Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
If pension funds start to collapse the floor could be about 0.5%.
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.
Economic growth is always revised upwards over time. Years that didn't look good at the time, in the 1970's and 1980's, turn out to have been boom years, once the numbers have been re-crunched. So, despite the slowdown since 2000, in all likelihood, by the late 2020's, the numbers will look a bit better than they do now (the recession of 2008-9 in fact looks less severe, and the recession of 2012 turned out never to have happened).
There is a tendency to think that things were always better when one was younger, and to focus on the things that were better, rather than the things that were worse. Health and housing were generally a good deal worse in the Seventies than today, and far fewer people were going on to higher education. All of the electronic things that we take for granted now barely existed then, far fewer people had access to good restaurants, or other cultural activities.
Don't forget that people work fewer hours, and fewer people work.
GDP = hours worked * participation * 1/unemployment * productivity * working age population
GDP would be even higher nowadays if we continued to work at the same rate as people used to. A big chunk of current slowdown in GDP is older people leaving the workforce earlier.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
If pension funds start to collapse the floor could be about 0.5%.
There are at least 5% who will blame the Bank of England for that and another 5% who will blame Gordon Brown for some reason. They really did not like him.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
If pension funds start to collapse the floor could be about 0.5%.
There are at least 5% who will blame the Bank of England for that and another 5% who will blame Gordon Brown for some reason. They really did not like him.
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
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
The GMC is not a charity. It is a government regulatory body, 50% of GMC council are lay people, with the other 50% appointed by the Privy Council.
“These numbers mean that Liz Truss is more unpopular than Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn ever were – she is basically in what I would call Prince Andrew territory,” he said.
“These numbers mean that Liz Truss is more unpopular than Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn ever were – she is basically in what I would call Prince Andrew territory,” he said.
She went to the pizza place in Slough... ...and had one with pineapple on it.
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.
Economic growth is always revised upwards over time. Years that didn't look good at the time, in the 1970's and 1980's, turn out to have been boom years, once the numbers have been re-crunched. So, despite the slowdown since 2000, in all likelihood, by the late 2020's, the numbers will look a bit better than they do now (the recession of 2008-9 in fact looks less severe, and the recession of 2012 turned out never to have happened).
There is a tendency to think that things were always better when one was younger, and to focus on the things that were better, rather than the things that were worse. Health and housing were generally a good deal worse in the Seventies than today, and far fewer people were going on to higher education. All of the electronic things that we take for granted now barely existed then, far fewer people had access to good restaurants, or other cultural activities.
Don't forget that people work fewer hours, and fewer people work.
GDP = hours worked * participation * 1/unemployment * productivity * working age population
GDP would be even higher nowadays if we continued to work at the same rate as people used to. A big chunk of current slowdown in GDP is older people leaving the workforce earlier.
About half of early departures from the workforce is because they are on NHS waiting lists it seems. One reason that spending on healthcare can help economic growth.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
If pension funds start to collapse the floor could be about 0.5%.
Definitely Lib Dem sleeper agent. Screw the 50% of Tory voters with a mortgage, take out the rest with an attack on pensions. Impressive one-two.
This is getting ridiculous - Truss needs to go now.
And to those who say Con has lost the next GE anyway - the public can change their minds very quickly. Look how much the polls have changed in just the few weeks Truss has been PM.
If MPs get rid of her now, the new PM has two full years until an October 2024 GE - most people will very quickly forget who on earth she was.
The only longstanding issue will be the damage she has done to the economy - but again, the quicker she goes the quicker her replacement can have a sensible Budget and start to restore confidence.
The Red Wall is pretty much gone, but it's *possible* if they replaced her with Rishi and ran a redux of the 2015 election campaign (scaring middle of the road voters tempted to vote Lib Dem or Labour at the prospect of a hung parliament and the SNP) they could win a wafer-thin majority at the next election.
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 as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
None of those things are made any less likely by Truss going though.
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news. I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
You think the Johnson, May and Cameron premierships didn’t care about growth too? Governments have always prioritised growth. Truss is no intellectual giant for talking about growth. The problem has law has always been how do you achieve growth, and Truss’s answers on that are just nonsense.
I don't think the Johnson government prioritised growth, no. For the first couple of months it prioritised levelling up, and thereafter it prioritised covid. None of these things were necessarily wrong at the time. But now we have no money left.
“One long-serving MP laments that their options now are ridicule (via another change of leader) or death” writes @JGForsyth in Comment on Truss and the Tories
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.
Economic growth is always revised upwards over time. Years that didn't look good at the time, in the 1970's and 1980's, turn out to have been boom years, once the numbers have been re-crunched. So, despite the slowdown since 2000, in all likelihood, by the late 2020's, the numbers will look a bit better than they do now (the recession of 2008-9 in fact looks less severe, and the recession of 2012 turned out never to have happened).
There is a tendency to think that things were always better when one was younger, and to focus on the things that were better, rather than the things that were worse. Health and housing were generally a good deal worse in the Seventies than today, and far fewer people were going on to higher education. All of the electronic things that we take for granted now barely existed then, far fewer people had access to good restaurants, or other cultural activities.
Don't forget that people work fewer hours, and fewer people work.
GDP = hours worked * participation * 1/unemployment * productivity * working age population
GDP would be even higher nowadays if we continued to work at the same rate as people used to. A big chunk of current slowdown in GDP is older people leaving the workforce earlier.
About half of early departures from the workforce is because they are on NHS waiting lists it seems. One reason that spending on healthcare can help economic 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.
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.
Economic growth is always revised upwards over time. Years that didn't look good at the time, in the 1970's and 1980's, turn out to have been boom years, once the numbers have been re-crunched. So, despite the slowdown since 2000, in all likelihood, by the late 2020's, the numbers will look a bit better than they do now (the recession of 2008-9 in fact looks less severe, and the recession of 2012 turned out never to have happened).
There is a tendency to think that things were always better when one was younger, and to focus on the things that were better, rather than the things that were worse. Health and housing were generally a good deal worse in the Seventies than today, and far fewer people were going on to higher education. All of the electronic things that we take for granted now barely existed then, far fewer people had access to good restaurants, or other cultural activities.
Don't forget that people work fewer hours, and fewer people work.
GDP = hours worked * participation * 1/unemployment * productivity * working age population
GDP would be even higher nowadays if we continued to work at the same rate as people used to. A big chunk of current slowdown in GDP is older people leaving the workforce earlier.
About half of early departures from the workforce is because they are on NHS waiting lists it seems. One reason that spending on healthcare can help economic growth.
I actually know a junior doctor (orthopaedics) who can't work as she's done her ACL. Huge waiting list for the operation, a pocket vicious cycle.
Just backed Liz out at 6.4 this year. The market is thin but spent some of my Arc winnings.
I have been told clearly she is out so have trusted my source.
She's done. Just a question of how it is done now. The problem is agreeing on a coronation. The civil war seems now so brutal that even a looming total wipeout may not be enough to allow, say Braverman or JRM, backing a sensible coronated PM to save the ship. In which case it goes to the members unless 1922 changes rules dramatically.
“One long-serving MP laments that their options now are ridicule (via another change of leader) or death” writes @JGForsyth in Comment on Truss and the Tories
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
If pension funds start to collapse the floor could be about 0.5%.
There are at least 5% who will blame the Bank of England for that and another 5% who will blame Gordon Brown for some reason. They really did not like him.
This is getting ridiculous - Truss needs to go now.
And to those who say Con has lost the next GE anyway - the public can change their minds very quickly. Look how much the polls have changed in just the few weeks Truss has been PM.
If MPs get rid of her now, the new PM has two full years until an October 2024 GE - most people will very quickly forget who on earth she was.
The only longstanding issue will be the damage she has done to the economy - but again, the quicker she goes the quicker her replacement can have a sensible Budget and start to restore confidence.
The Red Wall is pretty much gone, but it's *possible* if they replaced her with Rishi and ran a redux of the 2015 election campaign (scaring middle of the road voters tempted to vote Lib Dem or Labour at the prospect of a hung parliament and the SNP) they could win a wafer-thin majority at the next election.
Remember, energy prices only went up 13 days ago - the vast majority of people will not yet have actually received a bill at the higher price.
Ditto mortgages. For anyone on standard variable rate or linked to base rate - by far the biggest element of their increased payments is still yet to actually be incurred.
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
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
The GMC is not a charity. It is a government regulatory body, 50% of GMC council are lay people, with the other 50% appointed by the Privy Council.
It is a creation of statute and a charity. This is not uncommon. Its powers and duties arise from legislation but the Charity Commission accepts its purposes as charitable.
Parochial Church Councils similarly are creations of legislation and also charities.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
If pension funds start to collapse the floor could be about 0.5%.
There are at least 5% who will blame the Bank of England for that and another 5% who will blame Gordon Brown for some reason. They really did not like him.
2% will blame lizard overlords.
Sshhh, us lizards are trying to deflect the blame onto Truss and Kwarteng, remember?
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
If pension funds start to collapse the floor could be about 0.5%.
There are at least 5% who will blame the Bank of England for that and another 5% who will blame Gordon Brown for some reason. They really did not like him.
2% will blame lizard overlords.
Lizard Overlords are ahead of Conservatives in current polling.
Remember, energy prices only went up 13 days ago - the vast majority of people will not yet have actually received a bill at the higher price.
Ditto mortgages. For anyone on standard variable rate or linked to base rate - by far the biggest element of their increased payments is still yet to actually be incurred.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1h Even if Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng calm the markets, winning back the public feels like Mission Impossible.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
If pension funds start to collapse the floor could be about 0.5%.
There are at least 5% who will blame the Bank of England for that and another 5% who will blame Gordon Brown for some reason. They really did not like him.
2% will blame lizard overlords.
Lizard Overlords are ahead of Conservatives in current polling.
The mind boggles. If this not reason to ditch Truss, you have to wonder what would be enough for them to get rid of her. Single figures? 0% Negative?
19%
Get the message Tory MPs. There’s a hint here if you read between the lines. She’s not up to the job.
How delicious - the poll was commissioned by GBeebies.
19%? This is the end, my only friend, the end...
Very apt for Truss's demise, especially the 'elaborate plans':
This is the end, beautiful friend This is the end, my only friend, the end Of our elaborate plans, the end Of everything that stands, the end No safety or surprise, the end I'll never look into your eyes, again.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
The mind boggles. If this not reason to ditch Truss, you have to wonder what would be enough for them to get rid of her. Single figures? 0% Negative?
19%
Get the message Tory MPs. There’s a hint here if you read between the lines. She’s not up to the job.
How delicious - the poll was commissioned by GBeebies.
19%? This is the end, my only friend, the end...
Very apt for Truss's demise, especially the 'elaborate plans':
This is the end, beautiful friend This is the end, my only friend, the end Of our elaborate plans, the end Of everything that stands, the end No safety or surprise, the end I'll never look into your eyes, again.
You've done me wrong, your time is up You took a sip from the devil's cup You broke my heart, there's no way back Move right out of here, baby, go on pack your bags Just who do you think you are? Stop actin' like some kind of star Just who do you think you are?
“These numbers mean that Liz Truss is more unpopular than Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn ever were – she is basically in what I would call Prince Andrew territory,” he said.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
If pension funds start to collapse the floor could be about 0.5%.
There are at least 5% who will blame the Bank of England for that and another 5% who will blame Gordon Brown for some reason. They really did not like him.
2% will blame lizard overlords.
Lizard Overlords are ahead of Conservatives in current polling.
And there's talk of an alliance with Laurence Fox.
The markets have started to look better again have they not? Admittedly I haven't checked since mid-afternoon. Of course the problem with this is it's all predicated on the assumption that the government's plans will be abandoned. The danger is that Truss and Kwarteng may then gain some false confidence from the picture.
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
How many long tons of pig iron do you need?
In the software and services economy growth isn’t in necessarily in more physical matter - ever funkier arrangements of smaller and smaller amounts of atoms, possibly.
The markets have started to look better again have they not? Admittedly I haven't checked since mid-afternoon. Of course the problem with this is it's all predicated on the assumption that the government's plans will be abandoned. The danger is that Truss and Kwarteng may then gain some false confidence from the picture.
I asked this earlier:
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.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
If pension funds start to collapse the floor could be about 0.5%.
There are at least 5% who will blame the Bank of England for that and another 5% who will blame Gordon Brown for some reason. They really did not like him.
2% will blame lizard overlords.
Lizard Overlords are ahead of Conservatives in current polling.
The markets have started to look better again have they not? Admittedly I haven't checked since mid-afternoon. Of course the problem with this is it's all predicated on the assumption that the government's plans will be abandoned. The danger is that Truss and Kwarteng may then gain some false confidence from the picture.
I asked this earlier:
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.
Or, put another way, for there to be any prospect of the UK govt getting a grip on economic policy, it must be demonstrated that the Chancellor does not control policy.
Remember, energy prices only went up 13 days ago - the vast majority of people will not yet have actually received a bill at the higher price.
Ditto mortgages. For anyone on standard variable rate or linked to base rate - by far the biggest element of their increased payments is still yet to actually be incurred.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1h Even if Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng calm the markets, winning back the public feels like Mission Impossible.
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
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
Certainly ending low pay is a worthy goal, but why shouldn't unskilled people get enough to live on too? We are always going to need cleaners, cooks and dustbin crew. Why shouldn't they get wages that allow them to live dignified lives?
They absolutely should we agree on that. However you were passionate about freedom of movement which definitely kept there wages down because if they wouldn't work for minimum wage there were plenty that would because they didn't have the same costs in life. They were willing to live 6 to a room for a few years and had no family to raise. People like you made them poor
I’m all for the high paid cleaner who supervises the cleaning robots. That’s the alternative to morlocks.
The markets have started to look better again have they not? Admittedly I haven't checked since mid-afternoon. Of course the problem with this is it's all predicated on the assumption that the government's plans will be abandoned. The danger is that Truss and Kwarteng may then gain some false confidence from the picture.
I asked this earlier:
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.
There is trade on all of price movement, sentiment, news and fundamentals. It is tricky to accurately say what caused one particular days fluctuation.
Within days of becoming PM, she managed to change the political conversation and successfully created clear blue water in the polls between the Tories and Labour.
The markets have started to look better again have they not? Admittedly I haven't checked since mid-afternoon. Of course the problem with this is it's all predicated on the assumption that the government's plans will be abandoned. The danger is that Truss and Kwarteng may then gain some false confidence from the picture.
I asked this earlier:
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.
All financial markets are like panicking sheep. They react slowly initially, then over react. Then over-compensate. They will behave irrationally, and sometimes destroy good companies as a result. That irrationality can continue longer than they can remain solvent.
Best to stick to fundamentals, avoid companies financed by debt and stick to what you can afford to lose.
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
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
The GMC is not a charity. It is a government regulatory body, 50% of GMC council are lay people, with the other 50% appointed by the Privy Council.
The markets have started to look better again have they not? Admittedly I haven't checked since mid-afternoon. Of course the problem with this is it's all predicated on the assumption that the government's plans will be abandoned. The danger is that Truss and Kwarteng may then gain some false confidence from the picture.
I asked this earlier:
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.
"such whipsaw moves have also simply become more common this year, as data on the U.S. economy has collided with technical factors in markets around how investors are positioned that involve investors betting when stock prices have hit a bottom and will rise again."
Tories did briefly drop to 17% in 2019 but that was when the Brexit Party was on 26% - it was just a straight transfer of right-wing votes that came back quickly.
For context I can only see 16 polls ever (all from 1993-1997) when there was a bigger lead for one party. And polling methodology then was systematically biased to Labour.
This has been *the* week for putting the shits up Tory MPs. Day after day, love turns grey, like the skin of a dying man. An endless string of "oh fucks" and "this is the worst it has ever been".
So a poll by GBeebies. Reported first in the Torygraph. Putting them below 20% and the scale of the ELE now unavoidable. How much more of this can Tory MPs take before the dam breaks and the rupture of "she must go" declarations becomes a tidal wave?
Never mind 2023 or the locals, I have to ask if she will make November.
By the looks of things this, and the YouGov, look like random fluctuations around a stable lead. Which suggests that the shock is not wearing off to see Tory voters return to the fold, but it might be a change in voting intention that sticks.
Tory - Lib Dem gap could be down to single figures if the situation deteriorates any further for the government.
The markets have started to look better again have they not? Admittedly I haven't checked since mid-afternoon. Of course the problem with this is it's all predicated on the assumption that the government's plans will be abandoned. The danger is that Truss and Kwarteng may then gain some false confidence from the picture.
I asked this earlier:
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.
"such whipsaw moves have also simply become more common this year, as data on the U.S. economy has collided with technical factors in markets around how investors are positioned that involve investors betting when stock prices have hit a bottom and will rise again."
NY Times
Such volatility often precedes a crash. Not always though.
It was a quiet afternoon punting-wise. The three odds on favs all obliged and a couple of small punts in the handicaps were lost but it was a dismal afternoon and it was a long walk back to the station though always easier downhill.
BROXI in the penultimate race did me a big favour - I always like backing Dean Ivory sprinters at Brighton. The change in ground (went from good/firm to soft) threw out a lot of plans.
Can't decide between Windsor and Plumpton on Monday.
Jon Sopel @jonsopel · 6h A cabinet minister until a few weeks ago has just told me @trussliz ‘has unleashed hell on this country.’ The language being used by senior Conservatives, the incredulity, the cold fury is like nothing I’ve seen in decades of covering UK politics
Jon Sopel @jonsopel · 6h A cabinet minister until a few weeks ago has just told me @trussliz ‘has unleashed hell on this country.’ The language being used by senior Conservatives, the incredulity, the cold fury is like nothing I’ve seen in decades of covering UK politics
Tories did briefly drop to 17% in 2019 but that was when the Brexit Party was on 26% - it was just a straight transfer of right-wing votes that came back quickly.
For context I can only see 16 polls ever (all from 1993-1997) when there was a bigger lead for one party. And polling methodology then was systematically biased to Labour.
Tories did briefly drop to 17% in 2019 but that was when the Brexit Party was on 26% - it was just a straight transfer of right-wing votes that came back quickly.
For context I can only see 16 polls ever (all from 1993-1997) when there was a bigger lead for one party. And polling methodology then was systematically biased to Labour.
This is her flagship. She has to resign if the tax cuts are all scrapped.
What else does she stand for? Some mumbled bollx about supply reform which seems to mean bringing in more florists from Indian and stopping farmers from using their own fields.
How will this party membership wrath manifest itself? (Serious question! - they've nowhere left to go I'd have thought). Surely it's the wrath of the vast majority of the population they should be more worried about? https://twitter.com/joeyfjones/status/1580650423316537344
The markets have started to look better again have they not? Admittedly I haven't checked since mid-afternoon. Of course the problem with this is it's all predicated on the assumption that the government's plans will be abandoned. The danger is that Truss and Kwarteng may then gain some false confidence from the picture.
I asked this earlier:
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.
OK there's a lot going on here:
1. Stock markets often rise on bad news because it crystallises the preceding bad rumour.
2. There's technical shit happening. Markets get "oversold": I don't fully understand this concept, but people with short positions need to buy stock in a hurry to cover their positions.
3. It's different from Brighton racecourse. If people pile on to a horse the price of a fixed return goes up as the odds shorten: a £100 payout costs £10 at 10/1 but £20 at 5/1. In a market bubble the payout rises along with cost, your investment goes from £10 to £20 but the payout potentially rises from £100 to £300. It is rational to buy into an irrational bubble rather than sit on the sidelines saying hur hur how irrational, just as it is rational to buy stocks of toilet paper when everyone else starts irrationally buying toilet paper.
4. It's called momentum investing, and it often works.
5. I dunno but I am pretty sure that most of the money in the US stock market is professionally managed by fiendishly clever professionals with PhDs and everything, not mom n pop sheep investors
Comments
The mind boggles. If this not reason to ditch Truss, you have to wonder what would be enough for them to get rid of her. Single figures? 0% Negative?
19%
Get the message Tory MPs. There’s a hint here if you read between the lines. She’s not up to the job.
GDP = hours worked * participation * 1/unemployment * productivity * working age population
GDP would be even higher nowadays if we continued to work at the same rate as people used to. A big chunk of current slowdown in GDP is older people leaving the workforce earlier.
I have been told clearly she is out so have trusted my source.
...and had one with pineapple on it.
She’s not a populist.
(At least not a good one)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/92b294ee-4b0c-11ed-8b55-aaf85c581598?shareToken=9ae7f0e665d688e173807aaac8c28710
Indeed I think Agent Truss works every night on new ways to curry unpopularity with new segments of the voting public.
19%? This is the end, my only friend, the end...
Ditto mortgages. For anyone on standard variable rate or linked to base rate - by far the biggest element of their increased payments is still yet to actually be incurred.
Parochial Church Councils similarly are creations of legislation and also charities.
National Trust another?
The court rejected Trump's effort aimed at blocking prosecutors from using classified documents in a prosecution of the former president.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/supreme-court-rejects-trump-appeal-mar-a-lago_n_634862aae4b03e8038d1bdb9
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
1h
Even if Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng calm the markets, winning back the public feels like Mission Impossible.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1580626530157596672
This is the end, beautiful friend
This is the end, my only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes, again.
You took a sip from the devil's cup
You broke my heart, there's no way back
Move right out of here, baby, go on pack your bags
Just who do you think you are?
Stop actin' like some kind of star
Just who do you think you are?
It is a new era.
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1580643795200143362
Ouch!!!!
In the software and services economy growth isn’t in necessarily in more physical matter - ever funkier arrangements of smaller and smaller amounts of atoms, possibly.
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.
How does he not resign?
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1580645201160257536
I blame Gordon Brown.
Within days of becoming PM, she managed to change the political conversation and successfully created clear blue water in the polls between the Tories and Labour.
https://twitter.com/Tucker5law/status/1580608023893975040
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1580602933623676928/video/1
Best to stick to fundamentals, avoid companies financed by debt and stick to what you can afford to lose.
But astonishingly, it is true. The markets literally don’t believe anything coming out of Kwasi’s mouth this evening.
"such whipsaw moves have also simply become more common this year, as data on the U.S. economy has collided with technical factors in markets around how investors are positioned that involve investors betting when stock prices have hit a bottom and will rise again."
NY Times
Tories: 19%
Lab: 53%
Another new record gap and the first time the Tories have been in the teens.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/13/just-nine-per-cent-have-favourable-view-liz-truss/
Tories did briefly drop to 17% in 2019 but that was when the Brexit Party was on 26% - it was just a straight transfer of right-wing votes that came back quickly.
For context I can only see 16 polls ever (all from 1993-1997) when there was a bigger lead for one party. And polling methodology then was systematically biased to Labour.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1580642220612296704
So a poll by GBeebies. Reported first in the Torygraph. Putting them below 20% and the scale of the ELE now unavoidable. How much more of this can Tory MPs take before the dam breaks and the rupture of "she must go" declarations becomes a tidal wave?
Never mind 2023 or the locals, I have to ask if she will make November.
By the looks of things this, and the YouGov, look like random fluctuations around a stable lead. Which suggests that the shock is not wearing off to see Tory voters return to the fold, but it might be a change in voting intention that sticks.
Tory - Lib Dem gap could be down to single figures if the situation deteriorates any further for the government.
Seems doubtful.
Just go and take Kwarteng with you
Or
Conservative mps act now and replace them both without delay
BROXI in the penultimate race did me a big favour - I always like backing Dean Ivory sprinters at Brighton. The change in ground (went from good/firm to soft) threw out a lot of plans.
Can't decide between Windsor and Plumpton on Monday.
@jonsopel
·
6h
A cabinet minister until a few weeks ago has just told me
@trussliz
‘has unleashed hell on this country.’ The language being used by senior Conservatives, the incredulity, the cold fury is like nothing I’ve seen in decades of covering UK politics
The perfect example of American food shopping.
-Millions of SKU's,but no choice, just the same thing done slightly different.
-Terrible packaging that makes it look vile.
-Extremely poor quality and unhealthy.
https://twitter.com/tomfgoodwin/status/1580648332120461313?s=46&t=6TUpOusU8ZQY6t-0qL-11A
https://twitter.com/mikebradleymke/status/1580381366314598401?s=46&t=6TUpOusU8ZQY6t-0qL-11A
What else does she stand for? Some mumbled bollx about supply reform which seems to mean bringing in more florists from Indian and stopping farmers from using their own fields.
How will this party membership wrath manifest itself? (Serious question! - they've nowhere left to go I'd have thought). Surely it's the wrath of the vast majority of the population they should be more worried about? https://twitter.com/joeyfjones/status/1580650423316537344
1. Stock markets often rise on bad news because it crystallises the preceding bad rumour.
2. There's technical shit happening. Markets get "oversold": I don't fully understand this concept, but people with short positions need to buy stock in a hurry to cover their positions.
3. It's different from Brighton racecourse. If people pile on to a horse the price of a fixed return goes up as the odds shorten: a £100 payout costs £10 at 10/1 but £20 at 5/1. In a market bubble the payout rises along with cost, your investment goes from £10 to £20 but the payout potentially rises from £100 to £300. It is rational to buy into an irrational bubble rather than sit on the sidelines saying hur hur how irrational, just as it is rational to buy stocks of toilet paper when everyone else starts irrationally buying toilet paper.
4. It's called momentum investing, and it often works.
5. I dunno but I am pretty sure that most of the money in the US stock market is professionally managed by fiendishly clever professionals with PhDs and everything, not mom n pop sheep investors