Howdy, Stranger!

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

Another October 2008? – politicalbetting.com

1246

Comments

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912
    Starry said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why do ferries have such brilliant food? Calmac too

    There is a lot of research on airline food. The particular atmospheric conditions on a plane have a really bad effect on taste.

    Perhaps being at sea has the opposite effect.

    Does food taste better on the beach?
    My reckoning is food tastes better when you're moving - preferably with a window and good scenery to look out on. So food on trains, boats etc. just works.
    I really like this idea. I even like food on planes, but I think that's to do with the anticipation, the ritual.
    Same here. I like plane food, particularly long haul. Something just in the novelty of it all.
    Try the Asian vegetarian option. It's generally excellent.
    I always go Asian vegetarian. You get served first too!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,398
    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    It's just a load of old bollocks.

    That's what I learnt from the E of PPE.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,746
    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    In my experience, people don't like this type of questioning of the whole philosophical basis of our economic system.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,068
    Starry said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why do ferries have such brilliant food? Calmac too

    There is a lot of research on airline food. The particular atmospheric conditions on a plane have a really bad effect on taste.

    Perhaps being at sea has the opposite effect.

    Does food taste better on the beach?
    My reckoning is food tastes better when you're moving - preferably with a window and good scenery to look out on. So food on trains, boats etc. just works.
    I really like this idea. I even like food on planes, but I think that's to do with the anticipation, the ritual.
    Same here. I like plane food, particularly long haul. Something just in the novelty of it all.
    Try the Asian vegetarian option. It's generally excellent.
    Also very likely to be served first! I often fly vegetarian.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,146
    darkage said:

    On the subject of food on ferries, the best in my experience are the 'all you can eat' buffets served on the ferries that go between Sweden and Finland. They are either the peak of civilisation or the peak of decadence, I am undecided as to which.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A93OUS_6fJ0

    Civilisation. The portion sizes are judicious, rather than massive.And I think I detect Swedish delicacies such as gravadlax, strömming and some sort of snmoked fish upright in glasses. I'd been thinking of seeing the Åland Islands and Mariehamn with the preserved ship Pommern, and this would be a nice treat en route.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040
    darkage said:

    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    In my experience, people don't like this type of questioning of the whole philosophical basis of our economic system.
    There's been an on-going debate about whether GDP is an appropriate measure for decades now. Cameron, for example, toyed around with alternatives that measured well-being and so on.

  • Just had a vison, of "Jessica Fletcher" inside No. 10, chit-chatting with Mark Fullbrook:

    "I hear what your saying, Mr. Chief of Staff - and by the way, thank you for this delicious cup of tea! It's just that I still have a few questions, if you don't mind . . ."
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911

    darkage said:

    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    In my experience, people don't like this type of questioning of the whole philosophical basis of our economic system.
    There's been an on-going debate about whether GDP is an appropriate measure for decades now. Cameron, for example, toyed around with alternatives that measured well-being and so on.

    GDP is numerically measurable, well-being is not. In terms of creating a year on year, like for like comparison both with our own past and other countries, what we need are numbers - not feelings.

    As is frequently pointed out here people "felt better off" back in the good old days when they had less but had a sense of community - however I suspect they are times that in reality few would care to revisit.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    Paging PB Geordies.

    Need some restaurant recommendations for a long romantic weekend.

    You can probably get an OK meal on the DFDS ferry to Holland or on the train to Edinburgh.

    Assuming the North Sea does not intervene.

    My mum's ferry-going career ended very abruptly after a North Sea storm on an overnight DFDS ferry from Harwich to Esbjerg in the 1980s. The washbowls throughout the ship overflowed with the sea-sick from the 90% of passengers who were affected.

    At the time she was in her mid-40s, and never went on another ferry. The most ambitious it was after that was European river cruises.

    I do wish you all the best, however. But I wouldn't overindulge heroically until on dry land - just in case.
    I did Bergen to Newcastle about 30 years ago in a Force 8 - which by the standards of the North Sea isn't too much to write home about, but did provide a decent swell.

    The on board cinema was full for the start of the new Bond film, but there were only 4 of us left in there at the end credits.

    The rest were presumably hanging over the railings.

    It probably didn't help that it was right in the bow.


    Shame they stopped that route, though.
    If i recall there was a TV series, Triangle, set on a north sea ferry...
    Good grief, I'd forgotten about that. It was much mocked if I recall.

    The grey North Sea wasn't ever going to be a glamorous backdrop, was it?
    Starred Larry Lamb iirc.

    I quite enjoyed it I seem to remember but I was only about fifteen.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,836
    darkage said:

    On the subject of food on ferries, the best in my experience are the 'all you can eat' buffets served on the ferries that go between Sweden and Finland. They are either the peak of civilisation or the peak of decadence, I am undecided as to which.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A93OUS_6fJ0

    When I was seven on the ferry to Gothenburg, I projectile vomited onto a meticulously presented example.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040
    darkage said:

    On the subject of food on ferries, the best in my experience are the 'all you can eat' buffets served on the ferries that go between Sweden and Finland. They are either the peak of civilisation or the peak of decadence, I am undecided as to which.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A93OUS_6fJ0

    If you can deal with the drinking. Unless that has changed?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,089

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    Paging PB Geordies.

    Need some restaurant recommendations for a long romantic weekend.

    You can probably get an OK meal on the DFDS ferry to Holland or on the train to Edinburgh.

    Assuming the North Sea does not intervene.

    My mum's ferry-going career ended very abruptly after a North Sea storm on an overnight DFDS ferry from Harwich to Esbjerg in the 1980s. The washbowls throughout the ship overflowed with the sea-sick from the 90% of passengers who were affected.

    At the time she was in her mid-40s, and never went on another ferry. The most ambitious it was after that was European river cruises.

    I do wish you all the best, however. But I wouldn't overindulge heroically until on dry land - just in case.
    I did Bergen to Newcastle about 30 years ago in a Force 8 - which by the standards of the North Sea isn't too much to write home about, but did provide a decent swell.

    The on board cinema was full for the start of the new Bond film, but there were only 4 of us left in there at the end credits.

    The rest were presumably hanging over the railings.

    It probably didn't help that it was right in the bow.


    Shame they stopped that route, though.
    If i recall there was a TV series, Triangle, set on a north sea ferry...
    Good grief, I'd forgotten about that. It was much mocked if I recall.

    The grey North Sea wasn't ever going to be a glamorous backdrop, was it?
    Starred Larry Lamb iirc.

    I quite enjoyed it I seem to remember but I was only about fifteen.

    And Paul Jerricho (for the benefit of people looking for Doctor Who connections)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Analysis on Twitter seems to suggest this is a high risk manoeuvre to stave off the impression that the UK is falling victim to “fiscal dominance”.

    It’s still a WTF moment, though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040

    Sam Coates Sky
    @SamCoatesSky
    Exc - First Tory MP calls for Truss u-turn and corporation tax to rise to prevent deep public spending cuts

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1579909947370115074
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,836

    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    You make a good point, and its certainly swings and roundabouts on an individual basis.

    But there is a distinction in economics between microeconomics and macroeconomics. The actions of an individual fall under microeconomics, so aren't typically analysed with regards to GDP. GDP is the preserve of macroeconomics, the study of the economy or country as a whole and on average, in aggregate, GDP going up would normally be more good than bad.

    But certainly any sensible discussion of the state of the economy would involve more than just GDP. Debt or savings ratios are also factors looked at, and your individual being in less debt would show up there so that should be considered a positive there.

    Unfortunately a lot of media discussion on economics is very dumbed down and tends to run on only a few metrics, or just one, rather than a balanced overview.
    Indeed. The example of walking to work is a good one though.
    If we could engineer a situation where everyone was able to, it would cause a significant fall in GDP. And a collapse in certain sectors of the economy. But it would be wonderful for everyone's mental and physical health. And probably their productivity, too.
  • dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    On the subject of food on ferries, the best in my experience are the 'all you can eat' buffets served on the ferries that go between Sweden and Finland. They are either the peak of civilisation or the peak of decadence, I am undecided as to which.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A93OUS_6fJ0

    When I was seven on the ferry to Gothenburg, I projectile vomited onto a meticulously presented example.
    Hopefully they were able to get it cleaned up prior to the next sailing?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    NEW

    Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1

    Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”

    surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..

    In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781
    edited October 2022
    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    In simple terms, an increase in the amount of stuff produced.

    If we strip out the effect of population growth (or decline), economic outputper capita is a better metric. In this case, we are producing more stuff per person, which means there is more stuff to go around. This is generally a good thing - think about when we all used to work in the fields just to survive. Nowadays, our food is produced by a very small proportion of our population, leaving the rest of us to do fun stuff like post on PB all day.

    Note that there is a bit of an effort to move away from GDP. I'm quite interested in the relationship between hours worked per week, productivity and participation rates. Human welfare has increased much more than GDP per capita figures would suggest, mainly as a result of increased productivity meaning we don't have to spend 6 days a week chipping away in some coal mine. We've swapped hours for technology.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    You make a good point, and its certainly swings and roundabouts on an individual basis.

    But there is a distinction in economics between microeconomics and macroeconomics. The actions of an individual fall under microeconomics, so aren't typically analysed with regards to GDP. GDP is the preserve of macroeconomics, the study of the economy or country as a whole and on average, in aggregate, GDP going up would normally be more good than bad.

    But certainly any sensible discussion of the state of the economy would involve more than just GDP. Debt or savings ratios are also factors looked at, and your individual being in less debt would show up there so that should be considered a positive there.

    Unfortunately a lot of media discussion on economics is very dumbed down and tends to run on only a few metrics, or just one, rather than a balanced overview.
    Indeed. The example of walking to work is a good one though.
    If we could engineer a situation where everyone was able to, it would cause a significant fall in GDP. And a collapse in certain sectors of the economy. But it would be wonderful for everyone's mental and physical health. And probably their productivity, too.
    Easiest way to look at it: we are a bacterium in a test tube, multiplying on a nutrient substrate. Growth is a measure of how fast we are consuming the substrate and filling up the finite space in the test tube. This can only end one way.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Taz said:
    Oh.
    That’s a shame.
    Ms Lansbury was a bit of a legend chez Gardenwalker.
    She’ll always be Mrs Pots to me 🫖
    Mrs. Eleanor Shaw Iselin.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    @tse sane food options

    Solstice (you’ll have to book and it’s probably too late) and Blackfriars are two decent options
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    ...
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,089
    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    In my experience, people don't like this type of questioning of the whole philosophical basis of our economic system.
    There's been an on-going debate about whether GDP is an appropriate measure for decades now. Cameron, for example, toyed around with alternatives that measured well-being and so on.

    GDP is numerically measurable, well-being is not. In terms of creating a year on year, like for like comparison both with our own past and other countries, what we need are numbers - not feelings.

    As is frequently pointed out here people "felt better off" back in the good old days when they had less but had a sense of community - however I suspect they are times that in reality few would care to revisit.
    But is GDP growth a measure of us all having central heating now? Or hours worked? Or (quality) life expectancy? Yes - it often is. Except...

    We've become so used to using GDP growth as a proxy measure for these things that we pursue improvement in that statistic even if the impact of doing so would be negative on some or all of those other things.

    Mostly (and for many) all those things have been well correlated for some time. But maybe not so much now.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW

    Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1

    Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”

    surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..

    In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.

    Let's see how long this lasts eh?

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912
    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    Assuming the bus still runs then your guy walking means the bus company makes less profit and the company's shareholders have less income, so they are worse off. If the bus route is no longer profitable then the bus driver might lose her job, and so she is worse off. If the bus company decides it needs fewer buses then the people making the buses might lose their jobs too. With less tax revenue the government has to cut its services or raise taxes on other people. So while your guy might well be better off, and it is certainly true that GDP doesn't measure wellbeing, I don't think you can assume that lower GDP in this case is necessarily a good thing.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Can Kwasi last until Oct 30?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040

    Duncan Weldon
    @DuncanWeldon
    ·
    1h
    Time to reset the “days since the last BOE comms mess up” clock back to zero.

    https://twitter.com/DuncanWeldon
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    4 additional HIMARS from our 🇺🇲 partners have arrived!
    I thank @POTUS Joe Biden @SecDef Lloyd Austin III & the American people.
    HIMARS time:good time for Ukrainians and bad time for the occupiers.
    Great news on the eve of #Ramstein 6, where I’m going tomorrow. There will be more.</>

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1579935298225831937
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    How fucked are we?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781

    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    Assuming the bus still runs then your guy walking means the bus company makes less profit and the company's shareholders have less income, so they are worse off. If the bus route is no longer profitable then the bus driver might lose her job, and so she is worse off. If the bus company decides it needs fewer buses then the people making the buses might lose their jobs too. With less tax revenue the government has to cut its services or raise taxes on other people. So while your guy might well be better off, and it is certainly true that GDP doesn't measure wellbeing, I don't think you can assume that lower GDP in this case is necessarily a good thing.
    I smell broken window fallacy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    ..

    .

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Though as I pointed out, and others seem to be catching up on, the fall in the pound began that week before Kwasi even got up to speak, after the Bank's policy meeting.

    And now Bailey has done it again.

    The Bank have spent the past 15 years buying Treasury gilts, claiming they're not funding the deficit, now all of a sudden they're not just ceasing to buy gilts they're actively planning on selling them putting £80bn extra onto the gilt borrowing that needs to be paid for by the market this year - more than the entire cost of furlough added to borrowing effectively ...

    ... but sure, its all Kwarteng's fault!

    Bailey is incompetent, but that's not news. Kwarteng and Truss will take the fall, because the buck stops there, but the Bank have royally fucked over the economy with their messing around here.
    Personally I think Truss and Kwarteng should go in two-footed.
    The independence of the Bank of England is supposed to be a key principle now, but how does that work when the Bank is doing something ridiculous?

    But the problem is that Truss and Kwarteng don't really have the credibility or moral authority now to do that. Kwarteng unnecessarily went in two footed with the 45p tax cut, which was only a £2bn change and was within 24 hours of Bailey's £80bn change, but as a result Kwarteng is on a yellow card now and has got all the attention on him.

    He's not able to make another two footed challenge now. He's pretty fucked and so is Truss, and Bailey has done more than Starmer or anyone else to ensure a Labour majority next time.
    They need to put the spotlight back where it belongs. I don't see what is to be lost in calling publicly for the Bank's bond selling programme to be shelved. There is a very clear timeline of evidence now to indicate what has been causing the market disturbance. The people trying to claim this is because 'the markets STILL don't like the emergency budget' are looking ridiculous.
    Not really.
    The markets don’t - there were fund managers saying precisely that, in plain terms, today. And it’s wasn’t officially a budget - which is part of the problem.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    Taz said:
    Wonderful lady, RIP.
    I met her a couple of years ago in my local supermarket. She was a true star.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,534
    Doesn’t this BOE move pile more pressure onto pinky and perky to make more tax cut u-turns or take an axe to spending or am I missing something .
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040
    Giles Wilkes
    @Gilesyb
    I get it that a fiscal disaster zone in 2022-3 is not exactly great news for Keir Starmer PM, 2025. But a few considerations before the usual kind of "tough questions for Starmer after government mess" columns come out ... 1/

    https://twitter.com/Gilesyb/status/1579827932411092993
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,395
    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    About the regular amount, it's just more apparent.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,068
    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    When there is blood on the floor there are bargains about. A lot of assets are going to be sold below their real value. A buying opportunity awaits...
  • Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    As fucked as a character in a PM simile, by the sound of it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW

    Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1

    Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”

    surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..

    In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.

    Whether or not you agree with the ongoing gilt sales policy, that is at least consistent.
    As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) the emergency gilt purchases are confined to the pension funds with solvency problems rather than being open market interventions ?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:
    Wonderful lady, RIP.
    I met her a couple of years ago in my local supermarket. She was a true star.
    So in which aisle? OR doesn't a gentleman tell?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    nico679 said:

    Doesn’t this BOE move pile more pressure onto pinky and perky to make more tax cut u-turns or take an axe to spending or am I missing something .

    Pinky and Perky? Really?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,534
    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    Doesn’t this BOE move pile more pressure onto pinky and perky to make more tax cut u-turns or take an axe to spending or am I missing something .

    Pinky and Perky? Really?
    Sorry that was cruel to p and p !
  • Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    When there is blood on the floor there are bargains about. A lot of assets are going to be sold below their real value. A buying opportunity awaits...
    That was certainly the moral of the Great Winnipeg Land Boom.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,068
    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    Doesn’t this BOE move pile more pressure onto pinky and perky to make more tax cut u-turns or take an axe to spending or am I missing something .

    Pinky and Perky? Really?
    They are hogging the agenda at the moment.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    Depends what Kwarteng says on the 31st (or earlier if brought forward again).

    Best-case scenario is that the turmoil since the Special Budgetary Operation has scared the bejeesus out of everyone, and they're taking the precarious situation we are in seriously enough to do the necessary things they are reluctant to do to make the situation better.

    Worst-case scenario is that they're still committed to their ideological dogma, and the ship has to settle on the bottom before the captain will admit that there's a problem.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781
    Radio headlines are brutal - direct link to Truss/Kwarteng and market instability.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    Doesn’t this BOE move pile more pressure onto pinky and perky to make more tax cut u-turns or take an axe to spending or am I missing something .

    Pinky and Perky? Really?
    They are hogging the agenda at the moment.
    Just hoping this is not a placeholder for the character whose name I don't recall, and Sweep.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,869
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW

    Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1

    Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”

    surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..

    In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.

    Whether or not you agree with the ongoing gilt sales policy, that is at least consistent.
    As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) the emergency gilt purchases are confined to the pension funds with solvency problems rather than being open market interventions ?
    If pension funds have solvency problems, will the fund managers get the sack or uncapped bonuses?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    Doesn’t this BOE move pile more pressure onto pinky and perky to make more tax cut u-turns or take an axe to spending or am I missing something .

    Pinky and Perky? Really?
    They are hogging the agenda at the moment.
    Just hoping this is not a placeholder for the character whose name I don't recall, and Sweep.
    Do you mean Sue?
    She was the intelligent one, or at least the articulate one, so the resemblance is limited.

    Although, Truss does act as if she’s got Matthew Corbett’s hand stuck up her arse.
  • Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    Depends what Kwarteng says on the 31st (or earlier if brought forward again).

    Best-case scenario is that the turmoil since the Special Budgetary Operation has scared the bejeesus out of everyone, and they're taking the precarious situation we are in seriously enough to do the necessary things they are reluctant to do to make the situation better.

    Worst-case scenario is that they're still committed to their ideological dogma, and the ship has to settle on the bottom before the captain will admit that there's a problem.
    Remake of "The Poseidon Adventure"?

    With Liz Truss in role made famous by Shelly Winters? AND promoted to Captain of the doomed ship?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    When there is blood on the floor there are bargains about. A lot of assets are going to be sold below their real value. A buying opportunity awaits...
    That was certainly the moral of the Great Winnipeg Land Boom.
    Absolutely rivetting stuff

    http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/53/greatwinnipegboom.shtml
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,869
    What were the odds on getting the worst PM in living memory, the worst Chancellor in living memory and the worst BoE Governor in living memory, all at the same time?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,398

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    Doesn’t this BOE move pile more pressure onto pinky and perky to make more tax cut u-turns or take an axe to spending or am I missing something .

    Pinky and Perky? Really?
    They are hogging the agenda at the moment.
    Just hoping this is not a placeholder for the character whose name I don't recall, and Sweep.
    Do you mean Sue?
    She was the intelligent one, or at least the articulate one, so the resemblance is limited.

    Although, Truss does act as if she’s got Matthew Corbett’s hand stuck up her arse.
    You're reading too much into the necklace.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited October 2022
    This can’t go on for two years, or can it? There’ll be nothing left.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    ...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Oh dear, Barty won’t be pleased.
  • Jonathan said:

    This can’t go on for two years, or can it? They’ll be nothing left.

    Running on Empty - Jackson Browne
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdHg4QEmBvk
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040
    I am a bit lost. Relatively little has been taken up of the BoE liquidity offer by pension companies iirc, so why end on Friday? Surely it is the total that matters not the number of days.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,068

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Oh dear, Barty won’t be pleased.
    How can they last the weekend if the tax cuts are reversed?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,869

    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    Depends what Kwarteng says on the 31st (or earlier if brought forward again).

    Best-case scenario is that the turmoil since the Special Budgetary Operation has scared the bejeesus out of everyone, and they're taking the precarious situation we are in seriously enough to do the necessary things they are reluctant to do to make the situation better.

    Worst-case scenario is that they're still committed to their ideological dogma, and the ship has to settle on the bottom before the captain will admit that there's a problem.
    Worst-case scenario looks the most likely, unless there is a house price crash. That’s the only thing that will force the Tories to get rid of Truss and Kwarteng. A £60 billion expenditure cut won’t bother them as long as pensions rise with inflation. Other benefits, not so much.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,973

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Oh dear, Barty won’t be pleased.
    Orders a “review?” What, after blindly going in and announcing them with bugger all groundwork done.

    Seriously. Get rid of them both.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    IMF says 'mini budget' would stimulate short-rungrowth. Contradiction in terms, not impressed. Growth is a long-run issue.
  • geoffw said:

    IMF says 'mini budget' would stimulate short-rungrowth. Contradiction in terms, not impressed. Growth is a long-run issue.

    Your mission, should you choose to accept it...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Jonathan said:

    This can’t go on for two years, or can it? They’ll be nothing left.

    It will go on until the possible alternatives are no longer feared as being potentially worse. At the moment Truss and Kwarteng are still in place because Tory MPs are scared that removing them so soon would damage the credibility of the Conservative Party with the voters even further, and that the eventual replacements might be even less capable.

    Things clearly have to get a lot worse to reach the point where these are risks worth taking.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    When there is blood on the floor there are bargains about. A lot of assets are going to be sold below their real value. A buying opportunity awaits...
    That was certainly the moral of the Great Winnipeg Land Boom.
    Absolutely rivetting stuff

    http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/53/greatwinnipegboom.shtml
    Pierre Berton wrote about the Boom in his history of the building of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Great writer, great history.

    Which in turn prompts this:

    Canadian Railroad Trilogy - Gordon Lightfoot
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiSFZBDAH9Y
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,784

    I am a bit lost. Relatively little has been taken up of the BoE liquidity offer by pension companies iirc, so why end on Friday? Surely it is the total that matters not the number of days.

    I saw the politicking of the opposition saying the UK had spent 65bn shoring up the markets and the government correcting that 65bn was the facility, and only about 3bn had actually been spent.

    The government are right, but not much sympathy here. AIUI, Labour going cap in hand to the IMF resulted in a facility that was never actually drawn down on, so actually no cap was needed to transport any actual IMF cash.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    This can’t go on for two years, or can it? They’ll be nothing left.

    It will go on until the possible alternatives are no longer feared as being potentially worse. At the moment Truss and Kwarteng are still in place because Tory MPs are scared that removing them so soon would damage the credibility of the Conservative Party with the voters even further, and that the eventual replacements might be even less capable.

    Things clearly have to get a lot worse to reach the point where these are risks worth taking.
    The problem is Truss. You can’t solve the problem with her in charge. They need to wake up to that. She’s not going to suddenly switch and do normal or Conservative. It’s not who she is. Until she goes the precise flavour of crazy might change, but crazy is what’s on the menu. It’s not going to settle down. She doesn’t want it to.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    Quite.

    The BoE has put Kwasi on notice; no we are not going to print away your debt. You need to find c. £60bn in savings or tax rises or you can fuck off and hand over to someone who will.
    Quite right too. Negative QE and rate rises. Monetary tightening to combat inflation. That's the mandate they have. It's their job.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,919
    edited October 2022

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    When there is blood on the floor there are bargains about. A lot of assets are going to be sold below their real value. A buying opportunity awaits...
    That was certainly the moral of the Great Winnipeg Land Boom.
    Absolutely rivetting stuff

    http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/53/greatwinnipegboom.shtml
    Pierre Berton wrote about the Boom in his history of the building of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Great writer, great history.

    Which in turn prompts this:

    Canadian Railroad Trilogy - Gordon Lightfoot
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiSFZBDAH9Y
    I have a Berton book - "Canada's Turbulent Years - 1899-1953".
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,869
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    This can’t go on for two years, or can it? They’ll be nothing left.

    It will go on until the possible alternatives are no longer feared as being potentially worse. At the moment Truss and Kwarteng are still in place because Tory MPs are scared that removing them so soon would damage the credibility of the Conservative Party with the voters even further, and that the eventual replacements might be even less capable.

    Things clearly have to get a lot worse to reach the point where these are risks worth taking.
    The problem is Truss. You can’t solve the problem with her in charge. They need to wake up to that. She’s not going to suddenly switch and do normal or Conservative. It’s not who she is. Until she goes the precise flavour of crazy might change, but crazy is what’s on the menu. It’s not going to settle down. She doesn’t want it to.
    The problem is more than Truss. The problem is the people who elected her - Tory members.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,056
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Oh dear, Barty won’t be pleased.
    How can they last the weekend if the tax cuts are reversed?
    Shamelessness?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    ...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    I am a bit lost. Relatively little has been taken up of the BoE liquidity offer by pension companies iirc, so why end on Friday? Surely it is the total that matters not the number of days.

    I think it’s the bank telling the pension funds that they won’t provide emergency finance for their leveraged bets indefinitely, so they’d better unwind dangerous positions now - in effect making them crystallise losses in an orderly manner rather than trying to keep the bets going ?

    Clearly you’d need to be an expert to know whether or not that’s sensible. I’m not that person.

    The point about the bank’s intervention was not specifically to prop up prices at any particular level, but to act as a purchaser of last resort to prevent a vicious spiral developing.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    The problem is more than Truss. The problem is the people who elected her - Tory members.

    The prevailing view here has been that Tory MPs can't ditch Truss cos the members would riot.

    I suspect if you canvassed the members now the response would be "WTF are you waiting for?!?"
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,056
    Scott_xP said:

    The problem is more than Truss. The problem is the people who elected her - Tory members.

    The prevailing view here has been that Tory MPs can't ditch Truss cos the members would riot.

    I suspect if you canvassed the members now the response would be "WTF are you waiting for?!?"
    If you believe the polling that the members wanted to keep Boris, why would they give a toss about Truss?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,146

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    When there is blood on the floor there are bargains about. A lot of assets are going to be sold below their real value. A buying opportunity awaits...
    That was certainly the moral of the Great Winnipeg Land Boom.
    Absolutely rivetting stuff

    http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/53/greatwinnipegboom.shtml
    Pierre Berton wrote about the Boom in his history of the building of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Great writer, great history.

    Which in turn prompts this:

    Canadian Railroad Trilogy - Gordon Lightfoot
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiSFZBDAH9Y
    I have a Berton book - "Canada's Turbulent Years - 1899-1953".
    Just been reading his account of the Alaskan/Yukon gold rush.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Oh dear, Barty won’t be pleased.
    How can they last the weekend if the tax cuts are reversed?
    Because there seems no way to ditch them which does not lead to another member's vote and Braverman or Mogg.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Scott_xP said:

    The problem is more than Truss. The problem is the people who elected her - Tory members.

    The prevailing view here has been that Tory MPs can't ditch Truss cos the members would riot.

    I suspect if you canvassed the members now the response would be "WTF are you waiting for?!?"
    Bunch of incontinent zimmer framers should be relieved if they aren't sued to bankruptcy for losses inflicted by electing her. They really can fuck RIGHT off.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW

    Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1

    Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”

    surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..

    In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.

    Whether or not you agree with the ongoing gilt sales policy, that is at least consistent.
    As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) the emergency gilt purchases are confined to the pension funds with solvency problems rather than being open market interventions ?
    If pension funds have solvency problems, will the fund managers get the sack or uncapped bonuses?
    Unlimited bonuses should be matched with unlimited liabilities
    There's a massive regulatory issue here though. Who was watching this LDI market?

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040

    What were the odds on getting the worst PM in living memory, the worst Chancellor in living memory and the worst BoE Governor in living memory, all at the same time?

    You've not been following the 2020s have you? :smiley:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW

    Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1

    Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”

    surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..

    In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.

    Whether or not you agree with the ongoing gilt sales policy, that is at least consistent.
    As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) the emergency gilt purchases are confined to the pension funds with solvency problems rather than being open market interventions ?
    If pension funds have solvency problems, will the fund managers get the sack or uncapped bonuses?
    They had acute liquidity problems (thanks to over leveraged investments) which temporarily threatened their solvency, rather than ongoing solvency problems, I think ?

    As has been noted, the sharp rise in bond yields substantially reduces their future liabilities, even if at the same time it has reduced the value of their gilt assets.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    This can’t go on for two years, or can it? They’ll be nothing left.

    It will go on until the possible alternatives are no longer feared as being potentially worse. At the moment Truss and Kwarteng are still in place because Tory MPs are scared that removing them so soon would damage the credibility of the Conservative Party with the voters even further, and that the eventual replacements might be even less capable.

    Things clearly have to get a lot worse to reach the point where these are risks worth taking.
    The problem is Truss. You can’t solve the problem with her in charge. They need to wake up to that. She’s not going to suddenly switch and do normal or Conservative. It’s not who she is. Until she goes the precise flavour of crazy might change, but crazy is what’s on the menu. It’s not going to settle down. She doesn’t want it to.
    The problem is more than Truss. The problem is the people who elected her - Tory members.
    If enough Tory members wake up, it will change. It was pretty close last time. You don’t need that many.

    Be inspired by Labour Starmer won over a party previously 60:40 in favour of Corbyn. That sort of shift seemed impossible.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    RIP Dame Angela Lansbury, one of the true Hollywood Greats with a prolific career starting in the 1940s and including Murder She Wrote, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast and even playing Elvis' mother in one film
  • Isn't (perhaps) the current Conservative government of Liz Trump approaching a similar juncture in 2022, as did the Labour government of Ramsey Macdonald in 1931.

    In THAT financial crisis, at a time of serious international economic & political upheaval, the majority of the Labour cabinet refused to back down from its ideological principles in face of tremendous pressure from the City, Bank of England, Wall Street AND Main Street.

    AND at that time, the Labour Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer broke ranks in OPPOSITION to the ideological commitment of the majority of the cabinet, and (as it turned out anyway) the Party.

    SO which way will THESE cat jump as the already hot Westminster Tin Roof REALLY starts heating up?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    Bremmer is standing by his story about Musk.

    elon musk told me he had spoken with putin and the kremlin directly about ukraine. he also told me what the kremlin’s red lines were.

    https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1579941475613229056
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Scott_xP said:

    The problem is more than Truss. The problem is the people who elected her - Tory members.

    The prevailing view here has been that Tory MPs can't ditch Truss cos the members would riot.

    I suspect if you canvassed the members now the response would be "WTF are you waiting for?!?"
    The members of course wanted Badenoch not Truss.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    She can’t u-turn on windfall tax now, it would destroy all her credibility and Tory’s would plunge in the polls.

    Remember it was very first question of her first PMQ.

    Might be very first question of her second.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 1,995

    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    Quite.

    The BoE has put Kwasi on notice; no we are not going to print away your debt. You need to find c. £60bn in savings or tax rises or you can fuck off and hand over to someone who will.
    The latest wheeze from Truss is to take the breaks off immigration and let in anyone who can say they are a skilled florist or weaver. As if low skilled immigration didn't lead to the current low productivity, low wage economy that is at the heart of the problem.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 1,995

    Bremmer is standing by his story about Musk.

    elon musk told me he had spoken with putin and the kremlin directly about ukraine. he also told me what the kremlin’s red lines were.

    https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1579941475613229056

    Elon Musk is getting hammered by energy costs in his European operations. Like most billionaires, he would gladly sell put a country for a few more 0s on his net worth.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    That whole Truss "not for turning" cosplay Thatcher stuff didn't last long. Now it seems to be a case of what won't she U-turn on?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,763
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING:

    Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, says that the emergency intervention in the bond markets WILL come to an end on Friday

    He tells pension funds, which are heavily invested in UK debt: 'You've only got three days left now. You've got to get this done'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1579908537974595584

    Not something that I am involved in, though there may be some collateral damage to markets that I am in, but surely the reason that pension companies invest in gilts is to ensure safe, albeit low returns.

    Surely creating gilt derivatives, leveraged by borrowing defeats the whole intent? Those Pension Trustees have questions to answer.



    Not necessarily. I did read a technical explanation. The issue is a mismatch between accounting and real values, so that an investment manager who performed well could end up reporting an accounting loss. Hence they bought derivatives to hedge that loss. But the details escape me at this point


  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912
    Eabhal said:

    franklyn said:

    There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.

    Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP.
    He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.

    So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.

    So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off

    Assuming the bus still runs then your guy walking means the bus company makes less profit and the company's shareholders have less income, so they are worse off. If the bus route is no longer profitable then the bus driver might lose her job, and so she is worse off. If the bus company decides it needs fewer buses then the people making the buses might lose their jobs too. With less tax revenue the government has to cut its services or raise taxes on other people. So while your guy might well be better off, and it is certainly true that GDP doesn't measure wellbeing, I don't think you can assume that lower GDP in this case is necessarily a good thing.
    I smell broken window fallacy.
    Paradox of thrift.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,068
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,398
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    So they want to tax renewable generators but not Shell and BP?
  • Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    How fucked are we?

    When there is blood on the floor there are bargains about. A lot of assets are going to be sold below their real value. A buying opportunity awaits...
    That was certainly the moral of the Great Winnipeg Land Boom.
    Absolutely rivetting stuff

    http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/53/greatwinnipegboom.shtml
    Pierre Berton wrote about the Boom in his history of the building of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Great writer, great history.

    Which in turn prompts this:

    Canadian Railroad Trilogy - Gordon Lightfoot
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiSFZBDAH9Y
    I have a Berton book - "Canada's Turbulent Years - 1899-1953".
    Just been reading his account of the Alaskan/Yukon gold rush.
    Chilkoot Pass - the Golden Stairs

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Miners_climb_Chilkoot.jpg

    https://www.lib.washington.edu/specialcollections/collections/exhibits/klondike/case7-8

    SSI - and this was the EASY overland option!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    ...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    She can’t u-turn on windfall tax now, it would destroy all her credibility and Tory’s would plunge in the polls.

    Remember it was very first question of her first PMQ.

    Might be very first question of her second.
    "...Tory's would plunge in the polls" Where have you been?

    (And it's Tories btw).
This discussion has been closed.