Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and most of them don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
considering the responsibiliies bishops have (basically heading the church in their diocese -usually translating to a county) nobody does it for the money . Many are held in very high regard by parishes and a suitable house (which they only reside in but not own) is befitting the role and status
I don't think they do it for the money. It just seems that the status could still be adequately reflected whilst still utilising the overall church wealth a lot more effectively for charitable and other purposes.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
i dont see what is hypocritical? One of roles of the Church is to speak for the poor and downtrodden. Its also good to have alternative viewpoints from the state
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Why? They aren't millionaires
The wealth of the church is obscene and it is utter hypocrisy for their staff to preach for the poor while living in Palaces etc
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Why? They aren't millionaires
The wealth of the church is obscene and it is utter hypocrisy for their staff to preach for the poor while living in Palaces etc
thats like saying the wealth of the National Trust is obscene - Its good to have financially strong alternative organisations to the state- As has been pointed out below nobody in the church is paid lavish salaries and its wealth goes to fund its charitable aims
@NadineDorries I cannot imagine there’s one G7 country which thinks we’re worthy of a place at the table. The removal of one electorally successful PM, the disgraceful plotting to remove another by those who didn’t get their way first time round is destabilising our economy and our reputation
Worth remembering how miserable the final years of the last moribund Tory government were, and the grim consequences - the Cones Hotline and Rail Franchising.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
i dont see what is hypocritical? One of roles of the Church is to speak for the poor and downtrodden. Its also good to have alternative viewpoints from the state
Totally hypocritical - "I care so much about the poor, it's so terrible but not so much that it is allowed to interfere with me living in my nice luxury lodgings with my staff and my stipend"
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
i dont see what is hypocritical? One of roles of the Church is to speak for the poor and downtrodden. Its also good to have alternative viewpoints from the state
Totally hypocritical - "I care so much about the poor, it's so terrible but not so much that it is allowed to interfere with me living in my nice luxury lodgings with my staff and my stipend"
Most of them don't live in luxury lodgings anymore, that is the point, yet they still help run foodbanks, homeless shelters etc.
I mean in the 18th century even a country Rector would have had a housekeeper and maybe a cook and a Bishop would certainly have had a Butler on top of that
@NadineDorries I cannot imagine there’s one G7 country which thinks we’re worthy of a place at the table. The removal of one electorally successful PM, the disgraceful plotting to remove another by those who didn’t get their way first time round is destabilising our economy and our reputation
I can't see why the G7 would give a damn about the removal of an 'electorally successful PM'. That's none of their business - we could change PMs every week and so long as it did not affect them why would they care?
She's projecting her outrage about it onto the G7.
And whilst she might claim the subsequent plotting is doing harm which the G7 would indeed care about, that doesn't apply to the outsting of Boris, since that did not cause anything like the disruption that Truss caused, so by her own logic they wouldn't mind.
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
Oregon governor is a "toss-up" says 538 website.
There's a 3rd party candidate
538 have said that but the polls have give. the GOP several leads.
If this was an election where the Democrats had a chance of holding the House, this race shouldn't even be close. Nor should people be thinking that the GOP has even a whiff of a chance with the NY Governorship.
Doubt you've been paying much attention to NY State politics, including fact that current Democratic governor was NOT elected to that position, as she was Lieutenant Gov UNTIL her Democratic predecessor self-destructed and was forced to resign (sound familiar).
AND as Garth just pointed out, gubernatorial and other statewide races do NOT move in lockstep with federal races. True that they are related, but the relationship is modified by ticket splitting (for variety of reasons) which is common in US.
Certainly more common that most UKers can comprehend, esp. since you do NOT have as a rule more than one thing to vote upon in UK general elections.
Funnily enough, I have been paying enough attention to the NY political scene so I'm up to date with the whole Hochul thing, how she got there eye even the shooting outside Zeldin's house..
The main - and original - point still stands. We were told the value bet was the Dems holding the House. How is that comparable with a good chance the Dems lose the Oregon Gubernatorial race and even that of NY?
@NadineDorries I cannot imagine there’s one G7 country which thinks we’re worthy of a place at the table. The removal of one electorally successful PM, the disgraceful plotting to remove another by those who didn’t get their way first time round is destabilising our economy and our reputation
It says it all when you are quoting from Dorries, someone who is on the way to the HOL via Johnson honours
She like you are about to be marginalised as conservative mps take control of their own futures and appoint the few grown ups they have to office
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Why? They aren't millionaires
The wealth of the church is obscene and it is utter hypocrisy for their staff to preach for the poor while living in Palaces etc
The opposite, not enough Bishops now live in Palaces.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Why? They aren't millionaires
The wealth of the church is obscene and it is utter hypocrisy for their staff to preach for the poor while living in Palaces etc
The church does a lot of good in the community and I'm glad they have the funds to support that. Our local church is absolutely central to the life of the neighbourhood, and the vicar works tirelessly for the good of local people and is an absolutely wonderful woman. It makes me very sad that I am an atheist.
@NadineDorries I cannot imagine there’s one G7 country which thinks we’re worthy of a place at the table. The removal of one electorally successful PM, the disgraceful plotting to remove another by those who didn’t get their way first time round is destabilising our economy and our reputation
I can't see why the G7 would give a damn about the removal of an 'electorally successful PM'. That's none of their business - we could change PMs every week and so long as it did not affect them why would they care?
She's projecting her outrage about it onto the G7.
And whilst she might claim the subsequent plotting is doing harm which the G7 would indeed care about, that doesn't apply to the outsting of Boris, since that did not cause anything like the disruption that Truss caused, so by her own logic they wouldn't mind.
When Italy were having constant government crises it did damage their standing - they were seen as a bit absurd and what their government at any given moment thought didn't have much long-term value. I shouldn't think anyone in the G& is particularly desperate to hear Truss's thoughts at the moment.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Why? They aren't millionaires
The wealth of the church is obscene and it is utter hypocrisy for their staff to preach for the poor while living in Palaces etc
Is it, though? A lot of the wealth is in forms that aren't easy to cash in (buildings that few others would want) or balance liabilities (that there should be a church in the future).
And flogging off historic assets to find current expenditure is something the UK has done waaay to much of in recent years.
Worth remembering how miserable the final years of the last moribund Tory government were, and the grim consequences - the Cones Hotline and Rail Franchising.
Yeah I really don't see why another two years of my kids' lives should be blighted by having to grow up under the misrule of these grotesque incompetents.
@NadineDorries I cannot imagine there’s one G7 country which thinks we’re worthy of a place at the table. The removal of one electorally successful PM, the disgraceful plotting to remove another by those who didn’t get their way first time round is destabilising our economy and our reputation
On the plus side though - this is a country where her old boss can put her in the second legislative chamber for life in order to have her safe seat.
If you are betting on US mid-term elections, there is one additional complication to keep in mind: organizations. Especially in states like Washington where the ballots trickle in over days. It doesn't require a big organization to have some idea of who your supporters are, or to contact them if they haven't voted, and election day is near. And you can hire people to do that.
For example, it seems likely to me that organization explains the survival of Seattle's Trotskyite council member, Kshama Sawant, in her 2021 recall election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Why? They aren't millionaires
The wealth of the church is obscene and it is utter hypocrisy for their staff to preach for the poor while living in Palaces etc
The church does a lot of good in the community and I'm glad they have the funds to support that. Our local church is absolutely central to the life of the neighbourhood, and the vicar works tirelessly for the good of local people and is an absolutely wonderful woman. It makes me very sad that I am an atheist.
You live in a different area than I do (wealthy) or my parents do (poor). In both these cases, the CoE does f**k all.
Not sure Tory members are in a particularly strong position to get on high horse, after events of the last month.
It's not fair to put it all on the members, but any MPs putting in letters obviously are thinking about what comes next, that's why they are putting the letters in - thinking looking ridiculous now is better than crashing and burning even harder later.
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
It’s something that Cameron/Osborne inherently understood. I think May got it too. Probably not Boris, but he deferred to Sunak as the finance guy who understood the stuff he knew he didn’t.
Listening to John McDonnell this weekend - he clearly understood the fears of the bond market when he was no2 to Corbyn and was mocked for modelling a run on the pound. But at least that kind of serious thinking was going on.
But Truss just didn’t understand the gamble she was taking.
I haven't looked at the Oregon election yet, but I can say that Oregon is closer to a swing state than many realize. (George W. Bush came within 0.4 percentage points of winning the state in 2000.) And that the continuing crime and anarchy in Portland is a strong argument for change.
(Fun fact: Bush did so well in Idaho in 2000 that he actually won the combined popular vote of the three northwest states: Washington, Oregon and Idaho. It didn't do him much good in the electoral college, of course.)
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Why? They aren't millionaires
The wealth of the church is obscene and it is utter hypocrisy for their staff to preach for the poor while living in Palaces etc
The church does a lot of good in the community and I'm glad they have the funds to support that. Our local church is absolutely central to the life of the neighbourhood, and the vicar works tirelessly for the good of local people and is an absolutely wonderful woman. It makes me very sad that I am an atheist.
You live in a different area than I do (wealthy) or my parents do (poor). In both these cases, the CoE does f**k all.
how do you know- are you a church goer? For many a person it is comforting that the church will always be a place of refuge and comfort to them. That is very valuable for any community to have
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Why? They aren't millionaires
The wealth of the church is obscene and it is utter hypocrisy for their staff to preach for the poor while living in Palaces etc
The church does a lot of good in the community and I'm glad they have the funds to support that. Our local church is absolutely central to the life of the neighbourhood, and the vicar works tirelessly for the good of local people and is an absolutely wonderful woman. It makes me very sad that I am an atheist.
You live in a different area than I do (wealthy) or my parents do (poor). In both these cases, the CoE does f**k all.
How often do you go to church services or events in church halls or the local community?
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Why? They aren't millionaires
The wealth of the church is obscene and it is utter hypocrisy for their staff to preach for the poor while living in Palaces etc
The church does a lot of good in the community and I'm glad they have the funds to support that. Our local church is absolutely central to the life of the neighbourhood, and the vicar works tirelessly for the good of local people and is an absolutely wonderful woman. It makes me very sad that I am an atheist.
You live in a different area than I do (wealthy) or my parents do (poor). In both these cases, the CoE does f**k all.
Yes I'm sure it is highly variable. We do live in an unusually community-minded neighbourhood and the church is very much a part of that.
If you are betting on US mid-term elections, there is one additional complication to keep in mind: organizations. Especially in states like Washington where the ballots trickle in over days. It doesn't require a big organization to have some idea of who your supporters are, or to contact them if they haven't voted, and election day is near. And you can hire people to do that.
For example, it seems likely to me that organization explains the survival of Seattle's Trotskyite council member, Kshama Sawant, in her 2021 recall election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant
True. Also note that campaigns & their minions can and do remove people who have already voted from direct mailings. Though there is a lag between when voters return their ballots AND they are received and thus recorded by election authorities.
In case of Sawant, she does NOT rely (much) on mail but puts her campaign funding (sources largely unknown) into hiring people to canvass for her. Have friends who live in her council district who get contacted multiple times during the year - even outside of election season, just to "touch base".
Well, this citizen of a G7 member thinks Britain definitely deserves a seat at the table. And, among the minority here paying attention to your political problems, I think almost all wish you well, and most think you will "muddle through" without too much damage. You have a pretty good record, we think.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 1h NEW: Labour have demanded that Liz Truss come to parliament tomorrow to answer questions from MPs on the current economic / political crisis.
Keir Starmer - “The Prime Minister says she is in charge but the evidence this weekend suggests she is in office but not in power.”
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Why? They aren't millionaires
The wealth of the church is obscene and it is utter hypocrisy for their staff to preach for the poor while living in Palaces etc
Lenny Bruce made the memorable observation that while Puerto Ricans starved in New York, Cardinal Spellman, archbishop of the city, wore a ring on his finger worth $8000.
Ouch! You don't get comedy (or oppositional politics) like that these days.
Edit: the above is not meant as an expression of contempt against all members of any church. There are undoubtedly many members of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic church, etc., who do a lot of good work for the poor, the despairing, and the downtrodden.
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
It’s something that Cameron/Osborne inherently understood. I think May got it too. Probably not Boris, but he deferred to Sunak as the finance guy who understood the stuff he knew he didn’t.
Listening to John McDonnell this weekend - he clearly understood the fears of the bond market when he was no2 to Corbyn and was mocked for modelling a run on the pound. But at least that kind of serious thinking was going on.
But Truss just didn’t understand the gamble she was taking.
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
Oregon governor is a "toss-up" says 538 website.
There's a 3rd party candidate
538 have said that but the polls have give. the GOP several leads.
If this was an election where the Democrats had a chance of holding the House, this race shouldn't even be close. Nor should people be thinking that the GOP has even a whiff of a chance with the NY Governorship.
Doubt you've been paying much attention to NY State politics, including fact that current Democratic governor was NOT elected to that position, as she was Lieutenant Gov UNTIL her Democratic predecessor self-destructed and was forced to resign (sound familiar).
AND as Garth just pointed out, gubernatorial and other statewide races do NOT move in lockstep with federal races. True that they are related, but the relationship is modified by ticket splitting (for variety of reasons) which is common in US.
Certainly more common that most UKers can comprehend, esp. since you do NOT have as a rule more than one thing to vote upon in UK general elections.
Funnily enough, I have been paying enough attention to the NY political scene so I'm up to date with the whole Hochul thing, how she got there eye even the shooting outside Zeldin's house..
The main - and original - point still stands. We were told the value bet was the Dems holding the House. How is that comparable with a good chance the Dems lose the Oregon Gubernatorial race and even that of NY?
Well, personally do NOT think the Democrats will retain US House, regardless of the betting outlook.
Which includes (as I feebly understand it) folks who stand to make money "selling" their bets that direction BEFORE the election?
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
It’s something that Cameron/Osborne inherently understood. I think May got it too. Probably not Boris, but he deferred to Sunak as the finance guy who understood the stuff he knew he didn’t.
Listening to John McDonnell this weekend - he clearly understood the fears of the bond market when he was no2 to Corbyn and was mocked for modelling a run on the pound. But at least that kind of serious thinking was going on.
But Truss just didn’t understand the gamble she was taking.
She really is a fool.
PPE from Oxford.
The E must have been only one term.
Niall Ferguson did an episode on the bond market in his Ascent of Money saying all governments defer to it and it is the most powerful force .
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
It’s something that Cameron/Osborne inherently understood. I think May got it too. Probably not Boris, but he deferred to Sunak as the finance guy who understood the stuff he knew he didn’t.
Listening to John McDonnell this weekend - he clearly understood the fears of the bond market when he was no2 to Corbyn and was mocked for modelling a run on the pound. But at least that kind of serious thinking was going on.
But Truss just didn’t understand the gamble she was taking.
She really is a fool.
PPE from Oxford.
The E must have been only one term.
Niall Ferguson did an episode on the bond market in his Ascent of Money saying all governments defer to it and it is the most powerful force .
Bond market ~equals actions by the government's creditors.
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
It’s something that Cameron/Osborne inherently understood. I think May got it too. Probably not Boris, but he deferred to Sunak as the finance guy who understood the stuff he knew he didn’t.
Listening to John McDonnell this weekend - he clearly understood the fears of the bond market when he was no2 to Corbyn and was mocked for modelling a run on the pound. But at least that kind of serious thinking was going on.
But Truss just didn’t understand the gamble she was taking.
Well, this citizen of a G7 member thinks Britain definitely deserves a seat at the table. And, among the minority here paying attention to your political problems, I think almost all wish you well, and most think you will "muddle through" without too much damage. You have a pretty good record, we think.
Yes. Though last PM that was (reasonably) widely known AND respected by Americans (though not the same ones at the same time!) was Tony Blair. And before that (in my lifetime going backwards) Margaret Thatcher, Harold Wilson, Harold Macmillan and (of course) Winston Churchill.
Anthony Eden was respected (I think) but as Foreign Secretary under Churchill NOT as PM in his own right.
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
No.
He told the members explicitly what would happen if Truss enacted her plans.
Well, this citizen of a G7 member thinks Britain definitely deserves a seat at the table. And, among the minority here paying attention to your political problems, I think almost all wish you well, and most think you will "muddle through" without too much damage. You have a pretty good record, we think.
Yes. Though last PM that was (reasonably) widely known AND respected by Americans (though not the same ones at the same time!) was Tony Blair. And before that (in my lifetime going backwards) Margaret Thatcher, Harold Wilson, Harold Macmillan and (of course) Winston Churchill.
Anthony Eden was respected (I think) but as Foreign Secretary under Churchill NOT as PM in his own right.
Indeed, the Americans (quite rightly) forced Eden into a humiliating retreat over Suez.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 7h Pete Buttigieg to Margaret Brennan when she suggests Democratic divisions killed paid family leave: "Hold on. But if even one Republican were prepared to support paid leave, we'd be in a different territory. So let's not let 50 Republicans off the hook."
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
It’s something that Cameron/Osborne inherently understood. I think May got it too. Probably not Boris, but he deferred to Sunak as the finance guy who understood the stuff he knew he didn’t.
Listening to John McDonnell this weekend - he clearly understood the fears of the bond market when he was no2 to Corbyn and was mocked for modelling a run on the pound. But at least that kind of serious thinking was going on.
But Truss just didn’t understand the gamble she was taking.
She really is a fool.
PPE from Oxford.
The E must have been only one term.
Niall Ferguson did an episode on the bond market in his Ascent of Money saying all governments defer to it and it is the most powerful force .
So you think that the PM skipped class THAT day? And likely many more!
Well, this citizen of a G7 member thinks Britain definitely deserves a seat at the table. And, among the minority here paying attention to your political problems, I think almost all wish you well, and most think you will "muddle through" without too much damage. You have a pretty good record, we think.
Yes. Though last PM that was (reasonably) widely known AND respected by Americans (though not the same ones at the same time!) was Tony Blair. And before that (in my lifetime going backwards) Margaret Thatcher, Harold Wilson, Harold Macmillan and (of course) Winston Churchill.
Anthony Eden was respected (I think) but as Foreign Secretary under Churchill NOT as PM in his own right.
Indeed, the Americans (quite rightly) forced Eden into a humiliating retreat over Suez.
True. BUT I was talking about the American public at large. NOT presidents and other highly-placed muckity-mucks.
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
It’s something that Cameron/Osborne inherently understood. I think May got it too. Probably not Boris, but he deferred to Sunak as the finance guy who understood the stuff he knew he didn’t.
Listening to John McDonnell this weekend - he clearly understood the fears of the bond market when he was no2 to Corbyn and was mocked for modelling a run on the pound. But at least that kind of serious thinking was going on.
But Truss just didn’t understand the gamble she was taking.
She really is a fool.
PPE from Oxford.
The E must have been only one term.
Niall Ferguson did an episode on the bond market in his Ascent of Money saying all governments defer to it and it is the most powerful force .
Bond market ~equals actions by the government's creditors.
Indeed.
The way it is portrayed is a bunch of braces wearing hedgies betting against the pound rather than a load of Uk pension funds and foreign investors deciding whether to fund our national debt which is made far worse by our appalling balance of payments.
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
There was a story somewhere that said her advisors at the IEA thought the markets would reward them for cutting taxes
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
It’s something that Cameron/Osborne inherently understood. I think May got it too. Probably not Boris, but he deferred to Sunak as the finance guy who understood the stuff he knew he didn’t.
Listening to John McDonnell this weekend - he clearly understood the fears of the bond market when he was no2 to Corbyn and was mocked for modelling a run on the pound. But at least that kind of serious thinking was going on.
But Truss just didn’t understand the gamble she was taking.
She really is a fool.
PPE from Oxford.
The E must have been only one term.
Niall Ferguson did an episode on the bond market in his Ascent of Money saying all governments defer to it and it is the most powerful force .
So you think that the PM skipped class THAT day? And likely many more!
this is the episode - why did you not watch it Liz - induction training for PMs and CoEs
Liz Truss ought to resign because she can't possibly carry out her political programme with Jeremy Hunt as chancellor. Carrying on as PM is just wasting everyone's time.
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
There was a story somewhere that said her advisors at the IEA thought the markets would reward them for cutting taxes
yep. That was the fairy story they have all been telling themselves for decades.
The IEA and so on have had their fantasy economics theory tested in a real life lab and it has imploded.
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
Well, you shouldn't be piling onto anything, but I'd be cautious about treating the Oregon Gubernatorial race as indicating anything about the national picture.
For a start, it's a wild three way race, with a former Democrat independent (Betsy Johnson) picking up close to 20% of the vote, while the Dems and the Republicans are both in the mid-30s.
The US mid terms look very unpredictable. There seem to be wild variations between pollsters on the generic house ballot , from GOP leads upto 7% , to Dem leads upto 3% .
The higher leads admittedly from more GOP leaning pollsters but still some of the more middle of the road pollsters have wild variations .
The turnout at the moment seems to favour the GOP , this highlighted by a recent Harris poll . Showing a 6% lead for the GOP in likely voters compared to the registered voters showing a tie .
There seem to be Dem struggles in normally rock solid blue states , equally some unusual poll results in more red states .
Currently the GOP look solid to take the House , the Dems favoured to hold the Senate but it’s still not in the bank by a long way.
One caveat that might give hope to Dems are the recent special elections which under estimated their vote , the Kansas referendum related to abortion was a real shocker and it’s hard to say just how much that issue will play out further away from the SCOTUS ruling .
Equally the elections seem less impacted by Bidens approval ratings which although improved since the summer are still in negative territory .
I think the Dems need to max out their early votes before the next Fed rate decision drops in early November . Gas prices haven’t increased as much as expected after the OPEC decision and in the last few days have actually edged down .
For political junkies here in the UK the mid terms are fascinating but also quite frightening. US democracy is sadly hanging by a thread with a swathe of GOP candidates who refuse to accept Biden won , and who could be voted into key roles overseeing future elections.
The financial markets are as likely to decide Truss' future as much as Conservative MPs. No confidence in the economic plan, which is now in reverse gear, probably extends to no confidence in the person at the top, whether the government reverses course or or not. Truss may hope Hunt is seen as a safe pair of hands, he probably is, but the market makers may keep piling pressure on until Truss is gone.
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
There was a story somewhere that said her advisors at the IEA thought the markets would reward them for cutting taxes
Certainly true.
The idea was a shock and awe package of tax cuts which would *strengthen* the pound and leave the bond market impressed.
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
Oregon governor is a "toss-up" says 538 website.
There's a 3rd party candidate
538 have said that but the polls have give. the GOP several leads.
If this was an election where the Democrats had a chance of holding the House, this race shouldn't even be close. Nor should people be thinking that the GOP has even a whiff of a chance with the NY Governorship.
Doubt you've been paying much attention to NY State politics, including fact that current Democratic governor was NOT elected to that position, as she was Lieutenant Gov UNTIL her Democratic predecessor self-destructed and was forced to resign (sound familiar).
AND as Garth just pointed out, gubernatorial and other statewide races do NOT move in lockstep with federal races. True that they are related, but the relationship is modified by ticket splitting (for variety of reasons) which is common in US.
Certainly more common that most UKers can comprehend, esp. since you do NOT have as a rule more than one thing to vote upon in UK general elections.
Funnily enough, I have been paying enough attention to the NY political scene so I'm up to date with the whole Hochul thing, how she got there eye even the shooting outside Zeldin's house..
The main - and original - point still stands. We were told the value bet was the Dems holding the House. How is that comparable with a good chance the Dems lose the Oregon Gubernatorial race and even that of NY?
Dude: that would entirely depend on the odds.
If you offered me a million-to-one on the Dems, then even if they were polling on 20% and the Republicans on 80%, then you should take the bet, because there's a chance something could happen between now and election day.
On the other hand, if you were offered evens, you'd be mad to take it.
Right now, 538 has the Dems as a 29% chance to win the House. I think the true chance is a little bit less than that, given the history of what happens at first House elections of Presidencies and Biden's general level of unpopularity.
But if you offered me 7 or 8 to 1, I'd probably take it.
That doesn't mean I think the Dems are likely to win the House, it means I think that the real chance is slightly better than the odds.
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
There was a story somewhere that said her advisors at the IEA thought the markets would reward them for cutting taxes
yep. That was the fairy story they have all been telling themselves for decades.
The IEA and so on have had their fantasy economics theory tested in a real life lab and it has imploded.
No doubt Barty will be along soon to say that, like Communism, it was right in theory and just never put into practice properly.
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
There was a story somewhere that said her advisors at the IEA thought the markets would reward them for cutting taxes
Certainly true.
The idea was a shock and awe package of tax cuts which would *strengthen* the pound and leave the bond market impressed.
It's a bit odd that she didn't get better advice on what would happen. A conspiracist might say it's almost as if it was a case of "never interrupt an enemy when they're making a mistake".
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
There was a story somewhere that said her advisors at the IEA thought the markets would reward them for cutting taxes
Certainly true.
The idea was a shock and awe package of tax cuts which would *strengthen* the pound and leave the bond market impressed.
It's a bit odd that she didn't get better advice on what would happen. A conspiracist might say it's almost as if it was a case of "never interrupt an enemy when they're making a mistake".
Well, they fired Scholar, deliberately excluded the OBR and didn’t even bother to discuss it in Cabinet, by accounts.
There were elements of a coup about it; I described it as Pinochet style in one post.
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
There was a story somewhere that said her advisors at the IEA thought the markets would reward them for cutting taxes
Certainly true.
The idea was a shock and awe package of tax cuts which would *strengthen* the pound and leave the bond market impressed.
It's a bit odd that she didn't get better advice on what would happen. A conspiracist might say it's almost as if it was a case of "never interrupt an enemy when they're making a mistake".
Perhaps the fact that she fired anyone who disagreed with her might be a simpler explanation?
Reflecting a little further on Liz Truss’s predicament.
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
There was a story somewhere that said her advisors at the IEA thought the markets would reward them for cutting taxes
yep. That was the fairy story they have all been telling themselves for decades.
The IEA and so on have had their fantasy economics theory tested in a real life lab and it has imploded.
The fact that the free market fantasy economics was blown up by the reaction of the markets is one of the delicious ironies of the sorry episode.
It's a bit odd that she didn't get better advice on what would happen. A conspiracist might say it's almost as if it was a case of "never interrupt an enemy when they're making a mistake".
The US mid terms look very unpredictable. There seem to be wild variations between pollsters on the generic house ballot , from GOP leads upto 7% , to Dem leads upto 3% .
The higher leads admittedly from more GOP leaning pollsters but still some of the more middle of the road pollsters have wild variations .
The turnout at the moment seems to favour the GOP , this highlighted by a recent Harris poll . Showing a 6% lead for the GOP in likely voters compared to the registered voters showing a tie .
There seem to be Dem struggles in normally rock solid blue states , equally some unusual poll results in more red states .
Currently the GOP look solid to take the House , the Dems favoured to hold the Senate but it’s still not in the bank by a long way.
One caveat that might give hope to Dems are the recent special elections which under estimated their vote , the Kansas referendum related to abortion was a real shocker and it’s hard to say just how much that issue will play out further away from the SCOTUS ruling .
Equally the elections seem less impacted by Bidens approval ratings which although improved since the summer are still in negative territory .
I think the Dems need to max out their early votes before the next Fed rate decision drops in early November . Gas prices haven’t increased as much as expected after the OPEC decision and in the last few days have actually edged down .
For political junkies here in the UK the mid terms are fascinating but also quite frightening. US democracy is sadly hanging by a thread with a swathe of GOP candidates who refuse to accept Biden won , and who could be voted into key roles overseeing future elections.
I would make the Republicans very slight favourites to take the Senate, but it's very close.
It is - of course - entirely possible this is wrong. The latest two polls in Utah look like it might well be an Independent gain. Likewise, Fetterman's been fading a little in PA, and I wouldn't be surprised if Oz snatched it.
In Arizona, while Kelly is personally very popular, the Republicans are highly motivated to turn up for the insane Kari Lake in the Governor's race, so that could also be a Republican gain.
*But* if you offered me 2-1 on either the Dems or the Republicans to win the Senate, I'd bite your hands off. Because it's a very close race that could go either way.
* It is worth noting that Georgia could easily go to a run-off again. Indeed, this might very well be the likeliest outcome, given Oliver is likely to pick up 3-4%, mostly from Republicans.
The US mid terms look very unpredictable. There seem to be wild variations between pollsters on the generic house ballot , from GOP leads upto 7% , to Dem leads upto 3% .
The higher leads admittedly from more GOP leaning pollsters but still some of the more middle of the road pollsters have wild variations .
The turnout at the moment seems to favour the GOP , this highlighted by a recent Harris poll . Showing a 6% lead for the GOP in likely voters compared to the registered voters showing a tie .
There seem to be Dem struggles in normally rock solid blue states , equally some unusual poll results in more red states .
Currently the GOP look solid to take the House , the Dems favoured to hold the Senate but it’s still not in the bank by a long way.
One caveat that might give hope to Dems are the recent special elections which under estimated their vote , the Kansas referendum related to abortion was a real shocker and it’s hard to say just how much that issue will play out further away from the SCOTUS ruling .
Equally the elections seem less impacted by Bidens approval ratings which although improved since the summer are still in negative territory .
I think the Dems need to max out their early votes before the next Fed rate decision drops in early November . Gas prices haven’t increased as much as expected after the OPEC decision and in the last few days have actually edged down .
For political junkies here in the UK the mid terms are fascinating but also quite frightening. US democracy is sadly hanging by a thread with a swathe of GOP candidates who refuse to accept Biden won , and who could be voted into key roles overseeing future elections.
Has that dweeb in a dickie bow shown his hand yet?
The irony is that Truss was not 100% wrong. Treasury / Sunakian orthodoxy is recessionary, and putting up taxes, when taxation is already high, is a paradox worth challenging.
It’s just that literally nobody but her, Kwarteng, and a few murkily funded “think tanks” believe that the solution is giveaways for the richest, paid for on tick.
The history books will tell us that Elizabeth Truss was the last Prime Minister to serve Queen Elizabeth II and the first to serve King Charles III. For her service I am grateful, simply because she removed those historical milestones from the CV of Alexander Johnson, and he must have, to use football parlance, been as sick as a Parrott.
The irony is that Truss was not 100% wrong. Treasury / Sunakian orthodoxy is recessionary, and putting up taxes, when taxation is already high, is a paradox worth challenging.
It’s just that literally nobody but her, Kwarteng, and a few murkily funded “think tanks” believe that the solution is giveaways for the richest, paid for on tick.
Did you support (or would you have supported) Nigel Lawson's decision to cut the top rate of income tax from 60% to 40% in 1988? Because the reasons for that were pretty much the same as why Truss/Kwarteng wanted to cut the top rate from 45% to 40%.
The irony is that Truss was not 100% wrong. Treasury / Sunakian orthodoxy is recessionary, and putting up taxes, when taxation is already high, is a paradox worth challenging.
It’s just that literally nobody but her, Kwarteng, and a few murkily funded “think tanks” believe that the solution is giveaways for the richest, paid for on tick.
Did you support (or would you have supported) Nigel Lawson's decision to cut the top rate of income tax from 60% to 40% in 1988? Because the reasons for that were pretty much the same as why Truss/Kwarteng wanted to cut the top rate from 45% to 40%.
The irony is that Truss was not 100% wrong. Treasury / Sunakian orthodoxy is recessionary, and putting up taxes, when taxation is already high, is a paradox worth challenging.
It’s just that literally nobody but her, Kwarteng, and a few murkily funded “think tanks” believe that the solution is giveaways for the richest, paid for on tick.
Did you support (or would you have supported) Nigel Lawson's decision to cut the top rate of income tax from 60% to 40% in 1988? Because the reasons for that were pretty much the same as why Truss/Kwarteng wanted to cut the top rate from 45% to 40%.
I am not familiar with the broader macro context of 1988. Having said that, I don’t believe in tax rates over 50%.
And then there are the possible surprises. Conservative columnist George Will recently wrote that Washingon state's Senator Patty Murray might be vulnerable this election. Someone (Mitch McConnell?) is spending a lot of money on TV ads attacking her and supporting the Republican challenger, Tiffany Smiley.) And Iowa Republican Charles Grassley had a close poll recently, with just a 3 percent lead. (Both are getting on in years. Murray was born October 11th, 1950; Grassley was born September 17th, 1933.
Despite his greater age, Grassley seems to be in better health than Murray. He runs every day, and is fond of challenging younger men to push-up contests. (Ifyou can't do at least 35, don't accept the challenge.) And for many years, he made a point of visiting every single county in Iowa -- there are 99 -- at least once a year
I note the Conservatives are around 23%. Crispin Blunt seems determined to lose that remaining 23%. He still has a tweet up saying the growth plan was the best thing since sliced bread ffsake.
Hypothetical: If it had not been for LDIs and the forced-selling death spiral they entailed, would Truss and Kwarteng have got away with the whole package? The market would have moved, future mortgage rates would have increased. The public may not have been amused. But would they have got away without u-turning? A fiscal failure but a political survival?
I note the Conservatives are around 23%. Crispin Blunt seems determined to lose that remaining 23%. He still has a tweet up saying the growth plan was the best thing since sliced bread ffsake.
Hypothetical: If it had not been for LDIs and the forced-selling death spiral they entailed, would Truss and Kwarteng have got away with the whole package? The market would have moved, future mortgage rates would have increased. The public may not have been amused. But would they have got away without u-turning? A fiscal failure but a political survival?
No. The markets were already sliding on Friday and it became a rout on Monday.
I note the Conservatives are around 23%. Crispin Blunt seems determined to lose that remaining 23%. He still has a tweet up saying the growth plan was the best thing since sliced bread ffsake.
On the earlier topic of modern politicians being unable to express themselves properly, I just rewatched Trudeau the elder’s speech invoking the War Measures Act in response to Quebecois Nationalist terrorism. A masterclass. Hard to imagine anyone since Blair doing it this well here.
I note the Conservatives are around 23%. Crispin Blunt seems determined to lose that remaining 23%. He still has a tweet up saying the growth plan was the best thing since sliced bread ffsake.
Why did he call for Truss to go in that case?
Crack cocaine is a terrible drug.
Nomnative determinism rather suggests Majuarana in his case.
And then there are the possible surprises. Conservative columnist George Will recently wrote that Washingon state's Senator Patty Murray might be vulnerable this election. Someone (Mitch McConnell?) is spending a lot of money on TV ads attacking her and supporting the Republican challenger, Tiffany Smiley.) And Iowa Republican Charles Grassley had a close poll recently, with just a 3 percent lead. (Both are getting on in years. Murray was born October 11th, 1950; Grassley was born September 17th, 1933.
Despite his greater age, Grassley seems to be in better health than Murray. He runs every day, and is fond of challenging younger men to push-up contests. (Ifyou can't do at least 35, don't accept the challenge.) And for many years, he made a point of visiting every single county in Iowa -- there are 99 -- at least once a year
The money being spent on Tiffany Smiley's behalf would be better spent IF it wasn't spent on the crap ads she's running.
For example, showing a picture of herself with Donald Trump - then one of her with . . . wait for it . . . Patty Murray! Also the one where she claims that Patty is anti-teacher, which is NOT (as the Seattle Times pointed out) what you'd call credible for most voters, including the swing voters Smiley REALLY needs.
However, latest Smiley ad I just saw is much better, features (alleged) Democrats and or serial Patty voters, saying they've voted for Patty MANY times, but will not THIS time. Message: the Senator has been around a LONG time; and reasonable people - not just Putinist wingnuts - are voting for Smiley.
Here is WA State, ballots will be mailed out to all active registered voters (except for some military ballots mailed earlier) this week. Including to Jim and yours truly.
Surprised to see that an anti-abortion Republican is ahead in the polls to win the Oregon gubernatorial election.
Note that the Independent candidate for Governor is a pro-choice Democrat, Betsy Johnson, as is the Democratic nominee, Tina Kotek.
And that in most recent poll posted on 535 has Republican Christine Drazan at 44% so NOT an anti-abortion majority, even assuming all her current supporters feel that way, which isn't so.
As people are talking Oregon polling, I would note a few things:
(1) Only one poll has the Republican candidate making it out of the 30s. Most polls have had her in the 33 to 38% range.
(2) The one that did show a 40+% score was from Clout Research (http://cloutpolitical.com/), which doesn't even use https. Its website doesn't really work properly (click on the menu items at the top and see nothing happen), and its news page seems to show that it has one done one poll ever:
Indeed, the firm only has one... thing... errr... ever.
(3) Said firm listed four people on it: PZ Wenzel, Fritz Wenzel, Alex Wenzel and Marty Gray. According to LinkedIn, PJ's dayjob is President of Ring, a political digital advertising company serving the Republican party. Alex Wenzel also appears to actually work for Ring. As, come to mention it, does Marty Gray.
My takeaway: yes, the Republicans could win the Oregon governorship, thanks to a split left wing vote.
But you probably shouldn't take the poll showing Drazan on 44% too seriously.
As people are talking Oregon polling, I would note a few things:
(1) Only one poll has the Republican candidate making it out of the 30s. Most polls have had her in the 33 to 38% range.
(2) The one that did show a 40+% score was from Clout Research (http://cloutpolitical.com/), which doesn't even use https. Its website doesn't really work properly (click on the menu items at the top and see nothing happen), and its news page seems to show that it has one done one poll ever:
Indeed, the firm only has one... thing... errr... ever.
(3) Said firm listed four people on it: PZ Wenzel, Fritz Wenzel, Alex Wenzel and Marty Gray. According to LinkedIn, PJ's dayjob is President of Ring, a political digital advertising company serving the Republican party. Alex Wenzel also appears to actually work for Ring. As, come to mention it, does Marty Gray.
My takeaway: yes, the Republicans could win the Oregon governorship, thanks to a split left wing vote.
But you probably shouldn't take the poll showing Drazan on 44% too seriously.
I went to King's Cross today and all I got was this picture:
Very clean. It's a clean machine.
Bah. Over-rated LNER rubbish.
Not a patch on anything made at Derby. Or Crewe.
Grrrrr.
Weird how many of us have a disproportionate loyalty to our local 'Big 4' 1920s-1940s railway company - especially given for most of us it significantly predates our birth. Also, go LMS!
For me, it's because I was born just outside Derby, and my dad used to get some jobs inside both the loco and carriage works. Sometimes he would take me into them on a Saturday - the people on the gate were perfectly happy for me to remain in the car as we drove in. I got to see lots of interesting stuff 'behind the scenes'.
The only problem was that I wasn't into railways at the time. Although perhaps it was inevitable that I would become interested...
Any large engineering plant is a fascinating place. I also got to go to JCB a few times, including for a couple of product launches (laser displays and lots of smoke).
Wikipedia describes him as far-right, which must be unusual for a candidate from one of the two main parties.
He's managed to upset Pennsylvania's - normally very Republican - orthodox Jewish community, with his attacks on "the 2%". You know, the usual spiel about a "small cabal, the 2%, you know who I mean". Which they have - understandably - taken to mean "Jewish".
Comments
I cannot imagine there’s one G7 country which thinks we’re worthy of a place at the table.
The removal of one electorally successful PM, the disgraceful plotting to remove another by those who didn’t get their way first time round is destabilising our economy and our reputation
I mean in the 18th century even a country Rector would have had a housekeeper and maybe a cook and a Bishop would certainly have had a Butler on top of that
She's projecting her outrage about it onto the G7.
And whilst she might claim the subsequent plotting is doing harm which the G7 would indeed care about, that doesn't apply to the outsting of Boris, since that did not cause anything like the disruption that Truss caused, so by her own logic they wouldn't mind.
The main - and original - point still stands. We were told the value bet was the Dems holding the House. How is that comparable with a good chance the Dems lose the Oregon Gubernatorial race and even that of NY?
She like you are about to be marginalised as conservative mps take control of their own futures and appoint the few grown ups they have to office
And flogging off historic assets to find current expenditure is something the UK has done waaay to much of in recent years.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope
Are Conservative MPs putting in letters tonight even thinking about what comes next? What will members think?
Iain Martin @iainmartin1
Not sure Tory members are in a particularly strong position to get on high horse, after events of the last month.
For example, it seems likely to me that organization explains the survival of Seattle's Trotskyite council member, Kshama Sawant, in her 2021 recall election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant
Muppets revisited...
Exiled Sinner 🇪🇺 @Exiled_Sinners
Genius. Pure bloody genius.
https://twitter.com/Exiled_Sinners/status/1581592168644296704
The thing that gets me is…. I don’t think she realised she was playing poker with the bond market. It’s not that she gambled and lost. She didn’t even realise the risk she was taking.
That’s astonishing ineptitude.
It’s something that Cameron/Osborne inherently understood. I think May got it too. Probably not Boris, but he deferred to Sunak as the finance guy who understood the stuff he knew he didn’t.
Listening to John McDonnell this weekend - he clearly understood the fears of the bond market when he was no2 to Corbyn and was mocked for modelling a run on the pound. But at least that kind of serious thinking was going on.
But Truss just didn’t understand the gamble she was taking.
She really is a fool.
(Fun fact: Bush did so well in Idaho in 2000 that he actually won the combined popular vote of the three northwest states: Washington, Oregon and Idaho. It didn't do him much good in the electoral college, of course.)
In case of Sawant, she does NOT rely (much) on mail but puts her campaign funding (sources largely unknown) into hiring people to canvass for her. Have friends who live in her council district who get contacted multiple times during the year - even outside of election season, just to "touch base".
Paul Brand
@PaulBrandITV
·
1h
NEW: Labour have demanded that Liz Truss come to parliament tomorrow to answer questions from MPs on the current economic / political crisis.
Keir Starmer - “The Prime Minister says she is in charge but the evidence this weekend suggests she is in office but not in power.”
Lenny Bruce made the memorable observation that while Puerto Ricans starved in New York, Cardinal Spellman, archbishop of the city, wore a ring on his finger worth $8000.
Ouch! You don't get comedy (or oppositional politics) like that these days.
Edit: the above is not meant as an expression of contempt against all members of any church. There are undoubtedly many members of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic church, etc., who do a lot of good work for the poor, the despairing, and the downtrodden.
The E must have been only one term.
Which includes (as I feebly understand it) folks who stand to make money "selling" their bets that direction BEFORE the election?
Anthony Eden was respected (I think) but as Foreign Secretary under Churchill NOT as PM in his own right.
He told the members explicitly what would happen if Truss enacted her plans.
They ignored him. Not his fault.
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
·
7h
Pete Buttigieg to Margaret Brennan when she suggests Democratic divisions killed paid family leave: "Hold on. But if even one Republican were prepared to support paid leave, we'd be in a different territory. So let's not let 50 Republicans off the hook."
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1581665340903555072
The way it is portrayed is a bunch of braces wearing hedgies betting against the pound rather than a load of Uk pension funds and foreign investors deciding whether to fund our national debt which is made far worse by our appalling balance of payments.
Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle
I hope Liz Truss will now apologise to the school she said overlooked her potential
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBQaQq0m5BA&list=PLSP9UbXmBuqq2VIdj2JhYgjlYVWrWC2or&index=2
The IEA and so on have had their fantasy economics theory tested in a real life lab and it has imploded.
For a start, it's a wild three way race, with a former Democrat independent (Betsy Johnson) picking up close to 20% of the vote, while the Dems and the Republicans are both in the mid-30s.
The higher leads admittedly from more GOP leaning pollsters but still some of the more middle of the road pollsters have wild variations .
The turnout at the moment seems to favour the GOP , this highlighted by a recent Harris poll . Showing a 6% lead for the GOP in likely voters compared to the registered voters showing a tie .
There seem to be Dem struggles in normally rock solid blue states , equally some unusual poll results in more red states .
Currently the GOP look solid to take the House , the Dems favoured to hold the Senate but it’s still not in the bank by a long way.
One caveat that might give hope to Dems are the recent special elections which under estimated their vote , the Kansas referendum related to abortion was a real shocker and it’s hard to say just how much that issue will play out further away from the SCOTUS ruling .
Equally the elections seem less impacted by Bidens approval ratings which although improved since the summer are still in negative territory .
I think the Dems need to max out their early votes before the next Fed rate decision drops in early November . Gas prices haven’t increased as much as expected after the OPEC decision and in the last few days have actually edged down .
For political junkies here in the UK the mid terms are fascinating but also quite frightening. US democracy is sadly hanging by a thread with a swathe of GOP candidates who refuse to accept Biden won , and who could be voted into key roles overseeing future elections.
The idea was a shock and awe package of tax cuts which would *strengthen* the pound and leave the bond market impressed.
If you offered me a million-to-one on the Dems, then even if they were polling on 20% and the Republicans on 80%, then you should take the bet, because there's a chance something could happen between now and election day.
On the other hand, if you were offered evens, you'd be mad to take it.
Right now, 538 has the Dems as a 29% chance to win the House. I think the true chance is a little bit less than that, given the history of what happens at first House elections of Presidencies and Biden's general level of unpopularity.
But if you offered me 7 or 8 to 1, I'd probably take it.
That doesn't mean I think the Dems are likely to win the House, it means I think that the real chance is slightly better than the odds.
There were elements of a coup about it; I described it as Pinochet style in one post.
My rough guesses are:
- Nevada (R Gain)
- Georgia (R Gain)*
- Pennsylvania (D Gain)
The rest holds.
It is - of course - entirely possible this is wrong. The latest two polls in Utah look like it might well be an Independent gain. Likewise, Fetterman's been fading a little in PA, and I wouldn't be surprised if Oz snatched it.
In Arizona, while Kelly is personally very popular, the Republicans are highly motivated to turn up for the insane Kari Lake in the Governor's race, so that could also be a Republican gain.
*But* if you offered me 2-1 on either the Dems or the Republicans to win the Senate, I'd bite your hands off. Because it's a very close race that could go either way.
* It is worth noting that Georgia could easily go to a run-off again. Indeed, this might very well be the likeliest outcome, given Oliver is likely to pick up 3-4%, mostly from Republicans.
Has that dweeb in a dickie bow shown his hand yet?
Treasury / Sunakian orthodoxy is recessionary, and putting up taxes, when taxation is already high, is a paradox worth challenging.
It’s just that literally nobody but her, Kwarteng, and a few murkily funded “think tanks” believe that the solution is giveaways for the richest, paid for on tick.
Liz, for your place in history I thank you!
She thinks the World is laughing at us for removing 2 PMs in a row.
She doesn't realise the World is laughing because both of them were crap.
And here are the odds from Politico: https://www.politico.com/2022-election/race-forecasts-ratings-and-predictions/
And then there are the possible surprises. Conservative columnist George Will recently wrote that Washingon state's Senator Patty Murray might be vulnerable this election. Someone (Mitch McConnell?) is spending a lot of money on TV ads attacking her and supporting the Republican challenger, Tiffany Smiley.) And Iowa Republican Charles Grassley had a close poll recently, with just a 3 percent lead. (Both are getting on in years. Murray was born October 11th, 1950; Grassley was born September 17th, 1933.
Despite his greater age, Grassley seems to be in better health than Murray. He runs every day, and is fond of challenging younger men to push-up contests. (Ifyou can't do at least 35, don't accept the challenge.) And for many years, he made a point of visiting every single county in Iowa -- there are 99 -- at least once a year
Crispin Blunt seems determined to lose that remaining 23%.
He still has a tweet up saying the growth plan was the best thing since sliced bread ffsake.
This is before the BoE needed to step in.
If this were the US, “young Portillo” might be gearing up for a Presidential race.
https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1581575581694558209?s=46&t=eJz5_DbN6e3U9Q5D9bp21w
https://youtu.be/PHaoBD-eakk
For example, showing a picture of herself with Donald Trump - then one of her with . . . wait for it . . . Patty Murray! Also the one where she claims that Patty is anti-teacher, which is NOT (as the Seattle Times pointed out) what you'd call credible for most voters, including the swing voters Smiley REALLY needs.
However, latest Smiley ad I just saw is much better, features (alleged) Democrats and or serial Patty voters, saying they've voted for Patty MANY times, but will not THIS time. Message: the Senator has been around a LONG time; and reasonable people - not just Putinist wingnuts - are voting for Smiley.
Here is WA State, ballots will be mailed out to all active registered voters (except for some military ballots mailed earlier) this week. Including to Jim and yours truly.
And that in most recent poll posted on 535 has Republican Christine Drazan at 44% so NOT an anti-abortion majority, even assuming all her current supporters feel that way, which isn't so.
(1) Only one poll has the Republican candidate making it out of the 30s. Most polls have had her in the 33 to 38% range.
(2) The one that did show a 40+% score was from Clout Research (http://cloutpolitical.com/), which doesn't even use https. Its website doesn't really work properly (click on the menu items at the top and see nothing happen), and its news page seems to show that it has one done one poll ever:
Indeed, the firm only has one... thing... errr... ever.
(3) Said firm listed four people on it: PZ Wenzel, Fritz Wenzel, Alex Wenzel and Marty Gray. According to LinkedIn, PJ's dayjob is President of Ring, a political digital advertising company serving the Republican party. Alex Wenzel also appears to actually work for Ring. As, come to mention it, does Marty Gray.
My takeaway: yes, the Republicans could win the Oregon governorship, thanks to a split left wing vote.
But you probably shouldn't take the poll showing Drazan on 44% too seriously.
Have I become Leon?
The only problem was that I wasn't into railways at the time. Although perhaps it was inevitable that I would become interested...
Any large engineering plant is a fascinating place. I also got to go to JCB a few times, including for a couple of product launches (laser displays and lots of smoke).