Howdy, Stranger!

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

These YouGov findings are terrible for Truss – politicalbetting.com

1235711

Comments

  • HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    Hell will freeze over the day Celtic follow the lead of The Rangers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,673
    Scott_xP said:

    "The problem for a government that sets a target to grow the economy above all else is that every month it gets a scorecard on progress, and this morning it looks like it's failing." Some analysis of August's falling GDP https://news.sky.com/story/truss-and-kwartengs-main-plan-has-been-growth-the-shrinking-figures-look-like-a-failing-govt-12718568

    August was under the failing Johnson government, not this completely different one. Please keep up!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,703
    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Starmer will "reluctantly" stick up tax. Noone will care.

    Yes corporation tax will undoubtedly rise but really he needs to take a very long look at state pension reform and income tax/NI reform.

    In theory what you'd want to do is stop giving the state pension to the top third, no change for the middle third and a 50% increase for the bottom third so that a retired couple living off the state pension are able to have a reasonable standard of living but the state isn't subsidising the shopping habits of those who have £50k+ private income in retirement.
    I don't agree with abolishing the state pension to the top third, more means testing isn't the solution, universality is better.

    But fixing income tax/NI reform would solve the same problem. The retired couple would continue to get their pension, but would and should be taxed in full on all of their income at the same tax rates as anyone who is actually working for that income is expected to pay.
    It amounts to the same thing, I'd just do it with a taper. Means testing is not as difficult as it used to be because HMRC has a view on basically all the money moving anywhere now.
    Agreed it amounts to the same thing, but the problem with a taper is when it creates problems like the 60% tax rate when the tax-free allowance is tapered away is even higher than the tax rate even richer people pay, or the 70% tax rate when UC is tapered away is even higher than the tax rate even richer people pay too.

    Taxes should be consistent. No taper, but have a rate of tax that is consistently applied rather than jumping to 60 then dropping back down to 40 or 45, or dropping at retirement as you then evade National Insurance.

    If someone has an eg 100k private DB pension they should be paying in full all the taxes, NI and otherwise, that a working person would have to pay on that. Which ought to be far more in tax than the state pension is worth.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Except that, in practice, it would simply let Russia regroup and rearm, while making sure Ukraine doesn’t join NATO before the next Ukranian war.

    It's very hard for Ukraine to joing NATO unless they resolve their differences with Russia.

    The NATO accession process is: PFP -> ID -> MAP -> AP -> Ratification

    Ukraine have been stuck in ID for 16 years and they can only get to MAP if they "peacefully resolve all outstanding territorial disputes". NATO could change its accession criteria to let them with their existing contretemps ongoing but that is a far higher bar to clear than normal ratification.
    UKR is never going to be neutral any more. It is already in NATO in all bar name.
    The new Finland
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,167
    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How many days after is it fine then?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,278
    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    It's free speech. The point behind free speech is to allow stuff you don't like. It isn't free speech if you only allow what you approve of.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    NEW: No surrender to the IFS..

    Downing St source says despite claims, there's no delay to April income tax cut, Sunak's corporation tax hike still cancelled and NICs legislated for yest.

    "Are we going through OBR line by line? Yes. Does that mean we are cancelling things? No."


    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1580139090829135875
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853

    ping said:

    Bonds continue to go in the wrong direction.

    25yr Gilt @ 5.09%

    That’s back to the level it was when the BoE launched their post-budget special monetary operation.

    No surprise. The Bank's so called special operation has been buying all of just over £5 billion in bonds.

    Meanwhile the Bank is still signalling that its planning on selling just over £80 billion in bonds.

    Of course markets look to the future.

    If the Bank wants to stabilise the market it doesn't need to be messing around in high profile attention seeking for Andrew Bailey on relatively small purchases of bonds, it needs to take Quantitative Tightening off the table.
    As repeatedly pointed out, though, the two things are not the same.
    The gilt market intervention was solely to ensure that there would be a buyer for institutions made forced sellers by margin calls - the bank was fulfilling its role of maintaining liquidity in the market, not supporting prices per se.

    It's nothing to do with "High profile attention seeking" - but rather emphasising that even if there is a buyers strike by the usual market makers, the Bank will step in to fulfil that role.

    But what it won't do is provide the pension funds with a permanent put option on the gilts holdings.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,736
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Starmer will "reluctantly" stick up tax. Noone will care.

    Yes corporation tax will undoubtedly rise but really he needs to take a very long look at state pension reform and income tax/NI reform.

    In theory what you'd want to do is stop giving the state pension to the top third, no change for the middle third and a 50% increase for the bottom third so that a retired couple living off the state pension are able to have a reasonable standard of living but the state isn't subsidising the shopping habits of those who have £50k+ private income in retirement.
    That would be fine for me, though I suspect it would raise state pension costs. I reckon there's more than double the number in the bottom third than in the top third - I'm not sure there's that many retired folk with an income of £50k+.
  • Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Bonds continue to go in the wrong direction.

    25yr Gilt @ 5.09%

    That’s back to the level it was when the BoE launched their post-budget special monetary operation.

    No surprise. The Bank's so called special operation has been buying all of just over £5 billion in bonds.

    Meanwhile the Bank is still signalling that its planning on selling just over £80 billion in bonds.

    Of course markets look to the future.

    If the Bank wants to stabilise the market it doesn't need to be messing around in high profile attention seeking for Andrew Bailey on relatively small purchases of bonds, it needs to take Quantitative Tightening off the table.
    As repeatedly pointed out, though, the two things are not the same.
    The gilt market intervention was solely to ensure that there would be a buyer for institutions made forced sellers by margin calls - the bank was fulfilling its role of maintaining liquidity in the market, not supporting prices per se.

    It's nothing to do with "High profile attention seeking" - but rather emphasising that even if there is a buyers strike by the usual market makers, the Bank will step in to fulfil that role.

    But what it won't do is provide the pension funds with a permanent put option on the gilts holdings.
    But buyers strikes are going to continue as long as HMT is running a substantial deficit which is getting compounded by the Bank flooding the market with an additional £80bn in gilts it is trying to offload.

    There isn't another peer country in the world I can think of that is doing QT at this time. America is, but its the global reserve currency that is in extremely special circumstances, but the ECB, Bank of Japan etc have all rejected the suggestion of QT for now, only the BoE are plowing ahead with it and for as long as they do, we're going to have turmoil.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    edited October 2022

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Starmer will "reluctantly" stick up tax. Noone will care.

    Yes corporation tax will undoubtedly rise but really he needs to take a very long look at state pension reform and income tax/NI reform.

    In theory what you'd want to do is stop giving the state pension to the top third, no change for the middle third and a 50% increase for the bottom third so that a retired couple living off the state pension are able to have a reasonable standard of living but the state isn't subsidising the shopping habits of those who have £50k+ private income in retirement.
    I don't agree with abolishing the state pension to the top third, more means testing isn't the solution, universality is better.

    But fixing income tax/NI reform would solve the same problem. The retired couple would continue to get their pension, but would and should be taxed in full on all of their income at the same tax rates as anyone who is actually working for that income is expected to pay.
    It amounts to the same thing, I'd just do it with a taper. Means testing is not as difficult as it used to be because HMRC has a view on basically all the money moving anywhere now.
    Agreed it amounts to the same thing, but the problem with a taper is when it creates problems like the 60% tax rate when the tax-free allowance is tapered away is even higher than the tax rate even richer people pay, or the 70% tax rate when UC is tapered away is even higher than the tax rate even richer people pay too.

    Taxes should be consistent. No taper, but have a rate of tax that is consistently applied rather than jumping to 60 then dropping back down to 40 or 45, or dropping at retirement as you then evade National Insurance.

    If someone has an eg 100k private DB pension they should be paying in full all the taxes, NI and otherwise, that a working person would have to pay on that. Which ought to be far more in tax than the state pension is worth.
    You and Max aren't in disagreement on that point, though.

    One of the disappointing things about Kwarteng is that he promised tax simplification, and his headline policy (the top rate tax cut) ignored the marginal rate problem at £100k.
    It's a secondary matter compared to his other stupidities, but it's a neat demonstration that he isn't even able to think consistently.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,703
    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    Also: UK and Scots laws are irrelevant here. Game was in Poland. No idea what local laws are, but I doubt very much that they have lèse-majesté on the Polish statute book.

    Even in Scotland, sedition and leasing-making were abolished in 2010.
  • Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Yep. It is crass and I think the people putting up the banners are fuckwits but they should not be prevented from displaying that fact for the world to see.

    Putting it more neutrally, it ain't free speech if you only apply it to things you agree with. They weren't inciting anyone to or even condoning violence. I think they are wrong and probably harm their cause but they certainly should not have been penalised for expressing an opinion. More to the point, nor should Celtic be held responsible for that. It is not the job of the club to police legal actions and opinions.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,578
    I don't understand why people are surprised that the BoE is ending the support mechanism, the point of it wasn't to keep gilt yields down, it was to ensure there was a buyer for long dated gilts while idiot pension funds deleveraged. The BoE is suggesting that the moment of danger has passed and that there will now be enough market buyers for long dated gilts that it won't cause a crash.
  • Lots of afterburner activity over Lincolnshire this afternoon.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,876

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How many days after is it fine then?
    Seems to to be fine about a month after incident? Incident 14 Sep? Fine today? :wink:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    edited October 2022

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Bonds continue to go in the wrong direction.

    25yr Gilt @ 5.09%

    That’s back to the level it was when the BoE launched their post-budget special monetary operation.

    No surprise. The Bank's so called special operation has been buying all of just over £5 billion in bonds.

    Meanwhile the Bank is still signalling that its planning on selling just over £80 billion in bonds.

    Of course markets look to the future.

    If the Bank wants to stabilise the market it doesn't need to be messing around in high profile attention seeking for Andrew Bailey on relatively small purchases of bonds, it needs to take Quantitative Tightening off the table.
    As repeatedly pointed out, though, the two things are not the same.
    The gilt market intervention was solely to ensure that there would be a buyer for institutions made forced sellers by margin calls - the bank was fulfilling its role of maintaining liquidity in the market, not supporting prices per se.

    It's nothing to do with "High profile attention seeking" - but rather emphasising that even if there is a buyers strike by the usual market makers, the Bank will step in to fulfil that role.

    But what it won't do is provide the pension funds with a permanent put option on the gilts holdings.
    But buyers strikes are going to continue as long as HMT is running a substantial deficit which is getting compounded by the Bank flooding the market with an additional £80bn in gilts it is trying to offload....
    Of course.
    But the Bank will only step in as it did this last week when there is a real systemic risk.

    The Bank can't substitute for the Chancellor - it can only make the best of the conditions which the government creates, for better or worse.

    (FWIW, I'm not defending the QT policy, but it's important to judge each action on its own terms.)
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,124
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Starmer will "reluctantly" stick up tax. Noone will care.

    Yes corporation tax will undoubtedly rise but really he needs to take a very long look at state pension reform and income tax/NI reform.

    In theory what you'd want to do is stop giving the state pension to the top third, no change for the middle third and a 50% increase for the bottom third so that a retired couple living off the state pension are able to have a reasonable standard of living but the state isn't subsidising the shopping habits of those who have £50k+ private income in retirement.
    Doesn't that make anyone on a median income who saves for a pension a complete mug, because their pension would benefit the government and not themselves?
  • MaxPB said:

    I don't understand why people are surprised that the BoE is ending the support mechanism, the point of it wasn't to keep gilt yields down, it was to ensure there was a buyer for long dated gilts while idiot pension funds deleveraged. The BoE is suggesting that the moment of danger has passed and that there will now be enough market buyers for long dated gilts that it won't cause a crash.

    I am not surprised they're ending the support mechanism, I am surprised they're keeping QT on the table.

    The Bank has bought just over £5bn of gilts which it thinks has stabilised the market, but its pledging still to sell £80bn on top of that.

    If the Bank follow through on that sale, then there's going to be another crash. If they don't intend to, then they should say so and take that threat off the table, as it has to be priced in at the minute.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,005
    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Bonds continue to go in the wrong direction.

    25yr Gilt @ 5.09%

    That’s back to the level it was when the BoE launched their post-budget special monetary operation.

    No surprise. The Bank's so called special operation has been buying all of just over £5 billion in bonds.

    Meanwhile the Bank is still signalling that its planning on selling just over £80 billion in bonds.

    Of course markets look to the future.

    If the Bank wants to stabilise the market it doesn't need to be messing around in high profile attention seeking for Andrew Bailey on relatively small purchases of bonds, it needs to take Quantitative Tightening off the table.
    As repeatedly pointed out, though, the two things are not the same.
    The gilt market intervention was solely to ensure that there would be a buyer for institutions made forced sellers by margin calls - the bank was fulfilling its role of maintaining liquidity in the market, not supporting prices per se.

    It's nothing to do with "High profile attention seeking" - but rather emphasising that even if there is a buyers strike by the usual market makers, the Bank will step in to fulfil that role.

    But what it won't do is provide the pension funds with a permanent put option on the gilts holdings.
    But buyers strikes are going to continue as long as HMT is running a substantial deficit which is getting compounded by the Bank flooding the market with an additional £80bn in gilts it is trying to offload....
    Of course.
    But the Bank will only step in as it did this last week when there is a real systemic risk.

    The Bank can't substitute for the Chancellor - it can only make the best of the conditions which the government creates, for better or worse.
    Is the Bank going to keep yo-yo'ing stepping in every time its buys then sells, then buys then sells again?

    Take QT off the table for now, let the Chancellor stand or fall on his own demerits.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,703

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Yep. It is crass and I think the people putting up the banners are fuckwits but they should not be prevented from displaying that fact for the world to see.

    Putting it more neutrally, it ain't free speech if you only apply it to things you agree with. They weren't inciting anyone to or even condoning violence. I think they are wrong and probably harm their cause but they certainly should not have been penalised for expressing an opinion. More to the point, nor should Celtic be held responsible for that. It is not the job of the club to police legal actions and opinions.
    There is also the small point of trying to prosecute when you can't even define which crown. (The other banner, with Mr Fagan, was obviously independent so no evidence either way.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    edited October 2022
    MaxPB said:

    I don't understand why people are surprised that the BoE is ending the support mechanism, the point of it wasn't to keep gilt yields down, it was to ensure there was a buyer for long dated gilts while idiot pension funds deleveraged. The BoE is suggesting that the moment of danger has passed and that there will now be enough market buyers for long dated gilts that it won't cause a crash.

    And also perhaps sending a message to such funds to get your de-leveraging done now, as we might not be as helpful if you try to maintain the position ?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,578

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
    Your numbers are wrong because the money from the tax rises that have been reversed was spent and Liz Truss hasn't committed to reversing those decisions, only the tax rises. The money from fiscal drag was also already spent.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,313
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    It's free speech. The point behind free speech is to allow stuff you don't like. It isn't free speech if you only allow what you approve of.
    We don't really have free speech though; there are laws against harrassment, defamation, and protection from discrimination which severely limit what you can say in public, at least in theory. And overall; we are the worse for it, as it goes against the type of 'ancient common sense liberal wisdom' you are setting out here. Ultimately it is best for people to freely express views about the monarchy as it is for them to freely discuss transgender rights. Once you get to the point where the need for one persons 'safety' outweighs free discourse, you are on the road to tyranny, and it seems to me that we are quite far along that road already.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,578

    MaxPB said:

    I don't understand why people are surprised that the BoE is ending the support mechanism, the point of it wasn't to keep gilt yields down, it was to ensure there was a buyer for long dated gilts while idiot pension funds deleveraged. The BoE is suggesting that the moment of danger has passed and that there will now be enough market buyers for long dated gilts that it won't cause a crash.

    I am not surprised they're ending the support mechanism, I am surprised they're keeping QT on the table.

    The Bank has bought just over £5bn of gilts which it thinks has stabilised the market, but its pledging still to sell £80bn on top of that.

    If the Bank follow through on that sale, then there's going to be another crash. If they don't intend to, then they should say so and take that threat off the table, as it has to be priced in at the minute.
    Nah, that's not really a huge deal. The QT has been a known quantity for a while, the market shat itself over UK debt because the government looks like it doesn't know how to stop vomiting tax cuts or how to cut spending.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776
    Why are HP printers so irredeemably shit?

    An hour into trying to get a contract to sign and it's still firing out test pages
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,578
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    I don't understand why people are surprised that the BoE is ending the support mechanism, the point of it wasn't to keep gilt yields down, it was to ensure there was a buyer for long dated gilts while idiot pension funds deleveraged. The BoE is suggesting that the moment of danger has passed and that there will now be enough market buyers for long dated gilts that it won't cause a crash.

    And also perhaps sending a message to such funds to get your de-leveraging done now, as we might not be as helpful if you try to maintain the position ?
    Yes, hence the sell off yesterday and today which will continue until Friday.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    Hate speech? Defined how? Is republicanism a banned belief?
    Arguably yes, if it is treason and disloyalty to the Crown
  • MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
    Your numbers are wrong because the money from the tax rises that have been reversed was spent and Liz Truss hasn't committed to reversing those decisions, only the tax rises. The money from fiscal drag was also already spent.
    Its surely somewhere in-between? Sunak has already spent the expected money from the fiscal drag commitment, so that can't be unspent.

    But inflation has been higher than forecast, has it not? Which means Sunak's openly-stated tax rise of fiscal drag ought to have been a bigger tax rise than forecast. So there should yet be some extra cash flowing into the Treasury due to that, but not the full amount of course as that's already spent.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,005
    edited October 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    💥Sajid Javid suggesting energy bailout was too big https://twitter.com/smyth_chris/status/1580137933495234561

    KABOOM.

    Is this the glorious day hath come, when the sheep shall awaketh and enter my welcoming meadow?

    The gates open.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    See, this is one of the weird things. Is my political position as a republican treason? If I campaign against the existence of a monarch, should that be a crime? Because if so, that's a problem for a modern democracy.

    I don't necessarily think the time of Elizabeth's passing was a good strategic time to make these points, but I am all for mass campaigning against the monarchy ahead of and culminating at Charles' coronation. Should that not be allowed?
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I don't understand why people are surprised that the BoE is ending the support mechanism, the point of it wasn't to keep gilt yields down, it was to ensure there was a buyer for long dated gilts while idiot pension funds deleveraged. The BoE is suggesting that the moment of danger has passed and that there will now be enough market buyers for long dated gilts that it won't cause a crash.

    I am not surprised they're ending the support mechanism, I am surprised they're keeping QT on the table.

    The Bank has bought just over £5bn of gilts which it thinks has stabilised the market, but its pledging still to sell £80bn on top of that.

    If the Bank follow through on that sale, then there's going to be another crash. If they don't intend to, then they should say so and take that threat off the table, as it has to be priced in at the minute.
    Nah, that's not really a huge deal. The QT has been a known quantity for a while, the market shat itself over UK debt because the government looks like it doesn't know how to stop vomiting tax cuts or how to cut spending.
    The idea of QT being a vaguely possible thing in the future has been known for a while, but not the immediacy or quantity of it.

    The QT £80bn came within 24 hours of Kwarteng's announcement. 24 hours isn't a timespan wide enough to dismiss QT from the equation.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,578

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
    Your numbers are wrong because the money from the tax rises that have been reversed was spent and Liz Truss hasn't committed to reversing those decisions, only the tax rises. The money from fiscal drag was also already spent.
    Its surely somewhere in-between? Sunak has already spent the expected money from the fiscal drag commitment, so that can't be unspent.

    But inflation has been higher than forecast, has it not? Which means Sunak's openly-stated tax rise of fiscal drag ought to have been a bigger tax rise than forecast. So there should yet be some extra cash flowing into the Treasury due to that, but not the full amount of course as that's already spent.
    The OBR already took a pretty high rate of inflation into account last time around so I'd be surprised if there is much headroom from fiscal drag. It also looks like the OBR underestimated borrowing for the current year and we're going to end over budget rather than under budget as usual, leaving even less headroom for next year.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 105,300
    edited October 2022
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    Hate speech? Defined how? Is republicanism a banned belief?
    Arguably yes, if it is treason and disloyalty to the Crown
    I shall be as loyal to the Crown as King Charles III was loyal to his first wife.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    Andy_JS said:

    PMQs today!

    If Truss somehow gets out of this mess she'll deserve to win the next election. Unlikely.
    Will you be voting for her?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
    But the IMF did include the energy support package as part of their criticism.

    And, of course, each movement towards these moves being more fleshed out and funded has been made with the PM and XC kicking and screaming along the way. What it signals is a government that is just going to keep doing things without thinking them through - that seems to be what has spooked the markets more than anything.
  • Leon said:

    WINTER IS COMING

    It certainly is for What3Words.
    There must be panic in the ‘art’ laboratories of DALL-E 2 after receiving the Seanodamus black spot.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,703
    edited October 2022
    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    See, this is one of the weird things. Is my political position as a republican treason? If I campaign against the existence of a monarch, should that be a crime? Because if so, that's a problem for a modern democracy.

    I don't necessarily think the time of Elizabeth's passing was a good strategic time to make these points, but I am all for mass campaigning against the monarchy ahead of and culminating at Charles' coronation. Should that not be allowed?
    Of course, it's not a crime. At least in Scotland.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/section/51?view=plain
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
    Your numbers are wrong because the money from the tax rises that have been reversed was spent and Liz Truss hasn't committed to reversing those decisions, only the tax rises. The money from fiscal drag was also already spent.
    Its surely somewhere in-between? Sunak has already spent the expected money from the fiscal drag commitment, so that can't be unspent.

    But inflation has been higher than forecast, has it not? Which means Sunak's openly-stated tax rise of fiscal drag ought to have been a bigger tax rise than forecast. So there should yet be some extra cash flowing into the Treasury due to that, but not the full amount of course as that's already spent.
    This circular argument is demonstrating, again rather well, why Kwarteng ought to have had a proper budget process which involved the OBR's independent assessment.

    The energy market intervention ought to have been a standalone emergency operation, followed by a properly managed "fiscal event" at the end of this month.
    We'd have avoided a lot of grief, and Kwarteng might not be about to lose his job.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,578

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I don't understand why people are surprised that the BoE is ending the support mechanism, the point of it wasn't to keep gilt yields down, it was to ensure there was a buyer for long dated gilts while idiot pension funds deleveraged. The BoE is suggesting that the moment of danger has passed and that there will now be enough market buyers for long dated gilts that it won't cause a crash.

    I am not surprised they're ending the support mechanism, I am surprised they're keeping QT on the table.

    The Bank has bought just over £5bn of gilts which it thinks has stabilised the market, but its pledging still to sell £80bn on top of that.

    If the Bank follow through on that sale, then there's going to be another crash. If they don't intend to, then they should say so and take that threat off the table, as it has to be priced in at the minute.
    Nah, that's not really a huge deal. The QT has been a known quantity for a while, the market shat itself over UK debt because the government looks like it doesn't know how to stop vomiting tax cuts or how to cut spending.
    The idea of QT being a vaguely possible thing in the future has been known for a while, but not the immediacy or quantity of it.

    The QT £80bn came within 24 hours of Kwarteng's announcement. 24 hours isn't a timespan wide enough to dismiss QT from the equation.
    But it's not £80bn overnight, it's over a year which is not exactly an earth shattering addition to bond sales. The government created an overnight funding gap of £43bn per year for the next 4-5 years and the economic mood is significantly worse than when the last set of forecasts were done. The markets took fright from the idea that the UK government may need to borrow an additional £50-70bn per year on top of what was in the current forecast for the next 4-5 years.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    We don't have the lese magest laws of Thailand.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    Hate speech? Defined how? Is republicanism a banned belief?
    Arguably yes, if it is treason and disloyalty to the Crown
    It's eff all to do with any of your imagined nonsense.
    It simply relates to the ban by footballing authorities on political demonstrations within football.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,921
    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    See, this is one of the weird things. Is my political position as a republican treason? If I campaign against the existence of a monarch, should that be a crime? Because if so, that's a problem for a modern democracy.

    I don't necessarily think the time of Elizabeth's passing was a good strategic time to make these points, but I am all for mass campaigning against the monarchy ahead of and culminating at Charles' coronation. Should that not be allowed?
    I think you are mixing up legitimate debate and discussion with inflammatory language or hate speech. Demonstrations are legitimate debate but abusive posters and language isn't. I think Uefa quite rightly knew the difference. Besides they are the arbiters of disrepute in their games.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    NEW
    The yield on 20-year UK govt debt just exceeded the levels it hit before the @bankofengland intervened on Oct 28.
    Market strains continuing in this usually placid market.
    https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580145859203067904/photo/1

    For decades, Britain has been on the run from the reality that it can't have a European social model on a mid-Atlantic tax take. Now it really seems to have run out of road.
    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1580145995068776450
  • Major public bonfire nights and fireworks organised by Manchester Council at parks across the region have been SCRAPPED for 2022 with bosses blaming "escalating costs". The council has confirmed that its own bonfire events, including the huge celebration at Heaton Park, will NOT be reintroduced this year following the two-year lay-off during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    They say the decision is due to a "combination of factors" including the escalating costs of delivering large Bonfire Night events. That coupled with increased safety measures and "increased pressure on Council budgets" has led to the decision, announced just three weeks before Bonfire Night celebrations are due to take place on November 5.


    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/family-kids-news/bonfire-night-cancelled-across-manchester-25240125
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,313
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    This public order legislation was probably the end of free speech in England. It was essentially introduced as a discretionary power of last resort for the police. But it is now being selectively enforced against groups that fall out of favour with the authorities for various reasons. For instance the SNP guy that called to beat up 'Terf's' gets a pat on the back, whilst 'right wing' activists that post dodgy memes get asked to pay to attend reeducation camps or otherwise get arrested. There are many examples of this. I am not joking when I keep saying that we are quite far along the road to tyranny.
  • Blimey.

    Country is Borked if this now an option for takeaways.


  • .
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
    Your numbers are wrong because the money from the tax rises that have been reversed was spent and Liz Truss hasn't committed to reversing those decisions, only the tax rises. The money from fiscal drag was also already spent.
    Its surely somewhere in-between? Sunak has already spent the expected money from the fiscal drag commitment, so that can't be unspent.

    But inflation has been higher than forecast, has it not? Which means Sunak's openly-stated tax rise of fiscal drag ought to have been a bigger tax rise than forecast. So there should yet be some extra cash flowing into the Treasury due to that, but not the full amount of course as that's already spent.
    This circular argument is demonstrating, again rather well, why Kwarteng ought to have had a proper budget process which involved the OBR's independent assessment.

    The energy market intervention ought to have been a standalone emergency operation, followed by a properly managed "fiscal event" at the end of this month.
    We'd have avoided a lot of grief, and Kwarteng might not be about to lose his job.
    Agreed.

    Had he done that, then much of this turmoil would still have happened (as the energy support was the expensive bit, and QT would still have been announced) but it would have been seen as an unavoidable issue, rather than due to ideology or due to tax cuts that were relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

    Any tax cuts should have been done following normally budgetary rules.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477

    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    See, this is one of the weird things. Is my political position as a republican treason? If I campaign against the existence of a monarch, should that be a crime? Because if so, that's a problem for a modern democracy.

    I don't necessarily think the time of Elizabeth's passing was a good strategic time to make these points, but I am all for mass campaigning against the monarchy ahead of and culminating at Charles' coronation. Should that not be allowed?
    I think you are mixing up legitimate debate and discussion with inflammatory language or hate speech. Demonstrations are legitimate debate but abusive posters and language isn't. I think Uefa quite rightly knew the difference. Besides they are the arbiters of disrepute in their games.
    I was more interested in the "expressing treason against the Crown".

    Why is "Fuck the crown" any worse than half a dozen typical football chants? It's not like royals are an oppressed minority at risk from attack, if anything they are a hugely protected and privileged minority who have very little risk of material damages from nasty words. The idea of hate speech is that it propagates and expands on already existing social prejudices that exist due to historical factors, and therefore we understand that certain speech aimed at those people is more likely to cause / lead to material violence than other people.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,005

    Scott_xP said:

    💥Sajid Javid suggesting energy bailout was too big https://twitter.com/smyth_chris/status/1580137933495234561

    KABOOM.

    Is this the glorious day hath come, when the sheep shall awaketh and enter my welcoming meadow?
    148grss said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
    But the IMF did include the energy support package as part of their criticism.

    And, of course, each movement towards these moves being more fleshed out and funded has been made with the PM and XC kicking and screaming along the way. What it signals is a government that is just going to keep doing things without thinking them through - that seems to be what has spooked the markets more than anything.
    Yes, the IMF always had this daft expensive way over the top energy market buck as part of its criticism, so did all the UK think tanks from even before Black Friday Budget - that’s my point, don’t quote my line back at me.

    So why so many on PB still deluded into thinking it’s the “unfunded £45B tax cut” lie? Why are BBC spouting that gibberish at Rees Mogg?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    See, this is one of the weird things. Is my political position as a republican treason? If I campaign against the existence of a monarch, should that be a crime? Because if so, that's a problem for a modern democracy.

    I don't necessarily think the time of Elizabeth's passing was a good strategic time to make these points, but I am all for mass campaigning against the monarchy ahead of and culminating at Charles' coronation. Should that not be allowed?
    Of course, it's not a crime. At least in Scotland.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/section/51?view=plain
    No mention of treason in Scotland being abolished there
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,703
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    See, this is one of the weird things. Is my political position as a republican treason? If I campaign against the existence of a monarch, should that be a crime? Because if so, that's a problem for a modern democracy.

    I don't necessarily think the time of Elizabeth's passing was a good strategic time to make these points, but I am all for mass campaigning against the monarchy ahead of and culminating at Charles' coronation. Should that not be allowed?
    Of course, it's not a crime. At least in Scotland.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/section/51?view=plain
    No mention of treason in Scotland being abolished there
    Not relevant. Very specific crimes, which don't include republicanism.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477

    Scott_xP said:

    💥Sajid Javid suggesting energy bailout was too big https://twitter.com/smyth_chris/status/1580137933495234561

    KABOOM.

    Is this the glorious day hath come, when the sheep shall awaketh and enter my welcoming meadow?
    148grss said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
    But the IMF did include the energy support package as part of their criticism.

    And, of course, each movement towards these moves being more fleshed out and funded has been made with the PM and XC kicking and screaming along the way. What it signals is a government that is just going to keep doing things without thinking them through - that seems to be what has spooked the markets more than anything.
    Yes, the IMF always had this daft expensive way over the top energy market buck as part of its criticism, so did all the UK think tanks from even before Black Friday Budget - that’s my point, don’t quote my line back at me.

    So why so many on PB still deluded into thinking it’s the “unfunded £45B tax cut” lie? Why are BBC spouting that gibberish at Rees Mogg?
    Because there had been a long policy discussion in the open about how to deal with the energy crisis, and the markets didn't shit themselves, but the moment the tax cut was coupled with it, they did? Although maybe the markets believed Truss when she said she wasn't going to do handouts, but basically every commentator political and economic said she would have to eventually, it just depended what it looked like.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,313
    Eabhal said:

    Why are HP printers so irredeemably shit?

    An hour into trying to get a contract to sign and it's still firing out test pages

    Yeah I've had this problem with HP laser printers. I thought I would make my life easier by buying an expensive laser printer rather than the cartridge printers that are slow and take forever. Ha ha.
    I found that the HP laser printer was an absolute heap of junk and a waste of £150. The tray broke and Currys wouldn't fix it. Got it working again but every time you try and get it to print, you seem to be messing around for 20 minutes before it prints anything. And you can't seem to do anything without getting tied in to their weird online network thing. How hard can it be to just send something to the printer and get it printed? It is astonishing how this has got harder over time, rather than easier.

    Now its run out of ink i'm throwing it way and replacing it with a cheap £30 inkjet printer that you plug in when you need to print something.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    See, this is one of the weird things. Is my political position as a republican treason? If I campaign against the existence of a monarch, should that be a crime? Because if so, that's a problem for a modern democracy.

    I don't necessarily think the time of Elizabeth's passing was a good strategic time to make these points, but I am all for mass campaigning against the monarchy ahead of and culminating at Charles' coronation. Should that not be allowed?
    Arguably not, treason is defined still in part as 'the adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere' under the Treason Act 1351.

    So arguably if you are aiding republican groups, who could be argued to be the sovereign's enemies, then yes you are breaking the law and could be reported for treason.

    Now of course in reality you can protest and almost certainly will not be prosecuted and monarchists like me will be at the coronation to boo you and cheer the Crown. However arguably you could be prosecuted if someone tried to do so for treason
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,718

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    No idea if the FSU has been over this one; but there is a but.

    Neither Celtic nor UEFA are public bodies. It is an entirely internal piece of private discipline and subject to the private rules of membership associations.

    In terms of public law Celtic are under no obligation to turn up to a hearing, pay a fine or do anything else.

    Furthermore if they don't like the outcome they can challenge it in court under the rules of natural law, law of contract etc if they feel hard done by.

    The fact that football is treated as if it is a branch of the state, and part of the international order does not make this true.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    darkage said:

    I found that the HP laser printer was an absolute heap of junk and a waste of £150. The tray broke and Currys wouldn't fix it. Got it working again but every time you try and get it to print, you seem to be messing around for 20 minutes before it prints anything. And you can't seem to do anything without getting tied in to their weird online network thing. How hard can it be to just send something to the printer and get it printed? It is astonishing how this has got harder over time, rather than easier.

    My 20 year old LaserJet (no wifi) is still going strong
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,939
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW
    The yield on 20-year UK govt debt just exceeded the levels it hit before the @bankofengland intervened on Oct 28.
    Market strains continuing in this usually placid market.
    https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580145859203067904/photo/1

    For decades, Britain has been on the run from the reality that it can't have a European social model on a mid-Atlantic tax take. Now it really seems to have run out of road.
    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1580145995068776450

    Like the Jeremy Cliffe post and the follow up

    "In that respect there is a certain underlying intellectual honesty to the Truss-Kwarteng project. They clearly want UK to make a choice: for a more US-style safety net and tax take. You don't have to like that choice (I find it abhorrent) to recognise its internal consistency."
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I don't understand why people are surprised that the BoE is ending the support mechanism, the point of it wasn't to keep gilt yields down, it was to ensure there was a buyer for long dated gilts while idiot pension funds deleveraged. The BoE is suggesting that the moment of danger has passed and that there will now be enough market buyers for long dated gilts that it won't cause a crash.

    I am not surprised they're ending the support mechanism, I am surprised they're keeping QT on the table.

    The Bank has bought just over £5bn of gilts which it thinks has stabilised the market, but its pledging still to sell £80bn on top of that.

    If the Bank follow through on that sale, then there's going to be another crash. If they don't intend to, then they should say so and take that threat off the table, as it has to be priced in at the minute.
    Nah, that's not really a huge deal. The QT has been a known quantity for a while, the market shat itself over UK debt because the government looks like it doesn't know how to stop vomiting tax cuts or how to cut spending.
    The idea of QT being a vaguely possible thing in the future has been known for a while, but not the immediacy or quantity of it.

    The QT £80bn came within 24 hours of Kwarteng's announcement. 24 hours isn't a timespan wide enough to dismiss QT from the equation.
    But it's not £80bn overnight, it's over a year which is not exactly an earth shattering addition to bond sales. The government created an overnight funding gap of £43bn per year for the next 4-5 years and the economic mood is significantly worse than when the last set of forecasts were done. The markets took fright from the idea that the UK government may need to borrow an additional £50-70bn per year on top of what was in the current forecast for the next 4-5 years.
    Whether its overnight or over 12 months the market still needs to take that into account with expectations and since it all happened in a 24 hour window you can't divorce it from the market reaction.

    Eighty billion net in additional bond sales in a year is absolutely earth shattering, its never been done before by any Central Bank anywhere in the world that I can think of outside of America.

    £38bn of the £43bn was already known about and widely trailed in the months leading up to Truss's election, that was already a known quantity. So we have in the space of 24 hours an unexpected £5bn extra per annum on top of what was already known about, and an unexpected £80bn in the next 12 months that had not been known about.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,005
    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
    Your numbers are wrong because the money from the tax rises that have been reversed was spent and Liz Truss hasn't committed to reversing those decisions, only the tax rises. The money from fiscal drag was also already spent.
    My numbers wrong, they are the IFS numbers. 🥹

    How can Sunak have spent the money? It’s only by Kwarzi budget lifting people into the higher bracket that brings the money in?

    Have you just made a schoolboy error claiming Kwarzi’s budget doesn’t pull any money in from the changes he made? I’ll reach out to you, I suspect the IFS figure for stealth tax take from Kwasi budget is a bit high - but there was a darn sight more stealth tax there than the nothing you are claiming.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,442

    Blimey.

    Country is Borked if this now an option for takeaways.


    Jarring, but using an ordinary credit card is also “putting it on finance” if you’re one of the many Deliveroo users who aren’t paying their credit cards off in full every month.
  • Cricket or PMQs?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    Excl - Liz Truss let rip at squabbling Cabinet yesterday after astonishing breakdown of discipline...

    PM reminded them of the "importance of collective cabinet responsibility" after row broke out over benefits

    with @JackElsom @MrHarryCole
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/20082440/liz-truss-lets-rip-mini-budget-cabinet/

    @JackElsom @MrHarryCole One source said of former leadership hopeful Penny Mordaunt she didn't know where to look.... "she spent the whole time looking up at the ceiling" 🔥
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,195
    darkage said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why are HP printers so irredeemably shit?

    An hour into trying to get a contract to sign and it's still firing out test pages

    Yeah I've had this problem with HP laser printers. I thought I would make my life easier by buying an expensive laser printer rather than the cartridge printers that are slow and take forever. Ha ha.
    I found that the HP laser printer was an absolute heap of junk and a waste of £150. The tray broke and Currys wouldn't fix it. Got it working again but every time you try and get it to print, you seem to be messing around for 20 minutes before it prints anything. And you can't seem to do anything without getting tied in to their weird online network thing. How hard can it be to just send something to the printer and get it printed? It is astonishing how this has got harder over time, rather than easier.

    Now its run out of ink i'm throwing it way and replacing it with a cheap £30 inkjet printer that you plug in when you need to print something.
    In full agreement with this. Bought a HP printer as we entered lockdown. Stopped working after week 1 and after spending the best part of a day trying to work out what the hell to do just gave up on it.

    They do seem to have got harder to use since going wireless.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    Sterling should be trading at $1.30, given expectations that the BoE will raise Bank Rate to c.6% (further than the U.S. Fed). The current $0.20 shortfall from this level can be thought of as the cost inflicted on the economy by the government's reckless approach to fiscal policy
    https://twitter.com/samueltombs/status/1580126885677502464/photo/1
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,703
    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    See, this is one of the weird things. Is my political position as a republican treason? If I campaign against the existence of a monarch, should that be a crime? Because if so, that's a problem for a modern democracy.

    I don't necessarily think the time of Elizabeth's passing was a good strategic time to make these points, but I am all for mass campaigning against the monarchy ahead of and culminating at Charles' coronation. Should that not be allowed?
    Arguably not, treason is defined still in part as 'the adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere' under the Treason Act 1351.

    So arguably if you are aiding republican groups, who could be argued to be the sovereign's enemies, then yes you are breaking the law and could be reported for treason.

    Now of course in reality you can protest and almost certainly will not be prosecuted and monarchists like me will be at the coronation to boo you and cheer the Crown. However arguably you could be prosecuted if someone tried to do so for treason
    You're confusing sedition with treason.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,195
    Scott_xP said:

    Excl - Liz Truss let rip at squabbling Cabinet yesterday after astonishing breakdown of discipline...

    PM reminded them of the "importance of collective cabinet responsibility" after row broke out over benefits

    with @JackElsom @MrHarryCole
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/20082440/liz-truss-lets-rip-mini-budget-cabinet/

    @JackElsom @MrHarryCole One source said of former leadership hopeful Penny Mordaunt she didn't know where to look.... "she spent the whole time looking up at the ceiling" 🔥

    Maybe Penny is looking for a source of divine inspiration to get them out of this mess?

  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477

    Cricket or PMQs?

    I mean, I think PMQs will be an interesting show - good or not is subjective.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    darkage said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why are HP printers so irredeemably shit?

    An hour into trying to get a contract to sign and it's still firing out test pages

    Yeah I've had this problem with HP laser printers. I thought I would make my life easier by buying an expensive laser printer rather than the cartridge printers that are slow and take forever. Ha ha.
    I found that the HP laser printer was an absolute heap of junk and a waste of £150. The tray broke and Currys wouldn't fix it. Got it working again but every time you try and get it to print, you seem to be messing around for 20 minutes before it prints anything. And you can't seem to do anything without getting tied in to their weird online network thing. How hard can it be to just send something to the printer and get it printed? It is astonishing how this has got harder over time, rather than easier.

    Now its run out of ink i'm throwing it way and replacing it with a cheap £30 inkjet printer that you plug in when you need to print something.
    False economy. Get one of the refillable Epson ones. They charge the actual price for the printer so they don't have to make it back with ink cartridges and various user-hostile tricks to make sure you keep buying the ink cartridges.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,005
    148grss said:

    Scott_xP said:

    💥Sajid Javid suggesting energy bailout was too big https://twitter.com/smyth_chris/status/1580137933495234561

    KABOOM.

    Is this the glorious day hath come, when the sheep shall awaketh and enter my welcoming meadow?
    148grss said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the flipside of the govt's argument that it's all about global market instability - the fact global markets are unstable made it a *terrible time* to launch £45bn of unfunded tax cuts. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1580132329955393536

    Let’s shatter some myths here Scotty. And you need to listen because you are actually making Mogg right when you keep repeating these myths and lies.

    “£45bn of unfunded tax cuts”

    The £45B giveaway Growth Budget is now only unfunded by £13B. Minus £2B for a u-turn. Minus £30B of stealth tax take from fiscal drag = minus £13B NET.

    Obviously, if all that is being given away is £13b, it’s more a neutral budget than big cut for growth budget. But although people want to just think of Truss and Kwarteng as stupid, and you can if you want to, but I choose to think they are not so stupid to know they were leaving thresholds in place and would get £30B back - the truth here is it was a relatively neutral budget in terms of tax and spend, but rather redistributive in wealth from poorer to rich.

    I’m not making it up, just go listen to the detail the think tanks are supplying us.

    BUT. WAIT. here’s the real kicker to the Myth you are peddling. Minus £13B NET is not is anything for IMF to get shirty about or for markets to get unduly troubled by, is it?

    Cost of the energy support package -

    £250B Net. (Possibly a little more or a little less based on borrowing cost/energy price when purchased by energy companies variables)
    But the IMF did include the energy support package as part of their criticism.

    And, of course, each movement towards these moves being more fleshed out and funded has been made with the PM and XC kicking and screaming along the way. What it signals is a government that is just going to keep doing things without thinking them through - that seems to be what has spooked the markets more than anything.
    Yes, the IMF always had this daft expensive way over the top energy market buck as part of its criticism, so did all the UK think tanks from even before Black Friday Budget - that’s my point, don’t quote my line back at me.

    So why so many on PB still deluded into thinking it’s the “unfunded £45B tax cut” lie? Why are BBC spouting that gibberish at Rees Mogg?
    Because there had been a long policy discussion in the open about how to deal with the energy crisis, and the markets didn't shit themselves, but the moment the tax cut was coupled with it, they did? Although maybe the markets believed Truss when she said she wasn't going to do handouts, but basically every commentator political and economic said she would have to eventually, it just depended what it looked like.
    But we’ve dealt with this argument - markets were quite rightly waiting to hear on costings, payment mechanisms, exit mechanism - that was supposed to be basis of the Friday announcement, the fact it turned into a budget was the surprise to the market.

    Here’s the kicker to your argument - those waiting on Kwasi supplying those details are still largely waiting. No OBR to cost it, government claim it’s all funded by borrowing no one believes, and what did he say about exit strategy?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    See, this is one of the weird things. Is my political position as a republican treason? If I campaign against the existence of a monarch, should that be a crime? Because if so, that's a problem for a modern democracy.

    I don't necessarily think the time of Elizabeth's passing was a good strategic time to make these points, but I am all for mass campaigning against the monarchy ahead of and culminating at Charles' coronation. Should that not be allowed?
    Arguably not, treason is defined still in part as 'the adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere' under the Treason Act 1351.

    So arguably if you are aiding republican groups, who could be argued to be the sovereign's enemies, then yes you are breaking the law and could be reported for treason.

    Now of course in reality you can protest and almost certainly will not be prosecuted and monarchists like me will be at the coronation to boo you and cheer the Crown. However arguably you could be prosecuted if someone tried to do so for treason
    You're confusing sedition with treason.
    The Treason Acts of 1702 and 1708 for example still apply to Scotland and are reserved matters
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,002
    No popcorn, but I am about to eat a mango.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,005
    Starmer to ask “what’s changed prime minister, have you been on a gilt trip?”
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,703

    darkage said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why are HP printers so irredeemably shit?

    An hour into trying to get a contract to sign and it's still firing out test pages

    Yeah I've had this problem with HP laser printers. I thought I would make my life easier by buying an expensive laser printer rather than the cartridge printers that are slow and take forever. Ha ha.
    I found that the HP laser printer was an absolute heap of junk and a waste of £150. The tray broke and Currys wouldn't fix it. Got it working again but every time you try and get it to print, you seem to be messing around for 20 minutes before it prints anything. And you can't seem to do anything without getting tied in to their weird online network thing. How hard can it be to just send something to the printer and get it printed? It is astonishing how this has got harder over time, rather than easier.

    Now its run out of ink i'm throwing it way and replacing it with a cheap £30 inkjet printer that you plug in when you need to print something.
    False economy. Get one of the refillable Epson ones. They charge the actual price for the printer so they don't have to make it back with ink cartridges and various user-hostile tricks to make sure you keep buying the ink cartridges.
    Got one. Very pleased. 8550 in fact - prints A3, which is great for proofreading.

    Only concern is the high front end price but I got a two year guarantee for free.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,002

    Scott_xP said:

    Excl - Liz Truss let rip at squabbling Cabinet yesterday after astonishing breakdown of discipline...

    PM reminded them of the "importance of collective cabinet responsibility" after row broke out over benefits

    with @JackElsom @MrHarryCole
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/20082440/liz-truss-lets-rip-mini-budget-cabinet/

    @JackElsom @MrHarryCole One source said of former leadership hopeful Penny Mordaunt she didn't know where to look.... "she spent the whole time looking up at the ceiling" 🔥

    Maybe Penny is looking for a source of divine inspiration to get them out of this mess?

    Penny could have looked at her colleagues and described them:

    Cock
    Cock
    Cock
    Cock
    ...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101

    No popcorn, but I am about to eat a mango.

    no fish, but the heron still flies at midnight, comrade...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,703
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Has the Free Speech Union been on this?

    Celtic have been fined over “provocative” anti-monarchy banners displayed by their fans at a Champions League match last month, less than a week after the Queen’s death.

    One banner spotted in the Celtic section of the ground during their 1-1 draw with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk in Poland on September 14 stated “F*** the crown”.

    Another read “Sorry For Your Loss Michael Fagan” — a reference to a man who broke into the Queen’s bedroom in 1982.

    The Scottish champions have been fined €15,000 (£13,000) by Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body over what was described as “a message not fit for a sporting event (ie a provocative banner)”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/celtic-fined-for-anti-monarchy-banners-p25fb2jjj

    Quite right too, that could also count as hate speech in the aftermath of the Queen's death.

    They should have done what Rangers did

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgID9PFU44
    How is it hate speech? Royalists are not a protected category in law, are they?

    Though it's possible they would come under philosophical belief, just like a commitment to Scottish independence, on which MoD was nobbled when they tried to sack a SNP member.
    Not only is it hate speech, threatening, abusive or insulting publicly displayed words in contravention of Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

    It is also expressing treason against the Crown
    See, this is one of the weird things. Is my political position as a republican treason? If I campaign against the existence of a monarch, should that be a crime? Because if so, that's a problem for a modern democracy.

    I don't necessarily think the time of Elizabeth's passing was a good strategic time to make these points, but I am all for mass campaigning against the monarchy ahead of and culminating at Charles' coronation. Should that not be allowed?
    Arguably not, treason is defined still in part as 'the adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere' under the Treason Act 1351.

    So arguably if you are aiding republican groups, who could be argued to be the sovereign's enemies, then yes you are breaking the law and could be reported for treason.

    Now of course in reality you can protest and almost certainly will not be prosecuted and monarchists like me will be at the coronation to boo you and cheer the Crown. However arguably you could be prosecuted if someone tried to do so for treason
    You're confusing sedition with treason.
    The Treason Acts of 1702 and 1708 for example still apply to Scotland and are reserved matters
    Butd you are talking about what used to be sedition, which is something else. And the treason legislation has changed anyway.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,523
    First U-turn of the day there?
  • She's on...
  • First U-turn of the day there?

    I can [confirm that]
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,523
    Oh F*** off with the energy bill comment. It's got nothing to do with the markets at the moment.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101

    First U-turn of the day there?

    "I am prepared to be unpopular"

    Oh, wait...
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,702
    Lol, Truss is totally tone deaf
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,745
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW
    The yield on 20-year UK govt debt just exceeded the levels it hit before the @bankofengland intervened on Oct 28.
    Market strains continuing in this usually placid market.
    https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580145859203067904/photo/1

    For decades, Britain has been on the run from the reality that it can't have a European social model on a mid-Atlantic tax take. Now it really seems to have run out of road.
    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1580145995068776450

    It's going to exceed it further after Friday unless we see another U turn from the Bank. The days when governments could stick a few tens of billions on the credit card without obvious consequence seem to be over. The next Labour government is going to be fun.
  • God, she's dumb, she's going to be utterly destroyed during a general election campaign.

    She's Theresa May without the humanity.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,523
    AND AGAIN

    It's all she's got and it's pathetic.

    It wasn't part of the mini budget at all.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    Becky and Zac
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    At least the backbenchers are right behind her...
  • Time for conservatives mps to act

    This is not just embarrassing but deeply troubling for the next 2 years
  • *Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*

    'It's what she would have wanted'




  • I am genuinely unclear - whoops
  • *Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*

    'It's what she would have wanted'




    Fuck The Crown.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,523
    I am genuinely unclear...

    The memes create themselves.....
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,932
    edited October 2022
    Liz Truss is owning Starmer here.

    He really isn't very good.
  • My God this is marvellous. MORE! MORE!
  • God, she's dumb, she's going to be utterly destroyed during a general election campaign.

    She's Theresa May without the humanity.

    She is far worse than Theresa May

    Utter and total humiliation
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,282
    The Ukrainian government claims to have destroyed four Russian helicopters this morning - a claim at least partially confirmed by Russian Telegram channels that are mourning the losses of shot down crews...

    https://twitter.com/jimmysecuk/status/1580149895763091456
This discussion has been closed.