“I believe you have a funny story to tell us Kwasi. Is it true you were Chancellor of the Exchequer for about a month?”
Look what you could have won! Is Liz or Kwasi the non- dart player ? (always thought it was a bit of an insult to have the official title of non- dart player !)
Leave off! He did always say he would be in a top job one day. Now it’s more than forty.
Jimmy Carr with a flamethrower, threatening to destroy works of art bought (when you consider TV show funding mechanism) using tax payers money, whilst audience shout Higher! Lower! or something. 🤮 Ian Katz, from the Gaurdiun, now Channel 4’s director of programming - who wants to destroy Art works just for attention seeking and ratings - What a Twat. Must be put in jail in my opinion.
Obviously I don’t wish to prejudice a fair trial and due judicial process etc etc, but he must end up in jail after it.
an “utterly sick piece of entertainment television”.
Okay maybe not sack or jail Lefty Ian Katztastrophe, I over reacted.
Instead, how about a new show, where executives who mess up to this magnitude get put in stocks and fed the PB favourite deep fried tarantula. The thorax will haunt him forever 😈
When did Picasso get cancelled ?
Exactly.
The response to just the words “Jimmy Carr with a flamethrower” is No! Don’t be so utterly stupid. Even before you learn how sick this how idea was.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem in the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see a problem if that didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Would it become a problem for you if the pendulum didn't stop in the middle?
Gary Lineker tweet broke impartiality rules, says BBC complaints unit
Gary Lineker broke BBC impartiality rules with a tweet about the government in February, the corporation has ruled.
The Match of the Day host quoted a post about then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss urging Premier League teams to boycott the Champions League final in Russia.
Appealing to the property-owning classes. Not a good Lab attack line.
Isn't it the property-owning classes (and those aspiring to join the property-owning classes) whom Labour needs to win over from the Tories?
Yes good point but unlike the sainted Tony I haven't noticed them make any particular appeals to such a demographic which suggests to me that the likes of our Jess and Ange are still fighting the class war.
So was John Prescott under Blair but he wasn't leader, Ange is just Starmer's Prescott
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I don't understanding the gambling analogy.
She did something that was bound to end catastrophically no matter what the markets did.
Well, I’m not sure.
The core idea (reduce taxes, paid for by increased deficit) is not in itself bad, so long as a convincing explanation can be provided on how the resultant deficit will be closed in time.
Liz’s problem was a mad scorn that any explanation was necessary at all, with tax cuts for the very richest like a dog turd on top.
You think there was an explanation that would have made sense of this crazy mess, but they refused to give it out of sheer cussedness?
I don't believe it. I think that is a ridiculous idea. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it was just sheer craziness that was bound to end in disaster.
In theory, Truss/Kwarteng could have advanced a more modest (or meantested) energy bung, and less egregious* tax cuts, along with an acknowledgement that fiscal drag will effectively pay for the gap over time.
*The tax cuts did not seem optimised for “growth” and we’re politically nutty besides.
The corporation tax cut was geared to growth. The 45% needed further explanation.
No it wasn’t - so ‘let’s explain why it doesn’t wash for the 10th time.
Over the last 12 years we have had low corporation tax rates alongside low levels of investment resulting in low levels of growth.
So the idea that low corporation tax rates would somehow generate the higher investment needed to create actual growth has 12 years of evidence that it simply doesn’t work.
But it's really your reasoning that doesn't wash. You present no evidence or even a workable theory as to why higher corporation tax levels would result in higher levels of inward investment, or be inward investment neutral. It's a very unlikely proposition, given that countries like the Republic of Ireland seem to have benefitted from their low levels, and countries like Bermuda and Belize with still lower levels have benefitted even more. It seems more probable to me that low(er) corporation tax was indeed beneficial to inward investment levels in Britain, but that that other factors (such as frequent tax/regulation changes) worked the opposite way. So far from helping, raising corporation tax would be like taking an ill person and kicking away their crutches. Do you have a strong argument against this surmise?
Ireland, Bermuda and Belize are not in any way comparable to the UK. The last two are smaller than Bristol. Ireland has (cleverly) maximised its geolocation and English-speaking workforce advantages.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
And we're not (at the moment) talking about decline anyway. 1% a year is still doubling GDP over a lifetime. Lots of things are harder then (mobility has to include people going down, it's harder to borrow from very rich future people). But it's not decline.
And the key question is why should people in this bit of the world have a massively higher standard of living than people in that part of the world forever?
Slow economic growth is vexing, which is why chucking chunks of it away shouldn't be done on a whim. But it's not an excuse to blow everything up either.
Appealing to the property-owning classes. Not a good Lab attack line.
Isn't it the property-owning classes (and those aspiring to join the property-owning classes) whom Labour needs to win over from the Tories?
Yes good point but unlike the sainted Tony I haven't noticed them make any particular appeals to such a demographic which suggests to me that the likes of our Jess and Ange are still fighting the class war.
So was John Prescott under Blair but he wasn't leader, Ange is just Starmer's Prescott
Wow! First Plaid and now does this sound like you're edging towards Lab?!
Appealing to the property-owning classes. Not a good Lab attack line.
Isn't it the property-owning classes (and those aspiring to join the property-owning classes) whom Labour needs to win over from the Tories?
Yes good point but unlike the sainted Tony I haven't noticed them make any particular appeals to such a demographic which suggests to me that the likes of our Jess and Ange are still fighting the class war.
So was John Prescott under Blair but he wasn't leader, Ange is just Starmer's Prescott
Wow! First Plaid and now does this sound like you're edging towards Lab?!
“Russian-installed "governor" in Kherson region asks Moscow to evacuate residents to Russia out of security risks. "We know that Russia does not abandon its own," Vladimir Saldo said. Another sign that the standing of Russian forces in the region is in jeopardy.”
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
Too complicated.
Liz Truss: The Prime Minister who put the country on red, and it came up black.
(My only problem with that analogy is that those odds are far too generous to Truss's judgement.)
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem in the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see a problem if that didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Christ on a bike.
Ok, so you don't want the gap between the rich and poor of this world to close. To that I can only say "Christ on a bike".
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
That's true - take Pochdale Rioneers and his conversion to the dead cause of remainerism.
There is no such thing as remainerism. There is wanting to make the best of a bad job-ism. But the problem is that your complete loons think this is a good job so there is no one vaguely sane around to try to make the best of it.
I disagree. 'Making the best of a bad job' entails a 'When life gives you lemons, make lemonade' approach. That means taking the thing you didn't want and don't like, accepting it, and doing something with it that uses its supposed drawbacks and makes them into a positive.
That isn't what continuity remoaners do, because to do so would entail surrender to the filth that voted Brexit and tolerating their triumphant braying about how well it has all turned out. What they actually want to do, is take Brexit and make it look, feel, and smell, as much like 'not Brexit' as possible. That's not making the best of something; it's making less of it.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
And we're not (at the moment) talking about decline anyway. 1% a year is still doubling GDP over a lifetime. Lots of things are harder then (mobility has to include people going down, it's harder to borrow from very rich future people). But it's not decline.
And the key question is why should people in this bit of the world have a massively higher standard of living than people in that part of the world forever?
Slow economic growth is vexing, which is why chucking chunks of it away shouldn't be done on a whim. But it's not an excuse to blow everything up either.
Back in 1980, 40% of the world's people lived in absolute poverty, compared to 8% today. And, that has been achieved without our getting poorer. Likewise, I'm pleased that Eastern Europe has been growing rapidly for thirty years, and it is very much what I think most of us would have predicted, when the Iron Curtain came down.
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
But Truss wasn't a convert to the cause. She is a neoliberal libertarian that fought against Brexit all the way until the vote was held. Everything she has done since becoming PM, including the drive for more mass immigration, is entirely in tune with neoliberal Remainerism.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
This is key. Need the killer line. They gambled with your mortgage?
Appealing to the property-owning classes. Not a good Lab attack line.
Fair point. They gambled with your mortgage and pension. That ought to cover everyone. But not sure the pension impact is obvious
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
You have a very strange way of not being a left-leaner, but there you go.
As for do I support them? No. The very reason I keep asking for Labour to come up with some policies is so that I can vote for them knowing what their plan is.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
Yes, UKIP famously want to open up the work visa system to let in more fence painters and florists.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem in the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see a problem if that didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Christ on a bike.
Ok, so you don't want the gap between the rich and poor of this world to close. To that I can only say "Christ on a bike".
Presumably you agree with Therese Coffey that "poor people [in Britain] are richer than you think". Although I don't think she'd go as far as you in saying that the aspiration should be to make them relatively poorer.
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
But Truss wasn't a convert to the cause. She is a neoliberal libertarian that fought against Brexit all the way until the vote was held. Everything she has done since becoming PM, including the drive for more mass immigration, is entirely in tune with neoliberal Remainerism.
Do you think most neoliberals were Remainers? I'm sure that most were Leavers.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem in the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see a problem if that didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Christ on a bike.
Ok, so you don't want the gap between the rich and poor of this world to close. To that I can only say "Christ on a bike".
“Russian-installed "governor" in Kherson region asks Moscow to evacuate residents to Russia out of security risks. "We know that Russia does not abandon its own," Vladimir Saldo said. Another sign that the standing of Russian forces in the region is in jeopardy.”
Moscow needs sheer numbers of people just as much as it needs land. Those people aren't ever coming back. Russia's demographics are wretched. They steal who they can.
Along with the hundreds of thousands of stolen children, now being brought up in Russian homes as Russians. Being taught to hate everything Ukrainian. They are going to be some messed up kids, whenever they get back home.
Gary Lineker tweet broke impartiality rules, says BBC complaints unit
Gary Lineker broke BBC impartiality rules with a tweet about the government in February, the corporation has ruled.
The Match of the Day host quoted a post about then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss urging Premier League teams to boycott the Champions League final in Russia.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
Too complicated.
Liz Truss: The Prime Minister who put the country on red, and it came up black.
(My only problem with that analogy is that those odds are far too generous to Truss's judgement.)
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
That's true - take Pochdale Rioneers and his conversion to the dead cause of remainerism.
There is no such thing as remainerism. There is wanting to make the best of a bad job-ism. But the problem is that your complete loons think this is a good job so there is no one vaguely sane around to try to make the best of it.
I disagree. 'Making the best of a bad job' entails a 'When life gives you lemons, make lemonade' approach. That means taking the thing you didn't want and don't like, accepting it, and doing something with it that uses its supposed drawbacks and makes them into a positive.
That isn't what continuity remoaners do, because to do so would entail surrender to the filth that voted Brexit and tolerating their triumphant braying about how well it has all turned out. What they actually want to do, is take Brexit and make it look, feel, and smell, as much like 'not Brexit' as possible. That's not making the best of something; it's making less of it.
I think you are being harsh by calling them filth. Not the sharpest tools perhaps, but let's not call them filth.
They lost the referendum but it was a vote. It wasn't a legal obligation all of a sudden to agree with the outcome. If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have been a big fan and tried to make lemonade out of his government. I'm guessing that you would have continued to oppose the Labour Party. As would have been your right.
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
That's true - take Pochdale Rioneers and his conversion to the dead cause of remainerism.
There is no such thing as remainerism. There is wanting to make the best of a bad job-ism. But the problem is that your complete loons think this is a good job so there is no one vaguely sane around to try to make the best of it.
I disagree. 'Making the best of a bad job' entails a 'When life gives you lemons, make lemonade' approach. That means taking the thing you didn't want and don't like, accepting it, and doing something with it that uses its supposed drawbacks and makes them into a positive.
That isn't what continuity remoaners do, because to do so would entail surrender to the filth that voted Brexit and tolerating their triumphant braying about how well it has all turned out. What they actually want to do, is take Brexit and make it look, feel, and smell, as much like 'not Brexit' as possible. That's not making the best of something; it's making less of it.
I think you are being harsh by calling them filth. Not the sharpest tools perhaps, but let's not call them filth.
They lost the referendum but it was a vote. It wasn't a legal obligation all of a sudden to agree with the outcome. If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have been a big fan and tried to make lemonade out of his government. I'm guessing that you would have continued to oppose the Labour Party. As would have been your right.
Ah, the old false analogy between a referendum and an election - the canard that just won't die.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
Too complicated.
Liz Truss: The Prime Minister who put the country on red, and it came up black.
(My only problem with that analogy is that those odds are far too generous to Truss's judgement.)
Gary Lineker tweet broke impartiality rules, says BBC complaints unit
Gary Lineker broke BBC impartiality rules with a tweet about the government in February, the corporation has ruled.
The Match of the Day host quoted a post about then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss urging Premier League teams to boycott the Champions League final in Russia.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem in the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see a problem if that didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Would it become a problem for you if the pendulum didn't stop in the middle?
Way beyond my lifetime, that, I think! But yes hypothetically it would. I don't believe in big gaps between rich and poor, winners and losers, all of that. People are in the main all very similar so I'd to see this reflected in the spread of material life outcomes. The relevant curve should be thin and tall, not short and fat.
“I believe you have a funny story to tell us Kwasi. Is it true you were Chancellor of the Exchequer for about a month?”
Look what you could have won! Is Liz or Kwasi the non- dart player ? (always thought it was a bit of an insult to have the official title of non- dart player !)
Liz has a funny story about the disaster on her honeymoon for Brucie.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
You have a very strange way of not being a left-leaner, but there you go.
As for do I support them? No. The very reason I keep asking for Labour to come up with some policies is so that I can vote for them knowing what their plan is.
It is not my fault that the "Conservative" Party became wannabe fascists.
Gary Lineker tweet broke impartiality rules, says BBC complaints unit
Gary Lineker broke BBC impartiality rules with a tweet about the government in February, the corporation has ruled.
The Match of the Day host quoted a post about then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss urging Premier League teams to boycott the Champions League final in Russia.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem in the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see a problem if that didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Christ on a bike.
Ok, so you don't want the gap between the rich and poor of this world to close. To that I can only say "Christ on a bike".
No, in and of itself, I don't, because quite obviously, in and of itself, it isn't something to aspire to, any more than, in and of itself, closing the gap between richer and poorer people isn't something to aspire to.
Because, quite obviously, an increase in equality doesn't make anything actually any ducking better for anyone. In fact, if it comes about by making things worse for rich people/countries, and a bit less worse, but still worse, for poorer people/countries, it's actually a really, really shit idea. The kind of shit idea that a ducking loon who can only tolerate a rich and privileged person of they're so ashamed as to be nearly non-functional would have.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
Too complicated.
Liz Truss: The Prime Minister who put the country on red, and it came up black.
(My only problem with that analogy is that those odds are far too generous to Truss's judgement.)
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
You have a very strange way of not being a left-leaner, but there you go.
As for do I support them? No. The very reason I keep asking for Labour to come up with some policies is so that I can vote for them knowing what their plan is.
It is not my fault that the "Conservative" Party became wannabe fascists.
Ah, accusing a centre-right governming party of being fascists. And you wonder why you come across as left-leaning?
Gary Lineker tweet broke impartiality rules, says BBC complaints unit
Gary Lineker broke BBC impartiality rules with a tweet about the government in February, the corporation has ruled.
The Match of the Day host quoted a post about then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss urging Premier League teams to boycott the Champions League final in Russia.
Gary Lineker tweet broke impartiality rules, says BBC complaints unit
Gary Lineker broke BBC impartiality rules with a tweet about the government in February, the corporation has ruled.
The Match of the Day host quoted a post about then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss urging Premier League teams to boycott the Champions League final in Russia.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
You have a very strange way of not being a left-leaner, but there you go.
As for do I support them? No. The very reason I keep asking for Labour to come up with some policies is so that I can vote for them knowing what their plan is.
It is not my fault that the "Conservative" Party became wannabe fascists.
Ah, accusing a centre-right governming party of being fascists. And you wonder why you come across as left-leaning?
It is not my problem. I am not asking anyone to vote for ME!
“Russian-installed "governor" in Kherson region asks Moscow to evacuate residents to Russia out of security risks. "We know that Russia does not abandon its own," Vladimir Saldo said. Another sign that the standing of Russian forces in the region is in jeopardy.”
Russia still losing on the ground even as they pummel Ukraine from the air
Here's the Russian explanation
"A note on the news of voluntary evacuation of civilians from Kherson on the right (west) bank of the Dnepr river.
As in relation to Svatovo, the recent practice of voluntary evacuations is not an indicator of immediate (or even intermediate-term) threat to the cities being evacuated by the Russian authorities. On the contrary, it is evidence of the Russian authorities learning from experience to realize that cities are better and easier defended with fewer civilians and that no territory is worth civilian lives—the opposite to the methods practiced by the Ukrainian regime.
As can easily be seen from the map, the action is still very far from Kherson itself. While the Ukrainian offensive from the Andreevka/Davydov Brod bridgehead and toward Dudchany has now stalled, the city in the most danger—such as it is—of seeing direct clashes is Novaya Kakhovka, not Kherson.
Nonetheless, the Ukrainians shell Kherson daily, with howitzer and MLRS (HIMARS) artillery. In the circumstances, the fewer civilian remain on the right (west) bank of the Dnepr river, the fewer of them will die. The fewer of them also will be in the way of the defence of the city in the very unlikely (but not entirely amenable to being ruled out) event of clashes taking places in close proximity to the regional centre of Russia's Kherson Oblast.
Accordingly, the move to announce a voluntary evacuation from Kherson—in the circumstance where much of the city is being supplied by ferries and is subjected to constant shelling from afar by the Ukrainian Terrorist Forces—is a wise and timely move. The Russian Army should be focused on supplying the troops defending the Kherson Oblast, not the civilians who would be much safer further from the front lines"
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
You have a very strange way of not being a left-leaner, but there you go.
As for do I support them? No. The very reason I keep asking for Labour to come up with some policies is so that I can vote for them knowing what their plan is.
It is not my fault that the "Conservative" Party became wannabe fascists.
Ah, accusing a centre-right governming party of being fascists. And you wonder why you come across as left-leaning?
'Centre-right'? FFS what would count as full-on 'right' in your book?
Gary Lineker tweet broke impartiality rules, says BBC complaints unit
Gary Lineker broke BBC impartiality rules with a tweet about the government in February, the corporation has ruled.
The Match of the Day host quoted a post about then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss urging Premier League teams to boycott the Champions League final in Russia.
Gary Lineker tweet broke impartiality rules, says BBC complaints unit
Gary Lineker broke BBC impartiality rules with a tweet about the government in February, the corporation has ruled.
The Match of the Day host quoted a post about then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss urging Premier League teams to boycott the Champions League final in Russia.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
That's true - take Pochdale Rioneers and his conversion to the dead cause of remainerism.
There is no such thing as remainerism. There is wanting to make the best of a bad job-ism. But the problem is that your complete loons think this is a good job so there is no one vaguely sane around to try to make the best of it.
I disagree. 'Making the best of a bad job' entails a 'When life gives you lemons, make lemonade' approach. That means taking the thing you didn't want and don't like, accepting it, and doing something with it that uses its supposed drawbacks and makes them into a positive.
That isn't what continuity remoaners do, because to do so would entail surrender to the filth that voted Brexit and tolerating their triumphant braying about how well it has all turned out. What they actually want to do, is take Brexit and make it look, feel, and smell, as much like 'not Brexit' as possible. That's not making the best of something; it's making less of it.
I think you are being harsh by calling them filth. Not the sharpest tools perhaps, but let's not call them filth.
They lost the referendum but it was a vote. It wasn't a legal obligation all of a sudden to agree with the outcome. If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have been a big fan and tried to make lemonade out of his government. I'm guessing that you would have continued to oppose the Labour Party. As would have been your right.
Given that it did not happen, I can't say. But I can say I wouldn't have opposed him because I disliked him and his party. I would have opposed him (if I opposed him) because I deemed that opposing him was the best and quickest route to success for Britain, and therefore success for me because I am British, love Britain, and live and pay taxes here. If Britain remains the immovable touchstone, it works. If Britain becomes just another thing to trash because we are associating it with Brexit, that's an issue.
“Russian-installed "governor" in Kherson region asks Moscow to evacuate residents to Russia out of security risks. "We know that Russia does not abandon its own," Vladimir Saldo said. Another sign that the standing of Russian forces in the region is in jeopardy.”
Russia still losing on the ground even as they pummel Ukraine from the air
Here's the Russian explanation
"A note on the news of voluntary evacuation of civilians from Kherson on the right (west) bank of the Dnepr river.
As in relation to Svatovo, the recent practice of voluntary evacuations is not an indicator of immediate (or even intermediate-term) threat to the cities being evacuated by the Russian authorities. On the contrary, it is evidence of the Russian authorities learning from experience to realize that cities are better and easier defended with fewer civilians and that no territory is worth civilian lives—the opposite to the methods practiced by the Ukrainian regime.
As can easily be seen from the map, the action is still very far from Kherson itself. While the Ukrainian offensive from the Andreevka/Davydov Brod bridgehead and toward Dudchany has now stalled, the city in the most danger—such as it is—of seeing direct clashes is Novaya Kakhovka, not Kherson.
Nonetheless, the Ukrainians shell Kherson daily, with howitzer and MLRS (HIMARS) artillery. In the circumstances, the fewer civilian remain on the right (west) bank of the Dnepr river, the fewer of them will die. The fewer of them also will be in the way of the defence of the city in the very unlikely (but not entirely amenable to being ruled out) event of clashes taking places in close proximity to the regional centre of Russia's Kherson Oblast.
Accordingly, the move to announce a voluntary evacuation from Kherson—in the circumstance where much of the city is being supplied by ferries and is subjected to constant shelling from afar by the Ukrainian Terrorist Forces—is a wise and timely move. The Russian Army should be focused on supplying the troops defending the Kherson Oblast, not the civilians who would be much safer further from the front lines"
As credible as their other recent move: 'We are doing fantastically in Ukraine and have lost only 5000 soldiers - therefore please can we now conscript 300,000-600,000 more".
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If she were responsible for house prices falling then she'd deserve a lot of praise indeed.
But she isn't.
She has probably accelerated it. Both in terms of speed of mortgage rate increase and damaging the governments ability to finance any props to support the market. We shall see.
🤞
If you're right, then credit to her. I hope @CorrectHorseBattery3 and everyone else who's been slamming the Tories for the housing bubble will give credit where credit's due if you're right.
To get credit she would have to be wanting to achieve the outcome, rather than stumbling on an outcome.
Yeah, who remembers the guy who was trying to find India and discovered America instead? What was his name again?
The bloke who never actually reached America and saw his “discovery” named after a Florentine pirate? That one?
discovery being the wrong phrase....there were a few people living in america that knew it was there before some johnny come lately arrived and discovered it. Not to mention there is evidence others like the vikings had been there before
I don't profess to understand stock market sentiment but can someone explain to me why an inflation report which continues to show the US economy running very strong and which looks set to lead to a 75 base point rise in US interest rates when the Fed next meets, has caused a near 2% rally in US stocks?
Would I be wrong in assuming only a few stock market investors give any coherent thought to what's going on in the wider economy and the majority simply follow the market like sheep?
I could see that at Brighton Racecourse today - there are punters who simply follow the money. If a horse is being backed, they back it because they assume those who are backing the horse "know" something.
If that assumption predominates in the modern stock market that would explain a lot.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If she were responsible for house prices falling then she'd deserve a lot of praise indeed.
But she isn't.
She has probably accelerated it. Both in terms of speed of mortgage rate increase and damaging the governments ability to finance any props to support the market. We shall see.
🤞
If you're right, then credit to her. I hope @CorrectHorseBattery3 and everyone else who's been slamming the Tories for the housing bubble will give credit where credit's due if you're right.
To get credit she would have to be wanting to achieve the outcome, rather than stumbling on an outcome.
Yeah, who remembers the guy who was trying to find India and discovered America instead? What was his name again?
The bloke who never actually reached America and saw his “discovery” named after a Florentine pirate? That one?
discovery being the wrong phrase....there were a few people living in america that knew it was there before some johnny come lately arrived and discovered it. Not to mention there is evidence others like the vikings had been there before
It was still a discovery for Columbus, personally.
I don't profess to understand stock market sentiment but can someone explain to me why an inflation report which continues to show the US economy running very strong and which looks set to lead to a 75 base point rise in US interest rates when the Fed next meets, has caused a near 2% rally in US stocks?
Would I be wrong in assuming only a few stock market investors give any coherent thought to what's going on in the wider economy and the majority simply follow the market like sheep?
I could see that at Brighton Racecourse today - there are punters who simply follow the money. If a horse is being backed, they back it because they assume those who are backing the horse "know" something.
If that assumption predominates in the modern stock market that would explain a lot.
A lot of short term trading is on sentiment - which is a nice way of saying following the crowd.
Which is why day trading has a certain reputation.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
You have a very strange way of not being a left-leaner, but there you go.
As for do I support them? No. The very reason I keep asking for Labour to come up with some policies is so that I can vote for them knowing what their plan is.
It is not my fault that the "Conservative" Party became wannabe fascists.
Ah, accusing a centre-right governming party of being fascists. And you wonder why you come across as left-leaning?
'Centre-right'? FFS what would count as full-on 'right' in your book?
The issue isn't whether they are extremists. Of course they are not. The issue is whether they are competent. In the great scheme of things this government - totally useless as they are - is a bunch of moderate liberals running a big state high tax, high spend, high borrow government. They happen to be utterly useless at doing it, or SFAICS doing anything.
Fascists would be busy passing a law to make sure there were no more multi party elections and bashing Jews on the head with bottles.
There is enough wrong with this lot without having to make stuff up.
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
That's true - take Pochdale Rioneers and his conversion to the dead cause of remainerism.
There is no such thing as remainerism. There is wanting to make the best of a bad job-ism. But the problem is that your complete loons think this is a good job so there is no one vaguely sane around to try to make the best of it.
I disagree. 'Making the best of a bad job' entails a 'When life gives you lemons, make lemonade' approach. That means taking the thing you didn't want and don't like, accepting it, and doing something with it that uses its supposed drawbacks and makes them into a positive.
That isn't what continuity remoaners do, because to do so would entail surrender to the filth that voted Brexit and tolerating their triumphant braying about how well it has all turned out. What they actually want to do, is take Brexit and make it look, feel, and smell, as much like 'not Brexit' as possible. That's not making the best of something; it's making less of it.
I think you are being harsh by calling them filth. Not the sharpest tools perhaps, but let's not call them filth.
They lost the referendum but it was a vote. It wasn't a legal obligation all of a sudden to agree with the outcome. If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have been a big fan and tried to make lemonade out of his government. I'm guessing that you would have continued to oppose the Labour Party. As would have been your right.
Given that it did not happen, I can't say. But I can say I wouldn't have opposed him because I disliked him and his party. I would have opposed him (if I opposed him) because I deemed that opposing him was the best and quickest route to success for Britain, and therefore success for me because I am British, love Britain, and live and pay taxes here. If Britain remains the immovable touchstone, it works. If Britain becomes just another thing to trash because we are associating it with Brexit, that's an issue.
I opposed Brexit because I deemed it was the quickest route to failure for Britain. And so it is proving.
Tbf, I had not fully accounted for the Conservatives' gross mismanagement speeding the process along so rapidly.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
You have a very strange way of not being a left-leaner, but there you go.
As for do I support them? No. The very reason I keep asking for Labour to come up with some policies is so that I can vote for them knowing what their plan is.
It is not my fault that the "Conservative" Party became wannabe fascists.
Ah, accusing a centre-right governming party of being fascists. And you wonder why you come across as left-leaning?
'Centre-right'? FFS what would count as full-on 'right' in your book?
The issue isn't whether they are extremists. Of course they are not. The issue is whether they are competent. In the great scheme of things this government - totally useless as they are - is a bunch of moderate liberals running a big state high tax, high spend, high borrow government. They happen to be utterly useless at doing it, or SFAICS doing anything.
Fascists would be busy passing a law to make sure there were no more multi party elections and bashing Jews on the head with bottles.
There is enough wrong with this lot without having to make stuff up.
The reason for the invective is brand differentiation. Bit hard to sell to the public “we are like the other lot, but competent. We plan to spend +-5% more or less of GDP on government services.”
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
I agree. "Managed Decline" is actually the working title for my autobiography.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
I agree. "Managed Decline" is actually the working title for my autobiography.
Should it stray a little please be aware that I have secured all the IP concerning 'unmanaged decline'.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
I am not against growth per se but I have two questions:
1. What do we mean by 'growth' if we aspire to perpetual growth? Growth means we can buy more 'stuff' each year but ultimately there are only finite resources in the world and how many 'things' do we each need? The same for services: e.g. we could achieve more healthcare if we 'grow' but who will provide it? Ultimately we can't all be doctors and nurses.
2. Most of my life has been relatively comfortable. Relative to the full range of human experience I have been 'well-off'. But that was true in the 1960s and 1970s even before the growth that has occurred since. Sure I have more things now but I was comfortable then. Can we go on ever aspiring to more, more, more?
I don't know the answer, unless it is to seek a better measure of human success than GDP growth.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
I agree. "Managed Decline" is actually the working title for my autobiography.
I thought you were something senior in education?
In which case, I would suggest that 'unmanaged decline' might be more apt.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
I agree. "Managed Decline" is actually the working title for my autobiography.
I thought you were something senior in education?
In which case, I would suggest that 'unmanaged decline' might be more apt.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
I agree. "Managed Decline" is actually the working title for my autobiography.
I’m not so sure. It’s become a managerial religion that we *must* export every possible job to somewhere where labour is cheap.
Having looked at the productivity curves, it is not very evident that this really makes much savings. It is easier - outsource it to people who are so eager to do the work. Rather than fight to be allowed to build a factory in the uk, say.
Recently, we have seen the disadvantages of a global supply chain. Disruptions for one. Building dependency on evil arseholes into your economy for another.
I don't profess to understand stock market sentiment but can someone explain to me why an inflation report which continues to show the US economy running very strong and which looks set to lead to a 75 base point rise in US interest rates when the Fed next meets, has caused a near 2% rally in US stocks?
Would I be wrong in assuming only a few stock market investors give any coherent thought to what's going on in the wider economy and the majority simply follow the market like sheep?
I could see that at Brighton Racecourse today - there are punters who simply follow the money. If a horse is being backed, they back it because they assume those who are backing the horse "know" something.
If that assumption predominates in the modern stock market that would explain a lot.
A lot of short term trading is on sentiment - which is a nice way of saying following the crowd.
Which is why day trading has a certain reputation.
That made me smile. We used to refer to them as professional sheep in my day. Plus ca change?
I am not against growth per se but I have two questions:
1. What do we mean by 'growth' if we aspire to perpetual growth? Growth means we can buy more 'stuff' each year but ultimately there are only finite resources in the world and how many 'things' do we each need? The same for services: e.g. we could achieve more healthcare if we 'grow' but who will provide it? Ultimately we can't all be doctors and nurses.
2. Most of my life has been relatively comfortable. Relative to the full range of human experience I have been 'well-off'. But that was true in the 1960s and 1970s even before the growth that has occurred since. Sure I have more things now but I was comfortable then. Can we go on ever aspiring to more, more, more?
I don't know the answer, unless it is to seek a better measure of human success than GDP growth.
For once I do agree with you. However possibly not for the same reasons. Immigration is seen as a good thing because it provides amongst other things more consumers of tat.
Simple fact is as education gets better birth rates fall (something I am happy with increasing education in the third world). Due to that eventually the world population is going to start to decline and using immigration as a band aid will fail. What we need therefore is for politicians to man up and work out how we can get the economy working with declining populations rather than trying to pull in others from round the world as its going to end as a solution eventually
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
I agree. "Managed Decline" is actually the working title for my autobiography.
I thought you were something senior in education?
In which case, I would suggest that 'unmanaged decline' might be more apt.
Both harsh and unfair. My working life is covered in a separate tome, "How to piss off History teachers".
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In case it hasn’t been mentioned the NHS website for booking COVID Autumn jabs for the 50-65 appears to be up and running. I’m under 65 and it rejected me a couple of weeks ago (after a text from the NHS saying I was eligible) but it’s due to go live for 50-65 year olds tomorrow - seems like it started a little early.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
In case it hasn’t been mentioned the NHS website for booking COVID Autumn jabs for the 50-65 appears to be up and running. I’m under 65 and it rejected me a couple of weeks ago (after a text from the NHS saying I was eligible) but it’s due to go live for 50-65 year olds tomorrow - seems like it started a little early.
It may be worth checking out different vaccination sites - I found several weeks difference between nearest and earliest available.
I had a booster booked for this Saturday. Got a text reminder this morning telling me to come, and to wear a mask. At 5pm got another text saying it was cancelled, with no reason given. I've re-booked, but it's a bit irritating.
In case it hasn’t been mentioned the NHS website for booking COVID Autumn jabs for the 50-65 appears to be up and running. I’m under 65 and it rejected me a couple of weeks ago (after a text from the NHS saying I was eligible) but it’s due to go live for 50-65 year olds tomorrow - seems like it started a little early.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
I don't think that correct about the Seventies. There was GDP growth and growth per capita, and the gini coefficient the most equal it has been in our history.
Obviously there were economic problems, but actually the 1970s were probably the best time to be an ordinary working class Briton in terms of relative prosperity.
In case it hasn’t been mentioned the NHS website for booking COVID Autumn jabs for the 50-65 appears to be up and running. I’m under 65 and it rejected me a couple of weeks ago (after a text from the NHS saying I was eligible) but it’s due to go live for 50-65 year olds tomorrow - seems like it started a little early.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
Yet an attempt to do the opposite doesn't seem to be working either.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem in the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see a problem if that didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Christ on a bike.
Ok, so you don't want the gap between the rich and poor of this world to close. To that I can only say "Christ on a bike".
No, in and of itself, I don't, because quite obviously, in and of itself, it isn't something to aspire to, any more than, in and of itself, closing the gap between richer and poorer people isn't something to aspire to.
Because, quite obviously, an increase in equality doesn't make anything actually any ducking better for anyone. In fact, if it comes about by making things worse for rich people/countries, and a bit less worse, but still worse, for poorer people/countries, it's actually a really, really shit idea. The kind of shit idea that a ducking loon who can only tolerate a rich and privileged person of they're so ashamed as to be nearly non-functional would have.
All other things being equal it does though. Which for the sake of clarity is the best way to look at it.
And I rather more than tolerated the person you refer to. He was my bestie. Loved the guy!
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
I don't think that correct. There was GDP growth and growth per capita, and the gini coefficient the most equal it has been in our history.
Obviously there were economic problems, but actually the 1970s were probably the best time to be an ordinary working class Briton in terms of relative prosperity.
My parents were ordinary working class britons they lived in a council house. In the 70's I remember well being a kid and feeling guilty because my mother's main meal a day 3 days a week was a bowl with an oxo cube dissolved in hot water with a single slice of bread broken up to float in it so she could feed her one child. Don't give a shit what the stats say I lived through it and friends of the time had similar tales. That was the last time we had the credo of managed decline
“Russian-installed "governor" in Kherson region asks Moscow to evacuate residents to Russia out of security risks. "We know that Russia does not abandon its own," Vladimir Saldo said. Another sign that the standing of Russian forces in the region is in jeopardy.”
Moscow needs sheer numbers of people just as much as it needs land. Those people aren't ever coming back. Russia's demographics are wretched. They steal who they can.
Along with the hundreds of thousands of stolen children, now being brought up in Russian homes as Russians. Being taught to hate everything Ukrainian. They are going to be some messed up kids, whenever they get back home.
The Telegraph Ukraine podcast had some hopeful news on that, saying they had heard of a small number of kids who'd been taken from Kharkiv oblast early in the war, who have been returned to Ukraine after some low-level discussions between officials on either side.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
Yet an attempt to do the opposite doesn't seem to be working either.
Thats because the western world has a cosy consensus with politicians who really dont give a shit about the bottom 80%. They are funded by the rich that are immune from managed decline because it doesn't affect them. Back then I would have been solidly labour till I realized the left really doesnt give a shit about the poor it just posturing
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
I don't think that correct. There was GDP growth and growth per capita, and the gini coefficient the most equal it has been in our history.
Obviously there were economic problems, but actually the 1970s were probably the best time to be an ordinary working class Briton in terms of relative prosperity.
My parents were ordinary working class britons they lived in a council house. In the 70's I remember well being a kid and feeling guilty because my mother's main meal a day 3 days a week was a bowl with an oxo cube dissolved in hot water with a single slice of bread broken up to float in it so she could feed her one child. Don't give a shit what the stats say I lived through it and friends of the time had similar tales. That was the last time we had the credo of managed decline
Anecdote doesn't trump data. There was significant economic growth in the Seventies measured by GDP, and GDP Per Capita, and the lowest (most equal) gini coefficient in our history.
Obviously some do badly in any economic situation, but in the Seventies most working class people became significantly better off.
You see it in all sorts of stats: car ownership, foreign holidays, other consumer goods. Since then we have become more prosperous still, albeit more unequal. It has never been managed decline, more but rather growth, with other countries notably catching up with even faster growth.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I am not against growth per se but I have two questions:
1. What do we mean by 'growth' if we aspire to perpetual growth? Growth means we can buy more 'stuff' each year but ultimately there are only finite resources in the world and how many 'things' do we each need? The same for services: e.g. we could achieve more healthcare if we 'grow' but who will provide it? Ultimately we can't all be doctors and nurses.
2. Most of my life has been relatively comfortable. Relative to the full range of human experience I have been 'well-off'. But that was true in the 1960s and 1970s even before the growth that has occurred since. Sure I have more things now but I was comfortable then. Can we go on ever aspiring to more, more, more?
I don't know the answer, unless it is to seek a better measure of human success than GDP growth.
On 1. It's not necessarily having more 'stuff' but an increase in the value put on said stuff - some of that does come from extracting resources, others from the value of human ingenuity, or just the value placed by others on things. We could keep on having growth even as we consumed resources at a slower rate or renewed them if we had the technology - the latter of which obviously is a way off yet because we were able to add much more value while consuming fewer resources. To take the doctors and nurses example, yes you probably want to train more doctors and nurses, but technological advances and improvements to treatments and education of them should in theory lead to more healthcare (it already has to a large extent, as despite its current troubles the NHS treats far more than it did when invented). The growth comes from better productivity and a more productive use of resources.
On 2. Well a problem is that without growth we don't feel as comfortable, we end up worse off. If you're in your 30s the lack of growth during your working life and stagnant wages mean you are much less likely to ever have a home, have a comfortable retirement etc. - because the world keeps turning and if we don't keep up the next generation ends up relatively poorer compared to their parents, then you get things like a brain drain, decaying services that decline and so on. No growth isn't "well in my day we got by, you should too" it's being materially poorer in comparison
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
I don't think that correct. There was GDP growth and growth per capita, and the gini coefficient the most equal it has been in our history.
Obviously there were economic problems, but actually the 1970s were probably the best time to be an ordinary working class Briton in terms of relative prosperity.
My parents were ordinary working class britons they lived in a council house. In the 70's I remember well being a kid and feeling guilty because my mother's main meal a day 3 days a week was a bowl with an oxo cube dissolved in hot water with a single slice of bread broken up to float in it so she could feed her one child. Don't give a shit what the stats say I lived through it and friends of the time had similar tales. That was the last time we had the credo of managed decline
Anecdote doesn't trump data. There was significant economic growth in the Seventies measured by GDP, and GDP Per Capita, and the lowest (most equal) gini coefficient in our history.
Obviously some do badly in any economic situation, but in the Seventies most working class people became significantly better off.
You see it in all sorts of stats: car ownership, foreign holidays, other consumer goods. Since then we have become more prosperous still, albeit more unequal. It has never been managed decline, more but rather growth, with other countries notably catching up with even faster growth.
Why then did working class people disagree and vote out left wing governments that espoused managed decline and did much better from it in the 80's
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
I agree. "Managed Decline" is actually the working title for my autobiography.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And that is exactly why the Tories have nothing to lose by getting rid of Truss and writing the whole thing off as an embarrassing footnote (or trying to, anyway). If you’re staring down the barrel of that sort of wipeout, anything you can do to build whatever you can back is a bonus.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
Comments
The response to just the words “Jimmy Carr with a flamethrower” is No! Don’t be so utterly stupid. Even before you learn how sick this how idea was.
I suppose he was probably very drunk when he said that, but when I was young MPs used to phrase things a bit more delicately.
Gary Lineker broke BBC impartiality rules with a tweet about the government in February, the corporation has ruled.
The Match of the Day host quoted a post about then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss urging Premier League teams to boycott the Champions League final in Russia.
He added: "And her party will hand back their donations from Russian donors?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63248314
The Crisp Man was ahead of the pack in sussing out Liz Truss.
Low $1.105
High $1.138
Currently $1.133
And the key question is why should people in this bit of the world have a massively higher standard of living than people in that part of the world forever?
Slow economic growth is vexing, which is why chucking chunks of it away shouldn't be done on a whim. But it's not an excuse to blow everything up either.
(My only problem with that analogy is that those odds are far too generous to Truss's judgement.)
That isn't what continuity remoaners do, because to do so would entail surrender to the filth that voted Brexit and tolerating their triumphant braying about how well it has all turned out. What they actually want to do, is take Brexit and make it look, feel, and smell, as much like 'not Brexit' as possible. That's not making the best of something; it's making less of it.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
They gambled with your mortgage and pension. That ought to cover everyone. But not sure the pension impact is obvious
As for do I support them? No. The very reason I keep asking for Labour to come up with some policies is so that I can vote for them knowing what their plan is.
Along with the hundreds of thousands of stolen children, now being brought up in Russian homes as Russians. Being taught to hate everything Ukrainian. They are going to be some messed up kids, whenever they get back home.
They lost the referendum but it was a vote. It wasn't a legal obligation all of a sudden to agree with the outcome. If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have been a big fan and tried to make lemonade out of his government. I'm guessing that you would have continued to oppose the Labour Party. As would have been your right.
Because, quite obviously, an increase in equality doesn't make anything actually any ducking better for anyone. In fact, if it comes about by making things worse for rich people/countries, and a bit less worse, but still worse, for poorer people/countries, it's actually a really, really shit idea. The kind of shit idea that a ducking loon who can only tolerate a rich and privileged person of they're so ashamed as to be nearly non-functional would have.
"A note on the news of voluntary evacuation of civilians from Kherson on the right (west) bank of the Dnepr river.
As in relation to Svatovo, the recent practice of voluntary evacuations is not an indicator of immediate (or even intermediate-term) threat to the cities being evacuated by the Russian authorities. On the contrary, it is evidence of the Russian authorities learning from experience to realize that cities are better and easier defended with fewer civilians and that no territory is worth civilian lives—the opposite to the methods practiced by the Ukrainian regime.
As can easily be seen from the map, the action is still very far from Kherson itself. While the Ukrainian offensive from the Andreevka/Davydov Brod bridgehead and toward Dudchany has now stalled, the city in the most danger—such as it is—of seeing direct clashes is Novaya Kakhovka, not Kherson.
Nonetheless, the Ukrainians shell Kherson daily, with howitzer and MLRS (HIMARS) artillery. In the circumstances, the fewer civilian remain on the right (west) bank of the Dnepr river, the fewer of them will die. The fewer of them also will be in the way of the defence of the city in the very unlikely (but not entirely amenable to being ruled out) event of clashes taking places in close proximity to the regional centre of Russia's Kherson Oblast.
Accordingly, the move to announce a voluntary evacuation from Kherson—in the circumstance where much of the city is being supplied by ferries and is subjected to constant shelling from afar by the Ukrainian Terrorist Forces—is a wise and timely move. The Russian Army should be focused on supplying the troops defending the Kherson Oblast, not the civilians who would be much safer further from the front lines"
I don't profess to understand stock market sentiment but can someone explain to me why an inflation report which continues to show the US economy running very strong and which looks set to lead to a 75 base point rise in US interest rates when the Fed next meets, has caused a near 2% rally in US stocks?
Would I be wrong in assuming only a few stock market investors give any coherent thought to what's going on in the wider economy and the majority simply follow the market like sheep?
I could see that at Brighton Racecourse today - there are punters who simply follow the money. If a horse is being backed, they back it because they assume those who are backing the horse "know" something.
If that assumption predominates in the modern stock market that would explain a lot.
"No, no, no. Where's the fun in that. We'd like to needlessly gamble the charity money as well for an outside chance of getting a speedboat".
Which is why day trading has a certain reputation.
Fascists would be busy passing a law to make sure there were no more multi party elections and bashing Jews on the head with bottles.
There is enough wrong with this lot without having to make stuff up.
Tbf, I had not fully accounted for the Conservatives' gross mismanagement speeding the process along so rapidly.
But that’s the truth.
1. What do we mean by 'growth' if we aspire to perpetual growth? Growth means we can buy more 'stuff' each year but ultimately there are only finite resources in the world and how many 'things' do we each need? The same for services: e.g. we could achieve more healthcare if we 'grow' but who will provide it? Ultimately we can't all be doctors and nurses.
2. Most of my life has been relatively comfortable. Relative to the full range of human experience I have been 'well-off'. But that was true in the 1960s and 1970s even before the growth that has occurred since. Sure I have more things now but I was comfortable then. Can we go on ever aspiring to more, more, more?
I don't know the answer, unless it is to seek a better measure of human success than GDP growth.
In which case, I would suggest that 'unmanaged decline' might be more apt.
Having looked at the productivity curves, it is not very evident that this really makes much savings. It is easier - outsource it to people who are so eager to do the work. Rather than fight to be allowed to build a factory in the uk, say.
Recently, we have seen the disadvantages of a global supply chain. Disruptions for one. Building dependency on evil arseholes into your economy for another.
Simple fact is as education gets better birth rates fall (something I am happy with increasing education in the third world). Due to that eventually the world population is going to start to decline and using immigration as a band aid will fail. What we need therefore is for politicians to man up and work out how we can get the economy working with declining populations rather than trying to pull in others from round the world as its going to end as a solution eventually
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/book-coronavirus-vaccination/
It may be worth checking out different vaccination sites - I found several weeks difference between nearest and earliest available.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
U.K. GDP Per Capita 1960-2022. www.macrotrends.net. Retrieved 2022-10-12.
Obviously there were economic problems, but actually the 1970s were probably the best time to be an ordinary working class Briton in terms of relative prosperity.
Woman accused of Sheffield lockdown rave has case thrown out
Sunny-Jo Veasey, 28, of Sheffield, was accused of hosting more than 30 people at her shared home in February 2021.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-63244479
From Friday, everyone in England aged 50 or over will be able to book their Covid booster and flu jab.
Over-50s in Wales and Northern Ireland are already eligible for both jabs.
The Scottish government says that it will begin inviting 50 to 64-year-olds soon.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-63234352.amp
And I rather more than tolerated the person you refer to. He was my bestie. Loved the guy!
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1580496386755555328?s=20&t=zlXIko9pb4keb1s3cxvVaw
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=51&LIB=9&Reform=3&Green=7&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=7&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=45&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
Obviously some do badly in any economic situation, but in the Seventies most working class people became significantly better off.
You see it in all sorts of stats: car ownership, foreign holidays, other consumer goods. Since then we have become more prosperous still, albeit more unequal. It has never been managed decline, more but rather growth, with other countries notably catching up with even faster growth.
On 2. Well a problem is that without growth we don't feel as comfortable, we end up worse off. If you're in your 30s the lack of growth during your working life and stagnant wages mean you are much less likely to ever have a home, have a comfortable retirement etc. - because the world keeps turning and if we don't keep up the next generation ends up relatively poorer compared to their parents, then you get things like a brain drain, decaying services that decline and so on. No growth isn't "well in my day we got by, you should too" it's being materially poorer in comparison