Of course, you might reasonably say to yourself, "but isn't a PM who can be this slapdash with her meaning at precisely the point when global markets are ripping the UK economy apart because they're worried about our madcap debt spiral perhaps somewhat out of her depth?"
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
*Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*
'It's what she would have wanted'
The Queen also supported blood sports, it is perfectly legal and deer are not endangered species and indeed venison is very tasty
On this I agree with my royalist friend - deer are a pest and lack natural predators across the nation. They need culling, and the happy byproduct is excellent, heathy meat.
Yeah, as a veggie, I'm still in favour of others culling deer - they are an animal that needs population control, and bringing back their natural predators (whilst my preferred method) seems to not be what others want.
Plus stalking involves the animal having a rather natural life until {bang}.
Yum. Have it regularly. As well as free range sheep, lamb and mutton. Had stewed lamb shank for dinner the other day - Cheviot breed from the borders. Though Mrs C was unfamiliar with the cut and hadn't realised it took 2.5 hours to simmer gently.
Liz Truss' spokesman rows back from her "absolute" commitment at today’s #pmqs not to make public spending cuts.
Says overall government spending will rise (largely because of energy bill subsidies) but says "clearly there will be difficult decisions that need to be taken."
On energy consumption every single person I speak to is talking about what they are doing to reduce it. Not using the tumble dryer. Short cycles on washing machines. Avoiding using the central heating. Reducing time the hot water is on. Layering up. Turning off unused lights. This is all easy to do stuff. We just never bothered before. This is going to add up to a big reduction in energy usage.
Even if you can afford to pay for it, I think reducing energy usage right now is preceived as the moral & patriotic thing to do. Every therm you don’t use is a therm that can be used in other parts of the EU that are more dependent on gas than we are, ensuring they make it through the winter.
Christmas lights are going to divide the nation! Fury from both sides, pitchforks at dusk in small rural villages, town councils baffled as to what to do.
Make sure they’re all LED lights, powered by batteries.
Anyone using thousands of incandescent lights, will have the shock of their lives when the bill comes through!
I have 10 50W halogens in one ceiling that I've been avoiding doing anything with for years and years because doing so involves crawling between two roof spaces and fighting through horrible glass fibre insulation in order to remove the transformers.
We don't switch them on much but I cannot now justify keeping them any more, so I have the 5W replacements ready for the weekend.
Another small decrease in GDP incoming. I wonder what kind of % cut in energy usage we'll get even without government intervention?
What weird setup have you got? Normally, in a bathroom say, you can pull the transformers through the holes where the lights go.
Hand an electrician do this in my old flat - replaced the spots with IP65 LED - my wife was astonished that you didn’t need to bring the ceiling down.
Lots of afterburner activity over Lincolnshire this afternoon.
Coningsby QRA out chasing bears?
Generally don't need the full send for RuAF trade as they have usually transited the Norwegian Bodo FIR before the CAOC at Uedem hands them off to the RAF. Unrestricted departure is more likely to be civvie traffic that is unresponsive to ATC.
Some idiot who got the wrong frequency at the FIR boundary then - or who forgot the difference between 7000, 7700, 7600 and 7500, and managed to light up ATC’s panel like a Christmas tree!
Swiss Hornets have a handy reminder on the centre tank for those that do fuck it up.
LOL!
What’s the context for that? Presumably not a basic guide to civvie R/T?
Edit: Oh, I get it now. That’s the Swiss QRA aircraft, and the numpty’s guide to R/T is for the guy being intercepted!
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)”.
Liz Truss' spokesman rows back from her "absolute" commitment at today’s #pmqs not to make public spending cuts.
Says overall government spending will rise (largely because of energy bill subsidies) but says "clearly there will be difficult decisions that need to be taken."
*Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*
'It's what she would have wanted'
The Queen also supported blood sports, it is perfectly legal and deer are not endangered species and indeed venison is very tasty
On this I agree with my royalist friend - deer are a pest and lack natural predators across the nation. They need culling, and the happy byproduct is excellent, heathy meat.
Yeah, as a veggie, I'm still in favour of others culling deer - they are an animal that needs population control, and bringing back their natural predators (whilst my preferred method) seems to not be what others want.
I'm on board with that - wolves, lynx etc. Sady although my dog thinks she can hunt deer, she can't.
They need to bring in helicopter hunting. The forestry commission alone plan to cull 30,000 deer per year in Scotland.
The other problem is sheep but you'll piss off the farmers if you go near that...
You think we should allow helicopter hunting of sheep?
Haha, no. Just that they have the same impact on the natural environment as deer - eating samplings etc
Assuming you mean saplings, is that an issue? Sheep graze on pasture, which isn't meant to turn into wood around them. Or is it?
It does, by natural succession of plant and animal populations, through scrubland, to mature forest. If not over-populated, or artificially maintained as sheep pasture. (This does depend on altitude, wind, exposure, ground, and marshiness etc.)
I don't see how there's anything artificial about it.
Liz Truss' spokesman rows back from her "absolute" commitment at today’s #pmqs not to make public spending cuts.
Says overall government spending will rise (largely because of energy bill subsidies) but says "clearly there will be difficult decisions that need to be taken."
She will wriggle free by claiming the 5% real terms cut (wages not prices) is an increase. "Like fuck it is" will say half her back benches, recipients, economists, markets etc etc. And she will still insist she is right and everyone else is wrong.
Liz Truss' spokesman rows back from her "absolute" commitment at today’s #pmqs not to make public spending cuts.
Says overall government spending will rise (largely because of energy bill subsidies) but says "clearly there will be difficult decisions that need to be taken."
Liz Truss' spokesman rows back from her "absolute" commitment at today’s #pmqs not to make public spending cuts.
Says overall government spending will rise (largely because of energy bill subsidies) but says "clearly there will be difficult decisions that need to be taken."
Lots of afterburner activity over Lincolnshire this afternoon.
Coningsby QRA out chasing bears?
Generally don't need the full send for RuAF trade as they have usually transited the Norwegian Bodo FIR before the CAOC at Uedem hands them off to the RAF. Unrestricted departure is more likely to be civvie traffic that is unresponsive to ATC.
Some idiot who got the wrong frequency at the FIR boundary then - or who forgot the difference between 7000, 7700, 7600 and 7500, and managed to light up ATC’s panel like a Christmas tree!
Swiss Hornets have a handy reminder on the centre tank for those that do fuck it up.
LOL!
What’s the context for that? Presumably not a basic guide to civvie R/T?
I guess it's an instruction for the errant airliner to get on GUARD for a polite but very thorough Swiss bollocking.
Lots of afterburner activity over Lincolnshire this afternoon.
Coningsby QRA out chasing bears?
Generally don't need the full send for RuAF trade as they have usually transited the Norwegian Bodo FIR before the CAOC at Uedem hands them off to the RAF. Unrestricted departure is more likely to be civvie traffic that is unresponsive to ATC.
Some idiot who got the wrong frequency at the FIR boundary then - or who forgot the difference between 7000, 7700, 7600 and 7500, and managed to light up ATC’s panel like a Christmas tree!
Swiss Hornets have a handy reminder on the centre tank for those that do fuck it up.
LOL!
What’s the context for that? Presumably not a basic guide to civvie R/T?
I guess it's an instruction for the errant airliner to get on GUARD for a polite but very thorough Swiss bollocking.
Liz Truss' spokesman rows back from her "absolute" commitment at today’s #pmqs not to make public spending cuts.
Says overall government spending will rise (largely because of energy bill subsidies) but says "clearly there will be difficult decisions that need to be taken."
She will wriggle free by claiming the 5% real terms cut (wages not prices) is an increase. "Like fuck it is" will say half her back benches, recipients, economists, markets etc etc. And she will still insist she is right and everyone else is wrong.
“I’ve got no idea how much it costs or how it will be paid for“
Those on here who claim the markets, the world, knew all the details of Energy Price Guarantee before and after the Blukip Budget on In The Red Friday, please take note of King’s comment. They didn’t. They still don’t.
*Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*
'It's what she would have wanted'
The Queen also supported blood sports, it is perfectly legal and deer are not endangered species and indeed venison is very tasty
On this I agree with my royalist friend - deer are a pest and lack natural predators across the nation. They need culling, and the happy byproduct is excellent, heathy meat.
Yeah, as a veggie, I'm still in favour of others culling deer - they are an animal that needs population control, and bringing back their natural predators (whilst my preferred method) seems to not be what others want.
I'm on board with that - wolves, lynx etc. Sady although my dog thinks she can hunt deer, she can't.
They need to bring in helicopter hunting. The forestry commission alone plan to cull 30,000 deer per year in Scotland.
The other problem is sheep but you'll piss off the farmers if you go near that...
You think we should allow helicopter hunting of sheep?
Haha, no. Just that they have the same impact on the natural environment as deer - eating samplings etc
Assuming you mean saplings, is that an issue? Sheep graze on pasture, which isn't meant to turn into wood around them. Or is it?
It does, by natural succession of plant and animal populations, through scrubland, to mature forest. If not over-populated, or artificially maintained as sheep pasture. (This does depend on altitude, wind, exposure, ground, and marshiness etc.)
I don't see how there's anything artificial about it.
(a) population levels (maintained by using drugs and anti-exoparasitic dips) (b) burning moorland (higher levels/wilder land) (c) fertiliser and particular cultivars of grass, clover, etc. mnainly at lower levels (d) bringing sheep down to lower levels and feeding on neeps grown on arable, which also maintains density of grazing higher up beyond what is sustainable in winter.
All artificial, in the strict meaning of the word. .
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
She will be touring the tearoom. Various backbenchers pointing out that if she pegs UC and disability benefits to wages that is a cut. "But its an increase" says Truss very slowly with a look of incomprehension on her face. "But its half the rate of inflation, so its a cut".
"Erm, now look, people were facing energy bills of £6,000"
Liz Truss' spokesman rows back from her "absolute" commitment at today’s #pmqs not to make public spending cuts.
Says overall government spending will rise (largely because of energy bill subsidies) but says "clearly there will be difficult decisions that need to be taken."
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)”.
Liz Truss' spokesman rows back from her "absolute" commitment at today’s #pmqs not to make public spending cuts.
Says overall government spending will rise (largely because of energy bill subsidies) but says "clearly there will be difficult decisions that need to be taken."
If they think borrowing a quarter of a trillion for Energy Price Guarantee is a smokescreen for spending cuts, they should lose more than their jobs - there are prison cells below the Palace of Westminster 😡
*Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*
'It's what she would have wanted'
The Queen also supported blood sports, it is perfectly legal and deer are not endangered species and indeed venison is very tasty
On this I agree with my royalist friend - deer are a pest and lack natural predators across the nation. They need culling, and the happy byproduct is excellent, heathy meat.
Yeah, as a veggie, I'm still in favour of others culling deer - they are an animal that needs population control, and bringing back their natural predators (whilst my preferred method) seems to not be what others want.
I'm on board with that - wolves, lynx etc. Sady although my dog thinks she can hunt deer, she can't.
They need to bring in helicopter hunting. The forestry commission alone plan to cull 30,000 deer per year in Scotland.
The other problem is sheep but you'll piss off the farmers if you go near that...
You think we should allow helicopter hunting of sheep?
Haha, no. Just that they have the same impact on the natural environment as deer - eating samplings etc
Assuming you mean saplings, is that an issue? Sheep graze on pasture, which isn't meant to turn into wood around them. Or is it?
It does, by natural succession of plant and animal populations, through scrubland, to mature forest. If not over-populated, or artificially maintained as sheep pasture. (This does depend on altitude, wind, exposure, ground, and marshiness etc.)
I don't see how there's anything artificial about it.
(a) population levels (maintained by using drugs and anti-exoparasitic dips) (b) burning moorland (higher levels/wilder land) (c) fertiliser and particular cultivars of grass, clover, etc. mnainly at lower levels (d) bringing sheep down to lower levels and feeding on neeps grown on arable, which also maintains density of grazing higher up beyond what is sustainable in winter.
All artificial, in the strict meaning of the word. .
Fair enough. I always find the deposits of turnips funny but I suppose the sheep are OK with them.
Surely it's time for the Men in Grey Bondage Necklaces to pay a visit. Theresa back as PM with DD as Chancellor is my left-field thought - so bizarre that it just might draw a veil over the recent wackiness.
I'm not persuaded that the new line of defence ("it's all the fault of the independent Bank of England - nothing to do with us, guv") from the handful of remaining Truss/Kwartengites is a surefire winner.
*Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*
'It's what she would have wanted'
The Queen also supported blood sports, it is perfectly legal and deer are not endangered species and indeed venison is very tasty
On this I agree with my royalist friend - deer are a pest and lack natural predators across the nation. They need culling, and the happy byproduct is excellent, heathy meat.
Yeah, as a veggie, I'm still in favour of others culling deer - they are an animal that needs population control, and bringing back their natural predators (whilst my preferred method) seems to not be what others want.
I'm on board with that - wolves, lynx etc. Sady although my dog thinks she can hunt deer, she can't.
They need to bring in helicopter hunting. The forestry commission alone plan to cull 30,000 deer per year in Scotland.
The other problem is sheep but you'll piss off the farmers if you go near that...
You think we should allow helicopter hunting of sheep?
Haha, no. Just that they have the same impact on the natural environment as deer - eating samplings etc
Assuming you mean saplings, is that an issue? Sheep graze on pasture, which isn't meant to turn into wood around them. Or is it?
It does, by natural succession of plant and animal populations, through scrubland, to mature forest. If not over-populated, or artificially maintained as sheep pasture. (This does depend on altitude, wind, exposure, ground, and marshiness etc.)
The idea that a squirrel used to be able to go from one end of the country to the other without touching the ground was mostly nonsense, but even so, this country is pretty much the least forested in Europe and this is not "natural". Assuming we don't want every farm to revert to woodland, it is the uplands that stand out the most as particularly bare. Just about the only natural tree line in the UK can be found at 650m in the Cairngorms but in general you just don't see one.
Getting rid of the sheep in the Lakes would no doubt cause a ruckus because some people like the hills bare, but it wouldn't be a bad idea ecologically speaking.
Mr Asos (Povlsen) has taken over a number of Scottish estates and has put a number of conservation organisations to shame by taking extreme measures to cull the deer. This has resulted in widespread tree regeneration (and not just pines - the natural vegetation on the hills contains a lot of willow scrub). Wolves would do the job better, of course...
*Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*
'It's what she would have wanted'
The Queen also supported blood sports, it is perfectly legal and deer are not endangered species and indeed venison is very tasty
On this I agree with my royalist friend - deer are a pest and lack natural predators across the nation. They need culling, and the happy byproduct is excellent, heathy meat.
Yeah, as a veggie, I'm still in favour of others culling deer - they are an animal that needs population control, and bringing back their natural predators (whilst my preferred method) seems to not be what others want.
I'm on board with that - wolves, lynx etc. Sady although my dog thinks she can hunt deer, she can't.
They need to bring in helicopter hunting. The forestry commission alone plan to cull 30,000 deer per year in Scotland.
The other problem is sheep but you'll piss off the farmers if you go near that...
You think we should allow helicopter hunting of sheep?
Haha, no. Just that they have the same impact on the natural environment as deer - eating samplings etc
Assuming you mean saplings, is that an issue? Sheep graze on pasture, which isn't meant to turn into wood around them. Or is it?
It does, by natural succession of plant and animal populations, through scrubland, to mature forest. If not over-populated, or artificially maintained as sheep pasture. (This does depend on altitude, wind, exposure, ground, and marshiness etc.)
I don't see how there's anything artificial about it.
(a) population levels (maintained by using drugs and anti-exoparasitic dips) (b) burning moorland (higher levels/wilder land) (c) fertiliser and particular cultivars of grass, clover, etc. mnainly at lower levels (d) bringing sheep down to lower levels and feeding on neeps grown on arable, which also maintains density of grazing higher up beyond what is sustainable in winter.
All artificial, in the strict meaning of the word. .
Fair enough. I always find the deposits of turnips funny but I suppose the sheep are OK with them.
They love them. Huge field of neeps growing round the back of my house. When it's time, the farmer will be bringing them down from the hill pasture to put in the field as is - sheep eat the tops and then the neeps in situ.
*Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*
'It's what she would have wanted'
The Queen also supported blood sports, it is perfectly legal and deer are not endangered species and indeed venison is very tasty
On this I agree with my royalist friend - deer are a pest and lack natural predators across the nation. They need culling, and the happy byproduct is excellent, heathy meat.
Yeah, as a veggie, I'm still in favour of others culling deer - they are an animal that needs population control, and bringing back their natural predators (whilst my preferred method) seems to not be what others want.
I'm on board with that - wolves, lynx etc. Sady although my dog thinks she can hunt deer, she can't.
They need to bring in helicopter hunting. The forestry commission alone plan to cull 30,000 deer per year in Scotland.
The other problem is sheep but you'll piss off the farmers if you go near that...
You think we should allow helicopter hunting of sheep?
Haha, no. Just that they have the same impact on the natural environment as deer - eating samplings etc
Assuming you mean saplings, is that an issue? Sheep graze on pasture, which isn't meant to turn into wood around them. Or is it?
It does, by natural succession of plant and animal populations, through scrubland, to mature forest. If not over-populated, or artificially maintained as sheep pasture. (This does depend on altitude, wind, exposure, ground, and marshiness etc.)
The idea that a squirrel used to be able to go from one end of the country to the other without touching the ground was mostly nonsense, but even so, this country is pretty much the least forested in Europe and this is not "natural". Assuming we don't want every farm to revert to woodland, it is the uplands that stand out the most as particularly bare. Just about the only natural tree line in the UK can be found at 650m in the Cairngorms but in general you just don't see one.
Getting rid of the sheep in the Lakes would no doubt cause a ruckus because some people like the hills bare, but it wouldn't be a bad idea ecologically speaking.
Mr Asos (Povlsen) has taken over a number of Scottish estates and has put a number of conservation organisations to shame by taking extreme measures to cull the deer. This has resulted in widespread tree regeneration (and not just pines - the natural vegetation on the hills contains a lot of willow scrub). Wolves would do the job better, of course...
I was in Glen Feshie last week. It's amazing how quickly it has transformed, especially just past the bothy.
Up on the Geldie they are currently putting in 100,000 trees but the amount of fencing required is extraordinary.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
Surely it's time for the Men in Grey Bondage Necklaces to pay a visit. Theresa back as PM with DD as Chancellor is my left-field thought - so bizarre that it just might draw a veil over the recent wackiness.
I honestly don’t think they can keep her around for much longer. As above, ditching Kwasi might give her a few more months, but it’s surely got to be terminal.
The Halloween omnishambles (because it can only be one) is going to make things even worse.
Surely it's time for the Men in Grey Bondage Necklaces to pay a visit. Theresa back as PM with DD as Chancellor is my left-field thought - so bizarre that it just might draw a veil over the recent wackiness.
I honestly don’t think they can keep her around for much longer. As above, ditching Kwasi might give her a few more months, but it’s surely got to be terminal.
The Halloween omnishambles (because it can only be one) is going to make things even worse.
You honestly don't think; that's the issue. You think we should ignore what the Bank of England is doing because they've 'been going' a long time.
Surely it's time for the Men in Grey Bondage Necklaces to pay a visit. Theresa back as PM with DD as Chancellor is my left-field thought - so bizarre that it just might draw a veil over the recent wackiness.
I honestly don’t think they can keep her around for much longer. As above, ditching Kwasi might give her a few more months, but it’s surely got to be terminal.
The Halloween omnishambles (because it can only be one) is going to make things even worse.
You honestly don't think; that's the issue. You think we should ignore what the Bank of England is doing because they've 'been going' a long time.
Boris would regularly get himself into a pickle by being too lazy to do his homework, but he had a charm and bravado that could disguise his ignorance, and allow him to deflect the questioner.
Truss sounds like someone who has blagged their way into a job they are manifestly incapable of doing, and is stuck slowly and drearily parroting the same irrelevant talking points.
It's mind-boggling that Tory members thought "she's the one". If this was an audition no way would Truss get a callback.
Was she as gormless in the hustings? Obviously, I didn't watch them which I regret as I would have liked to see Kate McCann flake out.
After watching PMQs, one can understand why she did.
Now we’re back in parliament, the more people will see the Truss, the worse the perception of incompetence will become.
I still have absolutely no idea why some MPs backed her. I had usually thought some ministers like James Cleverley were broadly sensible but his lack of judgement has been risible. Same goes for some of the red wall MPs like Dehenna Davison. No idea what they were thinking
I'm not persuaded that the new line of defence ("it's all the fault of the independent Bank of England - nothing to do with us, guv") from the handful of remaining Truss/Kwartengites is a surefire winner.
Oh, that's upsetting, I was really hoping to persuade you.
Surely it's time for the Men in Grey Bondage Necklaces to pay a visit. Theresa back as PM with DD as Chancellor is my left-field thought - so bizarre that it just might draw a veil over the recent wackiness.
I honestly don’t think they can keep her around for much longer. As above, ditching Kwasi might give her a few more months, but it’s surely got to be terminal.
The Halloween omnishambles (because it can only be one) is going to make things even worse.
What would have happened if on day 1 Truss had simply said "I'll continue Boris & Sunaks' policies plus an energy package minus the lies". & then sat down.
Simultaneously, 10 minutes after #PMQs, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the House of Commons & the PM’s Official Spokesperson in the post-PMQs lobby briefing give contradictory clarifications of Liz Truss’s promise not to cut spending.
This looks like the day everyone finally realises the overly expensive and regressive energy price guarantee (Tories bucking the market) is no longer preferable to the alternatives such as variable price.
Is your variable price cap idea just 'Use up to this band's worth of energy and it' s capped here (low), anything over is capped here, and anything over that is capped here, like income tax? So a poorer person who's barely using a kettle and an electric heater gets quite a low rate? If so, it sounds sensible. My defence of the Government does not rest on the idea that their energy guarantee is the best thing since sliced bread.
You are most welcome into this meadow where we are gathering. The Gates open. 🙂
Of course you shouldn’t like Truss energy price guarantee Lucky, because if you like everything else she is saying this thing she got from Labour is the very opposite idealism from all that. That’s what makes PMQs today particularly bonkers.
The governments price freeze is wrong on two important counts, freezing energy bills plan detaches price signal mechanism from the purchase of energy, in effect of locking in energy demand at its current level - Zero incentive to bring energy consumption down. And secondly the thru life costs of freezing energy bills is not known, we can’t know the costs of energy a year from now, but cost of borrowing is variable too, but we know it’s around £100B for this winter alone, this government wants it right up to the next election so likely an unsustainable £200B+ depending how quickly energy comes down, but variable energy price cap doesn’t lock you into anything like that massive amount of borrowing now and tax and higher bills in future to pay off that scale of borrowing. Not using many words as me this article still nails it.
Christians against poverty are asking for these further measures. financial support for low income households which takes into account actual energy bills due to family size and need, including for those not in receipt of means-tested benefits. Increase Local Housing Allowance and uprate benefits ahead Winter 2023 to reflect the inflation rate faced by low income households across the essentials they need. A winter ban on energy companies forcibly switching customers to prepayment meters, including smart prepay, and a moratorium on court action to collect energy debts.
For the right. Free market think tanks have said that the government’s plan to freeze energy bills will be ineffective and does not sufficiently target those most in need of support.
For the left. what Truss and Starmer have cooked up between themselves here and sold as a plan to help households with soaring energy costs, is very careful at the same time to be compensating shareholders for the profits they’d “lose” by keeping prices down.
*Very pretty young Asian woman gets into lift and smiles at me with the genuine impression of being pleased to see me.* VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?" Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?" VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now" Lift: Ping! Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!" Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
I dreamed a dream in times gone by When hope was high and life worth living I dreamed, that Sunak would never die
That Boris wouldn't lie I prayed the polls would be forgiving...
I'm not persuaded that the new line of defence ("it's all the fault of the independent Bank of England - nothing to do with us, guv") from the handful of remaining Truss/Kwartengites is a surefire winner.
Oh, that's upsetting, I was really hoping to persuade you.
It’s not all the fault of the BoE - but what the fuck are they doing?
Simultaneously, 10 minutes after #PMQs, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the House of Commons & the PM’s Official Spokesperson in the post-PMQs lobby briefing give contradictory clarifications of Liz Truss’s promise not to cut spending.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
Don't criticise me with what other people have said. I've been consistently worried about inflation for some time, and it's clear that is gone far beyond being only about imported inflation from a supply shock.
The Bank had trailed the move to QT for some time. Everyone knew it was coming. They didn't expect HMG to have such a reckless plan for unfunded tax cuts that they were too scared to let the OBR publish its forecasts.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
You’re an aggressive partisan hack but on point 3 I agree with you. Inflation is going to skyrocket whatever the BOE does because of energy prices and knock on factory gate inflation. Why make it worse for consumers by increasing the cost of borrowing and mortgages.
*Very pretty young Asian woman gets into lift and smiles at me with the genuine impression of being pleased to see me.* VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?" Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?" VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now" Lift: Ping! Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!" Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
If it was "High Cookie" rather than "Hi Cookie" perhaps it is not surprising the memory was a little hazy?
This looks like the day everyone finally realises the overly expensive and regressive energy price guarantee (Tories bucking the market) is no longer preferable to the alternatives such as variable price.
Is your variable price cap idea just 'Use up to this band's worth of energy and it' s capped here (low), anything over is capped here, and anything over that is capped here, like income tax? So a poorer person who's barely using a kettle and an electric heater gets quite a low rate? If so, it sounds sensible. My defence of the Government does not rest on the idea that their energy guarantee is the best thing since sliced bread.
It's not daft - though it might take time to sort out. And should certainly be considered as an alternative to Truss's two year fix.
This looks like the day everyone finally realises the overly expensive and regressive energy price guarantee (Tories bucking the market) is no longer preferable to the alternatives such as variable price.
Is your variable price cap idea just 'Use up to this band's worth of energy and it' s capped here (low), anything over is capped here, and anything over that is capped here, like income tax? So a poorer person who's barely using a kettle and an electric heater gets quite a low rate? If so, it sounds sensible. My defence of the Government does not rest on the idea that their energy guarantee is the best thing since sliced bread.
You are most welcome into this meadow where we are gathering. The Gates open. 🙂
Of course you shouldn’t like Truss energy price guarantee Lucky, because if you like everything else she is saying this thing she got from Labour is the very opposite idealism from all that. That’s what makes PMQs today particularly bonkers.
The governments price freeze is wrong on two important counts, freezing energy bills plan detaches price signal mechanism from the purchase of energy, in effect of locking in energy demand at its current level - Zero incentive to bring energy consumption down. And secondly the thru life costs of freezing energy bills is not known, we can’t know the costs of energy a year from now, but cost of borrowing is variable too, but we know it’s around £100B for this winter alone, this government wants it right up to the next election so likely an unsustainable £200B+ depending how quickly energy comes down, but variable energy price cap doesn’t lock you into anything like that massive amount of borrowing now and tax and higher bills in future to pay off that scale of borrowing. Not using many words as me this article still nails it.
Christians against poverty are asking for these further measures. financial support for low income households which takes into account actual energy bills due to family size and need, including for those not in receipt of means-tested benefits. Increase Local Housing Allowance and uprate benefits ahead Winter 2023 to reflect the inflation rate faced by low income households across the essentials they need. A winter ban on energy companies forcibly switching customers to prepayment meters, including smart prepay, and a moratorium on court action to collect energy debts.
For the right. Free market think tanks have said that the government’s plan to freeze energy bills will be ineffective and does not sufficiently target those most in need of support.
For the left. what Truss and Starmer have cooked up between themselves here and sold as a plan to help households with soaring energy costs, is very careful at the same time to be compensating shareholders for the profits they’d “lose” by keeping prices down.
I accept in broad terms your critique of the current energy price cap, without feeling the need to research further. I also know that means testing can be difficult.
Can you outline in simple and clear terms what your idea is, then I'd be able to see if I agree or not.
Surely it's time for the Men in Grey Bondage Necklaces to pay a visit. Theresa back as PM with DD as Chancellor is my left-field thought - so bizarre that it just might draw a veil over the recent wackiness.
I honestly don’t think they can keep her around for much longer. As above, ditching Kwasi might give her a few more months, but it’s surely got to be terminal.
The Halloween omnishambles (because it can only be one) is going to make things even worse.
What would have happened if on day 1 Truss had simply said "I'll continue Boris & Sunaks' policies plus an energy package minus the lies". & then sat down.
I suspect she would always have struggled, but she would have bought herself the right to a fair hearing from the British public, even if the economy was rocky.
45p and bankers bonuses was appalling politics. People made up their minds on that alone. Now she doesn’t have a route back.
*Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*
'It's what she would have wanted'
The Queen also supported blood sports, it is perfectly legal and deer are not endangered species and indeed venison is very tasty
On this I agree with my royalist friend - deer are a pest and lack natural predators across the nation. They need culling, and the happy byproduct is excellent, heathy meat.
Yeah, as a veggie, I'm still in favour of others culling deer - they are an animal that needs population control, and bringing back their natural predators (whilst my preferred method) seems to not be what others want.
I'm on board with that - wolves, lynx etc. Sady although my dog thinks she can hunt deer, she can't.
They need to bring in helicopter hunting. The forestry commission alone plan to cull 30,000 deer per year in Scotland.
The other problem is sheep but you'll piss off the farmers if you go near that...
You think we should allow helicopter hunting of sheep?
Haha, no. Just that they have the same impact on the natural environment as deer - eating samplings etc
Assuming you mean saplings, is that an issue? Sheep graze on pasture, which isn't meant to turn into wood around them. Or is it?
It does, by natural succession of plant and animal populations, through scrubland, to mature forest. If not over-populated, or artificially maintained as sheep pasture. (This does depend on altitude, wind, exposure, ground, and marshiness etc.)
The idea that a squirrel used to be able to go from one end of the country to the other without touching the ground was mostly nonsense, but even so, this country is pretty much the least forested in Europe and this is not "natural". Assuming we don't want every farm to revert to woodland, it is the uplands that stand out the most as particularly bare. Just about the only natural tree line in the UK can be found at 650m in the Cairngorms but in general you just don't see one.
Getting rid of the sheep in the Lakes would no doubt cause a ruckus because some people like the hills bare, but it wouldn't be a bad idea ecologically speaking.
Mr Asos (Povlsen) has taken over a number of Scottish estates and has put a number of conservation organisations to shame by taking extreme measures to cull the deer. This has resulted in widespread tree regeneration (and not just pines - the natural vegetation on the hills contains a lot of willow scrub). Wolves would do the job better, of course...
I was in Glen Feshie last week. It's amazing how quickly it has transformed, especially just past the bothy.
Up on the Geldie they are currently putting in 100,000 trees but the amount of fencing required is extraordinary.
Absolutely. I remember climbing two of the Feshie hills in the early 90s and it was pretty much at an ecological dead end at that time, although it still gave the appearance of being 'wild'.
I last passed the bothy about 3 years ago (it was being repaired at the time) but even then the difference was incredible.
We've clearly passed the low point of upland vegetation but there is a lot more that could be done. Not a fan of fencing though. Had to climb a few too many of the 12ft variety...
*Very pretty young Asian woman gets into lift and smiles at me with the genuine impression of being pleased to see me.* VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?" Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?" VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now" Lift: Ping! Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!" Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
Run.
Change your name and stowaway on a tramp steamer to Singapore.
*Very pretty young Asian woman gets into lift and smiles at me with the genuine impression of being pleased to see me.* VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?" Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?" VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now" Lift: Ping! Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!" Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
Run.
Change your name and stowaway on a tramp steamer to Singapore.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
Don't criticise me with what other people have said. I've been consistently worried about inflation for some time, and it's clear that is gone far beyond being only about imported inflation from a supply shock.
The Bank had trailed the move to QT for some time. Everyone knew it was coming. They didn't expect HMG to have such a reckless plan for unfunded tax cuts that they were too scared to let the OBR publish its forecasts.
You can 'trail' something - that still doesn't mean people are going to want to buy British Government bonds when the previous biggest buyer of them is having a firesale.
*Very pretty young Asian woman gets into lift and smiles at me with the genuine impression of being pleased to see me.* VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?" Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?" VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now" Lift: Ping! Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!" Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Productive Merchandise Recovery; Project Management Review ... ?
*Orders lackey to gralloch a heap of deer guts on to the heather*
'It's what she would have wanted'
The Queen also supported blood sports, it is perfectly legal and deer are not endangered species and indeed venison is very tasty
On this I agree with my royalist friend - deer are a pest and lack natural predators across the nation. They need culling, and the happy byproduct is excellent, heathy meat.
Yeah, as a veggie, I'm still in favour of others culling deer - they are an animal that needs population control, and bringing back their natural predators (whilst my preferred method) seems to not be what others want.
I'm on board with that - wolves, lynx etc. Sady although my dog thinks she can hunt deer, she can't.
They need to bring in helicopter hunting. The forestry commission alone plan to cull 30,000 deer per year in Scotland.
The other problem is sheep but you'll piss off the farmers if you go near that...
You think we should allow helicopter hunting of sheep?
Haha, no. Just that they have the same impact on the natural environment as deer - eating samplings etc
Assuming you mean saplings, is that an issue? Sheep graze on pasture, which isn't meant to turn into wood around them. Or is it?
It does, by natural succession of plant and animal populations, through scrubland, to mature forest. If not over-populated, or artificially maintained as sheep pasture. (This does depend on altitude, wind, exposure, ground, and marshiness etc.)
The idea that a squirrel used to be able to go from one end of the country to the other without touching the ground was mostly nonsense, but even so, this country is pretty much the least forested in Europe and this is not "natural". Assuming we don't want every farm to revert to woodland, it is the uplands that stand out the most as particularly bare. Just about the only natural tree line in the UK can be found at 650m in the Cairngorms but in general you just don't see one.
Getting rid of the sheep in the Lakes would no doubt cause a ruckus because some people like the hills bare, but it wouldn't be a bad idea ecologically speaking.
Mr Asos (Povlsen) has taken over a number of Scottish estates and has put a number of conservation organisations to shame by taking extreme measures to cull the deer. This has resulted in widespread tree regeneration (and not just pines - the natural vegetation on the hills contains a lot of willow scrub). Wolves would do the job better, of course...
I was in Glen Feshie last week. It's amazing how quickly it has transformed, especially just past the bothy.
Up on the Geldie they are currently putting in 100,000 trees but the amount of fencing required is extraordinary.
Absolutely. I remember climbing two of the Feshie hills in the early 90s and it was pretty much at an ecological dead end at that time, although it still gave the appearance of being 'wild'.
I last passed the bothy about 3 years ago (it was being repaired at the time) but even then the difference was incredible.
We've clearly passed the low point of upland vegetation but there is a lot more that could be done. Not a fan of fencing though. Had to climb a few too many of the 12ft variety...
Especially when they place then across a Munro access route with no gate. I used to run a Uni walking club and enjoyed the baffled expressions of visiting students when I explained you just need to clamber over.
Came across a new one on Beinn a' Chaorainn recently.
One idea for the energy might have been to allow say each household 2,000 kwh of electricity and say 9,000 kwh of gas (Or 5,000 kwh for those without gas) at the cheap rate with the rest at market so to speak.
Simultaneously, 10 minutes after #PMQs, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the House of Commons & the PM’s Official Spokesperson in the post-PMQs lobby briefing give contradictory clarifications of Liz Truss’s promise not to cut spending.
*Very pretty young Asian woman gets into lift and smiles at me with the genuine impression of being pleased to see me.* VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?" Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?" VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now" Lift: Ping! Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!" Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
Run.
Change your name and stowaway on a tramp steamer to Singapore.
Time for us all to ask the important question:
What would Leon have done?
Tell her that the impending nuclear apocalypse is affecting his memory and that there’s time for a quick one before the lift reaches her floor.
*Very pretty young Asian woman gets into lift and smiles at me with the genuine impression of being pleased to see me.* VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?" Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?" VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now" Lift: Ping! Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!" Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
Run.
Change your name and stowaway on a tramp steamer to Singapore.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
They need a leadership appointment. Time to re-enter the smoke filled room.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
You’re an aggressive partisan hack but on point 3 I agree with you. Inflation is going to skyrocket whatever the BOE does because of energy prices and knock on factory gate inflation. Why make it worse for consumers by increasing the cost of borrowing and mortgages.
The partisan hack-ship lies with those who remorselessly attack this Government and claim that all market disturbances go back to the mini-budget, when it's face smackingly obvious that they don't, given that the most recent jitter happened in the absence of any Government activity whatsoever, coinciding instead with the resumption of the Bank's foolhardy bond sell off.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
There are worse things in the world than the abject humiliation of deposing a PM a few weeks into the job…
… that same PM taking them into a GE campaign is a far, far worse prospect.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
You’re an aggressive partisan hack but on point 3 I agree with you. Inflation is going to skyrocket whatever the BOE does because of energy prices and knock on factory gate inflation. Why make it worse for consumers by increasing the cost of borrowing and mortgages.
The partisan hack-ship lies with those who remorselessly attack this Government and claim that all market disturbances go back to the mini-budget, when it's face smackingly obvious that they don't, given that the most recent jitter happened in the absence of any Government activity whatsoever, coinciding instead with the resumption of the Bank's foolhardy bond sell off.
Do you really think that if the mini-budget hadn't happened we would be in the same place today?
O/T just managed to get an early booster (just in case there is a rush later in the year….) and had “Spikevax Bivalent” which I believe is a new name for Moderna so I’ve now had the full set of AZ, Pfizer and Moderna.
Was annoyed with myself however as decided to have the flu jab for the first time and realised afterwards that I can’t properly compare the after effects of the different jabs as won’t know if any bad afters are down to the flu or covid jab. Hoping they cancel each other out against all medical science experience.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
They need a leadership appointment. Time to re-enter the smoke filled room.
The problem with changing leader is it doesn't dispel the new attack line of "who voted for this"? If anything, it will be stronger, as every leader further away from Johnson will look less legitimate in the eye of the electorate.
Even Sunak, who was Johnson's Chancellor, was stepping away from Johnson's policies in many ways, and we know they disagreed at times in gov when Sunak wanted to spend less.
The Tories need to write a new manifesto and go to the public, not keep playing pass the parcel.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
There are worse things in the world than the abject humiliation of deposing a PM a few weeks into the job…
… that same PM taking them into a GE campaign is a far, far worse prospect.
I'm increasingly convinced by the argument that backbenchers might prefer a GE if they can take credit for it happening / use it to distance themselves from Truss. A revolt big enough to cause a GE would allow individual MPs to go "look, I'm a Tory, but even that's too far for me, so save my arse but boot out the government". There was an article making this point last week that I did find somewhat convincing.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
They need a leadership appointment. Time to re-enter the smoke filled room.
The problem with changing leader is it doesn't dispel the new attack line of "who voted for this"? If anything, it will be stronger, as every leader further away from Johnson will look less legitimate in the eye of the electorate.
Even Sunak, who was Johnson's Chancellor, was stepping away from Johnson's policies in many ways, and we know they disagreed at times in gov when Sunak wanted to spend less.
The Tories need to write a new manifesto and go to the public, not keep playing pass the parcel.
In normal times I would agree with you. Changing a leader twice in a Parliament pretty much signifies you’ve given up any pretence of being serious about being in government.
However the Tories have a stark choice - they can stick with Liz and potentially face utter annihilation in 2024 (I honestly think it could make 1997 look like a flesh wound) or they can bring a steady hand in who can keep things going and keep them 200-230 or so seats. That is the stark reality of the choice they have now. Absent a miracle they are losing in 2024, and likely losing badly, so the choice now is between a noble defeat and wipeout.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
They need a leadership appointment. Time to re-enter the smoke filled room.
The problem with changing leader is it doesn't dispel the new attack line of "who voted for this"? If anything, it will be stronger, as every leader further away from Johnson will look less legitimate in the eye of the electorate.
Even Sunak, who was Johnson's Chancellor, was stepping away from Johnson's policies in many ways, and we know they disagreed at times in gov when Sunak wanted to spend less.
The Tories need to write a new manifesto and go to the public, not keep playing pass the parcel.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
There are worse things in the world than the abject humiliation of deposing a PM a few weeks into the job…
… that same PM taking them into a GE campaign is a far, far worse prospect.
Well quite! Another change of leadership will be excruciating and divisive for the Tories. It would be horrible. But the brutal reality is that it may not be the worst option, there are many worse things in play right now for the Tories. Having a leader with tin ears, determined to provoke, but having zero confidence of the markets and openly challenged by her own side is potentially far worse.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
You’re an aggressive partisan hack but on point 3 I agree with you. Inflation is going to skyrocket whatever the BOE does because of energy prices and knock on factory gate inflation. Why make it worse for consumers by increasing the cost of borrowing and mortgages.
The partisan hack-ship lies with those who remorselessly attack this Government and claim that all market disturbances go back to the mini-budget, when it's face smackingly obvious that they don't, given that the most recent jitter happened in the absence of any Government activity whatsoever, coinciding instead with the resumption of the Bank's foolhardy bond sell off.
Do you really think that if the mini-budget hadn't happened we would be in the same place today?
Assuming that 'something big on energy' was always going to happen, it's very hard to say. And though the mini-budget contained some good stuff, I cannot give it above a 7.5 on substance and a 3.5 on presentation.
However, I am clear about where the overall culpability lies. It is the Bank that must be persuaded to change its overall course - the Government is trying to act countercyclically in the face of a dangerous recession. The Bank is seeking to worsen it.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
You’re an aggressive partisan hack but on point 3 I agree with you. Inflation is going to skyrocket whatever the BOE does because of energy prices and knock on factory gate inflation. Why make it worse for consumers by increasing the cost of borrowing and mortgages.
The partisan hack-ship lies with those who remorselessly attack this Government and claim that all market disturbances go back to the mini-budget, when it's face smackingly obvious that they don't, given that the most recent jitter happened in the absence of any Government activity whatsoever, coinciding instead with the resumption of the Bank's foolhardy bond sell off.
Do you really think that if the mini-budget hadn't happened we would be in the same place today?
Assuming that 'something big on energy' was always going to happen, it's very hard to say. And though the mini-budget contained some good stuff, I cannot give it above a 7.5 on substance and a 3.5 on presentation.
However, I am clear about where the overall culpability lies. It is the Bank that must be persuaded to change its overall course - the Government is trying to act countercyclically in the face of a dangerous recession. The Bank is seeking to worsen it.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
Don't criticise me with what other people have said. I've been consistently worried about inflation for some time, and it's clear that is gone far beyond being only about imported inflation from a supply shock.
The Bank had trailed the move to QT for some time. Everyone knew it was coming. They didn't expect HMG to have such a reckless plan for unfunded tax cuts that they were too scared to let the OBR publish its forecasts.
You can 'trail' something - that still doesn't mean people are going to want to buy British Government bonds when the previous biggest buyer of them is having a firesale.
Which is why the government should be cutting the deficit instead of massively expanding it with tax cuts. Duh.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
They need a leadership appointment. Time to re-enter the smoke filled room.
The problem with changing leader is it doesn't dispel the new attack line of "who voted for this"? If anything, it will be stronger, as every leader further away from Johnson will look less legitimate in the eye of the electorate.
Even Sunak, who was Johnson's Chancellor, was stepping away from Johnson's policies in many ways, and we know they disagreed at times in gov when Sunak wanted to spend less.
The Tories need to write a new manifesto and go to the public, not keep playing pass the parcel.
In normal times I would agree with you. Changing a leader twice in a Parliament pretty much signifies you’ve given up any pretence of being serious about being in government.
However the Tories have a stark choice - they can stick with Liz and potentially face utter annihilation in 2024 (I honestly think it could make 1997 look like a flesh wound) or they can bring a steady hand in who can keep things going and keep them 200-230 or so seats. That is the stark reality of the choice they have now. Absent a miracle they are losing in 2024, and likely losing badly, so the choice now is between a noble defeat and wipeout.
I think they're buggered either way, and it's medicine now or medicine later. The only benefit of it being now is that some Tory MPs could argue that they made sure a GE happened and to vote for them, but not the party. If Tories deal with this as another crisis where they need to save the party at all costs, they lose. The only move that gets them any credit is doing the honourable thing. Imagine the next guy coming in, whoever it is, and how the press will respond: "Johnson lasted 3 years, Truss 3 months, 3 weeks for you, Prime Minister"? I can't tell if it's first as tragedy now as farce, or the visa versa.
They're going to be wiped out no matter what. Better to do the right thing and let some people who can govern try and get things sorted than cling on for dear life.
*Very pretty young Asian woman gets into lift and smiles at me with the genuine impression of being pleased to see me.* VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?" Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?" VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now" Lift: Ping! Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!" Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Productive Merchandise Recovery; Project Management Review ... ?
O/T just managed to get an early booster (just in case there is a rush later in the year….) and had “Spikevax Bivalent” which I believe is a new name for Moderna so I’ve now had the full set of AZ, Pfizer and Moderna.
Was annoyed with myself however as decided to have the flu jab for the first time and realised afterwards that I can’t properly compare the after effects of the different jabs as won’t know if any bad afters are down to the flu or covid jab. Hoping they cancel each other out against all medical science experience.
My Pfizer booster last weekend caused me about 36 hours of modest upper arm pain. And that's it. The most trivial side effects I've had from any Covid jab. Perhaps the body grows accustomed
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
They need a leadership appointment. Time to re-enter the smoke filled room.
The problem with changing leader is it doesn't dispel the new attack line of "who voted for this"? If anything, it will be stronger, as every leader further away from Johnson will look less legitimate in the eye of the electorate.
Even Sunak, who was Johnson's Chancellor, was stepping away from Johnson's policies in many ways, and we know they disagreed at times in gov when Sunak wanted to spend less.
The Tories need to write a new manifesto and go to the public, not keep playing pass the parcel.
Not under Truss, they don't.
They'd lose, but at least they would lose whilst making an argument about what they should do and being told by the public they don't want it. The problem with changing leader is the public mood is they want a say now, because Johnsonism is dead. Tory supporters may not like the fact that Truss will lead them to defeat, but if they believed their policies were popular, why shouldn't they?
*Very pretty young Asian woman gets into lift and smiles at me with the genuine impression of being pleased to see me.* VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?" Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?" VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now" Lift: Ping! Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!" Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
What's it going to achieve?
The Tory party is riven with divisions that have undermined three leaders in a row. Cameron I wouldn't count, he lost a vote with the public, but then Theresa May, Boris and now supposedly Truss the backbenchers haven't consistently supported any of them.
The problem once can be with the leader, twice is getting a bit silly, but three times now? Surely it has to be three strikes and you're out?
The Tories have just spent the summer having a leadership campaign and chosen their new leader, but some here were making mutterings about her from day one, before the mini Budget. This self-indulgence is ridiculous, having spent the summer choosing their leader they need to now get on with the job and deliver for the country.
If they can't, they don't deserve to be in Government, and can choose their next leader from Opposition where it doesn't affect us.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
They need a leadership appointment. Time to re-enter the smoke filled room.
The problem with changing leader is it doesn't dispel the new attack line of "who voted for this"? If anything, it will be stronger, as every leader further away from Johnson will look less legitimate in the eye of the electorate.
Even Sunak, who was Johnson's Chancellor, was stepping away from Johnson's policies in many ways, and we know they disagreed at times in gov when Sunak wanted to spend less.
The Tories need to write a new manifesto and go to the public, not keep playing pass the parcel.
In normal times I would agree with you. Changing a leader twice in a Parliament pretty much signifies you’ve given up any pretence of being serious about being in government.
However the Tories have a stark choice - they can stick with Liz and potentially face utter annihilation in 2024 (I honestly think it could make 1997 look like a flesh wound) or they can bring a steady hand in who can keep things going and keep them 200-230 or so seats. That is the stark reality of the choice they have now. Absent a miracle they are losing in 2024, and likely losing badly, so the choice now is between a noble defeat and wipeout.
They can only have a noble defeat if they do it with Truss, because if they are being honest with the public they have to admit that they chose Truss and their is enough sentiment in the party for someone who believes what Truss believes to rise to the top. To say she is an aberration and try to hide her away is not only cowardly, but obviously untrue, and is why so many people are making clear they don't trust the Tories.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
They need a leadership appointment. Time to re-enter the smoke filled room.
The problem with changing leader is it doesn't dispel the new attack line of "who voted for this"? If anything, it will be stronger, as every leader further away from Johnson will look less legitimate in the eye of the electorate.
Even Sunak, who was Johnson's Chancellor, was stepping away from Johnson's policies in many ways, and we know they disagreed at times in gov when Sunak wanted to spend less.
The Tories need to write a new manifesto and go to the public, not keep playing pass the parcel.
In normal times I would agree with you. Changing a leader twice in a Parliament pretty much signifies you’ve given up any pretence of being serious about being in government.
However the Tories have a stark choice - they can stick with Liz and potentially face utter annihilation in 2024 (I honestly think it could make 1997 look like a flesh wound) or they can bring a steady hand in who can keep things going and keep them 200-230 or so seats. That is the stark reality of the choice they have now. Absent a miracle they are losing in 2024, and likely losing badly, so the choice now is between a noble defeat and wipeout.
I think they're buggered either way, and it's medicine now or medicine later. The only benefit of it being now is that some Tory MPs could argue that they made sure a GE happened and to vote for them, but not the party. If Tories deal with this as another crisis where they need to save the party at all costs, they lose. The only move that gets them any credit is doing the honourable thing. Imagine the next guy coming in, whoever it is, and how the press will respond: "Johnson lasted 3 years, Truss 3 months, 3 weeks for you, Prime Minister"? I can't tell if it's first as tragedy now as farce, or the visa versa.
They're going to be wiped out no matter what. Better to do the right thing and let some people who can govern try and get things sorted than cling on for dear life.
As an outsider, what is remarkable about Truss is either
1) She cannot see the problem 2) Does see the problem, but is out of her depth and is getting things wrong. 3) Can see the problem, has gone all in, and is deliberately sowing chaos.
Her actions since the budget have added to the problems, not made it better. She doesn't appear to have any political nouse whatsoever. If it is 1), 2) or 3) she must go.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
You’re an aggressive partisan hack but on point 3 I agree with you. Inflation is going to skyrocket whatever the BOE does because of energy prices and knock on factory gate inflation. Why make it worse for consumers by increasing the cost of borrowing and mortgages.
The partisan hack-ship lies with those who remorselessly attack this Government and claim that all market disturbances go back to the mini-budget, when it's face smackingly obvious that they don't, given that the most recent jitter happened in the absence of any Government activity whatsoever, coinciding instead with the resumption of the Bank's foolhardy bond sell off.
Do you really think that if the mini-budget hadn't happened we would be in the same place today?
Assuming that 'something big on energy' was always going to happen, it's very hard to say. And though the mini-budget contained some good stuff, I cannot give it above a 7.5 on substance and a 3.5 on presentation.
However, I am clear about where the overall culpability lies. It is the Bank that must be persuaded to change its overall course - the Government is trying to act countercyclically in the face of a dangerous recession. The Bank is seeking to worsen it.
Is that a yes or no? I can't tell.
A yes or no answer isn't possible given the basis upon which you have asked the question. Are you suggesting a scenario where there would have been no intervention to reduce the cost of energy bills? Do you see that as a realistic scenario?
*Very pretty young Asian woman gets into lift and smiles at me with the genuine impression of being pleased to see me.* VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?" Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?" VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now" Lift: Ping! Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!" Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
Run.
Change your name and stowaway on a tramp steamer to Singapore.
I really do fear what will happen to the markets now given Liz’s latest fantasy economics turn at the dispatch box.
FFS this is what concerned so many about a Corbyn government, and it’s the Tories who have delivered it.
Honestly think Brady and some other cabinet grandees should pay Liz a visit this week and agree a crisis plan. Kwarteng has to go this week (remarkably I think the loss of a chancellor would actually increase market confidence rather than dent it). A replacement needs to be found to basically scrap the mini budget and reinstitute Rishi’s economic plans (it might be too humiliating for her to appoint Rishi, so let’s say someone like Gove or May). And Liz confirms she’ll oversee the winter period but won’t fight the next GE. Gives the Tory Party time to organise a coronation in the spring.
Speaking of fantasies...
Maybe, but I can dream that there will be a will in government to take clear action to stabilise things. At the moment I have no such confidence.
It is not within the gift of the Government to stabilise things - the instability is being stoked by the BOE.
How long has the BoE been going? How long has this government been going? When did the instability start? Did Sunak and others warn such instability would start if the govt pressed ahead?
Is this a serious post? You're ignoring the substance of what has actually taken place and giving the BOE the benefit of the doubt because they've 'been going' a long time? Wow.
One organisations whole ethos is about maintaining stability and has been going a long time.
The other one has been going a couple of weeks and promised to completely shake things up, which they have done (or at least attempted to do).
I think the shakers up are far more likely to be causing the instability on that basis, yes.
That is another answer that is wholly disconnected from reality. It is up to you to look into what has actually happened. The BOE *has* launched a totally unprecedented attempt to dump £80bn of UK Government bonds on the market in the space of a single year, after 15 years of hoovering them up. That is the reality of the situation and that is how we judge their approach to stability, not the fact that they've got nice marble floors and have been going since the Normans.
Quantitative Tightening is a very sensible policy response for the Bank at a time when inflation is around 10%. Any government with any sense would have known this was coming and they had to reduce the deficit as a result.
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
Firstly, if the aim is stability, you introduce your policy slowly and carefully, and show your workings. Haven't you and your co-believers been bleating about that very thing in relation to Kwasi? How do you square wanting a strong, stable, soft approach with this sort of screeching handbrake turn?
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
Don't criticise me with what other people have said. I've been consistently worried about inflation for some time, and it's clear that is gone far beyond being only about imported inflation from a supply shock.
The Bank had trailed the move to QT for some time. Everyone knew it was coming. They didn't expect HMG to have such a reckless plan for unfunded tax cuts that they were too scared to let the OBR publish its forecasts.
The Bank had trailed the move to QT for some time, but no they didn't know it was coming. The ECB have similarly trailed it but they've still held off for now and the Bank could have too. Nothing had been announced yet.
OTOH HMG had specifically pre-announced the energy support, the Corporation Tax cut and the National Insurance cut and the markets hadn't moved on any of those.
So in the 24 hour window of the Bank and Kwasi's announcement what was actually "new"?
The only "new" things that hadn't been announced were £7bn (since reduced to £5bn) of tax cuts, and £80bn of QT.
The "new" tax cuts are utterly dwarfed and inconsequential next to the scale of the completely unprecedented QT that was announced.
A gentle reminder that the Energy Price cap does not place a hard cap on the total amount of money people pay in their bills.
People who use more energy will pay more than someone who uses less.
Sure but shouldn't the cap have run out at a certain unit level of use. If you're bloody minded enough you could just leave a gas hob on all winter in the knowledge it would cost the government more than you - now that's an extreme example but a stronger (market) price signal for heavy use might have been useful. I guess gainst that is complexity.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
They need a leadership appointment. Time to re-enter the smoke filled room.
The problem with changing leader is it doesn't dispel the new attack line of "who voted for this"? If anything, it will be stronger, as every leader further away from Johnson will look less legitimate in the eye of the electorate.
Even Sunak, who was Johnson's Chancellor, was stepping away from Johnson's policies in many ways, and we know they disagreed at times in gov when Sunak wanted to spend less.
The Tories need to write a new manifesto and go to the public, not keep playing pass the parcel.
In normal times I would agree with you. Changing a leader twice in a Parliament pretty much signifies you’ve given up any pretence of being serious about being in government.
However the Tories have a stark choice - they can stick with Liz and potentially face utter annihilation in 2024 (I honestly think it could make 1997 look like a flesh wound) or they can bring a steady hand in who can keep things going and keep them 200-230 or so seats. That is the stark reality of the choice they have now. Absent a miracle they are losing in 2024, and likely losing badly, so the choice now is between a noble defeat and wipeout.
I think they're buggered either way, and it's medicine now or medicine later. The only benefit of it being now is that some Tory MPs could argue that they made sure a GE happened and to vote for them, but not the party. If Tories deal with this as another crisis where they need to save the party at all costs, they lose. The only move that gets them any credit is doing the honourable thing. Imagine the next guy coming in, whoever it is, and how the press will respond: "Johnson lasted 3 years, Truss 3 months, 3 weeks for you, Prime Minister"? I can't tell if it's first as tragedy now as farce, or the visa versa.
They're going to be wiped out no matter what. Better to do the right thing and let some people who can govern try and get things sorted than cling on for dear life.
As an outsider, what is remarkable about Truss is either
1) She cannot see the problem 2) Does see the problem, but is out of her depth and is getting things wrong. 3) Can see the problem, has gone all in, and is deliberately sowing chaos.
Her actions since the budget have added to the problems, not made it better. She doesn't appear to have any political nouse whatsoever. If it is 1), 2) or 3) she must go.
But I think you could say that about the entire Conservative party. They gave us Truss, so if she was the answer, they obviously failed to understand the problem or couldn't see the problem. The idea that the solution can then also come from the same party is absurd.
Tories need to realise a horrible truth. When they say "the last thing we need is another leadership election", they are wrong. They cannot start to recover until they have another leadership election.
What's it going to achieve?
The Tory party is riven with divisions that have undermined three leaders in a row. Cameron I wouldn't count, he lost a vote with the public, but then Theresa May, Boris and now supposedly Truss the backbenchers haven't consistently supported any of them.
The problem once can be with the leader, twice is getting a bit silly, but three times now? Surely it has to be three strikes and you're out?
The Tories have just spent the summer having a leadership campaign and chosen their new leader, but some here were making mutterings about her from day one, before the mini Budget. This self-indulgence is ridiculous, having spent the summer choosing their leader they need to now get on with the job and deliver for the country.
If they can't, they don't deserve to be in Government, and can choose their next leader from Opposition where it doesn't affect us.
"This self-indulgence is ridiculous, having spent the summer choosing their leader they need to now get on with the job and deliver for the country"
But she can't. She doesn't have that in her. It's not her style. You need to change. Put someone with managerial competence in and an ability to comminucate and rebuild from there.
@nexta_tv Nikolai Petrunin, a State Duma deputy from the United Russia party, has died. In addition, the parliamentarian was deputy chairman of the Committee on Energy.
The man was 46 years old. Details about the incident are not reported.
A gentle reminder that the Energy Price cap does not place a hard cap on the total amount of money people pay in their bills.
People who use more energy will pay more than someone who uses less.
Yes. It also caps energy far above it's 'usual' cost, so there's still a strong incentive to reduce consumption. Speaking personally, I've put in cavity insulation, now on to ceilings, and my heating is at a far lower level YOY. I'm also using my log burner more, but hey ho.
Increased chatter that a Russian attack executed by four Russian Kamov Ka-52 in the South went of the cliff. All four of them reportedly have been shot down. Waiting for verification. #Ukraine #Zaporizhzhia #Kherson https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1580147289527836672
That's $60m right there.
Plus the pilots.
Plus $600m in lost sales. It has shown itself to be a very poor battlefield asset.
Comments
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1580172487312125955
Says overall government spending will rise (largely because of energy bill subsidies) but says "clearly there will be difficult decisions that need to be taken."
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1580167801129832450
Hand an electrician do this in my old flat - replaced the spots with IP65 LED - my wife was astonished that you didn’t need to bring the ceiling down.
What’s the context for that? Presumably not a basic guide to civvie R/T?
Edit: Oh, I get it now. That’s the Swiss QRA aircraft, and the numpty’s guide to R/T is for the guy being intercepted!
Those on here who claim the markets, the world, knew all the details of Energy Price Guarantee before and after the Blukip Budget on In The Red Friday, please take note of King’s comment. They didn’t. They still don’t.
(b) burning moorland (higher levels/wilder land)
(c) fertiliser and particular cultivars of grass, clover, etc. mnainly at lower levels
(d) bringing sheep down to lower levels and feeding on neeps grown on arable, which also maintains density of grazing higher up beyond what is sustainable in winter.
All artificial, in the strict meaning of the word. .
The attempt to blame the Bank is risible.
"Erm, now look, people were facing energy bills of £6,000"
He should resign in disgrace
Getting rid of the sheep in the Lakes would no doubt cause a ruckus because some people like the hills bare, but it wouldn't be a bad idea ecologically speaking.
Mr Asos (Povlsen) has taken over a number of Scottish estates and has put a number of conservation organisations to shame by taking extreme measures to cull the deer. This has resulted in widespread tree regeneration (and not just pines - the natural vegetation on the hills contains a lot of willow scrub). Wolves would do the job better, of course...
Mind, neep goes very well with sheep meat.
Up on the Geldie they are currently putting in 100,000 trees but the amount of fencing required is extraordinary.
Secondly, the inflation is, to a large degree, caused by an external supply issue, not by an overheating economy, and that demands different solutions.
Thirdly, it is arguable that recession, or even depression, is a far greater threat than inflation, which will in due course be eased by some sort of normalisation in the energy market. The BOE seems determined to swerve into a recession rather than take any steps to avoid it.
The Halloween omnishambles (because it can only be one) is going to make things even worse.
Liz fundamentally isn’t cut out for it.
I still have absolutely no idea why some MPs backed her. I had usually thought some ministers like James Cleverley were broadly sensible but his lack of judgement has been risible. Same goes for some of the red wall MPs like Dehenna Davison. No idea what they were thinking
THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1580169267445497859/photo/1
Of course you shouldn’t like Truss energy price guarantee Lucky, because if you like everything else she is saying this thing she got from Labour is the very opposite idealism from all that. That’s what makes PMQs today particularly bonkers.
The governments price freeze is wrong on two important counts, freezing energy bills plan detaches price signal mechanism from the purchase of energy, in effect of locking in energy demand at its current level - Zero incentive to bring energy consumption down. And secondly the thru life costs of freezing energy bills is not known, we can’t know the costs of energy a year from now, but cost of borrowing is variable too, but we know it’s around £100B for this winter alone, this government wants it right up to the next election so likely an unsustainable £200B+ depending how quickly energy comes down, but variable energy price cap doesn’t lock you into anything like that massive amount of borrowing now and tax and higher bills in future to pay off that scale of borrowing. Not using many words as me this article still nails it.
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/economics/17487-switch-to-variable-energy-price-cap-could-solve-the-cost-of-living-crisis-and-save-the-treasury-billions-says-niesr
https://www.niesr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/A-Variable-Energy-Price-Cap.pdf
The who point is those who need help, isn’t it?
JRF analysis those most in need still have a gap of about £800 from a energy cap designed to save them
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/cost-of-living/millions-face-800-winter-energy-25064972
Christians against poverty are asking for these further measures.
financial support for low income households which takes into account actual energy bills due to family size and need, including for those not in receipt of means-tested benefits.
Increase Local Housing Allowance and uprate benefits ahead Winter 2023 to reflect the inflation rate faced by low income households across the essentials they need.
A winter ban on energy companies forcibly switching customers to prepayment meters, including smart prepay, and a moratorium on court action to collect energy debts.
For the right.
Free market think tanks have said that the government’s plan to freeze energy bills will be ineffective and does not sufficiently target those most in need of support.
https://www.cityam.com/free-market-think-tanks-criticise-trusss-energy-price-freeze/
For the left.
what Truss and Starmer have cooked up between themselves here and sold as a plan to help households with soaring energy costs, is very careful at the same time to be compensating shareholders for the profits they’d “lose” by keeping prices down.
VPYAW: "High Cookie, remember me?"
Me, trying not to look too taken aback, surreptitiously eyeing progress of lift: "Hi, yes, how are you? What are you up to at the moment?"
VPYAW: "Oh, I'm on PMR* now"
Lift: Ping!
Me, smiling pleasantly: "Oh, jolly good - nice to see you anyway!"
Exits lift, baffled, leaving VPYAW to proceed to her floor.
Genuinely no idea who it was nor whether there was any other way I should have navigated the encounter.
*It was some three letter acronym, anyway. It meant absolutely nothing to me, whatever it was, and remembering it was the least of my worries.
I prayed the polls would be forgiving...
The Bank had trailed the move to QT for some time. Everyone knew it was coming. They didn't expect HMG to have such a reckless plan for unfunded tax cuts that they were too scared to let the OBR publish its forecasts.
It's not daft - though it might take time to sort out.
And should certainly be considered as an alternative to Truss's two year fix.
Can you outline in simple and clear terms what your idea is, then I'd be able to see if I agree or not.
45p and bankers bonuses was appalling politics. People made up their minds on that alone. Now she doesn’t have a route back.
I last passed the bothy about 3 years ago (it was being repaired at the time) but even then the difference was incredible.
We've clearly passed the low point of upland vegetation but there is a lot more that could be done. Not a fan of fencing though. Had to climb a few too many of the 12ft variety...
Change your name and stowaway on a tramp steamer to Singapore.
What would Leon have done?
Project Management Review ... ?
Came across a new one on Beinn a' Chaorainn recently.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1580158817027108864
Time to re-enter the smoke filled room.
… that same PM taking them into a GE campaign is a far, far worse prospect.
Was annoyed with myself however as decided to have the flu jab for the first time and realised afterwards that I can’t properly compare the after effects of the different jabs as won’t know if any bad afters are down to the flu or covid jab. Hoping they cancel each other out against all medical science experience.
Even Sunak, who was Johnson's Chancellor, was stepping away from Johnson's policies in many ways, and we know they disagreed at times in gov when Sunak wanted to spend less.
The Tories need to write a new manifesto and go to the public, not keep playing pass the parcel.
However the Tories have a stark choice - they can stick with Liz and potentially face utter annihilation in 2024 (I honestly think it could make 1997 look like a flesh wound) or they can bring a steady hand in who can keep things going and keep them 200-230 or so seats. That is the stark reality of the choice they have now. Absent a miracle they are losing in 2024, and likely losing badly, so the choice now is between a noble defeat and wipeout.
New ads attack Mehmet Oz for alleged animal abuse
“Puppy killer Mehmet Oz should be under investigation for animal abuse—not running for U.S. Senate,” Senate Majority PAC spokesperson Veronica Yoo said in a statement.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/12/pennsylvania-ads-attack-mehmet-oz-alleged-animal-abuse-00061389
You can get 1.56 on Fetterman on Betfair Exchange, if you agree.
Seems a decent bet to me, as it's not a long wait for the result.
However, I am clear about where the overall culpability lies. It is the Bank that must be persuaded to change its overall course - the Government is trying to act countercyclically in the face of a dangerous recession. The Bank is seeking to worsen it.
They're going to be wiped out no matter what. Better to do the right thing and let some people who can govern try and get things sorted than cling on for dear life.
Your wife could have been in the lift with you.
The Tory party is riven with divisions that have undermined three leaders in a row. Cameron I wouldn't count, he lost a vote with the public, but then Theresa May, Boris and now supposedly Truss the backbenchers haven't consistently supported any of them.
The problem once can be with the leader, twice is getting a bit silly, but three times now? Surely it has to be three strikes and you're out?
The Tories have just spent the summer having a leadership campaign and chosen their new leader, but some here were making mutterings about her from day one, before the mini Budget. This self-indulgence is ridiculous, having spent the summer choosing their leader they need to now get on with the job and deliver for the country.
If they can't, they don't deserve to be in Government, and can choose their next leader from Opposition where it doesn't affect us.
People who use more energy will pay more than someone who uses less.
1) She cannot see the problem
2) Does see the problem, but is out of her depth and is getting things wrong.
3) Can see the problem, has gone all in, and is deliberately sowing chaos.
Her actions since the budget have added to the problems, not made it better. She doesn't appear to have any political nouse whatsoever. If it is 1), 2) or 3) she must go.
OTOH HMG had specifically pre-announced the energy support, the Corporation Tax cut and the National Insurance cut and the markets hadn't moved on any of those.
So in the 24 hour window of the Bank and Kwasi's announcement what was actually "new"?
The only "new" things that hadn't been announced were £7bn (since reduced to £5bn) of tax cuts, and £80bn of QT.
The "new" tax cuts are utterly dwarfed and inconsequential next to the scale of the completely unprecedented QT that was announced.
I guess gainst that is complexity.
But she can't. She doesn't have that in her. It's not her style. You need to change. Put someone with managerial competence in and an ability to comminucate and rebuild from there.
Nikolai Petrunin, a State Duma deputy from the United Russia party, has died. In addition, the parliamentarian was deputy chairman of the Committee on Energy.
The man was 46 years old. Details about the incident are not reported.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1580119531238076417
Plus the pilots.
Plus $600m in lost sales. It has shown itself to be a very poor battlefield asset.