Will govt keep pledge to cut the basic rate of income tax to 19p next year? Hunt: "I very much hope we can keep that, I'm not going to make a decision before I've looked at all the numbers in the round."
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
You will get your state pension increase based on next week's CPI number, and benefits etc will be updated similarly.
Freeland rightly points to the other elephant in the Tory room - the death of sovereignty. Brexit was all about Take Back Control. We could do what we like. We held all the cards. We are so important.
What KT vs the markets demonstrated was the stupidity of that argument. We have been humiliated on a global scale and our arrogant exceptionalism has been slapped down by a global community who refused to play along any longer.
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
I think Freeland is right about sovereignty and the myth of Brexit. I’m less clear whether that’s how (Leave) voters will interpret events.
On one hand, it's a brutal proof of the argument that pooling national sovereignty strengthens the power of nations against external forces. And some of those external forces aren't other nations. We really were Stronger, Safer and Better Off, as the slogan said.
On the other hand, proving someone wrong, especially if it's done brutally, can cause more harm than good.
Are you confident that this argument won't be proved wrong by events (i.e. EU countries succumbing to the same pressures)?
Arguably what the last year has shown is that the EU was deluding itself about being an equal to the US, and that the next period of global politics will be defined by the rivalry between the US and China.
That doesn’t disprove the argument that our sovereignty is limited by international forces. You’re just saying it's so bad that even the EU isn’t a big enough block to cope.
@Jeremy_Hunt taking part in a political ice bucket challenge for the Truss govt. Says everything Truss didn't yesterday. Admits: - mistake to cut tax for richest - mistake to 'fly blind' without OBR - spending can't go up as planned
Oh, and some taxes will go up. The fantasy era of cakeism, started by Johnson and accelerated by Truss, seems over. But is her premiership too?
But they were not flying blind without the OBR. We know that the OBR did an analysis of the plans because they have confirmed this. That KT refused to publish it demonstrated to the markets just how bad it was.
The lie was a problem, but its far deeper than that. KT truly believed they were right and everyone else wrong. She still thinks that, even now.
Her instincts will still be to do bat-shit crazy stuff while Hunt's back is turned.
Her problem is Hunt could still resign as Chancellor the moment she did. The market wobble from that would be worse than anything under Kwarteng. And no-one would think the worse of Hunt.
Hunt can’t be sacked, and even a threat to resign and she is done. So he will get his way - the question, as others say above, is for how long is this sustainable?
Which means Hunt is the effective PM so they might as well coronate him and get it over with.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
That raises the intriguing possibility that there are times when you're *not* really miffed at something.
Ydoether , you malign me, I am actually a happy go lucky chappie. I have led a lucky interesting very happy life and hope I have many happy years to go. In reality I am very cheery.
I rather miss the old you. Can you lob a few turnips for old times sake?
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
You will get your state pension increase based on next week's CPI number, and benefits etc will be updated similarly.
These clowns could change all that in a week.
PS: I was just trolling it does not really matter what increase is for me but certainly important for lots of poor pensioners living on it alone.
Hunt’s primary audience for his media interviews this weekend are the buyers and sellers of gilts.
When he talks about needing to see “the figures in the round” what he really means is the gilt yields next week.
The higher they go, the greater the pain.
If they stabilise and/or fall, the pain will be only moderate.
Truss/Kwarteng played poker with the bond market. They lost.
This is the price we must pay.
Utter humiliation for the Conservative Party.
And most of the Westminster journos are now forming an orderly queue effectively to anoint Hunt as the acting Prime Minister. Although she hasn't quit the Truss Ministry may, de facto, already be over.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
You will get your state pension increase based on next week's CPI number, and benefits etc will be updated similarly.
I don't really get why if it is so important for pensioners and those on universal credit or other benefits to get CPI, it is fine for public sector workers to get less than half CPI?
If I were in charge, I would broadly look to give all three groups a similar number, probably a bit less than CPI for most, and a bit above for the poorest.
That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
He has to start from where he is.
Sure, nobody wants austerity but if that's what it takes to calm the markets, so be it. After that he can inch his way forward. It's not going to be fun, but neither is living in La-La Land, where we have dwelt for too long.
Austerity in the middle of a cost of living crisis is going to be absolutely catastrophic for the public sector.
The NHS is already on the edge. Schools look set to be hit by a wave of rolling strikes. The situation in transport is - difficult.
And that's before any new austerity hits.
He may not have a choice, but it isn't going to be pretty at all.
Itll also be hugely unpopular as people already feel things are cut to the bone and want more not less spending.
But the situation is so bad only unpopular options remain, so the least catastrophic must be picked.
Freeland rightly points to the other elephant in the Tory room - the death of sovereignty. Brexit was all about Take Back Control. We could do what we like. We held all the cards. We are so important.
What KT vs the markets demonstrated was the stupidity of that argument. We have been humiliated on a global scale and our arrogant exceptionalism has been slapped down by a global community who refused to play along any longer.
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
I think Freeland is right about sovereignty and the myth of Brexit. I’m less clear whether that’s how (Leave) voters will interpret events.
On one hand, it's a brutal proof of the argument that pooling national sovereignty strengthens the power of nations against external forces. And some of those external forces aren't other nations. We really were Stronger, Safer and Better Off, as the slogan said.
On the other hand, proving someone wrong, especially if it's done brutally, can cause more harm than good.
Are you confident that this argument won't be proved wrong by events (i.e. EU countries succumbing to the same pressures)?
Arguably what the last year has shown is that the EU was deluding itself about being an equal to the US, and that the next period of global politics will be defined by the rivalry between the US and China.
That doesn’t disprove the argument that our sovereignty is limited by international forces. You’re just saying it's so bad that even the EU isn’t a big enough block to cope.
Yes, the argument it would disprove is that the EU provides a shelter from international forces.
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
"Woke" is no longer a meaningful term. It means whatever reactionaries hate about modern society, and that shifts with their apoplexy.
It means to me a set of fashionable views held fanatically and arrived at without applying even a modicum of intellectual rigour.
The worst of woke is like that, sure. But some of it is pausing long enough to realise that some things we have been saying and doing are neither kind not polite, and that's not right.
The paradox is that by hyperventilating about everything, anti-woke warriors might let more Woke happen.
I see the US authorities have asked to revoke the Special Master ruling when it comes to the raid on Trump's property. Rather unusual request given the natural course of action would just be to let the investigation run its course and / or there would appear no urgency. Unless, on the latter of course, the Administration was keen that something came out of the papers before the Midterms in a few weeks time.
The country and everyone in it continues, of course, to be held hostage by the Conservative Party, and its extraordinary ability to replace each leader with a more incompetent successor. And we shouldn't kid ourselves that there's not ample opportunity for it to drag itself and us further into the mire. A panic eviction of Liz Truss will trigger a leadership election under the current rules, meaning we'll probably have to end up waiting, in the midst of multiple crises, with Truss as a powerless caretaker until at least Christmas, whilst the MPs whittle the list down again, and the demented old fucks in the membership have to be schmoozed and courted again. And we know where that ends. The Blukip faction in the Parliamentary party will get Braverman into the run-off and the reactionary fossil bigot suicide squad of superannuated home counties golf club bores will vote her in.
Never, ever assume that things can't get even worse.
Braverman vs Badenoch would be the ultimate hell on earth short of Putin raining down bombs on the UK.
There are still plenty of people on the right, a few of them on here, who still don't get it.
We are sick and tired of this right wing ideological crap that has driven this country into a cul-de-sac. The lack of basic common sense, extending into economic mismanagement, is breathtaking.
Whatever the anti-woke brigade like to think in their embittered old state, most people are more interested in their mortgage interest rate than whether someone wishes to identify female. The tory party have completely lost perspective and deserve a long, long, time in the political wilderness.
I’ve said exactly this to the likes of Leon before. This woke stuff just seems to be something a small minority on either fringe obsess about. People are far more concerned about their standard of living and the rising cost of everything as it impacts on their daily lives. If the Tories want to fight the next GE on woke issues they are going to lose badly. They will lose anyway but fighting on woke issues the loss will be worse.
I think theres mileage in it, but not if people think that's all they have to go on - in which case it would be counter productive.
@Jeremy_Hunt taking part in a political ice bucket challenge for the Truss govt. Says everything Truss didn't yesterday. Admits: - mistake to cut tax for richest - mistake to 'fly blind' without OBR - spending can't go up as planned
Oh, and some taxes will go up. The fantasy era of cakeism, started by Johnson and accelerated by Truss, seems over. But is her premiership too?
But they were not flying blind without the OBR. We know that the OBR did an analysis of the plans because they have confirmed this. That KT refused to publish it demonstrated to the markets just how bad it was.
The lie was a problem, but its far deeper than that. KT truly believed they were right and everyone else wrong. She still thinks that, even now.
Her instincts will still be to do bat-shit crazy stuff while Hunt's back is turned.
Her problem is Hunt could still resign as Chancellor the moment she did. The market wobble from that would be worse than anything under Kwarteng. And no-one would think the worse of Hunt.
Hunt can’t be sacked, and even a threat to resign and she is done. So he will get his way - the question, as others say above, is for how long is this sustainable?
Which means Hunt is the effective PM so they might as well coronate him and get it over with.
He will be all over the media and it’s just a question of how long it takes for the masses to be asking why we can’t have that sensible guy on the TV instead of Loopy Liz….
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
"Woke" is no longer a meaningful term. It means whatever reactionaries hate about modern society, and that shifts with their apoplexy.
It means to me a set of fashionable views held fanatically and arrived at without applying even a modicum of intellectual rigour.
That is why discussion of it is so meaningless. It is like the Gordon rioters "ready to fight to the death against popery, without knowing whether popery was a man or a horse."
Freeland rightly points to the other elephant in the Tory room - the death of sovereignty. Brexit was all about Take Back Control. We could do what we like. We held all the cards. We are so important.
What KT vs the markets demonstrated was the stupidity of that argument. We have been humiliated on a global scale and our arrogant exceptionalism has been slapped down by a global community who refused to play along any longer.
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
I think Freeland is right about sovereignty and the myth of Brexit. I’m less clear whether that’s how (Leave) voters will interpret events.
On one hand, it's a brutal proof of the argument that pooling national sovereignty strengthens the power of nations against external forces. And some of those external forces aren't other nations. We really were Stronger, Safer and Better Off, as the slogan said.
On the other hand, proving someone wrong, especially if it's done brutally, can cause more harm than good.
Are you confident that this argument won't be proved wrong by events (i.e. EU countries succumbing to the same pressures)?
Arguably what the last year has shown is that the EU was deluding itself about being an equal to the US, and that the next period of global politics will be defined by the rivalry between the US and China.
That doesn’t disprove the argument that our sovereignty is limited by international forces. You’re just saying it's so bad that even the EU isn’t a big enough block to cope.
Yes, the argument it would disprove is that the EU provides a shelter from international forces.
I wouldn't say this is good or bad, just reality.
But the solution is still not Brexit Britain going it alone. It’s Britain needs to cosy up to an even bigger international power bloc. (If one accepts your starting thesis.)
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
You will get your state pension increase based on next week's CPI number, and benefits etc will be updated similarly.
These clowns could change all that in a week.
And then change it back. In a panicked rush. Having failed to achieve either what they wanted or what they could have done.
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
The party made a mistake. They tried to go after too many seats. They needed to be more targeted with resources. I think Swinson has some responsibility for that decision.
I don't think they did. I think what Peter says is accurate Appearances were misleading. The LDs had various bands of targets. Even the most optimistic band wasn't that high. I was aware of the bands and what was in them. They amended their targets as the campaign panned out. One thing that was misleading was for the first time they had huge resources of money so could continue sending material by post to areas that were no longer even outside chances, hence giving the appearance of targeting to wide.
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
"Woke" is no longer a meaningful term. It means whatever reactionaries hate about modern society, and that shifts with their apoplexy.
It means to me a set of fashionable views held fanatically and arrived at without applying even a modicum of intellectual rigour.
That is why discussion of it is so meaningless. It is like the Gordon rioters "ready to fight to the death against popery, without knowing whether popery was a man or a horse."
I switched on Sky and it was like something has happened which was very unexpected
I listened to Jeremy Hunt and for once heard a politician, and more surprisingly a conservative one, talking calmly, sensibly, and with a confidence so lacking until today
He even spoke about tax rises and making difficult spending decisions and I feel relieved the conservatives have found one grown up at least
Truss is now powerless as it shifts to no 11, and it is time for the conservative party to rally behind Hunt who must be in a very good position to succeed Truss
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
You will get your state pension increase based on next week's CPI number, and benefits etc will be updated similarly.
I was going to say that the pension uprating is safe but don't be so sure about working age benefits - but of course we've already had a backbench revolt over the latter, so you'll probably be proved right.
The obvious targets for spending restraint/cuts are now various forms of investment expenditure (soaking, for example, transport infrastructure projects and scientific research grants,) and keeping increases in departmental budgets well below inflation.
Hunt has also spoken of the need to increase some taxes. I wonder if that means the Sunak's NHS Tax will be the next to be reprieved from the chopping block, and will end up being doubled rather than abolished? A Government that hates soaking assets, the rich and the old has no option but to keep going to the well of working age incomes.
I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.
What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.
But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.
Classic 'in power too long' syndrome. They've tried refreshing with the next political generation, but the ossification has set in.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
You will get your state pension increase based on next week's CPI number, and benefits etc will be updated similarly.
I don't really get why if it is so important for pensioners and those on universal credit or other benefits to get CPI, it is fine for public sector workers to get less than half CPI?
If I were in charge, I would broadly look to give all three groups a similar number, probably a bit less than CPI for most, and a bit above for the poorest.
Those on UC and other benefits are the poorest.
I agree with you on the state pension. Poor pensioners would still be supported by increasing the Pension Credit 'applicable amount' in line with inflation.
The other obvious alternative of course, if HMG wishes to stick with its Triple Lock promise, is to extend NI to all income, including pensions and investments.
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
"Woke" is no longer a meaningful term. It means whatever reactionaries hate about modern society, and that shifts with their apoplexy.
It means to me a set of fashionable views held fanatically and arrived at without applying even a modicum of intellectual rigour.
The worst of woke is like that, sure. But some of it is pausing long enough to realise that some things we have been saying and doing are neither kind not polite, and that's not right.
The paradox is that by hyperventilating about everything, anti-woke warriors might let more Woke happen.
It is very much like health & safety.
Health & safety policies are a good thing but some of the implementations become a bit bonkers, which in turn results in reactionaries dissing anything to do with health & safety despite it clearly improving peoples lives.
If the attacks were limited to bonkers implementation of health and safety or way over the top woke, rather than h&s or woke itself then there would be overwhelming majority support.
I’m beginning to think the appointment of Hunt is inspired. Yes it’s a complete reversal by Truss. But finally it feels like we have a grown up in government. The fingers of the ERG mob are being wrested off the steering wheel.
Figured out who Hunt reminded me of. The Tories wanted to find Ronald Reagan, but they’ve ended up with Jimmy Carter.
I would doubt any member of this government, including Hunt, has Carter's essential decency.
Well of course. But in the mythos of right wing politics, the Tories wanted a gipper to inspire some feel good entrepreneurialism, growth and energy, they didn’t want a realist in the weeds trying, and probably failing to solve gritty problems and asking us to live within our means and accept less.
Freeland rightly points to the other elephant in the Tory room - the death of sovereignty. Brexit was all about Take Back Control. We could do what we like. We held all the cards. We are so important.
What KT vs the markets demonstrated was the stupidity of that argument. We have been humiliated on a global scale and our arrogant exceptionalism has been slapped down by a global community who refused to play along any longer.
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
I think Freeland is right about sovereignty and the myth of Brexit. I’m less clear whether that’s how (Leave) voters will interpret events.
On one hand, it's a brutal proof of the argument that pooling national sovereignty strengthens the power of nations against external forces. And some of those external forces aren't other nations. We really were Stronger, Safer and Better Off, as the slogan said.
On the other hand, proving someone wrong, especially if it's done brutally, can cause more harm than good.
Are you confident that this argument won't be proved wrong by events (i.e. EU countries succumbing to the same pressures)?
Arguably what the last year has shown is that the EU was deluding itself about being an equal to the US, and that the next period of global politics will be defined by the rivalry between the US and China.
That doesn’t disprove the argument that our sovereignty is limited by international forces. You’re just saying it's so bad that even the EU isn’t a big enough block to cope.
Yes, the argument it would disprove is that the EU provides a shelter from international forces.
I wouldn't say this is good or bad, just reality.
But the solution is still not Brexit Britain going it alone. It’s Britain needs to cosy up to an even bigger international power bloc. (If one accepts your starting thesis.)
Not necessarily to 'cosy up', but just to have a clear-sighted view of our own interests and a realistic understanding of the 21st century world order.
Lee Kuan Yew was once asked what his greatest fear for Singapore was: “I think a leadership and a people that have forgotten, that have lost their bearings and do not understand the constraints that we face. Small base; highly, technically organised; very competent people; complete international confidence; and an ability to engage the big boys. You lose those, and you’re down. And you can go down very rapidly…"
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
You will get your state pension increase based on next week's CPI number, and benefits etc will be updated similarly.
I don't really get why if it is so important for pensioners and those on universal credit or other benefits to get CPI, it is fine for public sector workers to get less than half CPI?
If I were in charge, I would broadly look to give all three groups a similar number, probably a bit less than CPI for most, and a bit above for the poorest.
The argument is that people receiving the pension, or disability benefits, have little opportunity to increase their income from other sources, while for those on unemployment benefits the level is already set at only a subsistence level, so to devalue these in real-terms would be particularly harsh.
Public sector workers have the opportunity to develop their career, find better paying jobs, etc, so aren't so trapped with an income declining in real terms. I can recognise a distinction there.
Of course, the consequence is that you encourage the most able public sector employees to find work elsewhere, and the quality of public services suffers.
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
The worry for the LibDems right now, I think, is that parts of the Blue Wall might just leap straight to Labour rather than the LDs. I can potentially see that happening where I live (Witney) although, sadly, the most likely outcome is a Lab/LD split allowing the useless incumbent Tory (Robert Courts) to retain his seat.
(Walls can’t leap, can they?)
They won't make much impression in the North, but I should have thought Witney was a definite maybe at the next GE.
I certainly share @El_Capitano concern. The LDs need to at least get over 15% in the polls before the start of the election and some decent media.
I have zero seconds available to excuse the appaling shambles of the Liz Truss premiership. She has to go. However, I dispute the notion that all of the country's travails can be laid completely at the dorrs of the politicians. Disfuncionality is endemic in the politics , press, institutions and too many of its voters. This is rooted in an unwillingness to accept any notion of the need to take difficult decisions or to deny any interest group their bounty of taxpayers funds. The country is broke and it cannot be fixed by redistribution here or extra cash there. By blaming greedy pensioners here or lazy scroungers there. Sadly the voters do not want to know the hard truth and this is a key reason why we have such crap politicians. Labour will likely win big next time and D-ream will once again top the charts - only things will not get better for long. We all know it but no-one dares to say it.
In my more downcast moments, I fear you are correct.
They lead us poorly, but we do not reward farsighted, tough decisions even when they are proposed.
I’m beginning to think the appointment of Hunt is inspired. Yes it’s a complete reversal by Truss. But finally it feels like we have a grown up in government. The fingers of the ERG mob are being wrested off the steering wheel.
The ERG are the Corbyn equivalent of the conservative party and the sooner they are marginalised the better, and let them go and join the dreadful Farage
I see the US authorities have asked to revoke the Special Master ruling when it comes to the raid on Trump's property. Rather unusual request given the natural course of action would just be to let the investigation run its course and / or there would appear no urgency. Unless, on the latter of course, the Administration was keen that something came out of the papers before the Midterms in a few weeks time.
Part of the goal of this investigation is to find out what classified information has been leaked and who might have it so that they can minimize the damage, so there's definitely some urgency about it. Per their filing they reckon the review is going to hold them up by at least two months, and that's assuming the judge Trump brought the case to, whose rulings in Trumps favour have been rather - um - unconventional, and get tend to eventually get slapped down on appeal - doesn't come up with some more ways to throw sand in the gears.
Unfortunately a spike in mortgage rates is also likely to precipitate a spike in rents. BTL landlords will hike rents so they can still make a profit, or exit the market if they think the local market cannot support what they want to charge. The latter means reduced supply and more competition for the remaining properties.
Lt. Gov Mandela Barnes (D) said Sen. Ron Johnson (R) is a "family man."
Johnson said Barnes is "against America."
The audience booed Johnson.
Too stupid to come up with praise that is actually an insult, too petty to genuinely praise, and too silly to not just reach for an insincere cliche.
I'm trying to remember the answers when Boris and Corbyn were asked about getting the other a Christmas present. I think Corbyn said a copy of A Christmas Carol, which was a good response, but Boris fumbled and said the Tory manifesto or something.
I’m beginning to think the appointment of Hunt is inspired. Yes it’s a complete reversal by Truss. But finally it feels like we have a grown up in government. The fingers of the ERG mob are being wrested off the steering wheel.
'The fingers of the ERG mob are being wrested off the steering wheel'
I’m beginning to think the appointment of Hunt is inspired. Yes it’s a complete reversal by Truss. But finally it feels like we have a grown up in government. The fingers of the ERG mob are being wrested off the steering wheel.
Wiping the ERG stain from politics will be the job of the electorate. I wonder if they will do it?
Hunt was sober and articulate on the radio. He was also advocating managerial decline. I’m not sure Tories in their heart will buy the medicine.
How is balancing the books "managerial decline"?
It means us all accepting less, higher taxes and weaker services. It means taking money out the economy. It means accepting the reality that we are all a lot poorer than we thought.
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
"Woke" is no longer a meaningful term. It means whatever reactionaries hate about modern society, and that shifts with their apoplexy.
It means to me a set of fashionable views held fanatically and arrived at without applying even a modicum of intellectual rigour.
That is why discussion of it is so meaningless. It is like the Gordon rioters "ready to fight to the death against popery, without knowing whether popery was a man or a horse."
I can give you a great example.
Wife has just finished a year at University. In one of her tutorials, a young student piped up with the view that it wasn't possible for white writers to address black issues. When she had finished spluttering out her coffee, wife asked 'What about Twain, what about Conrad?' Silence. Never 'eard of them. (I think that went for the tutor too but he was non-committal, clearly fearful that he might be cancelled.)
Unfortunately a spike in mortgage rates is also likely to precipitate a spike in rents. BTL landlords will hike rents so they can still make a profit, or exit the market if they think the local market cannot support what they want to charge. The latter means reduced supply and more competition for the remaining properties.
Also, if there is a substantial rise in interest rates, they may not be able to service any mortgage costs on the properties they own.
I’m beginning to think the appointment of Hunt is inspired. Yes it’s a complete reversal by Truss. But finally it feels like we have a grown up in government. The fingers of the ERG mob are being wrested off the steering wheel.
I'll believe it when the cabinet is gutted of the bastards.
“For a certain type of bureaucratic mind, this current confusion is proof that politicians should be kept out of all this. As if on cue yesterday, the Social Market Foundation declared that “decisions over government borrowing should be taken away from politicians and put in the hands of independent experts to restore confidence in the UK economic framework”. It may not realise that such a policy would remove the original purpose of parliamentary democracy, which is to allow citizens power over how much of their money governments spend.
“The pickle we are in is not the consequence of the democratic process, but of its usurpation by central banks, global banks, bureaucracies and international financial institutions, in which too many political leaders have been complicit. The Truss Government did not do the damage: it merely rushed blindly forward on to the trip-wire set for it by the Blob.”
@Jeremy_Hunt taking part in a political ice bucket challenge for the Truss govt. Says everything Truss didn't yesterday. Admits: - mistake to cut tax for richest - mistake to 'fly blind' without OBR - spending can't go up as planned
Oh, and some taxes will go up. The fantasy era of cakeism, started by Johnson and accelerated by Truss, seems over. But is her premiership too?
But they were not flying blind without the OBR. We know that the OBR did an analysis of the plans because they have confirmed this. That KT refused to publish it demonstrated to the markets just how bad it was.
The lie was a problem, but its far deeper than that. KT truly believed they were right and everyone else wrong. She still thinks that, even now.
Her instincts will still be to do bat-shit crazy stuff while Hunt's back is turned.
Her problem is Hunt could still resign as Chancellor the moment she did. The market wobble from that would be worse than anything under Kwarteng. And no-one would think the worse of Hunt.
Hunt can’t be sacked, and even a threat to resign and she is done. So he will get his way - the question, as others say above, is for how long is this sustainable?
Which means Hunt is the effective PM so they might as well coronate him and get it over with.
He will be all over the media and it’s just a question of how long it takes for the masses to be asking why we can’t have that sensible guy on the TV instead of Loopy Liz….
Time for the grey men in grey suits to take Ms Truss to one side and make a few realities plain to her.
This way, the members can self-destruct in the privacy of Conservative Clubs and ConHome without making an ass of the Party by another 3 month parade of unelectables and inadequates.
I see the US authorities have asked to revoke the Special Master ruling when it comes to the raid on Trump's property. Rather unusual request given the natural course of action would just be to let the investigation run its course and / or there would appear no urgency. Unless, on the latter of course, the Administration was keen that something came out of the papers before the Midterms in a few weeks time.
Part of the goal of this investigation is to find out what classified information has been leaked and who might have it so that they can minimize the damage, so there's definitely some urgency about it. Per their filing they reckon the review is going to hold them up by at least two months, and that's assuming the judge Trump brought the case to, whose rulings in Trumps favour have been rather - um - unconventional, and get tend to eventually get slapped down on appeal - doesn't come up with some more ways to throw sand in the gears.
I'd agree with you more if they had made the move earlier on. You don't want the Special Master because there is a degree of urgency to finding out what's been leaked - that makes sense. You can disagree with it but it's a logical view. But saying it's urgent the Special Master ruling is overturned and then waiting a while to actually ask for it doesn't. Which suggests one or two things, either there is a concern over what ruling comes next (possible given the above) and / or the desire to use / do something pre-midterms.
Timing is everything. It may be a coincidence this came out just after the US inflation numbers (which are the last before the midterms) and the OPEC snub. Maybe it isn't.
Unfortunately a spike in mortgage rates is also likely to precipitate a spike in rents. BTL landlords will hike rents so they can still make a profit, or exit the market if they think the local market cannot support what they want to charge. The latter means reduced supply and more competition for the remaining properties.
BTL landlords are going to exit the market and... demolish their houses in a fit of pique? Leave the houses empty whilst still paying their mortgages?
No. Those houses will still exist. They may be sold at a loss if the landlords cannot cover their costs which would add to the (overdue) market correction.
“For a certain type of bureaucratic mind, this current confusion is proof that politicians should be kept out of all this. As if on cue yesterday, the Social Market Foundation declared that “decisions over government borrowing should be taken away from politicians and put in the hands of independent experts to restore confidence in the UK economic framework”. It may not realise that such a policy would remove the original purpose of parliamentary democracy, which is to allow citizens power over how much of their money governments spend.
“The pickle we are in is not the consequence of the democratic process, but of its usurpation by central banks, global banks, bureaucracies and international financial institutions, in which too many political leaders have been complicit. The Truss Government did not do the damage: it merely rushed blindly forward on to the trip-wire set for it by the Blob.”
Is the Blob basically the real world?
Yes the UK government has to exist in the real world, which means if it wants to borrow money from others, others will charge rates that depend on the confidence they have in the government.
I’m beginning to think the appointment of Hunt is inspired. Yes it’s a complete reversal by Truss. But finally it feels like we have a grown up in government. The fingers of the ERG mob are being wrested off the steering wheel.
Hunt is also a Remainer. If he became leader and pledged to make moves to rejoin the EU I'd vote Tory for the first time ever. Rejoining the EU scores higher than getting a Labour government any day of the week.
The other thing Tory MPs have to bear in mind is that even if Hunt does a stellar job as Chancellor, gets the markets back on side, manages to thread a route through rising taxes and cutting services, puts the economy on an even keel - the voters still won't give Liz Truss a second longer in office.
Get rid now and have a Cabinet that are getting on with the job like Hunt, under a PM who has no personal radical agenda to change Britain with their half-baked ideas. Once that is in place, Tory fortunes should improve markedly.
Especially as Starmer might be a clean skin but offers little else by way of answers to Britain's problems. Sure, he won't be as bad as Truss. But he still might underwhelm. Come the election in 2 years, that will all need to be weighed in the balance.
@Jeremy_Hunt taking part in a political ice bucket challenge for the Truss govt. Says everything Truss didn't yesterday. Admits: - mistake to cut tax for richest - mistake to 'fly blind' without OBR - spending can't go up as planned
Oh, and some taxes will go up. The fantasy era of cakeism, started by Johnson and accelerated by Truss, seems over. But is her premiership too?
But they were not flying blind without the OBR. We know that the OBR did an analysis of the plans because they have confirmed this. That KT refused to publish it demonstrated to the markets just how bad it was.
The lie was a problem, but its far deeper than that. KT truly believed they were right and everyone else wrong. She still thinks that, even now.
Her instincts will still be to do bat-shit crazy stuff while Hunt's back is turned.
Her problem is Hunt could still resign as Chancellor the moment she did. The market wobble from that would be worse than anything under Kwarteng. And no-one would think the worse of Hunt.
Hunt can’t be sacked, and even a threat to resign and she is done. So he will get his way - the question, as others say above, is for how long is this sustainable?
Which means Hunt is the effective PM so they might as well coronate him and get it over with.
He will be all over the media and it’s just a question of how long it takes for the masses to be asking why we can’t have that sensible guy on the TV instead of Loopy Liz….
Time for the grey men in grey suits to take Ms Truss to one side and make a few realities plain to her.
This way, the members can self-destruct in the privacy of Conservative Clubs and ConHome without making an ass of the Party by another 3 month parade of unelectables and inadequates.
After hearing Hunt this morning effectively become de facto PM I expect Truss will limp on, utterly powerless, until a coronation can be arranged with Hunt now very much the front runner
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
Hence “No Debate” over Trans rights (especially when they impact natal women’s rights), “No Platforming” and “Cancel Culture”.
Fortunately Mermaids’ poorly advised attack on the LGBA has let a lot of sunshine in on what was hitherto obscure - and no doubt more to come.
Some TRAs covered themselves in glory with their overnight cheering of Robbie Coltrane’s death because he had the courage and decency to stand by JK Rowling - a quality not shared by many of his younger Co-stars. Ironic that the actor who played Draco Malfoy should turn out to be the one with the courage and decency to stand by Rowling, while his more famous peers sought Twitter approbation and distanced themselves from the author who made them.
Unfortunately a spike in mortgage rates is also likely to precipitate a spike in rents. BTL landlords will hike rents so they can still make a profit, or exit the market if they think the local market cannot support what they want to charge. The latter means reduced supply and more competition for the remaining properties.
Good luck hiking rents on workers getting below inflation pay rises and above inflation increases on non discretionary spending.
Yes landlords will try, but most will fail. Voids won't be any use paying their inflated btl mortgages.
Mr. Jonathan, it's not a zombie government. It's more like a ship in which the pilot knows (or seems to) what he's doing and the captain serves an ornamental purpose.
Public sector workers have the opportunity to develop their career, find better paying jobs, etc, so aren't so trapped with an income declining in real terms. I can recognise a distinction there.
Of course, the consequence is that you encourage the most able public sector employees to find work elsewhere, and the quality of public services suffers.
The basic attitude of the present administration is to insist that public servants, in particular those on modest wages, put up with crap pay settlements (and to harangue them when they respond with strike threats,) and yet to insist in the same breath that it's basically their own fault if they're hard up because they're too lazy to look for something better.
We then have to endure endless tedious debates about why the health and social care sectors in particular are chronically understaffed and fail to recruit, whilst their staff continue to throw in the towel and go and work for Aldi.
Hunt was sober and articulate on the radio. He was also advocating managerial decline. I’m not sure Tories in their heart will buy the medicine.
How is balancing the books "managerial decline"?
It means us all accepting less, higher taxes and weaker services. It means taking money out the economy. It means accepting the reality that we are all a lot poorer than we thought.
That sounds like the Anti-Growth Coalition talking.
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
The worry for the LibDems right now, I think, is that parts of the Blue Wall might just leap straight to Labour rather than the LDs. I can potentially see that happening where I live (Witney) although, sadly, the most likely outcome is a Lab/LD split allowing the useless incumbent Tory (Robert Courts) to retain his seat.
(Walls can’t leap, can they?)
They won't make much impression in the North, but I should have thought Witney was a definite maybe at the next GE.
I certainly share @El_Capitano concern. The LDs need to at least get over 15% in the polls before the start of the election and some decent media.
Not sure.
Electoral Calculus is indicating that whilst the LDs are polling less than were at the last GE, they are predicted to get substantially more seats.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
That raises the intriguing possibility that there are times when you're *not* really miffed at something.
When he gets mince and tatties and neeps, followed by clootie dumpling. *middle-aged Scotsman's comfort food*
Morning Carnyx, been some time since clootie dumpling. Was spoiled by my father's efforts being so good that all others are inferior. But I do insist on the mince and tatties on a reasonably regular basis.
Morning! Was dreich earlier but sun is coming out.
Same here, was torrential rain during the night but sun shining now. Getting cold nowadays though, heating on.
That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
The public has had absolutely enough of austerity. It had had enough of it years ago. But lo, here comes Osborne 2.0.
The central conundrum of British politics is now that the only way to afford the level of spending, on health, social protections, schools and everything else, that people expect and demand is through punishingly higher taxes, directed in particular at assets rather than earnings. But such a radical change of approach will entail a binning of the entire post-1979, property speculation model of economic development, and create an awful lot of losers (particularly amongst the homeowning grey vote, which is huge and has a high turnout rate.) Which raises serious doubts about the willingness of any Government actually to do it.
But the homeowning grey vote doesn't vote for Labour to any great extent so policies which target that group wouldn't hurt them as it might the Tories. It's almost a free hit so if I were them I'd take the shot.
Accounting for propensity to turn out, about half of the entire electorate is aged over 55, and the bulk of them will be outright owner-occupiers or paying off the last few years of their mortgages. The older ones in particular will also have expectant heirs waiting to receive a huge windfall when they shuffle off.
The Opposition is going to have to peel a substantial chunk off that vote to take over. And they're allergic to anything - property taxes, IHT, wind turbines, new housing estates - that might interfere with the accumulation (via eternally inflating house prices) and successful transmission of inherited wealth. That's awkward for Labour.
I think it’s way too simplistic to treat all over-55 property owners the same. Of course, some don’t want property taxes, IHT, wind turbines etc., but plenty will support that. Plenty are aware of their children’s struggles to get on the property ladder, plenty care about their grandchildren’s education, and a huge proportion also care about there being a well-funded healthcare system.
No group of people are entirely the same. That's worth remembering when some say young people or minorities dont vote Tory for example - they mostly don't, but millions still do.
Over 55 property owners, by and large, are similar enough on the issues affecting home ownership that the generalisation works more than it doesn't.
Hunt was sober and articulate on the radio. He was also advocating managerial decline. I’m not sure Tories in their heart will buy the medicine.
How is balancing the books "managerial decline"?
It means us all accepting less, higher taxes and weaker services. It means taking money out the economy. It means accepting the reality that we are all a lot poorer than we thought.
You can't improve anything until you accept the reality of the situation you are in. Being realistic about our present situation is the necessary first step to working out how to make things right.
If Hunt manages to communicate that to the country he will have done us all a great service. Then hopefully Starmer et al will have some ideas to make things a bit better.
Hunt was sober and articulate on the radio. He was also advocating managerial decline. I’m not sure Tories in their heart will buy the medicine.
How is balancing the books "managerial decline"?
It means us all accepting less, higher taxes and weaker services. It means taking money out the economy. It means accepting the reality that we are all a lot poorer than we thought.
That sounds like the Anti-Growth Coalition talking.
The other thing Tory MPs have to bear in mind is that even if Hunt does a stellar job as Chancellor, gets the markets back on side, manages to thread a route through rising taxes and cutting services, puts the economy on an even keel - the voters still won't give Liz Truss a second longer in office.
Get rid now and have a Cabinet that are getting on with the job like Hunt, under a PM who has no personal radical agenda to change Britain with their half-baked ideas. Once that is in place, Tory fortunes should improve markedly.
Especially as Starmer might be a clean skin but offers little else by way of answers to Britain's problems. Sure, he won't be as bad as Truss. But he still might underwhelm. Come the election in 2 years, that will all need to be weighed in the balance.
So the priority is; calm the markets, win another majority, keep the gravy train on the track.
Unfortunately a spike in mortgage rates is also likely to precipitate a spike in rents. BTL landlords will hike rents so they can still make a profit, or exit the market if they think the local market cannot support what they want to charge. The latter means reduced supply and more competition for the remaining properties.
Also, if there is a substantial rise in interest rates, they may not be able to service any mortgage costs on the properties they own.
Bloomberg were forecasting 8.5% US mortgage rates as the Fed continues to increase interest rates as they concentrate on defeating inflation
There are going to be serious consequences for mortgage holders across the west due to this policy
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
That raises the intriguing possibility that there are times when you're *not* really miffed at something.
Ydoether , you malign me, I am actually a happy go lucky chappie. I have led a lucky interesting very happy life and hope I have many happy years to go. In reality I am very cheery.
Well, we all hope you have many happy years to go Malc, but will the turnip supply hold out that long?
Ydoethur , there will always be turnips as long as there are Tories around, inedible mind you.
I’m beginning to think the appointment of Hunt is inspired. Yes it’s a complete reversal by Truss. But finally it feels like we have a grown up in government. The fingers of the ERG mob are being wrested off the steering wheel.
Hunt is also a Remainer. If he became leader and pledged to make moves to rejoin the EU I'd vote Tory for the first time ever. Rejoining the EU scores higher than getting a Labour government any day of the week.
Hunt was sober and articulate on the radio. He was also advocating managerial decline. I’m not sure Tories in their heart will buy the medicine.
How is balancing the books "managerial decline"?
It means us all accepting less, higher taxes and weaker services. It means taking money out the economy. It means accepting the reality that we are all a lot poorer than we thought.
That sounds like the Anti-Growth Coalition talking.
Mr. Jonathan, it's not a zombie government. It's more like a ship in which the pilot knows (or seems to) what he's doing and the captain serves an ornamental purpose.
Can you imagine this setup entering a general election campaign? In would be brutal. No vision, nothing at the head. Just plodding slowly on, devouring itself. 🧟♀️
If the market steadies and Tory polling fortunes improve alongside a modest improvement in Truss personal approval ratings, I don’t see that there will be an appetite for a defenestration or coronation. If I’m right then Starmer becomes our next PM.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
That raises the intriguing possibility that there are times when you're *not* really miffed at something.
Ydoether , you malign me, I am actually a happy go lucky chappie. I have led a lucky interesting very happy life and hope I have many happy years to go. In reality I am very cheery.
I rather miss the old you. Can you lob a few turnips for old times sake?
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
The party made a mistake. They tried to go after too many seats. They needed to be more targeted with resources. I think Swinson has some responsibility for that decision.
I don't think they did. I think what Peter says is accurate Appearances were misleading. The LDs had various bands of targets. Even the most optimistic band wasn't that high. I was aware of the bands and what was in them. They amended their targets as the campaign panned out. One thing that was misleading was for the first time they had huge resources of money so could continue sending material by post to areas that were no longer even outside chances, hence giving the appearance of targeting to wide.
That money was p****d up the wall in the most ludicrous places that were never targets - Warrington North, Dagenham, etc. It's why they're not getting a penny from me any more.
Unfortunately a spike in mortgage rates is also likely to precipitate a spike in rents. BTL landlords will hike rents so they can still make a profit, or exit the market if they think the local market cannot support what they want to charge. The latter means reduced supply and more competition for the remaining properties.
Also, if there is a substantial rise in interest rates, they may not be able to service any mortgage costs on the properties they own.
Bloomberg were forecasting 8.5% US mortgage rates as the Fed continues to increase interest rates as they concentrate on defeating inflation
There are going to be serious consequences for mortgage holders across the west due to this policy
The good news for the US is they ditched Adjustable rate mortgages (ARM’s) after 2008, so existing homeowners almost always have their existing rates locked in for the long term. The new, much higher rates will generally only affect new purchases.
Brits aren’t so lucky.
Our mortgages are heavily skewed towards 2 and 5 year fixes.
I’m beginning to think the appointment of Hunt is inspired. Yes it’s a complete reversal by Truss. But finally it feels like we have a grown up in government. The fingers of the ERG mob are being wrested off the steering wheel.
I'll believe it when the cabinet is gutted of the bastards.
If Hunt becomes PM, he’s got a few bastards to purge (Jacob Tree Frog, Braverman etc) and a few grown ups to recall (Gove, Saj “The Jav” and Sunak)
That would change the make up significantly and give them a fighting chance
Hunt was sober and articulate on the radio. He was also advocating managerial decline. I’m not sure Tories in their heart will buy the medicine.
How is balancing the books "managerial decline"?
It means us all accepting less, higher taxes and weaker services. It means taking money out the economy. It means accepting the reality that we are all a lot poorer than we thought.
You can't improve anything until you accept the reality of the situation you are in. Being realistic about our present situation is the necessary first step to working out how to make things right.
If Hunt manages to communicate that to the country he will have done us all a great service. Then hopefully Starmer et al will have some ideas to make things a bit better.
If anyone does not know we are in the shit and desperate times are ahead then their heads are stuck up their butts.
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
Given Labour will not be leading with a “woke” manifesto, how relevant is your point? Labour are focusing on economic competence and better public services.
Actually, come to think of it, there are a couple of parties who do have more explicitly “woke” positions: the SNP and the Greens. The SNP still dominate Scottish politics (and have trounced an anti-woke splinter), while the Greens are doing well in English local elections. Maybe wokery is more popular than you think…?
Most Scots do not vote SNP and the Greens lost a seat in Epping Forest yesterday
The Kwarteng chancellorship was a major Cambridge University fail. The crème brûlée and Great Court Run college in particular. Re-establish the monasteries and give them their assets back?
Unfortunately a spike in mortgage rates is also likely to precipitate a spike in rents. BTL landlords will hike rents so they can still make a profit, or exit the market if they think the local market cannot support what they want to charge. The latter means reduced supply and more competition for the remaining properties.
Also, if there is a substantial rise in interest rates, they may not be able to service any mortgage costs on the properties they own.
Bloomberg were forecasting 8.5% US mortgage rates as the Fed continues to increase interest rates as they concentrate on defeating inflation
There are going to be serious consequences for mortgage holders across the west due to this policy
In the USA mortgages are fixed for the lifetime of the loan, and also much less of an issue with negative equity for individuals. Simply hand back the keys and it is the banks problem.
If the market steadies and Tory polling fortunes improve alongside a modest improvement in Truss personal approval ratings, I don’t see that there will be an appetite for a defenestration or coronation. If I’m right then Starmer becomes our next PM.
We don't have a presidential system, but we do have a system where the person in charge is supposed to be the PM, not the Chancellor.
She can't do a press conference, or go to a summit. Even PMQs is going to be brutal.
"To ask the Prime Minister what the Chancellor thinks about this..."
It got her through the day. Probably the weekend. Still not sure it lasts more than a week.
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
The party made a mistake. They tried to go after too many seats. They needed to be more targeted with resources. I think Swinson has some responsibility for that decision.
I don't think they did. I think what Peter says is accurate Appearances were misleading. The LDs had various bands of targets. Even the most optimistic band wasn't that high. I was aware of the bands and what was in them. They amended their targets as the campaign panned out. One thing that was misleading was for the first time they had huge resources of money so could continue sending material by post to areas that were no longer even outside chances, hence giving the appearance of targeting to wide.
That money was p****d up the wall in the most ludicrous places that were never targets - Warrington North, Dagenham, etc. It's why they're not getting a penny from me any more.
Why punish today’s party for the sins of the past? I think the party recognises that it got the 2019 campaign wrong and, of course, Swinson is no longer leader. LibDem campaigning has been successful in recent years.
Just laid Hunt (Smarkets, same odds Betfair) to be next PM at 4.
That's mostly as a second hedge, slightly different market, on him being next Con leader, which I laid at 15 yesterday (yep, took it early and had slightly worse odds) having backed/tipped at 46.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
You will get your state pension increase based on next week's CPI number, and benefits etc will be updated similarly.
I don't really get why if it is so important for pensioners and those on universal credit or other benefits to get CPI, it is fine for public sector workers to get less than half CPI?
If I were in charge, I would broadly look to give all three groups a similar number, probably a bit less than CPI for most, and a bit above for the poorest.
The argument is that people receiving the pension, or disability benefits, have little opportunity to increase their income from other sources, while for those on unemployment benefits the level is already set at only a subsistence level, so to devalue these in real-terms would be particularly harsh.
Public sector workers have the opportunity to develop their career, find better paying jobs, etc, so aren't so trapped with an income declining in real terms. I can recognise a distinction there.
Of course, the consequence is that you encourage the most able public sector employees to find work elsewhere, and the quality of public services suffers.
Why do pensioners have little opportunity to increase their income nowadays? Part time jobs a plenty (tax system encourages this) and "side hustles" easier to run than ever.
Regardless, it comes down to a combination of motivating public sector workers and fairness in a once in a generation type economic shock.
I think some are getting high on their own supply this morning.
There's always going to be a place for a centre-right party in British politics.
But it's no longer inconceivable that it might end up being a different one to that which we have at the moment. The current Canadian Tory party is not the same one that existed in 1993.
It is in part, just one that merged with the populist right Canadian Alliance in 1993 to form today's Conservative Party of Canada
“For a certain type of bureaucratic mind, this current confusion is proof that politicians should be kept out of all this. As if on cue yesterday, the Social Market Foundation declared that “decisions over government borrowing should be taken away from politicians and put in the hands of independent experts to restore confidence in the UK economic framework”. It may not realise that such a policy would remove the original purpose of parliamentary democracy, which is to allow citizens power over how much of their money governments spend.
“The pickle we are in is not the consequence of the democratic process, but of its usurpation by central banks, global banks, bureaucracies and international financial institutions, in which too many political leaders have been complicit. The Truss Government did not do the damage: it merely rushed blindly forward on to the trip-wire set for it by the Blob.”
Is the Blob basically the real world?
Yes the UK government has to exist in the real world, which means if it wants to borrow money from others, others will charge rates that depend on the confidence they have in the government.
Call the world a blob if you like.
There are in many things the conservative yet reactionary forces, the administrating institutions, which are opposed to any departure from orthodoxy and traditional thought, even if things are in dire need of change.
But even if that is the case its the job of a good leader to overcome such things, not just whinge. It's no different to when Corbynite complained the media and opponents gave him a hard time. Yes, and tough as it was it was his job to face that down.
I’m beginning to think the appointment of Hunt is inspired. Yes it’s a complete reversal by Truss. But finally it feels like we have a grown up in government. The fingers of the ERG mob are being wrested off the steering wheel.
Hunt is also a Remainer. If he became leader and pledged to make moves to rejoin the EU I'd vote Tory for the first time ever. Rejoining the EU scores higher than getting a Labour government any day of the week.
That would be a fun masterplan for the Tories - get to the position where most people want to rejoin, with Labour still carefully perched on its fence - then pivot quickly to becoming the Rejoin party. Of course it can't happen.
I see the US authorities have asked to revoke the Special Master ruling when it comes to the raid on Trump's property. Rather unusual request given the natural course of action would just be to let the investigation run its course and / or there would appear no urgency. Unless, on the latter of course, the Administration was keen that something came out of the papers before the Midterms in a few weeks time.
Part of the goal of this investigation is to find out what classified information has been leaked and who might have it so that they can minimize the damage, so there's definitely some urgency about it. Per their filing they reckon the review is going to hold them up by at least two months, and that's assuming the judge Trump brought the case to, whose rulings in Trumps favour have been rather - um - unconventional, and get tend to eventually get slapped down on appeal - doesn't come up with some more ways to throw sand in the gears.
I'd agree with you more if they had made the move earlier on. You don't want the Special Master because there is a degree of urgency to finding out what's been leaked - that makes sense. You can disagree with it but it's a logical view. But saying it's urgent the Special Master ruling is overturned and then waiting a while to actually ask for it doesn't. Which suggests one or two things, either there is a concern over what ruling comes next (possible given the above) and / or the desire to use / do something pre-midterms.
Timing is everything. It may be a coincidence this came out just after the US inflation numbers (which are the last before the midterms) and the OPEC snub. Maybe it isn't.
If I'm following what went down correctly they started by making the simplest case they could to make sure they had access to the *confidential* documents, which would be the most important part for them. Once they won that, they litigated to not have to dick around any more over the rest, which could end up taking longer.
As far as your theory about proving something before the election goes, I don't think anything about this latest appeal is expected to move that fast.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
You will get your state pension increase based on next week's CPI number, and benefits etc will be updated similarly.
These clowns could change all that in a week.
PS: I was just trolling it does not really matter what increase is for me but certainly important for lots of poor pensioners living on it alone.
That could, indeed would be covered by Pension Credit, provided that was uplifted by inflation. Thus the poorest pensioners would be protected.
I have zero seconds available to excuse the appaling shambles of the Liz Truss premiership. She has to go. However, I dispute the notion that all of the country's travails can be laid completely at the dorrs of the politicians. Disfuncionality is endemic in the politics , press, institutions and too many of its voters. This is rooted in an unwillingness to accept any notion of the need to take difficult decisions or to deny any interest group their bounty of taxpayers funds. The country is broke and it cannot be fixed by redistribution here or extra cash there. By blaming greedy pensioners here or lazy scroungers there. Sadly the voters do not want to know the hard truth and this is a key reason why we have such crap politicians. Labour will likely win big next time and D-ream will once again top the charts - only things will not get better for long. We all know it but no-one dares to say it.
It is difficult to conclude that we are not a nation in decline, along with much of the west and politics is now really about who gets to suffer most/least from that decline.
Although I know you won't agree with me but Brexit was another desperate throw of the dice to try to pretend there was an easy solution. I understand why people voted for it in the hope of "levelling up" and not being left behind but it's pretty clear already that that was an illusion and their plight is actually going to get worse.
Hope you are well by the way, I noticed you didn't seem to be posting for quite a while until recently. As least you have nice weather to ease the pain!
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
The party made a mistake. They tried to go after too many seats. They needed to be more targeted with resources. I think Swinson has some responsibility for that decision.
I don't think they did. I think what Peter says is accurate Appearances were misleading. The LDs had various bands of targets. Even the most optimistic band wasn't that high. I was aware of the bands and what was in them. They amended their targets as the campaign panned out. One thing that was misleading was for the first time they had huge resources of money so could continue sending material by post to areas that were no longer even outside chances, hence giving the appearance of targeting to wide.
That money was p****d up the wall in the most ludicrous places that were never targets - Warrington North, Dagenham, etc. It's why they're not getting a penny from me any more.
Swinsons campaign was catastrophic from several perspectives, but that is history, just as Labour's 2019 or Con 2017 campaigns were catastrophic, but also history.
I see the US authorities have asked to revoke the Special Master ruling when it comes to the raid on Trump's property. Rather unusual request given the natural course of action would just be to let the investigation run its course and / or there would appear no urgency. Unless, on the latter of course, the Administration was keen that something came out of the papers before the Midterms in a few weeks time.
Non-sequitur of the century. The appointment of a Special Master impeded the release of documents, if publicly disclosable anyway, and if there was anything in the papers that would hurt Biden don’t you think Trump would have used it already?
Comments
Hunt is reversing her economic policy, and Braverman her migration and social policies.
I pity the poor mobiks like Aaron Bell sent to the front to stave off disaster, with no kit or plan.
If I were in charge, I would broadly look to give all three groups a similar number, probably a bit less than CPI for most, and a bit above for the poorest.
But the situation is so bad only unpopular options remain, so the least catastrophic must be picked.
He did at least sound like an adult.
I wouldn't say this is good or bad, just reality.
* from KT’s act of self-harm
The paradox is that by hyperventilating about everything, anti-woke warriors might let more Woke happen.
I switched on Sky and it was like something has happened which was very unexpected
I listened to Jeremy Hunt and for once heard a politician, and more surprisingly a conservative one, talking calmly, sensibly, and with a confidence so lacking until today
He even spoke about tax rises and making difficult spending decisions and I feel relieved the conservatives have found one grown up at least
Truss is now powerless as it shifts to no 11, and it is time for the conservative party to rally behind Hunt who must be in a very good position to succeed Truss
The obvious targets for spending restraint/cuts are now various forms of investment expenditure (soaking, for example, transport infrastructure projects and scientific research grants,) and keeping increases in departmental budgets well below inflation.
Hunt has also spoken of the need to increase some taxes. I wonder if that means the Sunak's NHS Tax will be the next to be reprieved from the chopping block, and will end up being doubled rather than abolished? A Government that hates soaking assets, the rich and the old has no option but to keep going to the well of working age incomes.
I agree with you on the state pension. Poor pensioners would still be supported by increasing the Pension Credit 'applicable amount' in line with inflation.
The other obvious alternative of course, if HMG wishes to stick with its Triple Lock promise, is to extend NI to all income, including pensions and investments.
Health & safety policies are a good thing but some of the implementations become a bit bonkers, which in turn results in reactionaries dissing anything to do with health & safety despite it clearly improving peoples lives.
If the attacks were limited to bonkers implementation of health and safety or way over the top woke, rather than h&s or woke itself then there would be overwhelming majority support.
It’s a big change.
Lee Kuan Yew was once asked what his greatest fear for Singapore was: “I think a leadership and a people that have forgotten, that have lost their bearings and do not understand the constraints that we face. Small base; highly, technically organised; very competent people; complete international confidence; and an ability to engage the big boys. You lose those, and you’re down. And you can go down very rapidly…"
Public sector workers have the opportunity to develop their career, find better paying jobs, etc, so aren't so trapped with an income declining in real terms. I can recognise a distinction there.
Of course, the consequence is that you encourage the most able public sector employees to find work elsewhere, and the quality of public services suffers.
They lead us poorly, but we do not reward farsighted, tough decisions even when they are proposed.
I'm trying to remember the answers when Boris and Corbyn were asked about getting the other a Christmas present. I think Corbyn said a copy of A Christmas Carol, which was a good response, but Boris fumbled and said the Tory manifesto or something.
*Dramatic music*
FOR NOW!
Wife has just finished a year at University. In one of her tutorials, a young student piped up with the view that it wasn't possible for white writers to address black issues. When she had finished spluttering out her coffee, wife asked 'What about Twain, what about Conrad?' Silence. Never 'eard of them. (I think that went for the tutor too but he was non-committal, clearly fearful that he might be cancelled.)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/14/truss-sacking-kwarteng-disgraceful-necessary-victory-blob/
“For a certain type of bureaucratic mind, this current confusion is proof that politicians should be kept out of all this. As if on cue yesterday, the Social Market Foundation declared that “decisions over government borrowing should be taken away from politicians and put in the hands of independent experts to restore confidence in the UK economic framework”. It may not realise that such a policy would remove the original purpose of parliamentary democracy, which is to allow citizens power over how much of their money governments spend.
“The pickle we are in is not the consequence of the democratic process, but of its usurpation by central banks, global banks, bureaucracies and international financial institutions, in which too many political leaders have been complicit. The Truss Government did not do the damage: it merely rushed blindly forward on to the trip-wire set for it by the Blob.”
This way, the members can self-destruct in the privacy of Conservative Clubs and ConHome without making an ass of the Party by another 3 month parade of unelectables and inadequates.
Timing is everything. It may be a coincidence this came out just after the US inflation numbers (which are the last before the midterms) and the OPEC snub. Maybe it isn't.
No. Those houses will still exist. They may be sold at a loss if the landlords cannot cover their costs which would add to the (overdue) market correction.
Yes the UK government has to exist in the real world, which means if it wants to borrow money from others, others will charge rates that depend on the confidence they have in the government.
Call the world a blob if you like.
Get rid now and have a Cabinet that are getting on with the job like Hunt, under a PM who has no personal radical agenda to change Britain with their half-baked ideas. Once that is in place, Tory fortunes should improve markedly.
Especially as Starmer might be a clean skin but offers little else by way of answers to Britain's problems. Sure, he won't be as bad as Truss. But he still might underwhelm. Come the election in 2 years, that will all need to be weighed in the balance.
Fortunately Mermaids’ poorly advised attack on the LGBA has let a lot of sunshine in on what was hitherto obscure - and no doubt more to come.
Some TRAs covered themselves in glory with their overnight cheering of Robbie Coltrane’s death because he had the courage and decency to stand by JK Rowling - a quality not shared by many of his younger Co-stars. Ironic that the actor who played Draco Malfoy should turn out to be the one with the courage and decency to stand by Rowling, while his more famous peers sought Twitter approbation and distanced themselves from the author who made them.
Yes landlords will try, but most will fail. Voids won't be any use paying their inflated btl mortgages.
We then have to endure endless tedious debates about why the health and social care sectors in particular are chronically understaffed and fail to recruit, whilst their staff continue to throw in the towel and go and work for Aldi.
Electoral Calculus is indicating that whilst the LDs are polling less than were at the last GE, they are predicted to get substantially more seats.
It's a difficult one to call though.
Over 55 property owners, by and large, are similar enough on the issues affecting home ownership that the generalisation works more than it doesn't.
If Hunt manages to communicate that to the country he will have done us all a great service. Then hopefully Starmer et al will have some ideas to make things a bit better.
There are going to be serious consequences for mortgage holders across the west due to this policy
Is there anybody there?
Maggie, can you hear us?
Brits aren’t so lucky.
Our mortgages are heavily skewed towards 2 and 5 year fixes.
That would change the make up significantly and give them a fighting chance
The crème brûlée and Great Court Run college in particular.
Re-establish the monasteries and give them their assets back?
She can't do a press conference, or go to a summit. Even PMQs is going to be brutal.
"To ask the Prime Minister what the Chancellor thinks about this..."
It got her through the day. Probably the weekend. Still not sure it lasts more than a week.
Regardless, it comes down to a combination of motivating public sector workers and fairness in a once in a generation type economic shock.
But even if that is the case its the job of a good leader to overcome such things, not just whinge. It's no different to when Corbynite complained the media and opponents gave him a hard time. Yes, and tough as it was it was his job to face that down.
As far as your theory about proving something before the election goes, I don't think anything about this latest appeal is expected to move that fast.
Although I know you won't agree with me but Brexit was another desperate throw of the dice to try to pretend there was an easy solution. I understand why people voted for it in the hope of "levelling up" and not being left behind but it's pretty clear already that that was an illusion and their plight is actually going to get worse.
Hope you are well by the way, I noticed you didn't seem to be posting for quite a while until recently. As least you have nice weather to ease the pain!
I remain a Lib Dem, leaning Green at times.