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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
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.
They didn't choose Truss though, they chose Sunak. Almost. It was the party in the country who chose the present incumbent and it is the party in the country who will have to go door-to-door persuading people to vote for a party led by her!
Wild animals can also change a landscape "artificially". There is a fascinating example here in Washington state. Mountain goats are native to the Cascade mountains, but not to the Olympics. About a century ago, they were introduced by hunters -- and in recent years the governments have been removing them: "This effort is a partnership between the National Park Service (NPS), the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), and the USDA Forest Service (USFS) to re-establish and assist in connecting depleted populations of mountain goats in the Washington Cascades while also removing non-native goats from the Olympic Mountains. Mountain goats were introduced to the Olympic Mountains in the 1920s." source: https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/mountain-goat-capture-and-translocation.htm
(There's a short video at the site showing how helicopters are being used to move them.)
Now, if the goats had gotten to the Olympics on their own, say 200 years ago, I doubt anyone would object to them being there, now. And that would have been possible, though they would have to traverse many miles of lowlands to get from the Cascades to the Olympics.
I put "artificially" in quotes, because I understand that humans are a part of nature, and just as entitled to change landscapes, as, for example, ants, termites, beavers, and elephants.
@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.
@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.
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?
Wallace is associated with one of the few popular bits of the Government's portfolio - assisting Ukraine.
He might just set the right tone with the economy too. He's painted in a corner, but the public might be prepared to acknowledge he was given a hospital pass and if he didn't fuck it up any worse, the electors might be a bit more forgiving.
In that they might not vote Tory, but not vote Labour either.
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
I am assuming that a Conservative can still command a majority in the HoC, which is the constitutional requirement for PM. Surely they can find someone who can do that and can govern.
If there is no way of 'replacing the leader' then the tories need to call a general election whilst they still have some hope. Otherwise they are running a serious risk that the party is obliterated if they try and limp on until 2024.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
The Party shouldn't. The MPs should. They gave the electors a choice of Rishi "not one of us" Sunak* and not Rishi.
Clusterfuck.
*not in the sense of his race, but his tax raising. The irony being Truss will end up having to raise taxes AND cutting services.
My hunch is we still have two years to wait to an election. We would all be better off it was not toxic Truss in charge for that time. So for the country's sake I hope the Tories wake up and get on with it soon.
@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.
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.
Exactly. At present there is a strong feeling in the country that she is incompetent and cannot actually do the job.
Brown, Major and May are seen as poor/bad PMs, but they were serious politicians who could occupy and carry out the role. Even Boris managed to portray some level of authority in the position.
I do think this is rather tragic and on human level I do have sympathy for Liz Truss, but she just does not seem up to the job. She at once wants to be decisive but also vacillates. She cannot create or inspire confidence. She cannot get through an interview without going off message. She cannot say she has confidence in her own chancellor. She doesn’t know what her governments policy is on no fault evictions, on tax cuts, on spending cuts, on windfall taxes. She says she believes in sound money but isn’t giving us sound money. She seems uncertain and unsteady when questioned about government policy. She does not have a grasp of any sort of detail. She cannot connect with the public. Today at PMQs she gave off an air of panic.
She just is not a Prime Minister. She should never have been made Prime Minister. It is unfortunate and again I feel for her, but the sooner she and her Party realise that and try and right the wrong the sooner they can try and right the ship. The country does not want and cannot afford two years of Liz Truss.
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
The Party shouldn't. The MPs should. They gave the electors a choice of Rishi "not one of us" Sunak* and not Rishi.
Clusterfuck.
*not in the sense of his race, but his tax raising. The irony being Truss will end up having to raise taxes AND cutting services.
MPs are the party, as are the members. MPs decided Sunak and Truss should be the last two, either because there were enough people who liked Truss or Sunak backers thought Truss would be easier to beat - whichever it was suggests great ineptitude. It just doesn't seem reasonable to be like "you caused this mess, and you have to clean it up by us allowing you to cause another mess if you really want"
@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.
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.
If you have my experience the flu shot you won't notice but the bivalent Moderna kicks like a mule...
@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.
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.
Exactly. At present there is a strong feeling in the country that she is incompetent and cannot actually do the job.
Brown, Major and May are seen as poor/bad PMs, but they were serious politicians who could occupy and carry out the role. Even Boris managed to portray some level of authority in the position.
I do think this is rather tragic and on human level I do have sympathy for Liz Truss, but she just does not seem up to the job. She at once wants to be decisive but also vacillates. She cannot create or inspire confidence. She cannot get through an interview without going off message. She cannot say she has confidence in her own chancellor. She doesn’t know what her governments policy is on no fault evictions, on tax cuts, on spending cuts, on windfall taxes. She says she believes in sound money but isn’t giving us sound money. She seems uncertain and unsteady when questioned about government policy. She does not have a grasp of any sort of detail. She cannot connect with the public. Today at PMQs she gave off an air of panic.
She just is not a Prime Minister. She should never have been made Prime Minister. It is unfortunate and again I feel for her, but the sooner she and her Party realise that and try and right the wrong the sooner they can try and right the ship. The country does not want and cannot afford two years of Liz Truss.
But we didn't just magically get here. The people who make up the Conservative party, including the MPs, got us here. It is as much their fault as hers. So why should we trust them to sort it out? It is obvious the public doesn't trust them, and the longer this goes on, the more the public will feel ignored. Grasp the nettle firmly, and all that.
My hunch is we still have two years to wait to an election. We would all be better off it was not toxic Truss in charge for that time. So for the country's sake I hope the Tories wake up and get on with it soon.
Gosh, that's very insightful - a hunch that the Government won't call an early GE when it's polling at historically low levels and has two years left of its term. I don't suppose you could also provide the lottery numbers or the Derby winner whilst you seem to be channeling the divine could you?
I do think this is rather tragic and on human level I do have sympathy for Liz Truss, but she just does not seem up to the job. She at once wants to be decisive but also vacillates. She cannot create or inspire confidence. She cannot get through an interview without going off message. She cannot say she has confidence in her own chancellor. She doesn’t know what her governments policy is on no fault evictions, on tax cuts, on spending cuts, on windfall taxes. She says she believes in sound money but isn’t giving us sound money. She seems uncertain and unsteady when questioned about government policy. She does not have a grasp of any sort of detail. She cannot connect with the public. Today at PMQs she gave off an air of panic.
She just is not a Prime Minister. She should never have been made Prime Minister. It is unfortunate and again I feel for her, but the sooner she and her Party realise that and try and right the wrong the sooner they can try and right the ship. The country does not want and cannot afford two years of Liz Truss.
There does come a point when it is an act of mercy to depose her, for her own health and wellbeing
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
The initial reaction is against the 'insult' i.e. the carrier of the vaccine. My body reacts violently to mRNA vaccines (36 hours of fever), others get a sore arm or nothing. Sadly there is no correlation with violence of initial response to strength/health of immune system.
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
I am assuming that a Conservative can still command a majority in the HoC, which is the constitutional requirement for PM. Surely they can find someone who can do that and can govern.
If not, yes there should be an election.
I mean, has there been anything this gov has proposed that all the cabinet have agreed on, let alone we know can get through the Commons? The minibudget in its original form certainly couldn't.
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
The Party shouldn't. The MPs should. They gave the electors a choice of Rishi "not one of us" Sunak* and not Rishi.
Clusterfuck.
*not in the sense of his race, but his tax raising. The irony being Truss will end up having to raise taxes AND cutting services.
The Tory party membership managed to rid us of an economy-wrecker in the shape of Sunak - sadly they were not given a chance to elect the MPC as well, or they would have probably produced a similarly sound result.
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.
Exactly. At present there is a strong feeling in the country that she is incompetent and cannot actually do the job.
Brown, Major and May are seen as poor/bad PMs, but they were serious politicians who could occupy and carry out the role. Even Boris managed to portray some level of authority in the position.
I do think this is rather tragic and on human level I do have sympathy for Liz Truss, but she just does not seem up to the job. She at once wants to be decisive but also vacillates. She cannot create or inspire confidence. She cannot get through an interview without going off message. She cannot say she has confidence in her own chancellor. She doesn’t know what her governments policy is on no fault evictions, on tax cuts, on spending cuts, on windfall taxes. She says she believes in sound money but isn’t giving us sound money. She seems uncertain and unsteady when questioned about government policy. She does not have a grasp of any sort of detail. She cannot connect with the public. Today at PMQs she gave off an air of panic.
She just is not a Prime Minister. She should never have been made Prime Minister. It is unfortunate and again I feel for her, but the sooner she and her Party realise that and try and right the wrong the sooner they can try and right the ship. The country does not want and cannot afford two years of Liz Truss.
This 100% she's never looked in any way a serious politician with any weight or gravitas. Utterly unsuited for the role.
My hunch is we still have two years to wait to an election. We would all be better off it was not toxic Truss in charge for that time. So for the country's sake I hope the Tories wake up and get on with it soon.
Gosh, that's very insightful - a hunch that the Government won't call an early GE when it's polling at historically low levels and has two years left of its term. I don't suppose you could also provide the lottery numbers or the Derby winner whilst you seem to be channeling the divine could you?
Owned by the world's last Liz Truss supporter. How degrading is that!
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
The Party shouldn't. The MPs should. They gave the electors a choice of Rishi "not one of us" Sunak* and not Rishi.
Clusterfuck.
*not in the sense of his race, but his tax raising. The irony being Truss will end up having to raise taxes AND cutting services.
MPs are the party, as are the members. MPs decided Sunak and Truss should be the last two, either because there were enough people who liked Truss or Sunak backers thought Truss would be easier to beat - whichever it was suggests great ineptitude. It just doesn't seem reasonable to be like "you caused this mess, and you have to clean it up by us allowing you to cause another mess if you really want"
So the mess that is Truss stays in place until 2024?
Today's Prime Minister's Questions taught us two things. 1. Starmer has still got a long way to go before he is the one putting Liz Truss on the ropes. 2. Truss has got a long way to go before she isn't putting herself on the ropes instead.
Today's Prime Minister's Questions taught us two things. 1. Starmer has still got a long way to go before he is the one putting Liz Truss on the ropes. 2. Truss has got a long way to go before she isn't putting herself on the ropes instead.
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
The Party shouldn't. The MPs should. They gave the electors a choice of Rishi "not one of us" Sunak* and not Rishi.
Clusterfuck.
*not in the sense of his race, but his tax raising. The irony being Truss will end up having to raise taxes AND cutting services.
MPs are the party, as are the members. MPs decided Sunak and Truss should be the last two, either because there were enough people who liked Truss or Sunak backers thought Truss would be easier to beat - whichever it was suggests great ineptitude. It just doesn't seem reasonable to be like "you caused this mess, and you have to clean it up by us allowing you to cause another mess if you really want"
So the mess that is Truss stays in place until 2024?
Bold.....
No - the right thing for Tory MPs to do is admit their party isn't able to govern and go to the public.
I do think this is rather tragic and on human level I do have sympathy for Liz Truss, but she just does not seem up to the job. She at once wants to be decisive but also vacillates. She cannot create or inspire confidence. She cannot get through an interview without going off message. She cannot say she has confidence in her own chancellor. She doesn’t know what her governments policy is on no fault evictions, on tax cuts, on spending cuts, on windfall taxes. She says she believes in sound money but isn’t giving us sound money. She seems uncertain and unsteady when questioned about government policy. She does not have a grasp of any sort of detail. She cannot connect with the public. Today at PMQs she gave off an air of panic.
She just is not a Prime Minister. She should never have been made Prime Minister. It is unfortunate and again I feel for her, but the sooner she and her Party realise that and try and right the wrong the sooner they can try and right the ship. The country does not want and cannot afford two years of Liz Truss.
There does come a point when it is an act of mercy to depose her, for her own health and wellbeing
She looks Ok to me; how's your health and wellbeing? Do you tend to wear down the treadmill much, or just the copy/paste buttons?
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
The Party shouldn't. The MPs should. They gave the electors a choice of Rishi "not one of us" Sunak* and not Rishi.
Clusterfuck.
*not in the sense of his race, but his tax raising. The irony being Truss will end up having to raise taxes AND cutting services.
The Tory party membership managed to rid us of an economy-wrecker in the shape of Sunak - sadly they were not given a chance to elect the MPC as well, or they would have probably produced a similarly sound result.
How much longer before Truss has to implement Sunak's tax rises?
Mood is awful. Despite nonsense from Truss et al, there's growing realisation full fiscal U-turn is needed. Many Tory MPs want to make @KwasiKwarteng scapegoat in hope it lets @trussliz reset. Others think only way to win back markets & prevent Starmer landslide is her head 1/
For those of us that cut our teeth through Greek debt crisis, it was obvious more market pressure was likely, would be relentless & that this is not a fight Truss & Kwarteng could ever hope to win. See no way back for Govt now given economic and political mess they've created 2/2
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.
The problem for them is which Tory MPs will be brave enough to tell the membership they were wrong.
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
The Party shouldn't. The MPs should. They gave the electors a choice of Rishi "not one of us" Sunak* and not Rishi.
Clusterfuck.
*not in the sense of his race, but his tax raising. The irony being Truss will end up having to raise taxes AND cutting services.
MPs are the party, as are the members. MPs decided Sunak and Truss should be the last two, either because there were enough people who liked Truss or Sunak backers thought Truss would be easier to beat - whichever it was suggests great ineptitude. It just doesn't seem reasonable to be like "you caused this mess, and you have to clean it up by us allowing you to cause another mess if you really want"
So the mess that is Truss stays in place until 2024?
Bold.....
No - the right thing for Tory MPs to do is admit their party isn't able to govern and go to the public.
Their current leader can't govern.
Doesn't mean sweeping out the dross of this PM, Chancellor and Cabinet can't come up with a means to steady the ship of state heading currently heading towards the rocks under Cap'n Liz
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.
The problem for them is which Tory MPs will be brave enough to tell the membership they were wrong.
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.
Exactly. At present there is a strong feeling in the country that she is incompetent and cannot actually do the job.
Brown, Major and May are seen as poor/bad PMs, but they were serious politicians who could occupy and carry out the role. Even Boris managed to portray some level of authority in the position.
I do think this is rather tragic and on human level I do have sympathy for Liz Truss, but she just does not seem up to the job. She at once wants to be decisive but also vacillates. She cannot create or inspire confidence. She cannot get through an interview without going off message. She cannot say she has confidence in her own chancellor. She doesn’t know what her governments policy is on no fault evictions, on tax cuts, on spending cuts, on windfall taxes. She says she believes in sound money but isn’t giving us sound money. She seems uncertain and unsteady when questioned about government policy. She does not have a grasp of any sort of detail. She cannot connect with the public. Today at PMQs she gave off an air of panic.
She just is not a Prime Minister. She should never have been made Prime Minister. It is unfortunate and again I feel for her, but the sooner she and her Party realise that and try and right the wrong the sooner they can try and right the ship. The country does not want and cannot afford two years of Liz Truss.
Unfortunately, half the Tory party think that £80bn spaffed up the wall each month is cheap at twice the price if it helps them "own the libs, remainers and wokerati".
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
The Party shouldn't. The MPs should. They gave the electors a choice of Rishi "not one of us" Sunak* and not Rishi.
Clusterfuck.
*not in the sense of his race, but his tax raising. The irony being Truss will end up having to raise taxes AND cutting services.
MPs are the party, as are the members. MPs decided Sunak and Truss should be the last two, either because there were enough people who liked Truss or Sunak backers thought Truss would be easier to beat - whichever it was suggests great ineptitude. It just doesn't seem reasonable to be like "you caused this mess, and you have to clean it up by us allowing you to cause another mess if you really want"
So the mess that is Truss stays in place until 2024?
Bold.....
No - the right thing for Tory MPs to do is admit their party isn't able to govern and go to the public.
Their current leader can't govern.
Doesn't mean sweeping out the dross of this PM, Chancellor and Cabinet can't come up with a means to steady the ship of state heading currently heading towards the rocks under Cap'n Liz
The party has been unable to govern for a while - there was a brief armistice under Johnson due to his majority and covid, but really the Conservative party is at odds with itself. This is just part of that saga. If the party spat out Truss as a leader, it is clear the party can't be trusted to find her replacement - the public should. When a political party veers so far away from it's supposed mandate it had won, it is the only right thing to do.
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.
The problem for them is which Tory MPs will be brave enough to tell the membership they were wrong.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
The elected government have given the Bank of England a remit to target inflation at 2%. It's currently 9.9%. What else are the Bank going to do but QT and increase interest rates?
If HMG want to pursue an expansionary and inflationary policy at a time when inflation is 9.9%, then they need to change the remit for the Bank.
As it happens I don't agree with the energy support. I think it's absurd that people like me, who can afford high energy prices, are being massively subsidised, and thereby encouraged to use more energy. We should be doing much more to encourage reductions in consumption and increases in supply. Generally subsidies are almost always a very bad idea. Help should have been targeted to those who were genuinely facing a choice between freezing or starving.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
The government (Johnson anyway) selected Bailey as governor. The Bank’s mandate is set by the government. If they don’t agree with the mandate it is within the government power to change it
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.
But why should the Tory party keep having the right to do that when they keep fucking it up. They won an election in completely different situation on a completely different platform and no one really vying for the top job seems willing to go back to that platform. So go to the public. The Conservative Party decided Truss should be PM, not the public. So the idea that the Conservative Party know a popular solution to Truss is bonkers.
The Party shouldn't. The MPs should. They gave the electors a choice of Rishi "not one of us" Sunak* and not Rishi.
Clusterfuck.
*not in the sense of his race, but his tax raising. The irony being Truss will end up having to raise taxes AND cutting services.
The Tory party membership managed to rid us of an economy-wrecker in the shape of Sunak - sadly they were not given a chance to elect the MPC as well, or they would have probably produced a similarly sound result.
How much longer before Truss has to implement Sunak's tax rises?
(I'm thinking weeks at most.)
The members really have bought a pig in a poke.
The members were given a choice, due largely to manipulation from Sunak's own team of grotesques, between him, and a choice they patronisingly (and wrongly as it turned out) regarded as even less attractive to the selectorate than him.
That sort of stupid gaming of voters is a tired, too-clever-by-half tactic that has been proven time and time again not to work (see Cameron's 'deal' vs. leaving). Blaming that on the members and not the MPs is about as stupid as blaming £2bn pounds of tax cut for market jitters whilst maintaining a trappist silence about an £80bn bond sell off. The fact that remainers and Labour supporters are dishonest or daft enough to do this is unsurprising; the fact that Tory supporters are following them is a bit more disappointing.
Today's Prime Minister's Questions taught us two things. 1. Starmer has still got a long way to go before he is the one putting Liz Truss on the ropes. 2. Truss has got a long way to go before she isn't putting herself on the ropes instead.
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?
Wallace is associated with one of the few popular bits of the Government's portfolio - assisting Ukraine.
He might just set the right tone with the economy too. He's painted in a corner, but the public might be prepared to acknowledge he was given a hospital pass and if he didn't fuck it up any worse, the electors might be a bit more forgiving.
In that they might not vote Tory, but not vote Labour either.
Put Wallace in charge and the Tories can prevent Labour from getting a majority, forcing Starmer to rely on the Lib Dems or (worse) the SNP. The Tories would then be in a good shout of getting back in five years or less. Persist with Truss and the only question will be how large the Labour landslide is going to be.
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.
The problem for them is which Tory MPs will be brave enough to tell the membership they were wrong.
Aaron Bell ?
Because he was so steadfast during the leadership contest itself?
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
The government (Johnson anyway) selected Bailey as governor. The Bank’s mandate is set by the government. If they don’t agree with the mandate it is within the government power to change it
Yes, and let's hope for all our sakes (certainly those of us who live in the UK) that they do.
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?
Wallace is associated with one of the few popular bits of the Government's portfolio - assisting Ukraine.
He might just set the right tone with the economy too. He's painted in a corner, but the public might be prepared to acknowledge he was given a hospital pass and if he didn't fuck it up any worse, the electors might be a bit more forgiving.
In that they might not vote Tory, but not vote Labour either.
Put Wallace in charge and the Tories can prevent Labour from getting a majority, forcing Starmer to rely on the Lib Dems or (worse) the SNP. The Tories would then be in a good shout of getting back in five years or less. Persist with Truss and the only question will be how large the Labour landslide is going to be.
Why should the survival of the Tory party be more important than the reasonable governance of our country. All people are saying here is how the Conservatives need to get shift of Truss to save the party, and a safe pair of hands for the party, but it shouldn't be about the party. If it dies, it dies. Do the right thing by the public, for once.
Today's Prime Minister's Questions taught us two things. 1. Starmer has still got a long way to go before he is the one putting Liz Truss on the ropes. 2. Truss has got a long way to go before she isn't putting herself on the ropes instead.
Wishful thinking on behalf of the Specie. Getting Truss to say on the record that she ruled out spending cuts was a win for Starmer.
Cuts =/= real terms cuts although I suspect that’s how Labour will try to spin it (I didn’t see PMQ so this is a generic comment)
Yep, she thinks she is so smart. "Aaaaahhhh! I said I wouldn't cut and I haven't, we're increasing in line with wages!!!"
Problem is that precisely nobody who isn't a Tory MP/parrot will think that isn't a cut with inflation running at double that. In marking that argument she (a) looks like a berk, (b) gets to sneer at people and (c) will have to u-turn anyway because her own MPs and even cabinet members have said it won't wash.
GB News is facing a second investigation by the media regulator Ofcom over its coverage of the coronavirus vaccine.
The latest investigation relates to an interview with the author Naomi Wolf in which she claimed women were being harmed by Covid-19 vaccines as part of an effort to “to destroy British civil society”.
Ofcom said it would investigate whether the programme broke “rules designed to protect viewers from harmful material” after receiving more than 400 complaints from members of the public.
In the interview, which was originally broadcast on 4 October, Wolf also compared doctors’ support for the vaccine rollout to the behaviour of the medical profession in Nazi Germany and described herself as the “last remaining independent journalist” willing to question this.
Just caught up with PMQs. This cannot be allowed to continue – Truss is just hopelessly out of her depth. I felt very sorry for her today. It's just cruel.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
The government (Johnson anyway) selected Bailey as governor. The Bank’s mandate is set by the government. If they don’t agree with the mandate it is within the government power to change it
Aye, this is where "independence of the Bank of England" and political accountability clash.
QT has been discussed for a while, but nobody besides the Fed (who don't really compare at all for obvious reasons) has dared do it before until the Bank started it. The ECB have skirted the issue until now.
You lot may want to pretend this is all Kwasi's fault and the Bank's actions have nothing to do with the turmoil, but I would imagine that other Central Banks aren't as naive as that. I expect the chance of the ECB doing their own equivalent of £80bn of QT in the foreseeable future is about as remote as the other ECB announcing Geoffrey Boycott is returning to play and is going to be the T20 Captain going forwards.
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.
The problem for them is which Tory MPs will be brave enough to tell the membership they were wrong.
Basically, they all have to. Apologise for the choice they gave the members and say it is up to them to fix that mess.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
It's not that easy to interpret the phrase "the elected Government" at the best of times in our weird constitution and I'm not sure anyone's going to argue these are the best of times.
But it I was to have a go, I'd suggest that this Government is only "elected" within the most minimal interpretation of the definition, which is that it currently commands the confidence of the House, made up of members who were elected. Unfortunately the majority of MPs it relies upon were elected on the basis of a wholly different prospectus to the one that Truss is trying to implement. So to some extent you could argue that the Johnson administration was an "elected Government" (implementing the will of the people maybe)... but this one really isn't. Fair enough, that's how things work, and it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate government.
However, comparing it to the Bank and arguing it's unelected gets harder. The Bank's mandate is set by the Government. The Government influences who is appointed to implement that mandate. As far as I know, the Government has not gone against any manifesto commitments in exercising those powers. So, given the indirect ways in which the UK Government and its institutions are accountable to the electorate... doesn't that mean that the Bank is actually a little bit more "elected" right now?
Everton football club’s auditor is considering walking away from its role signing off the club’s accounts, raising questions over its financing and ownership, according to sources.
The Guardian understands that the accounting firm BDO has told Everton it will not be conducting the work, a decision which sources said was related to Farhad Moshiri’s ownership of the Premier League team. The firm had audited the club’s financial accounts for the previous two years, but the Merseyside club is now believed to be searching for a replacement.
GB News is facing a second investigation by the media regulator Ofcom over its coverage of the coronavirus vaccine.
The latest investigation relates to an interview with the author Naomi Wolf in which she claimed women were being harmed by Covid-19 vaccines as part of an effort to “to destroy British civil society”.
Ofcom said it would investigate whether the programme broke “rules designed to protect viewers from harmful material” after receiving more than 400 complaints from members of the public.
In the interview, which was originally broadcast on 4 October, Wolf also compared doctors’ support for the vaccine rollout to the behaviour of the medical profession in Nazi Germany and described herself as the “last remaining independent journalist” willing to question this.
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.
That might just be possible if I enlarge the holes first although there are two lights per transformer which make it a bit awkward. Might be worth a go. It depends exactly how the crappy electrician put the mains wire in when the room was built and how much slack he left.
Technically I should probably have someone 'qualified' do this but the aforementioned electrician convinced me long ago that I will probably do a better job. BS7671 isn't that hard to read.
UK 30 year yields - have now gone above the post mini budget high, which triggered the Bank’s emergency action - at 5.095% looks to me like the highest level since August 1998, since the creation of Bank independence and the golden fiscal rules under Blair/Brown https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1580205138412609536/photo/1
Technically I should probably have someone 'qualified' do this but the aforementioned electrician convinced me long ago that I will probably do a better job. BS7671 isn't that hard to read.
IIRC Part P allows you to replace existing fittings
UK 30 year yields - have now gone above the post mini budget high, which triggered the Bank’s emergency action - at 5.095% looks to me like the highest level since August 1998, since the creation of Bank independence and the golden fiscal rules under Blair/Brown https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1580205138412609536/photo/1
They're going to have to do something. Comedic twattery at PMQs really isn't what was needed. To make it worse KT think it was marvellous. She put Keef on the spot about not backing her energy cap, the whips lined up lovely questions about how the vote in favour of sea turds actually wasn't actually, and she made that brilliant point about being genuinely unclear about Labour stupidity TWICE.
Just caught up with PMQs. This cannot be allowed to continue – Truss is just hopelessly out of her depth. I felt very sorry for her today. It's just cruel.
You all have very short memories. Johnson at PMQs was worse than Truss. Obfuscation, lies and slander. Truss at least attempted to avoid those three pitfalls. She was distinctly average, but no worse than Starmer, who after a torrid fortnight couldn't land a blow.
Just caught up with PMQs. This cannot be allowed to continue – Truss is just hopelessly out of her depth. I felt very sorry for her today. It's just cruel.
You all have very short memories. Johnson at PMQs was worse than Truss. Obfuscation, lies and slander. Truss at least attempted to avoid those three pitfalls. She was distincly average, but no worse than Starmer, who after a torrid fortnight couldn't land a blow.
Why did he need to land a blow? She kept punching herself in the head and he just stood there laughing.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
It's not that easy to interpret the phrase "the elected Government" at the best of times in our weird constitution and I'm not sure anyone's going to argue these are the best of times.
But it I was to have a go, I'd suggest that this Government is only "elected" within the most minimal interpretation of the definition, which is that it currently commands the confidence of the House, made up of members who were elected. Unfortunately the majority of MPs it relies upon were elected on the basis of a wholly different prospectus to the one that Truss is trying to implement. So to some extent you could argue that the Johnson administration was an "elected Government" (implementing the will of the people maybe)... but this one really isn't. Fair enough, that's how things work, and it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate government.
However, comparing it to the Bank and arguing it's unelected gets harder. The Bank's mandate is set by the Government. The Government influences who is appointed to implement that mandate. As far as I know, the Government has not gone against any manifesto commitments in exercising those powers. So, given the indirect ways in which the UK Government and its institutions are accountable to the electorate... doesn't that mean that the Bank is actually a little bit more "elected" right now?
Just caught up with PMQs. This cannot be allowed to continue – Truss is just hopelessly out of her depth. I felt very sorry for her today. It's just cruel.
You all have very short memories. Johnson at PMQs was worse than Truss. Obfuscation, lies and slander. Truss at least attempted to avoid those three pitfalls. She was distincly average, but no worse than Starmer, who after a torrid fortnight couldn't land a blow.
You must have been watching a different PMQs to me. Starmer was calm and collected and just let her get on with being utterly and demonstrably inept.
Just caught up with PMQs. This cannot be allowed to continue – Truss is just hopelessly out of her depth. I felt very sorry for her today. It's just cruel.
You all have very short memories. Johnson at PMQs was worse than Truss. Obfuscation, lies and slander. Truss at least attempted to avoid those three pitfalls. She was distincly average, but no worse than Starmer, who after a torrid fortnight couldn't land a blow.
You must have been watching a different PMQs to me. Starmer was calm and collected and just let her get on with being utterly and demonstrably inept.
I listened on 5 Live and she appeared calm and confident. Starmer was tongue-tied. Either way, I wouldn't vote for her.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
The elected government have given the Bank of England a remit to target inflation at 2%. It's currently 9.9%. What else are the Bank going to do but QT and increase interest rates?
If HMG want to pursue an expansionary and inflationary policy at a time when inflation is 9.9%, then they need to change the remit for the Bank.
As it happens I don't agree with the energy support. I think it's absurd that people like me, who can afford high energy prices, are being massively subsidised, and thereby encouraged to use more energy. We should be doing much more to encourage reductions in consumption and increases in supply. Generally subsidies are almost always a very bad idea. Help should have been targeted to those who were genuinely facing a choice between freezing or starving.
Opposing energy support unless the supportee is freezing or starving (though I'll permit you a little hyperbole) is 'brave', especially given that our own policy of sanctions on Russia is a large contributing factor in the energy price rises. More to the point, no major party has suggested anything other than massive expenditure on energy support.
Just caught up with PMQs. This cannot be allowed to continue – Truss is just hopelessly out of her depth. I felt very sorry for her today. It's just cruel.
You all have very short memories. Johnson at PMQs was worse than Truss. Obfuscation, lies and slander. Truss at least attempted to avoid those three pitfalls. She was distincly average, but no worse than Starmer, who after a torrid fortnight couldn't land a blow.
You must have been watching a different PMQs to me. Starmer was calm and collected and just let her get on with being utterly and demonstrably inept.
I was listening not watching - she wasn't as bad as I expected her to be, but maybe that's because my expectations were so low to begin with. And SKS was... fine? I do think the Speaker needs to crack down more on the PM asking questions back, though, otherwise the whole thing just becomes really pointless.
GB News is facing a second investigation by the media regulator Ofcom over its coverage of the coronavirus vaccine.
The latest investigation relates to an interview with the author Naomi Wolf in which she claimed women were being harmed by Covid-19 vaccines as part of an effort to “to destroy British civil society”.
Ofcom said it would investigate whether the programme broke “rules designed to protect viewers from harmful material” after receiving more than 400 complaints from members of the public.
In the interview, which was originally broadcast on 4 October, Wolf also compared doctors’ support for the vaccine rollout to the behaviour of the medical profession in Nazi Germany and described herself as the “last remaining independent journalist” willing to question this.
GB News is facing a second investigation by the media regulator Ofcom over its coverage of the coronavirus vaccine.
The latest investigation relates to an interview with the author Naomi Wolf in which she claimed women were being harmed by Covid-19 vaccines as part of an effort to “to destroy British civil society”.
Ofcom said it would investigate whether the programme broke “rules designed to protect viewers from harmful material” after receiving more than 400 complaints from members of the public.
In the interview, which was originally broadcast on 4 October, Wolf also compared doctors’ support for the vaccine rollout to the behaviour of the medical profession in Nazi Germany and described herself as the “last remaining independent journalist” willing to question this.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
The elected government have given the Bank of England a remit to target inflation at 2%. It's currently 9.9%. What else are the Bank going to do but QT and increase interest rates?
If HMG want to pursue an expansionary and inflationary policy at a time when inflation is 9.9%, then they need to change the remit for the Bank.
As it happens I don't agree with the energy support. I think it's absurd that people like me, who can afford high energy prices, are being massively subsidised, and thereby encouraged to use more energy. We should be doing much more to encourage reductions in consumption and increases in supply. Generally subsidies are almost always a very bad idea. Help should have been targeted to those who were genuinely facing a choice between freezing or starving.
Opposing energy support unless the supportee is freezing or starving (though I'll permit you a little hyperbole) is 'brave', especially given that our own policy of sanctions on Russia is a large contributing factor in the energy price rises. More to the point, no major party has suggested anything other than massive expenditure on energy support.
I'm not restricted to advancing arguments supported only by the current leadership of our two largest political parties.
The country simply can't afford to pretend that energy hasn't massively increased in price. The bill has to be paid. If you want the government to pay people's energy bills then you need to raise income tax by ten percent to pay for it.
We have to face reality. I believe most people can understand that difficult situations have to be faced rather than wished away. Perhaps that makes me naive, but all hope is lost if so.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
The elected government have given the Bank of England a remit to target inflation at 2%. It's currently 9.9%. What else are the Bank going to do but QT and increase interest rates?
If HMG want to pursue an expansionary and inflationary policy at a time when inflation is 9.9%, then they need to change the remit for the Bank.
As it happens I don't agree with the energy support. I think it's absurd that people like me, who can afford high energy prices, are being massively subsidised, and thereby encouraged to use more energy. We should be doing much more to encourage reductions in consumption and increases in supply. Generally subsidies are almost always a very bad idea. Help should have been targeted to those who were genuinely facing a choice between freezing or starving.
Raise rates, yes, QT, no. Also take a long view that a lot of current inflationary pressures are temporary due to the war and 2% is a medium not short term target.
The ECB aren't engaging in QT, the Bank has never done QT like this ever before, why uniquely should it be happening here, now?
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
It's not that easy to interpret the phrase "the elected Government" at the best of times in our weird constitution and I'm not sure anyone's going to argue these are the best of times.
But it I was to have a go, I'd suggest that this Government is only "elected" within the most minimal interpretation of the definition, which is that it currently commands the confidence of the House, made up of members who were elected. Unfortunately the majority of MPs it relies upon were elected on the basis of a wholly different prospectus to the one that Truss is trying to implement. So to some extent you could argue that the Johnson administration was an "elected Government" (implementing the will of the people maybe)... but this one really isn't. Fair enough, that's how things work, and it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate government.
However, comparing it to the Bank and arguing it's unelected gets harder. The Bank's mandate is set by the Government. The Government influences who is appointed to implement that mandate. As far as I know, the Government has not gone against any manifesto commitments in exercising those powers. So, given the indirect ways in which the UK Government and its institutions are accountable to the electorate... doesn't that mean that the Bank is actually a little bit more "elected" right now?
No.
In UK governments are not elected; the House of Commons, parliament's last word, is. Only parliament (or a dissolution) can confirm or disconfirm a government (voters can't), though it is good shorthand to say they can through GE voting.
The Bank of England is established on the basis of statute passed by parliament.
There are often bits of the state, all affirmed by parliament, that are in some sense on different sides or non-aligning interests. Schools and OFSTED; prisons and the inspectorate and the treasury and BoE come to mind.
States are complex things. My worry is that parliament (especially the HoC) has little specialist understanding of them.
UK 30 year yields - have now gone above the post mini budget high, which triggered the Bank’s emergency action - at 5.095% looks to me like the highest level since August 1998, since the creation of Bank independence and the golden fiscal rules under Blair/Brown https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1580205138412609536/photo/1
I personally think they look quite attractive at those levels.
GB News is facing a second investigation by the media regulator Ofcom over its coverage of the coronavirus vaccine.
The latest investigation relates to an interview with the author Naomi Wolf in which she claimed women were being harmed by Covid-19 vaccines as part of an effort to “to destroy British civil society”.
Ofcom said it would investigate whether the programme broke “rules designed to protect viewers from harmful material” after receiving more than 400 complaints from members of the public.
In the interview, which was originally broadcast on 4 October, Wolf also compared doctors’ support for the vaccine rollout to the behaviour of the medical profession in Nazi Germany and described herself as the “last remaining independent journalist” willing to question this.
GB News is facing a second investigation by the media regulator Ofcom over its coverage of the coronavirus vaccine.
The latest investigation relates to an interview with the author Naomi Wolf in which she claimed women were being harmed by Covid-19 vaccines as part of an effort to “to destroy British civil society”.
Ofcom said it would investigate whether the programme broke “rules designed to protect viewers from harmful material” after receiving more than 400 complaints from members of the public.
In the interview, which was originally broadcast on 4 October, Wolf also compared doctors’ support for the vaccine rollout to the behaviour of the medical profession in Nazi Germany and described herself as the “last remaining independent journalist” willing to question this.
UK 30 year yields - have now gone above the post mini budget high, which triggered the Bank’s emergency action - at 5.095% looks to me like the highest level since August 1998, since the creation of Bank independence and the golden fiscal rules under Blair/Brown https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1580205138412609536/photo/1
I personally think they look quite attractive at those levels.
Yes, I think that's why the BoE is closing the scheme, there's enough buyers at current yields so the market won't crash.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
The elected government have given the Bank of England a remit to target inflation at 2%. It's currently 9.9%. What else are the Bank going to do but QT and increase interest rates?
If HMG want to pursue an expansionary and inflationary policy at a time when inflation is 9.9%, then they need to change the remit for the Bank.
As it happens I don't agree with the energy support. I think it's absurd that people like me, who can afford high energy prices, are being massively subsidised, and thereby encouraged to use more energy. We should be doing much more to encourage reductions in consumption and increases in supply. Generally subsidies are almost always a very bad idea. Help should have been targeted to those who were genuinely facing a choice between freezing or starving.
Raise rates, yes, QT, no. Also take a long view that a lot of current inflationary pressures are temporary due to the war and 2% is a medium not short term target.
The ECB aren't engaging in QT, the Bank has never done QT like this ever before, why uniquely should it be happening here, now?
We'd never done QE to the extent that we had done, so of course QT is unprecedented. We need to do it now because inflation is up to 10%. Some of that is due to the war, but a lot of it isn't.
Since when did you look to the ECB for an example of a well-run institution?
UK 30 year yields - have now gone above the post mini budget high, which triggered the Bank’s emergency action - at 5.095% looks to me like the highest level since August 1998, since the creation of Bank independence and the golden fiscal rules under Blair/Brown https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1580205138412609536/photo/1
I personally think they look quite attractive at those levels.
I know it's not this simple, but that is more than a lot of FTSE dividend returns?
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 37m Veiled threat from Putin: “All Infrastructure at Risk” That’s def the fear of energy users in Europe. The boss of a leading industrial firm recently told me: “I’d be shocked if there weren’t submarines & warships patrolling the Langeled pipeline [Norway -> UK] right now.”
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
The elected government have given the Bank of England a remit to target inflation at 2%. It's currently 9.9%. What else are the Bank going to do but QT and increase interest rates?
If HMG want to pursue an expansionary and inflationary policy at a time when inflation is 9.9%, then they need to change the remit for the Bank.
As it happens I don't agree with the energy support. I think it's absurd that people like me, who can afford high energy prices, are being massively subsidised, and thereby encouraged to use more energy. We should be doing much more to encourage reductions in consumption and increases in supply. Generally subsidies are almost always a very bad idea. Help should have been targeted to those who were genuinely facing a choice between freezing or starving.
Raise rates, yes, QT, no. Also take a long view that a lot of current inflationary pressures are temporary due to the war and 2% is a medium not short term target.
The ECB aren't engaging in QT, the Bank has never done QT like this ever before, why uniquely should it be happening here, now?
The main reason is the relatively long maturity of UK government debt and the BOE's gilt holdings. Other central banks' holdings roll off more quickly so there is less need for active sales. The overall balance sheet unwind isn't especially aggressive, IIRC. There is nothing special about active sales vs passive runoff, both involve increased gilt supply to the market.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 37m Veiled threat from Putin: “All Infrastructure at Risk” That’s def the fear of energy users in Europe. The boss of a leading industrial firm recently told me: “I’d be shocked if there weren’t submarines & warships patrolling the Langeled pipeline [Norway -> UK] right now.”
Happily we are trying to legislate to stop power generation here. So it will be fine.
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.
Which is why the bank shouldn't be ducking well doing it in the first place. Why is it that you feel that the elected Government's fiscal plans (which are relatively modest outside of energy support, which presumably you agree with?) should be subordinate to the unelected Bank's monetary plans? Do you just have a general bias toward unelected institutions?
The elected government have given the Bank of England a remit to target inflation at 2%. It's currently 9.9%. What else are the Bank going to do but QT and increase interest rates?
If HMG want to pursue an expansionary and inflationary policy at a time when inflation is 9.9%, then they need to change the remit for the Bank.
As it happens I don't agree with the energy support. I think it's absurd that people like me, who can afford high energy prices, are being massively subsidised, and thereby encouraged to use more energy. We should be doing much more to encourage reductions in consumption and increases in supply. Generally subsidies are almost always a very bad idea. Help should have been targeted to those who were genuinely facing a choice between freezing or starving.
Raise rates, yes, QT, no. Also take a long view that a lot of current inflationary pressures are temporary due to the war and 2% is a medium not short term target.
The ECB aren't engaging in QT, the Bank has never done QT like this ever before, why uniquely should it be happening here, now?
We'd never done QE to the extent that we had done, so of course QT is unprecedented. We need to do it now because inflation is up to 10%. Some of that is due to the war, but a lot of it isn't.
Since when did you look to the ECB for an example of a well-run institution?
To be fair they did seem to improve after the Azeem Rafiq affair.
Mood is awful. Despite nonsense from Truss et al, there's growing realisation full fiscal U-turn is needed. Many Tory MPs want to make @KwasiKwarteng scapegoat in hope it lets @trussliz reset. Others think only way to win back markets & prevent Starmer landslide is her head 1/
For those of us that cut our teeth through Greek debt crisis, it was obvious more market pressure was likely, would be relentless & that this is not a fight Truss & Kwarteng could ever hope to win. See no way back for Govt now given economic and political mess they've created 2/2
Comments
source: https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/mountain-goat-capture-and-translocation.htm
(There's a short video at the site showing how helicopters are being used to move them.)
Now, if the goats had gotten to the Olympics on their own, say 200 years ago, I doubt anyone would object to them being there, now. And that would have been possible, though they would have to traverse many miles of lowlands to get from the Cascades to the Olympics.
I put "artificially" in quotes, because I understand that humans are a part of nature, and just as entitled to change landscapes, as, for example, ants, termites, beavers, and elephants.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11306259/Police-raid-American-Candy-Shops-council-seizes-215-000-worth-fakes-Oxford-Street.html
He might just set the right tone with the economy too. He's painted in a corner, but the public might be prepared to acknowledge he was given a hospital pass and if he didn't fuck it up any worse, the electors might be a bit more forgiving.
In that they might not vote Tory, but not vote Labour either.
If not, yes there should be an election.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11307109/Boris-Johnson-pockets-150-000-speech-ex-PM-begins-lucrative-life-outside-No10.html
Clusterfuck.
*not in the sense of his race, but his tax raising. The irony being Truss will end up having to raise taxes AND cutting services.
Going to be interesting to watch, too.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/supreme-court-california-pork-case-abortion.html
Brown, Major and May are seen as poor/bad PMs, but they were serious politicians who could occupy and carry out the role. Even Boris managed to portray some level of authority in the position.
I do think this is rather tragic and on human level I do have sympathy for Liz Truss, but she just does not seem up to the job. She at once wants to be decisive but also vacillates. She cannot create or inspire confidence. She cannot get through an interview without going off message. She cannot say she has confidence in her own chancellor. She doesn’t know what her governments policy is on no fault evictions, on tax cuts, on spending cuts, on windfall taxes. She says she believes in sound money but isn’t giving us sound money. She seems uncertain and unsteady when questioned about government policy. She does not have a grasp of any sort of detail. She cannot connect with the public. Today at PMQs she gave off an air of panic.
She just is not a Prime Minister. She should never have been made Prime Minister. It is unfortunate and again I feel for her, but the sooner she and her Party realise that and try and right the wrong the sooner they can try and right the ship. The country does not want and cannot afford two years of Liz Truss.
Careless.
Bold.....
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmer-and-truss-both-face-problems-of-their-own-making
(I'm thinking weeks at most.)
The members really have bought a pig in a poke.
For those of us that cut our teeth through Greek debt crisis, it was obvious more market pressure was likely, would be relentless & that this is not a fight Truss & Kwarteng could ever hope to win. See no way back for Govt now given economic and political mess they've created 2/2
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1580183557150224384
Doesn't mean sweeping out the dross of this PM, Chancellor and Cabinet can't come up with a means to steady the ship of state heading currently heading towards the rocks under Cap'n Liz
If HMG want to pursue an expansionary and inflationary policy at a time when inflation is 9.9%, then they need to change the remit for the Bank.
As it happens I don't agree with the energy support. I think it's absurd that people like me, who can afford high energy prices, are being massively subsidised, and thereby encouraged to use more energy. We should be doing much more to encourage reductions in consumption and increases in supply. Generally subsidies are almost always a very bad idea. Help should have been targeted to those who were genuinely facing a choice between freezing or starving.
That sort of stupid gaming of voters is a tired, too-clever-by-half tactic that has been proven time and time again not to work (see Cameron's 'deal' vs. leaving). Blaming that on the members and not the MPs is about as stupid as blaming £2bn pounds of tax cut for market jitters whilst maintaining a trappist silence about an £80bn bond sell off. The fact that remainers and Labour supporters are dishonest or daft enough to do this is unsurprising; the fact that Tory supporters are following them is a bit more disappointing.
Persist with Truss and the only question will be how large the Labour landslide is going to be.
Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng insists the ending of the Bank of England's bond-buying programme is a matter for the governor, not the government.
Read more here: https://trib.al/o8jTIXA
📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1580201141962362880/video/1
Problem is that precisely nobody who isn't a Tory MP/parrot will think that isn't a cut with inflation running at double that. In marking that argument she (a) looks like a berk, (b) gets to sneer at people and (c) will have to u-turn anyway because her own MPs and even cabinet members have said it won't wash.
The latest investigation relates to an interview with the author Naomi Wolf in which she claimed women were being harmed by Covid-19 vaccines as part of an effort to “to destroy British civil society”.
Ofcom said it would investigate whether the programme broke “rules designed to protect viewers from harmful material” after receiving more than 400 complaints from members of the public.
In the interview, which was originally broadcast on 4 October, Wolf also compared doctors’ support for the vaccine rollout to the behaviour of the medical profession in Nazi Germany and described herself as the “last remaining independent journalist” willing to question this.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/oct/12/gb-news-second-ofcom-investigation-covid-vaccine-coverage-naomi-wolf-mark-steyn-show?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/pmqs-analysis-liz-truss-keir-starmer-budget-kwarteng-budget-latest-news-b1032202.html
QT has been discussed for a while, but nobody besides the Fed (who don't really compare at all for obvious reasons) has dared do it before until the Bank started it. The ECB have skirted the issue until now.
You lot may want to pretend this is all Kwasi's fault and the Bank's actions have nothing to do with the turmoil, but I would imagine that other Central Banks aren't as naive as that. I expect the chance of the ECB doing their own equivalent of £80bn of QT in the foreseeable future is about as remote as the other ECB announcing Geoffrey Boycott is returning to play and is going to be the T20 Captain going forwards.
But it I was to have a go, I'd suggest that this Government is only "elected" within the most minimal interpretation of the definition, which is that it currently commands the confidence of the House, made up of members who were elected. Unfortunately the majority of MPs it relies upon were elected on the basis of a wholly different prospectus to the one that Truss is trying to implement. So to some extent you could argue that the Johnson administration was an "elected Government" (implementing the will of the people maybe)... but this one really isn't. Fair enough, that's how things work, and it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate government.
However, comparing it to the Bank and arguing it's unelected gets harder. The Bank's mandate is set by the Government. The Government influences who is appointed to implement that mandate. As far as I know, the Government has not gone against any manifesto commitments in exercising those powers. So, given the indirect ways in which the UK Government and its institutions are accountable to the electorate... doesn't that mean that the Bank is actually a little bit more "elected" right now?
Everton football club’s auditor is considering walking away from its role signing off the club’s accounts, raising questions over its financing and ownership, according to sources.
The Guardian understands that the accounting firm BDO has told Everton it will not be conducting the work, a decision which sources said was related to Farhad Moshiri’s ownership of the Premier League team. The firm had audited the club’s financial accounts for the previous two years, but the Merseyside club is now believed to be searching for a replacement.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/oct/12/everton-auditor-considers-walking-away-raising-questions-over-clubs-financing
Technically I should probably have someone 'qualified' do this but the aforementioned electrician convinced me long ago that I will probably do a better job. BS7671 isn't that hard to read.
UK 30 year yields - have now gone above the post mini budget high, which triggered the Bank’s emergency action - at 5.095% looks to me like the highest level since August 1998, since the creation of Bank independence and the golden fiscal rules under Blair/Brown https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1580205138412609536/photo/1
WarMonitor🇺🇦
@WarMonitor3
·
21m
“10,000 Ukrainian servicemen of the second wave from training in Great Britain are returning back to Ukraine”
https://mobile.twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1580199610894929920
The country simply can't afford to pretend that energy hasn't massively increased in price. The bill has to be paid. If you want the government to pay people's energy bills then you need to raise income tax by ten percent to pay for it.
We have to face reality. I believe most people can understand that difficult situations have to be faced rather than wished away. Perhaps that makes me naive, but all hope is lost if so.
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1603088/Dan-Wootton-GB-News-ratings-Sky-News-viewing-figures
The ECB aren't engaging in QT, the Bank has never done QT like this ever before, why uniquely should it be happening here, now?
The Bank of England is established on the basis of statute passed by parliament.
There are often bits of the state, all affirmed by parliament, that are in some sense on different sides or non-aligning interests. Schools and OFSTED; prisons and the inspectorate and the treasury and BoE come to mind.
States are complex things. My worry is that parliament (especially the HoC) has little specialist understanding of them.
And my costs were somewhat lower.
Since when did you look to the ECB for an example of a well-run institution?
@EdConwaySky
·
37m
Veiled threat from Putin: “All Infrastructure at Risk”
That’s def the fear of energy users in Europe.
The boss of a leading industrial firm recently told me: “I’d be shocked if there weren’t submarines & warships patrolling the Langeled pipeline [Norway -> UK] right now.”