The Prime Minister needs the confidence of the House of Commons, but individual MPs need the support of their constituency parties and of the members who get them elected in the first place. And remember, with boundary changes to be announced next month, sitting MPs will not wish to fall out with their members.
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
And yet Eek has answered, and so beautifully described the apartheid of the pocket gathering pace around us today, and you don’t appear to be listening. 😕
It is so utterly different to what I have experienced.
I travel a lot for work - small towns, provincial cities, and capitals. I see more every day wealth now than I have done since the mid 00s.
I was in Preston the other day. Yes, it was quiet in the average pub. But equally in Winckley square everyone who walked past me in the morning had a chi-chi coffee in their hand.
Wile E Coyote it could be - but its quite some condemnation of the screeching media if they're not having the cut through on the economic times we're supposedly all having....
It needs to be understood that the 1922 Committee cannot unilaterally amend the Party's Leadership rules. Its role is defined in the Party Constitution which binds all members, including each and every MP. If the 1922 Committee wishes to change its twelve-month rule or any other part of its leadership procedures it must first consult the Party Board. The Party Board includes representatives of the voluntary party (the 180,000+ members who are entitled under the Constitution to elect the Leader). The journalists who are pushing this story certainly do not understand this and I wonder how many MPs have actually read and understood the Party Constitution? And if the 1922 Committee only present a single candidate (or one of the final two withdraws), the Party Board have power to refer the single nomination for approval by the full Party membership before it becomes effective.
That’s fine.
But the PM needs the support of the House. If Truss has no support, she’s gone. If the PCP can find someone who does, they become PM.
The Con leadership rules are ultimately neither here nor there.
More importantly, I don't sense any mass devotion from the party faithful for Truss. This isn't Labour with Jeremy Corbyn. Truss was never adored and now she has shown herself a failure. The membership won't save her.
The Prime Minister needs the confidence of the House of Commons, but individual MPs need the support of their constituency parties and of the members who get them elected in the first place. And remember, with boundary changes to be announced next month, sitting MPs will not wish to fall out with their members.
Right now individual MPs have far more to fear from polling in the low 20s than from party members.
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
And yet Eek has answered, and so beautifully described the apartheid of the pocket gathering pace around us today, and you don’t appear to be listening. 😕
It is so utterly different to what I have experienced.
I travel a lot for work - small towns, provincial cities, and capitals. I see more every day wealth now than I have done since the mid 00s.
I was in Preston the other day. Yes, it was quiet in the average pub. But equally in Winckley square everyone who walked past me in the morning had a chi-chi coffee in their hand.
Wile E Coyote it could be - but its quite some condemnation of the screeching media if they're not having the cut through on the economic times we're supposedly all having....
Let’s see how it develops then. So much life and love poured into peoples businesses, it will be great if they don’t die.
It needs to be understood that the 1922 Committee cannot unilaterally amend the Party's Leadership rules. Its role is defined in the Party Constitution which binds all members, including each and every MP. If the 1922 Committee wishes to change its twelve-month rule or any other part of its leadership procedures it must first consult the Party Board. The Party Board includes representatives of the voluntary party (the 180,000+ members who are entitled under the Constitution to elect the Leader). The journalists who are pushing this story certainly do not understand this and I wonder how many MPs have actually read and understood the Party Constitution? And if the 1922 Committee only present a single candidate (or one of the final two withdraws), the Party Board have power to refer the single nomination for approval by the full Party membership before it becomes effective.
That’s fine.
But the PM needs the support of the House. If Truss has no support, she’s gone. If the PCP can find someone who does, they become PM.
The Con leadership rules are ultimately neither here nor there.
More importantly, I don't sense any mass devotion from the party faithful for Truss. This isn't Labour with Jeremy Corbyn. Truss was never adored and now she has shown herself a failure. The membership won't save her.
We have forgotten perhaps that her margin of victory was relatively modest.
Her advantage was that she wasn’t Rishi.
There aren’t many Trussites. I’m not even sure Mr Truss is a Trussite. Truss pere is not.
The problem with Cummings (and I admit I'm guessing here) is he has a massive ego and is determined to be the smartest person in the room. Unfortunately the British establishment aren't convinced and instead deem him to be a t***. Hence the resentment.
Ukraine is one crisis that our establishment (and the US establishment) have actually handled very effectively.
It's the one thing I would give David Cameron credit for.
It actually suggests that the state of Western militaries is much better than I had thought. All this high tech equipment actually works, rather than being another Nimrod.
We may have been cutting defence spending but the disparity between Nato (combined) and Russia is absolutely vast. The main problem for Nato would seem to be that it's smallest members are right on the Russian border and it's main power is an ocean away. The US shouldn't really be in the position of having to secure the peace in Europe again.
That geographic difference is in NATO's favour. Russia knows that European-based can nuke it very easily, while the US can shoot half of Russia's out the sky on the way over the Atlantic. While everyone would be devastated by nuclear war, Russia would come out far worse than America.
I've just forked out £3200 for a new boiler. I was surprised to learn that replacing an old boiler might cut your energy use by a third as new boilers are around 92% efficient. The £3200 does of course include the additional 20% VAT. Might it not have made some sense for the government to remove VAT on new home boilers? Or even to reduce it? It might this have cost less than the energy subsidy?
Actually there already is a Boiler Upgrade Scheme but to heat pumps rather than traditional boilers. Organised by the BEIS under Kwasi Kwarteng, it is felt by some in the industry to be a complete shambles.
The scheme opened to voucher applications in May 2022, with approved funding of £450 million up to 2025.
The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) statistics provide information to monitor the uptake of the scheme, which contributes upfront capital grants to support the installations of low carbon technologies. These include air source heat pumps (ASHP), ground source heat pumps (GSHP), ground source heat pumps shared ground loops (GSHP SGL) and in some circumstances biomass boilers, in domestic and small non-domestic buildings. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/boiler-upgrade-scheme-statistics
The bond markets are not trying to say " the country is poor". They're saying "we need a repayment plan that isn't BOE printing GBP".
Certainly.
Although, the country is relatively poor. Yorkshire, for example, is poorer than any former East German lander, and that’s been the case for a while now.
It needs to be understood that the 1922 Committee cannot unilaterally amend the Party's Leadership rules. Its role is defined in the Party Constitution which binds all members, including each and every MP. If the 1922 Committee wishes to change its twelve-month rule or any other part of its leadership procedures it must first consult the Party Board. The Party Board includes representatives of the voluntary party (the 180,000+ members who are entitled under the Constitution to elect the Leader). The journalists who are pushing this story certainly do not understand this and I wonder how many MPs have actually read and understood the Party Constitution? And if the 1922 Committee only present a single candidate (or one of the final two withdraws), the Party Board have power to refer the single nomination for approval by the full Party membership before it becomes effective.
That’s fine.
But the PM needs the support of the House. If Truss has no support, she’s gone. If the PCP can find someone who does, they become PM.
The Con leadership rules are ultimately neither here nor there.
More importantly, I don't sense any mass devotion from the party faithful for Truss. This isn't Labour with Jeremy Corbyn. Truss was never adored and now she has shown herself a failure. The membership won't save her.
We have forgotten perhaps that her margin of victory was relatively modest.
Her advantage was that she wasn’t Rishi.
There aren’t many Trussites. I’m not even sure Mr Truss is a Trussite. Truss pere is not.
It needs to be understood that the 1922 Committee cannot unilaterally amend the Party's Leadership rules. Its role is defined in the Party Constitution which binds all members, including each and every MP. If the 1922 Committee wishes to change its twelve-month rule or any other part of its leadership procedures it must first consult the Party Board. The Party Board includes representatives of the voluntary party (the 180,000+ members who are entitled under the Constitution to elect the Leader). The journalists who are pushing this story certainly do not understand this and I wonder how many MPs have actually read and understood the Party Constitution? And if the 1922 Committee only present a single candidate (or one of the final two withdraws), the Party Board have power to refer the single nomination for approval by the full Party membership before it becomes effective.
There's lots of scope for gameplay ... The 1922 committee must present a "choice" of candidates to the party, but the 1922 executive decides (after "consultation" with the board) the rules by which candidates are selected, and if there's only one candidate when nominations close then he or she becomes the leader. The board can then, as you say, refer that person to the membership for approval (or ratification as it says in the constitution), but...would they? Even the members aren't infinitely stupid. MPs must be lily-livered if they shy away from battling the 1922 executive for fear of having to battle the board afterwards.
Edit: where does the constitution say the board has the power to ask the membership to "ratify" if one of the final two chosen by MPs drops out? Is that the s17 power to oversee all activities within the party?
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
And yet Eek has answered, and so beautifully described the apartheid of the pocket gathering pace around us today, and you don’t appear to be listening. 😕
It is so utterly different to what I have experienced.
I travel a lot for work - small towns, provincial cities, and capitals. I see more every day wealth now than I have done since the mid 00s.
I was in Preston the other day. Yes, it was quiet in the average pub. But equally in Winckley square everyone who walked past me in the morning had a chi-chi coffee in their hand.
Wile E Coyote it could be - but its quite some condemnation of the screeching media if they're not having the cut through on the economic times we're supposedly all having....
So you witness a set of people ordering a coffee on their way to the office - something they may now only be doing once or twice a week.
Yet you don’t query whether the pub is emptier than it was a while back - the important question isn’t what a town looks like it’s what does it look like compared to 2/4/6 months ago.
The bond markets are not trying to say " the country is poor". They're saying "we need a repayment plan that isn't BOE printing GBP".
Certainly.
Although, the country is relatively poor. Yorkshire, for example, is poorer than any former East German lander, and that’s been the case for a while now.
I must say the migration trends make me doubt that factoid. The Eastern Länder have been losing population continuously since their workers got access to the Western labour market. Perhaps the cost of living adjustment is compensating hugely, or perhaps the reunification subsidies are still massive.
And in 1 poll we demonstrate the importance of labour and the lib dems being very clear which seats they are targeting especially in three way marginals
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
And yet Eek has answered, and so beautifully described the apartheid of the pocket gathering pace around us today, and you don’t appear to be listening. 😕
It is so utterly different to what I have experienced.
I travel a lot for work - small towns, provincial cities, and capitals. I see more every day wealth now than I have done since the mid 00s.
I was in Preston the other day. Yes, it was quiet in the average pub. But equally in Winckley square everyone who walked past me in the morning had a chi-chi coffee in their hand.
Wile E Coyote it could be - but its quite some condemnation of the screeching media if they're not having the cut through on the economic times we're supposedly all having....
So you witness a set of people ordering a coffee on their way to the office - something they may now only be doing once or twice a week.
Yet you don’t query whether the pub is emptier than it was a while back - the important question isn’t what a town looks like it’s what does it look like compared to 2/4/6 months ago.
Ok.
I'll give you my home town.
Where I have a shop.
Two commercial properties have closed in the past month. They're both filled already.
The takeaways are booming.
The pubs are full.
If anything, things are as busy as the summer. In October!
Doesn't feel like a deep recession, or a crashed economy to me....
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Ok, lets look at the lower end. Costa is full. The sports bars are full. Primark is full.
I don't see the doom that others are predicting.
I wouldn't want to have bought a house in the last 2 years, or have a renewal in the next few months, but otherwise, I think it'll be pretty ride-out able for most people....
my butcher's closed, my independent coffee shop has closed, the wine bar I walk past in the city every day has closed. abre los ojos
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
Peoples' savings were replenished during Covid. That's what gives.
My understanding is that these areas are very well canvassed etc by the local parties. Huge improvement in Con organisation over the past decade.
Apart from some whets and some media-led reactionaries, most of my local party are behind Truss. Crucially, the local big spending donors are very unhappy about the way the MPs are behaving.
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Ok, lets look at the lower end. Costa is full. The sports bars are full. Primark is full.
I don't see the doom that others are predicting.
I wouldn't want to have bought a house in the last 2 years, or have a renewal in the next few months, but otherwise, I think it'll be pretty ride-out able for most people....
my butcher's closed, my independent coffee shop has closed, the wine bar I walk past in the city every day has closed. abre los ojos
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Ok, lets look at the lower end. Costa is full. The sports bars are full. Primark is full.
I don't see the doom that others are predicting.
I wouldn't want to have bought a house in the last 2 years, or have a renewal in the next few months, but otherwise, I think it'll be pretty ride-out able for most people....
my butcher's closed, my independent coffee shop has closed, the wine bar I walk past in the city every day has closed. abre los ojos
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
Peoples' savings were replenished during Covid. That's what gives.
This is of course true. But still doesn't seem like that is the whole story....
Well, that's my pal Bruce gone; into the hospice at 1pm yesterday, on the morphine pretty much immediately, turned down the respirator gradually, took the mask away at 1am today, battled on till 4pm.
Since The Times won't be doing an obit, I will.
Pompey boy, uncle went down on the Hood, joined the RN at 16, qualified as an artificer, worked subsequently mainly as a helicopter mechanic for Bristows.
Serial obsessive which included rock climbing, Nordic skiing, cycling, playing the flute, jazz, opera, birdwatching, life drawing, photography, neolithic stones.
Abiding passions Wagner, Blake, art and dressing well.
Complicated love life.
And just to keep it real for PB, detested the Tories and all they stand for.
My wife and I's condolences. Bruce sounds like a proper gent.
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Ok, lets look at the lower end. Costa is full. The sports bars are full. Primark is full.
I don't see the doom that others are predicting.
I wouldn't want to have bought a house in the last 2 years, or have a renewal in the next few months, but otherwise, I think it'll be pretty ride-out able for most people....
my butcher's closed, my independent coffee shop has closed, the wine bar I walk past in the city every day has closed. abre los ojos
In Spain?
In Leon's 'booming London'.
The difference is commercial rents, I'm guessing.
Whenever I'm in London (Knightsbridge, Bloomsbury, Shoreditch, Chiswick, Mayfair, City) I can't get a coffee without queuing for longer than ever before...
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
And yet Eek has answered, and so beautifully described the apartheid of the pocket gathering pace around us today, and you don’t appear to be listening. 😕
It is so utterly different to what I have experienced.
I travel a lot for work - small towns, provincial cities, and capitals. I see more every day wealth now than I have done since the mid 00s.
I was in Preston the other day. Yes, it was quiet in the average pub. But equally in Winckley square everyone who walked past me in the morning had a chi-chi coffee in their hand.
Wile E Coyote it could be - but its quite some condemnation of the screeching media if they're not having the cut through on the economic times we're supposedly all having....
So you witness a set of people ordering a coffee on their way to the office - something they may now only be doing once or twice a week.
Yet you don’t query whether the pub is emptier than it was a while back - the important question isn’t what a town looks like it’s what does it look like compared to 2/4/6 months ago.
Ok.
I'll give you my home town.
Where I have a shop.
Two commercial properties have closed in the past month. They're both filled already.
The takeaways are booming.
The pubs are full.
If anything, things are as busy as the summer. In October!
Doesn't feel like a deep recession, or a crashed economy to me....
You may not be feeling it, but for people on incomes of £30k or less, are really going to be hammered by rising commodity prices.
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
And yet Eek has answered, and so beautifully described the apartheid of the pocket gathering pace around us today, and you don’t appear to be listening. 😕
It is so utterly different to what I have experienced.
I travel a lot for work - small towns, provincial cities, and capitals. I see more every day wealth now than I have done since the mid 00s.
I was in Preston the other day. Yes, it was quiet in the average pub. But equally in Winckley square everyone who walked past me in the morning had a chi-chi coffee in their hand.
Wile E Coyote it could be - but its quite some condemnation of the screeching media if they're not having the cut through on the economic times we're supposedly all having....
I arrived into Manchester airport this evening and if there's a worse airport in the civilised world I've yet to use it*. Nothern powerhouse with an airport like that? They must be joking!
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
And yet Eek has answered, and so beautifully described the apartheid of the pocket gathering pace around us today, and you don’t appear to be listening. 😕
It is so utterly different to what I have experienced.
I travel a lot for work - small towns, provincial cities, and capitals. I see more every day wealth now than I have done since the mid 00s.
I was in Preston the other day. Yes, it was quiet in the average pub. But equally in Winckley square everyone who walked past me in the morning had a chi-chi coffee in their hand.
Wile E Coyote it could be - but its quite some condemnation of the screeching media if they're not having the cut through on the economic times we're supposedly all having....
So you witness a set of people ordering a coffee on their way to the office - something they may now only be doing once or twice a week.
Yet you don’t query whether the pub is emptier than it was a while back - the important question isn’t what a town looks like it’s what does it look like compared to 2/4/6 months ago.
Ok.
I'll give you my home town.
Where I have a shop.
Two commercial properties have closed in the past month. They're both filled already.
The takeaways are booming.
The pubs are full.
If anything, things are as busy as the summer. In October!
Doesn't feel like a deep recession, or a crashed economy to me....
You may not be feeling it, but for people on incomes of £30k or less, are really going to be hammered by rising commodity prices.
To be fair, I suspect most in this town have incomes well in excess of that.
FPT: my list, going through, of all even remotely credible unity candidates beyond Wallace:
Green, May, Hunt, Cox, Julian Smith, Brady, Barclay.
I can't see any of them being realistic. My view as an informed non-Tory:
Green - who? May - we got rid of her once already, no thanks Hunt - unacceptable to both types of Brexit ultra Cox - really? My daughters think he is some kind of comedy parody of a Tory Smith - Hmm, hadn't though of him. I know he made a decent fist of NI so must have some ability, but I have no idea who he is actually Brady - too smarmy Barclay - too anonymous, not a leader
Smith was tipped on here. Very much doubt he wants it. He seems pretty semi-detached from his party already.
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
Peoples' savings were replenished during Covid. That's what gives.
It makes me think that future monetary expansion should be paid directly into people's bank accounts. At the bottom of the income pyramid, not the top.
He reckons that even if the majority in the territories want where they live to be in Russia it would still be illegal.
"(B)efore the Kerch bridge incident (Putin) had begun to signal his desire to 'de-escalate': first, through releasing 200 Ukrainian POWs, second, through sham annexations of four Ukrainian provinces; third, by sabotaging the Nordstream gas pipeline; fourth, by reiterating his nuclear threats; and fifth, by expending a large number of long-range missiles on a revenge attack."
This is the kind of thing you get if you collect clippings from the past week or two, select bits from them, and stir the bits together - the Masonian method. His article is as much a mess as his silly book "Postcapitalism".
I stopped reading after this sentence:
"In all Russian wargames, 'de-escalation' involves using a tactical nuclear weapon to shock the western adversary into negotiation, while maintaining control over territory already captured."
What a hack. Perhaps even a true hacks' hack? Just shovel it out on the page and on to the next gig.
The bond markets are not trying to say " the country is poor". They're saying "we need a repayment plan that isn't BOE printing GBP".
Certainly.
Although, the country is relatively poor. Yorkshire, for example, is poorer than any former East German lander, and that’s been the case for a while now.
I must say the migration trends make me doubt that factoid. The Eastern Länder have been losing population continuously since their workers got access to the Western labour market. Perhaps the cost of living adjustment is compensating hugely, or perhaps the reunification subsidies are still massive.
Boris noted this fact himself in his levelling up speech.
But most British people - including policymakers - just can’t get their head around how (relatively) poor much of Britain actually is.
He reckons that even if the majority in the territories want where they live to be in Russia it would still be illegal.
"(B)efore the Kerch bridge incident (Putin) had begun to signal his desire to 'de-escalate': first, through releasing 200 Ukrainian POWs, second, through sham annexations of four Ukrainian provinces; third, by sabotaging the Nordstream gas pipeline; fourth, by reiterating his nuclear threats; and fifth, by expending a large number of long-range missiles on a revenge attack."
This is the kind of thing you get if you collect clippings from the past week or two, select bits from them, and stir the bits together - the Masonian method. His article is as much a mess as his silly book "Postcapitalism".
I stopped reading after this sentence:
"In all Russian wargames, 'de-escalation' involves using a tactical nuclear weapon to shock the western adversary into negotiation, while maintaining control over territory already captured."
What a hack. Perhaps even a true hacks' hack? Just shovel it out on the page and on to the next gig.
Lots of people desperate to play up the nuclear thing because they either fear Putin & Russia or actually back him. Chance of a nuclear strike is still small, though not by any means out of scope, and anyone with any sense knows that Putin's Russia was never the military powerhouse it was often claimed. People need to revise their ingrained thinking that its still mighty.
Russia's talk about nuclear weapons is straight out of its own propaganda playbook, its designed to scare and get arsehioles like Elon Musk feeling anxious, but talk is a long way from actually using one
Ok, lets look at the lower end. Costa is full. The sports bars are full. Primark is full.
I don't see the doom that others are predicting.
I wouldn't want to have bought a house in the last 2 years, or have a renewal in the next few months, but otherwise, I think it'll be pretty ride-out able for most people....
We're all being a bit anecdotal here (my contribution - I bought a second-hand car yesterday - the dealer said after the sale that the market is as bad as he can remember, but there are supply problems as well as demand problems), but I don't think anyone is saying that incomes have already collapsed. If there is a recession, it will start at the big ticket end - new house, new car, new boiler - rather than at the Primark end. Everyone I know is nervous and unwilling to splash out on anything substantial, but they're not at the stage of feeling they have to do nothing at all.
As predicted by Foxy - a Hindu nationalist standing in a majority Muslim ward.
In a way a bit sad, it’s been delivered by something that makes it not worth crowing about - community divisions growing 🙁
In my opinion it’s social media to blame, mouthy Alex Jones wannabe’s so detached from the issues in the wards changing hands and the streets violence breaking out on.
“Very little evidence tonight that Labour are on 50% plus nationally”
Not just tonight, even their more modest double digit leads rarely showed in months actual voting I get the impression .
Yes, indeed. Struggling against the St Didymus Nuns third XI
Surely their large opinion poll leads, and that the Tory government doesn’t even agree today with what it said yesterday, should reflect more in actual voting - the sad Leicester result aside. 7K votes cast seem like a lot, what was turnout?
“Very little evidence tonight that Labour are on 50% plus nationally”
Not just tonight, even their more modest double digit leads rarely showed in months actual voting I get the impression .
Yes, indeed. Struggling against the St Didymus Nuns third XI
Surely their large opinion poll leads, and that the Tory government doesn’t even agree today with what it said yesterday, should reflect more in actual voting - the sad Leicester result aside. 7K votes cast seem like a lot, what was turnout?
Surely Conservatives' success in local by-elections shows the national picture is overwhelmingly due to Liz Truss and that their ratings and chance of winning the next general election can be improved immediately by replacing the Prime Minister.
“Very little evidence tonight that Labour are on 50% plus nationally”
Not just tonight, even their more modest double digit leads rarely showed in months actual voting I get the impression .
It underlines the oft-made point that there isn’t, still, any enthusiasm for Labour and saying ‘Labour’ to an opinion pollster is simply shorthand for registering a protest against the Tories. It’s the other side of the question sometimes asked about why the LDs aren’t polling higher. When the election comes, there will be everything to play for.
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
And yet Eek has answered, and so beautifully described the apartheid of the pocket gathering pace around us today, and you don’t appear to be listening. 😕
It is so utterly different to what I have experienced.
I travel a lot for work - small towns, provincial cities, and capitals. I see more every day wealth now than I have done since the mid 00s.
I was in Preston the other day. Yes, it was quiet in the average pub. But equally in Winckley square everyone who walked past me in the morning had a chi-chi coffee in their hand.
Wile E Coyote it could be - but its quite some condemnation of the screeching media if they're not having the cut through on the economic times we're supposedly all having....
I arrived into Manchester airport this evening and if there's a worse airport in the civilised world I've yet to use it*. Nothern powerhouse with an airport like that? They must be joking!
The focus will now, gradually shift to Labour and Starmer.
I think they’re up to it. And I think there’s enough buy-in to Starmers competent centrist managerialism that even the Speccie, the Mail and the express will fall into line, or at least be ambivalent.
Perhaps not? They might take on their readers. They may go super-low and double down on the saville smears and whatever other dirt they can use.
I don’t think so, though. I think Labour have this in the bag. We’ll see.
What I still find utterly bizarre is that the consumer economy seems absolutely booming. I'm struggling to get hotel, restaurant bookings, concert tix etc.
The media-bond-market complex are trying to stop economic change of tack. I'm not sure the country is in as parlous a state as some like to paint it as.
That's why all the hyperbolic reporting about Truss "crashing the economy" feels misconceived. Gilt prices are not the economy.
Nor are hotels, restaurants or concerts. They are nice extras to have. It's rent, food and energy for a great many.
Yes, but if people have money for the former, they've paid for the latter.
The Rishi conceived energy bung is currently paying 70% of my monthly leccie bill. That. Is. A. Disgrace.
That's a totally different issue to implying that because luxuries are in demand the economy is just peachy. You are free to donate your energy subsidy to HMRC. Or anywhere else.
The economy as a whole seems pretty peachy. Otherwise the luxuries wouldn't be in demand.... I'm not sure what part of that is controversial?
Because the well off are still well off. That isn't the economy as a whole. Is that controversial? A huge amount of discretionary spend at the lower end is being removed entirely.
Simple example -I earn £10,000 a month (post tax) my energy bill going up £200 and food £100 isn’t really noticed it’s 3% of my income.
A friend earns £2000 a month - his price increases are the same but are 15% of his income - he’s going to have to cut back in ways I don’t.
Now think about how it goes for someone on less than £2000 a month - what do you cut when your descretionary spending was already little to nothing.
AND YET there is no evidence that people are cutting back on discretionary spending. So what gives?
Peoples' savings were replenished during Covid. That's what gives.
This is of course true. But still doesn't seem like that is the whole story....
We are in the "Wyle Cyotoe has gone off the cliff but hasn't realised yet" stage. New mortgage deals have got way more expensive but the majority of people are on their old mortgage deal, but thousands upon thousands will be rolling over as we come up to Christmas. The energy cap has jumped but most people wont have seen those bills yet and will have their summer over payments in place.
Comments
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/1296309/thread
Is there a factory in Britain that produces these chinless charlies?
I travel a lot for work - small towns, provincial cities, and capitals. I see more every day wealth now than I have done since the mid 00s.
I was in Preston the other day. Yes, it was quiet in the average pub. But equally in Winckley square everyone who walked past me in the morning had a chi-chi coffee in their hand.
Wile E Coyote it could be - but its quite some condemnation of the screeching media if they're not having the cut through on the economic times we're supposedly all having....
https://twitter.com/eleanor4epping/status/1580678659416870912
Her advantage was that she wasn’t Rishi.
There aren’t many Trussites.
I’m not even sure Mr Truss is a Trussite.
Truss pere is not.
The scheme opened to voucher applications in May 2022, with approved funding of £450 million up to 2025.
The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) statistics provide information to monitor the uptake of the scheme, which contributes upfront capital grants to support the installations of low carbon technologies. These include air source heat pumps (ASHP), ground source heat pumps (GSHP), ground source heat pumps shared ground loops (GSHP SGL) and in some circumstances biomass boilers, in domestic and small non-domestic buildings.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/boiler-upgrade-scheme-statistics
Although, the country is relatively poor.
Yorkshire, for example, is poorer than any former East German lander, and that’s been the case for a while now.
https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1580647445314568192?s=46&t=rN6GjMJswpRC1WgwRgUHjQ
Trussians surely.
Edit: where does the constitution say the board has the power to ask the membership to "ratify" if one of the final two chosen by MPs drops out? Is that the s17 power to oversee all activities within the party?
@BritainElects
Tuffley (Gloucester) council by-election result:
CON: 34.9% (-13.5)
LDEM: 33.8% (+28.3)
LAB: 31.3% (-2.7)
Votes cast: 1,440
No Independent (-12.1) as prev.
Conservative HOLD."
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1580692236391526400
Yet you don’t query whether the pub is emptier than it was a while back - the important question isn’t what a town looks like it’s what does it look like compared to 2/4/6 months ago.
She always used to say that there was literally no talk of politics at any of the social events she attended.
And if she managed to speak to the MP, they always refused to engage in any discussion about any political issue.
It was basically a social club for people with similar backgrounds and interests.
Yes, they were all interested in politics and had their favourite people and issues - but nobody was very ideological.
I'll give you my home town.
Where I have a shop.
Two commercial properties have closed in the past month. They're both filled already.
The takeaways are booming.
The pubs are full.
If anything, things are as busy as the summer. In October!
Doesn't feel like a deep recession, or a crashed economy to me....
Apart from some whets and some media-led reactionaries, most of my local party are behind Truss. Crucially, the local big spending donors are very unhappy about the way the MPs are behaving.
I think Truss rides this out.
Con 502
LD 487
Lab 451
Whenever I'm in London (Knightsbridge, Bloomsbury, Shoreditch, Chiswick, Mayfair, City) I can't get a coffee without queuing for longer than ever before...
*I must have used well over fifty airports
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/02/09/a-very-dark-horse-for-con-leader/
There is plenty of bad news to come I think in next few days. On balance I now think she wont be allowed to hang about.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/paul-mason-musk-cummings-trump-three-stooges-for-putins-aggression/
He reckons that even if the majority in the territories want where they live to be in Russia it would still be illegal.
"(B)efore the Kerch bridge incident (Putin) had begun to signal his desire to 'de-escalate': first, through releasing 200 Ukrainian POWs, second, through sham annexations of four Ukrainian provinces; third, by sabotaging the Nordstream gas pipeline; fourth, by reiterating his nuclear threats; and fifth, by expending a large number of long-range missiles on a revenge attack."
This is the kind of thing you get if you collect clippings from the past week or two, select bits from them, and stir the bits together - the Masonian method. His article is as much a mess as his silly book "Postcapitalism".
I stopped reading after this sentence:
"In all Russian wargames, 'de-escalation' involves using a tactical nuclear weapon to shock the western adversary into negotiation, while maintaining control over territory already captured."
What a hack. Perhaps even a true hacks' hack? Just shovel it out on the page and on to the next gig.
But most British people - including policymakers - just can’t get their head around how (relatively) poor much of Britain actually is.
And so it continues.
Russia's talk about nuclear weapons is straight out of its own propaganda playbook, its designed to scare and get arsehioles like Elon Musk feeling anxious, but talk is a long way from actually using one
Edgeley and Cheadle Heath (Stockport) council by-election result:
LAB: 52.9% (-19.6)
LDEM: 38.1% (+32.1)
GRN: 9.0% (+0.5)
Votes cast: 2,216
No Conservative (-13.0) as prev.
Labour HOLD
https://twitter.com/marquardta/status/1580700679810666496
North Evington (Leicester) council by-election result:
CON: 49.6% (+32.7)
GRN: 25.8% (+20.0)
LAB: 22.5% (-49.8)
LDEM: 1.4% (-3.5)
TUSC: 0.6% (+0.6)
Votes cast: 6,934
Conservative GAIN from Labour.
In my opinion it’s social media to blame, mouthy Alex Jones wannabe’s so detached from the issues in the wards changing hands and the streets violence breaking out on.
Not just tonight, even their more modest double digit leads rarely showed in months actual voting I get the impression .
Paul Dacre, the former editor of the Daily Mail, has been dropped from a list of more than 20 peerages that will be announced by the government today.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/former-daily-mail-editor-paul-dacre-is-dropped-from-peerages-list-skfcrh0k9 (£££)
Thoughts and prayers.
Move raises speculation over another mini-budget U-turn
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kwasi-kwarteng-flies-back-to-london-from-us-a-day-early-b2zcgtcd2 (£££)