    NBC News: U.K. authorities have arrested one of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaksa's alleged money-men, Graham Bonham-Carter, after the DOJ's Task Force KleptoCapture charged him with sanctions violations and wire fraud crimes.

    The U.S. says they will seek to extradite him.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    DavidL said:

    I have been able to access a portal today which gives me sight of the current situation in respect of the pension fund of which I am a trustee. At our last official valuation, after some pretty cautious assumptions, we had 105% of the funding required. By the time of the Kamikwase budget that had gone up to 110%. Today it is at 140%. This is because although the value of our investments have fallen sharply the value of our liabilities, based upon gilt rates, have fallen much more quickly still.

    Basically, the death of our DB pension system came from artificially low interest rates over very long periods of time which multiplied the capital required to pay those pensions when they became due. Increased government gilt yields will have massively (because they are so highly geared) increased pension solvency.

    We have lived with a deeply distorted economy since 2008. We have encouraged debt by making it cheap, we have inflated asset prices benefiting the better off and companies which frankly should have gone to the wall have continued a zombie existence using up assets that could have been put to better use. We absolutely need to get interest rates back to something like normal, that is roughly 2% above inflation. Doing this is going to be very painful for those who borrowed large sums for mortgages on the basis that borrowing was cheap. But not doing this has increased inequality, pulled up the rungs of the housing market for our youth and completely distorted our tax system, increasing the burden on earnings but allowing massive gains to effectively go untaxed.

    I agree very mostly with this.

    I would just say though that a forced crash in the housing market will cause a significant recession that will scar the country for a decade or more (and affect all workers whether they are house owners or not).

    So the way out is some combination of higher tax rises, lower spending, higher interest rates, and lower pound.

    And, of course, the defenestration of Truss-Kwarteng, who have no support from the markets, the public, or even their own party.
    Brown, Darling, Cameron and Osborne are the guilty parties for doing everything they could to keep the bubble inflated after the financial crisis.

    In Ireland, house prices fell 35% and new home loan volumes fell 75%, but Irish growth then decoupled from the UK (and before you blame Brexit, this was evident long before then). We just kept putting off the reckoning.
    I think Brown et al did what they could to stave off an almighty and profound disaster.

    If Ireland outgrew the UK in the years after 2008 I would argue it was because it had fallen so far (similar to the UK’s Covid bounce back which flattered to deceive).

    The turning point was probably around 2015. A course correction was required, but the UK spent all its energy Brexiting instead.
    Also worth noting, Ireland's house prices hit an all-time high just before the recent interest rate hikes, so it makes no sense to credit low house prices for prosperity there. (You can have cheap houses when people have no money to bid for them. It's very hard when people are able and willing to bid prices up.)
    I agree with WG’s belief that a large part of the problem is what he calls malinvestment, and I’d call rentierism and zombie businesses.

    I don’t agree that we should have let the economy crash into depression, and I think Ireland is not a terribly useful comparator for all sorts of reasons.

    Also, nobody seriously looking at the UK economy today can avoid Brexit as an major exacerbating issue.
    The evidence that zombie businesses are a problem is very, very, mixed. There were promising results from Japan in the 2000s but on aggregate a lot of top researchers reckon working-age population explains its trajectory, and I don't mean soft lefties but Chicago boys like Luigi Zingales. And there is no evidence at all that low house prices cause better business investment.
    I remain unconvinced. Just from my own anecdotage, which I get is not allowed.

    As for demographics, I’m interested in what this says about European immigration; did it “stave off” a decline in the growth rate? To what extent?
    Yes. Importing workers allows you to complement low productivity growth and aging populations with sheer numbers of hands at work. Japan didn't, so its decent productivity growth was paced or outpaced by a reduction in workers.
This discussion has been closed.