Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The question that won’t go away for Sunak – politicalbetting.com

124»

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,839
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    @MaxPB I am having trouble with the reply function this morning. The Bank also have a duty to ensure stability in the economy and they run the risk of causing unnecessary zig zags as they firstly kept interest rates too low and now risk tightening monetary policy too much, too quickly. It is pretty clumsy work and makes Hunt's job on the fiscal side even more difficult.

    No they don't. The BoE remit is to keep CPI inflation at 2%. Their stability remit is in respect of market stability, not economic stability. The latter is wholly up to the government. One thing Kwasi got right was reminding the BoE that it's remit was to keep inflation at target, not make economic pronouncements every 5 minutes.
    It is not as narrow as that. Here is the remit letter: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/letter/2021/october/mpc-remit-october-2021.pdf?la=en&hash=999E337FDD28B1019213FB3EFF3AA5FEBF10D0F9

    It says "In accordance with the Act, I also confirm that the government’s economic policy
    objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. Price and financial
    stability are essential pre-requisites to achieve this objective in all parts of the UK and
    sectors of the economy, providing the stability required for businesses to thrive and to
    help keep the cost of living low for families."

    The duty of the Bank is to facilitate that objective and it is doing the reverse.
    The government's remit is strong economic growth. The bank's remit is the 2% inflation target (price stability) and market stability (financial stability). That's what the letter says. It has no remit to care about anything beyond that and recognition that both of those factors feed into economic growth. The BoE has, for some reason, decided to give a shit about economic growth and that's meant it decided not to raise interest rates for fear of a recession/housing market crash and now it's completely lost sight if the 2% CPI target.
    It's supposed to be a team effort. To quote the next paragraph of the letter:
    "Monetary policy has played a critical role in supporting the economy in its strong recovery
    from the Covid-19 pandemic and the monetary policy framework remains a central pillar
    of the government’s macroeconomic strategy. As life continues to return to normal,
    monetary policy will remain vital in supporting businesses and households by ensuring
    inflation returns sustainably to target in the medium term."

    Monetary policy is of course the responsibility of the Bank. The idea that the Bank is to have a laser focus on inflation and be totally indifferent to the effect of its policies in the real world would be absolutely bonkers if it had been put in place. But, of course, it wasn't.
    No, it's a recognition that the two bits of their remit (price and financial stability) feed into the economic picture but it's the government's job to fix the economy, not the Bank's. These are just words to make it sound nice that the BoE doesn't have economic growth in the remit (which is why Truss and Kwasi had the idea to give them a nominal GDP remit rather than inflation).
    I will have one more go and then give up. Section2A of the Bank of England Act 1998 as amended states:

    "2A Financial Stability Objective
    (1) An objective of the Bank shall be to protect and enhance the stability of the financial system of the United Kingdom (the “Financial Stability Objective”).
    (2) In pursuing the Financial Stability Objective the Bank shall aim to work with other relevant bodies (including the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority)

    So the Bank is obliged by statute to work with the Treasury to achieve financial stability in the UK. That is not achieved by under or over reactions in monetary policy. It should not allow them to undermine the Treasury by causing a sharp recession by over tightening monetary policy. That is not stability. It is true that Truss and KK were looking to add nominal growth to the remit and that did not happen but it is not true to say that the Bank can be, is or should be indifferent to what is happening to the real economy.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,829
    rkrkrk said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    @MaxPB I am having trouble with the reply function this morning. The Bank also have a duty to ensure stability in the economy and they run the risk of causing unnecessary zig zags as they firstly kept interest rates too low and now risk tightening monetary policy too much, too quickly. It is pretty clumsy work and makes Hunt's job on the fiscal side even more difficult.

    No they don't. The BoE remit is to keep CPI inflation at 2%. Their stability remit is in respect of market stability, not economic stability. The latter is wholly up to the government. One thing Kwasi got right was reminding the BoE that it's remit was to keep inflation at target, not make economic pronouncements every 5 minutes.
    It is not as narrow as that. Here is the remit letter: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/letter/2021/october/mpc-remit-october-2021.pdf?la=en&hash=999E337FDD28B1019213FB3EFF3AA5FEBF10D0F9

    It says "In accordance with the Act, I also confirm that the government’s economic policy
    objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. Price and financial
    stability are essential pre-requisites to achieve this objective in all parts of the UK and
    sectors of the economy, providing the stability required for businesses to thrive and to
    help keep the cost of living low for families."

    The duty of the Bank is to facilitate that objective and it is doing the reverse.
    The government's remit is strong economic growth. The bank's remit is the 2% inflation target (price stability) and market stability (financial stability). That's what the letter says. It has no remit to care about anything beyond that and recognition that both of those factors feed into economic growth. The BoE has, for some reason, decided to give a shit about economic growth and that's meant it decided not to raise interest rates for fear of a recession/housing market crash and now it's completely lost sight if the 2% CPI target.
    It's supposed to be a team effort. To quote the next paragraph of the letter:
    "Monetary policy has played a critical role in supporting the economy in its strong recovery
    from the Covid-19 pandemic and the monetary policy framework remains a central pillar
    of the government’s macroeconomic strategy. As life continues to return to normal,
    monetary policy will remain vital in supporting businesses and households by ensuring
    inflation returns sustainably to target in the medium term."

    Monetary policy is of course the responsibility of the Bank. The idea that the Bank is to have a laser focus on inflation and be totally indifferent to the effect of its policies in the real world would be absolutely bonkers if it had been put in place. But, of course, it wasn't.
    No, it's a recognition that the two bits of their remit (price and financial stability) feed into the economic picture but it's the government's job to fix the economy, not the Bank's. These are just words to make it sound nice that the BoE doesn't have economic growth in the remit (which is why Truss and Kwasi had the idea to give them a nominal GDP remit rather than inflation).
    "The Bank of England Act 1998 (“the Act”) came into effect on 1 June 1998. The
    Act states that in relation to monetary policy, the objectives of the Bank of
    England shall be:
    a. to maintain price stability; and
    b. subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty’s
    Government, including its objectives for growth and employment. "

    It is the objective of the Bank of England to support the economic policy of the government, subject to maintaining price stability. So economic growth is definitely in their remit.
    "Subject to that". They fucked up.
  • DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    @MaxPB I am having trouble with the reply function this morning. The Bank also have a duty to ensure stability in the economy and they run the risk of causing unnecessary zig zags as they firstly kept interest rates too low and now risk tightening monetary policy too much, too quickly. It is pretty clumsy work and makes Hunt's job on the fiscal side even more difficult.

    No they don't. The BoE remit is to keep CPI inflation at 2%. Their stability remit is in respect of market stability, not economic stability. The latter is wholly up to the government. One thing Kwasi got right was reminding the BoE that it's remit was to keep inflation at target, not make economic pronouncements every 5 minutes.
    It is not as narrow as that. Here is the remit letter: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/letter/2021/october/mpc-remit-october-2021.pdf?la=en&hash=999E337FDD28B1019213FB3EFF3AA5FEBF10D0F9

    It says "In accordance with the Act, I also confirm that the government’s economic policy
    objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. Price and financial
    stability are essential pre-requisites to achieve this objective in all parts of the UK and
    sectors of the economy, providing the stability required for businesses to thrive and to
    help keep the cost of living low for families."

    The duty of the Bank is to facilitate that objective and it is doing the reverse.
    The government's remit is strong economic growth. The bank's remit is the 2% inflation target (price stability) and market stability (financial stability). That's what the letter says. It has no remit to care about anything beyond that and recognition that both of those factors feed into economic growth. The BoE has, for some reason, decided to give a shit about economic growth and that's meant it decided not to raise interest rates for fear of a recession/housing market crash and now it's completely lost sight if the 2% CPI target.
    It's supposed to be a team effort. To quote the next paragraph of the letter:
    "Monetary policy has played a critical role in supporting the economy in its strong recovery
    from the Covid-19 pandemic and the monetary policy framework remains a central pillar
    of the government’s macroeconomic strategy. As life continues to return to normal,
    monetary policy will remain vital in supporting businesses and households by ensuring
    inflation returns sustainably to target in the medium term."

    Monetary policy is of course the responsibility of the Bank. The idea that the Bank is to have a laser focus on inflation and be totally indifferent to the effect of its policies in the real world would be absolutely bonkers if it had been put in place. But, of course, it wasn't.
    No, it's a recognition that the two bits of their remit (price and financial stability) feed into the economic picture but it's the government's job to fix the economy, not the Bank's. These are just words to make it sound nice that the BoE doesn't have economic growth in the remit (which is why Truss and Kwasi had the idea to give them a nominal GDP remit rather than inflation).
    I will have one more go and then give up. Section2A of the Bank of England Act 1998 as amended states:

    "2A Financial Stability Objective
    (1) An objective of the Bank shall be to protect and enhance the stability of the financial system of the United Kingdom (the “Financial Stability Objective”).
    (2) In pursuing the Financial Stability Objective the Bank shall aim to work with other relevant bodies (including the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority)

    So the Bank is obliged by statute to work with the Treasury to achieve financial stability in the UK. That is not achieved by under or over reactions in monetary policy. It should not allow them to undermine the Treasury by causing a sharp recession by over tightening monetary policy. That is not stability. It is true that Truss and KK were looking to add nominal growth to the remit and that did not happen but it is not true to say that the Bank can be, is or should be indifferent to what is happening to the real economy.
    Causing stagnation which for some unexplained reason you've said you prefer doesn't promote growth either though.

    If a recession is the unpleasant medicine we need to fix our ails, then the Government should provide a safety net but its neither the Banks nor the Government's responsibility to prevent that from happening.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,592
    moonshine said:

    LOL.

    Elon Musk Demands Twitter Servers Explain What All These Wires For

    " At press time, sources confirmed Musk had publicly fired a prominent CPU for loudly humming in a way that he said constituted insubordination."

    https://www.theonion.com/elon-musk-demands-twitter-servers-explain-what-all-thes-1849786227

    When I was fresh in the workplace I had a boss who told me “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions”. Employees whining to Musk in public forums obviously never learnt this lesson. There’s extensive info about his management style. He has a thin skin for criticism he sees as baseless or obstructive. Come to him in the right way with a solution to a problem and he’ll promote you on the spot and give you a team to execute the plan.

    This in large part explains why gross margins at Tesla are industry leading, ditto SpaceX with launch costs.
    You have a point; that employee did not do the right thing. But saying what Musk said; dumping in public to million of fanbois, is not essentially a nice thing to do. Musk was dumping over his new employees. Worse, he was doing it to divert attention from his own mistakes.

    Now it appears they're sacking anyone who is negative about Musk on internal forums.

    I've worked in tech. Musk is creating a truly hideous environment within Twitter; one where his word is law. He could do that in Tesla and SpaceX because he was either the founder, or there early. He is trying to inflict the same Musk-is-God attitude inside a company that has its own culture.

    It may well be a problem.

    And whilst you are right about “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions” (I have had bosses like that, and tried to be like that), that is not what Musk is doing. Musk is defining problems and spewing verbal diarrhea about solutions in public. A decent manager would talk to people. Except now people will try to tell him what they think he wants to hear, rather than what they believe.

    Musk is turning Twitter into the Russian army of tech. ;)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    @MaxPB I am having trouble with the reply function this morning. The Bank also have a duty to ensure stability in the economy and they run the risk of causing unnecessary zig zags as they firstly kept interest rates too low and now risk tightening monetary policy too much, too quickly. It is pretty clumsy work and makes Hunt's job on the fiscal side even more difficult.

    No they don't. The BoE remit is to keep CPI inflation at 2%. Their stability remit is in respect of market stability, not economic stability. The latter is wholly up to the government. One thing Kwasi got right was reminding the BoE that it's remit was to keep inflation at target, not make economic pronouncements every 5 minutes.
    It is not as narrow as that. Here is the remit letter: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/letter/2021/october/mpc-remit-october-2021.pdf?la=en&hash=999E337FDD28B1019213FB3EFF3AA5FEBF10D0F9

    It says "In accordance with the Act, I also confirm that the government’s economic policy
    objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. Price and financial
    stability are essential pre-requisites to achieve this objective in all parts of the UK and
    sectors of the economy, providing the stability required for businesses to thrive and to
    help keep the cost of living low for families."

    The duty of the Bank is to facilitate that objective and it is doing the reverse.
    The government's remit is strong economic growth. The bank's remit is the 2% inflation target (price stability) and market stability (financial stability). That's what the letter says. It has no remit to care about anything beyond that and recognition that both of those factors feed into economic growth. The BoE has, for some reason, decided to give a shit about economic growth and that's meant it decided not to raise interest rates for fear of a recession/housing market crash and now it's completely lost sight if the 2% CPI target.
    It's supposed to be a team effort. To quote the next paragraph of the letter:
    "Monetary policy has played a critical role in supporting the economy in its strong recovery
    from the Covid-19 pandemic and the monetary policy framework remains a central pillar
    of the government’s macroeconomic strategy. As life continues to return to normal,
    monetary policy will remain vital in supporting businesses and households by ensuring
    inflation returns sustainably to target in the medium term."

    Monetary policy is of course the responsibility of the Bank. The idea that the Bank is to have a laser focus on inflation and be totally indifferent to the effect of its policies in the real world would be absolutely bonkers if it had been put in place. But, of course, it wasn't.
    No, it's a recognition that the two bits of their remit (price and financial stability) feed into the economic picture but it's the government's job to fix the economy, not the Bank's. These are just words to make it sound nice that the BoE doesn't have economic growth in the remit (which is why Truss and Kwasi had the idea to give them a nominal GDP remit rather than inflation).
    I will have one more go and then give up. Section2A of the Bank of England Act 1998 as amended states:

    "2A Financial Stability Objective
    (1) An objective of the Bank shall be to protect and enhance the stability of the financial system of the United Kingdom (the “Financial Stability Objective”).
    (2) In pursuing the Financial Stability Objective the Bank shall aim to work with other relevant bodies (including the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority)

    So the Bank is obliged by statute to work with the Treasury to achieve financial stability in the UK. That is not achieved by under or over reactions in monetary policy. It should not allow them to undermine the Treasury by causing a sharp recession by over tightening monetary policy. That is not stability. It is true that Truss and KK were looking to add nominal growth to the remit and that did not happen but it is not true to say that the Bank can be, is or should be indifferent to what is happening to the real economy.
    Causing stagnation which for some unexplained reason you've said you prefer doesn't promote growth either though.

    If a recession is the unpleasant medicine we need to fix our ails, then the Government should provide a safety net but its neither the Banks nor the Government's responsibility to prevent that from happening.
    The government support should also be limited to the standard unemployment benefits and universal credit, not some new and expensive scheme created specifically for *this* recession.
  • Suzanne Moore, late of the Guardian, now in the Telegraph:

    Next time the NYT wants to explain “Terf Island” to its readers, it might begin with an apology. Those of us who raised alarm bells about medicalising and sterilising children may have had a point. At least the paper might acknowledge, as Dr Cass did, that much more research is needed. Indeed, in 2015 the NYT informs us four prominent gender clinics were given $7 million to study the impact of puberty blockers – especially in children under 12 as there is no data. Their findings have yet to be published. This is part of this ongoing scandal.

    https://archive.ph/DVGJN
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    moonshine said:

    LOL.

    Elon Musk Demands Twitter Servers Explain What All These Wires For

    " At press time, sources confirmed Musk had publicly fired a prominent CPU for loudly humming in a way that he said constituted insubordination."

    https://www.theonion.com/elon-musk-demands-twitter-servers-explain-what-all-thes-1849786227

    When I was fresh in the workplace I had a boss who told me “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions”. Employees whining to Musk in public forums obviously never learnt this lesson. There’s extensive info about his management style. He has a thin skin for criticism he sees as baseless or obstructive. Come to him in the right way with a solution to a problem and he’ll promote you on the spot and give you a team to execute the plan.

    This in large part explains why gross margins at Tesla are industry leading, ditto SpaceX with launch costs.

    He will never love you back in the way you deserve,
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568
    malcolmg said:

    British political journalism is in the gutter.

    Epitomised by the screaming of stupid questions at politicians in Downing Street, then turning back to the camera and appearing to be serious. Pillocks.

    It is aping the politicians, they all think they are comedians.
    Aping Wee Jimmie Krankie isn't the best move to be taken seriously...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568

    moonshine said:

    LOL.

    Elon Musk Demands Twitter Servers Explain What All These Wires For

    " At press time, sources confirmed Musk had publicly fired a prominent CPU for loudly humming in a way that he said constituted insubordination."

    https://www.theonion.com/elon-musk-demands-twitter-servers-explain-what-all-thes-1849786227

    When I was fresh in the workplace I had a boss who told me “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions”. Employees whining to Musk in public forums obviously never learnt this lesson. There’s extensive info about his management style. He has a thin skin for criticism he sees as baseless or obstructive. Come to him in the right way with a solution to a problem and he’ll promote you on the spot and give you a team to execute the plan.

    This in large part explains why gross margins at Tesla are industry leading, ditto SpaceX with launch costs.
    You have a point; that employee did not do the right thing. But saying what Musk said; dumping in public to million of fanbois, is not essentially a nice thing to do. Musk was dumping over his new employees. Worse, he was doing it to divert attention from his own mistakes.

    Now it appears they're sacking anyone who is negative about Musk on internal forums.

    I've worked in tech. Musk is creating a truly hideous environment within Twitter; one where his word is law. He could do that in Tesla and SpaceX because he was either the founder, or there early. He is trying to inflict the same Musk-is-God attitude inside a company that has its own culture.

    It may well be a problem.

    And whilst you are right about “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions” (I have had bosses like that, and tried to be like that), that is not what Musk is doing. Musk is defining problems and spewing verbal diarrhea about solutions in public. A decent manager would talk to people. Except now people will try to tell him what they think he wants to hear, rather than what they believe.

    Musk is turning Twitter into the Russian army of tech. ;)
    So its failings were massive and systemic well before the appointment of the latest general?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    rkrkrk said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    @MaxPB I am having trouble with the reply function this morning. The Bank also have a duty to ensure stability in the economy and they run the risk of causing unnecessary zig zags as they firstly kept interest rates too low and now risk tightening monetary policy too much, too quickly. It is pretty clumsy work and makes Hunt's job on the fiscal side even more difficult.

    No they don't. The BoE remit is to keep CPI inflation at 2%. Their stability remit is in respect of market stability, not economic stability. The latter is wholly up to the government. One thing Kwasi got right was reminding the BoE that it's remit was to keep inflation at target, not make economic pronouncements every 5 minutes.
    It is not as narrow as that. Here is the remit letter: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/letter/2021/october/mpc-remit-october-2021.pdf?la=en&hash=999E337FDD28B1019213FB3EFF3AA5FEBF10D0F9

    It says "In accordance with the Act, I also confirm that the government’s economic policy
    objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. Price and financial
    stability are essential pre-requisites to achieve this objective in all parts of the UK and
    sectors of the economy, providing the stability required for businesses to thrive and to
    help keep the cost of living low for families."

    The duty of the Bank is to facilitate that objective and it is doing the reverse.
    The government's remit is strong economic growth. The bank's remit is the 2% inflation target (price stability) and market stability (financial stability). That's what the letter says. It has no remit to care about anything beyond that and recognition that both of those factors feed into economic growth. The BoE has, for some reason, decided to give a shit about economic growth and that's meant it decided not to raise interest rates for fear of a recession/housing market crash and now it's completely lost sight if the 2% CPI target.
    It's supposed to be a team effort. To quote the next paragraph of the letter:
    "Monetary policy has played a critical role in supporting the economy in its strong recovery
    from the Covid-19 pandemic and the monetary policy framework remains a central pillar
    of the government’s macroeconomic strategy. As life continues to return to normal,
    monetary policy will remain vital in supporting businesses and households by ensuring
    inflation returns sustainably to target in the medium term."

    Monetary policy is of course the responsibility of the Bank. The idea that the Bank is to have a laser focus on inflation and be totally indifferent to the effect of its policies in the real world would be absolutely bonkers if it had been put in place. But, of course, it wasn't.
    No, it's a recognition that the two bits of their remit (price and financial stability) feed into the economic picture but it's the government's job to fix the economy, not the Bank's. These are just words to make it sound nice that the BoE doesn't have economic growth in the remit (which is why Truss and Kwasi had the idea to give them a nominal GDP remit rather than inflation).
    "The Bank of England Act 1998 (“the Act”) came into effect on 1 June 1998. The
    Act states that in relation to monetary policy, the objectives of the Bank of
    England shall be:
    a. to maintain price stability; and
    b. subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty’s
    Government, including its objectives for growth and employment. "

    It is the objective of the Bank of England to support the economic policy of the government, subject to maintaining price stability. So economic growth is definitely in their remit.
    As opposed to:
    a. Letting inflation run out of control past 11%
    b. Slagging off the government in public, causing a liquidity crisis in the pensions industry, and ultimately leading to the fall of the government.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159
    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    The current 2.4 price isn't enough, 2 years out, but I like the Dems for the WH. Three main reasons:
    1. Biden is underestimated. He'll be a good candidate if he's healthy enough to run again and does; and if he doesn't run they'll probably find a younger alternative who's also a good candidate.
    2. DeSantis is maybe being overrated in this first flush of him emerging as the GOP favourite. He isn't particularly moderate and is untested nationally. His broad appeal might not match the hype.
    3. Trump. He has that base and could still get the nomination, meaning the Dems win with anyone, and if he doesn't I can see him trying to spike the GOP's chances, either with an independent run (which he might in any case use as blackmail to try and get the nom in the first place) or in other ways. The last thing he'll want is the party winning without him.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,829
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    @MaxPB I am having trouble with the reply function this morning. The Bank also have a duty to ensure stability in the economy and they run the risk of causing unnecessary zig zags as they firstly kept interest rates too low and now risk tightening monetary policy too much, too quickly. It is pretty clumsy work and makes Hunt's job on the fiscal side even more difficult.

    No they don't. The BoE remit is to keep CPI inflation at 2%. Their stability remit is in respect of market stability, not economic stability. The latter is wholly up to the government. One thing Kwasi got right was reminding the BoE that it's remit was to keep inflation at target, not make economic pronouncements every 5 minutes.
    It is not as narrow as that. Here is the remit letter: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/letter/2021/october/mpc-remit-october-2021.pdf?la=en&hash=999E337FDD28B1019213FB3EFF3AA5FEBF10D0F9

    It says "In accordance with the Act, I also confirm that the government’s economic policy
    objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. Price and financial
    stability are essential pre-requisites to achieve this objective in all parts of the UK and
    sectors of the economy, providing the stability required for businesses to thrive and to
    help keep the cost of living low for families."

    The duty of the Bank is to facilitate that objective and it is doing the reverse.
    The government's remit is strong economic growth. The bank's remit is the 2% inflation target (price stability) and market stability (financial stability). That's what the letter says. It has no remit to care about anything beyond that and recognition that both of those factors feed into economic growth. The BoE has, for some reason, decided to give a shit about economic growth and that's meant it decided not to raise interest rates for fear of a recession/housing market crash and now it's completely lost sight if the 2% CPI target.
    It's supposed to be a team effort. To quote the next paragraph of the letter:
    "Monetary policy has played a critical role in supporting the economy in its strong recovery
    from the Covid-19 pandemic and the monetary policy framework remains a central pillar
    of the government’s macroeconomic strategy. As life continues to return to normal,
    monetary policy will remain vital in supporting businesses and households by ensuring
    inflation returns sustainably to target in the medium term."

    Monetary policy is of course the responsibility of the Bank. The idea that the Bank is to have a laser focus on inflation and be totally indifferent to the effect of its policies in the real world would be absolutely bonkers if it had been put in place. But, of course, it wasn't.
    No, it's a recognition that the two bits of their remit (price and financial stability) feed into the economic picture but it's the government's job to fix the economy, not the Bank's. These are just words to make it sound nice that the BoE doesn't have economic growth in the remit (which is why Truss and Kwasi had the idea to give them a nominal GDP remit rather than inflation).
    I will have one more go and then give up. Section2A of the Bank of England Act 1998 as amended states:

    "2A Financial Stability Objective
    (1) An objective of the Bank shall be to protect and enhance the stability of the financial system of the United Kingdom (the “Financial Stability Objective”).
    (2) In pursuing the Financial Stability Objective the Bank shall aim to work with other relevant bodies (including the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority)

    So the Bank is obliged by statute to work with the Treasury to achieve financial stability in the UK. That is not achieved by under or over reactions in monetary policy. It should not allow them to undermine the Treasury by causing a sharp recession by over tightening monetary policy. That is not stability. It is true that Truss and KK were looking to add nominal growth to the remit and that did not happen but it is not true to say that the Bank can be, is or should be indifferent to what is happening to the real economy.
    But the issue is that whatever secondary remit on economic growth they may have, and they don't, it's still just words to the effect that their monetary policy remit feeds into the overall economic picture, they've completely lost sight of price stability and made up spurious reasons to not raise rates at the correct rate. Now inflation is over 11% because of those mistakes. I'd like to know whether or not you think that's good for the economy, I think I know the answer.

    Part 1 of objective 2A is to ensure market stability, not economic stability. That is why the BoE intervened in the gilt markets recently and during COVID. Stability of the "financial system" is ensuring that markets don't seize up or end up in doom loops. In 2008 they did exactly that with unlimited swaps for banks who didn't know which bank would be bankrupt tomorrow morning, in COVID they stabilised the gilt markets by becoming the dominant player and recently they halted a crash in the pensions system by providing emergency liquidity to prop up long dated gilts. That is objective 2A, the base rate has nothing to do with it really.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    Nigelb said:

    Informative thread on the potential consequences of the Russian attacks.

    Today, RU has fired nearly 100 missiles at civilian targets. It is still trying to destroy heating and power generation and distribution to make many cities uninhabitable this winter.

    A 🧵 based on the insights I got from the extremely smart @VVoytsitska
    and other 🇺🇦 experts.

    https://twitter.com/mattia_n/status/1592598635371728896

    As the guy points out, if Ukraine doesn't get its electricity supplies back up, we could see another million or two refugees this winter.

    That would be more expensive for Europe than helping to solve the problem.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    We're allowed to panic, its one of the benefits of not being in charge
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,592
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Informative thread on the potential consequences of the Russian attacks.

    Today, RU has fired nearly 100 missiles at civilian targets. It is still trying to destroy heating and power generation and distribution to make many cities uninhabitable this winter.

    A 🧵 based on the insights I got from the extremely smart @VVoytsitska
    and other 🇺🇦 experts.

    https://twitter.com/mattia_n/status/1592598635371728896

    As the guy points out, if Ukraine doesn't get its electricity supplies back up, we could see another million or two refugees this winter.

    That would be more expensive for Europe than helping to solve the problem.
    On a more positive note, and without meaning to trigger Topping, there are more noises that Russia's stock of missiles is getting lower. Which might explain why we're seeing 'spectaculars' of largish volleys every couple of weeks rather than steady usage at targets.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    The current 2.4 price isn't enough, 2 years out, but I like the Dems for the WH. Three main reasons:
    1. Biden is underestimated. He'll be a good candidate if he's healthy enough to run again and does; and if he doesn't run they'll probably find a younger alternative who's also a good candidate.
    2. DeSantis is maybe being overrated in this first flush of him emerging as the GOP favourite. He isn't particularly moderate and is untested nationally. His broad appeal might not match the hype.
    3. Trump. He has that base and could still get the nomination, meaning the Dems win with anyone, and if he doesn't I can see him trying
    4.to spike the GOP's chances, either with an independent run (which he might in any case use as blackmail to try and get the nom in the first place) or in other ways. The last thing he'll want is the party winning without him.
    If the Ronster runs, there are several dozen ads to be made, showing him previously kissing the Trump keister in various cringe inducing ways.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103

    Aha. Found this:

    https://fullfact.org/online/irish-passports-mps-lords/

    Nevertheless, it does seem appropriate to gather this information. Exactly how many MPs and Lords have other citizenships? Ireland fair enough. Bought Maltese and Cypriot? Less so. But Russian, Iranian, Chinese? Er….

    Australia doesn’t allow parliamentarians to have any other citizenships. Julia Gillard (originally from Wales) had to renounce UK citizenship when she first ran for an election.

    I don't see why. Our laws are very different, you don't even have to be British to be elected.

    Australia is too far in the other direction, with people who didn't even know they held another citizenship losing their seats. What if the other country didn't have a law about renunciation?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,592

    moonshine said:

    LOL.

    Elon Musk Demands Twitter Servers Explain What All These Wires For

    " At press time, sources confirmed Musk had publicly fired a prominent CPU for loudly humming in a way that he said constituted insubordination."

    https://www.theonion.com/elon-musk-demands-twitter-servers-explain-what-all-thes-1849786227

    When I was fresh in the workplace I had a boss who told me “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions”. Employees whining to Musk in public forums obviously never learnt this lesson. There’s extensive info about his management style. He has a thin skin for criticism he sees as baseless or obstructive. Come to him in the right way with a solution to a problem and he’ll promote you on the spot and give you a team to execute the plan.

    This in large part explains why gross margins at Tesla are industry leading, ditto SpaceX with launch costs.
    You have a point; that employee did not do the right thing. But saying what Musk said; dumping in public to million of fanbois, is not essentially a nice thing to do. Musk was dumping over his new employees. Worse, he was doing it to divert attention from his own mistakes.

    Now it appears they're sacking anyone who is negative about Musk on internal forums.

    I've worked in tech. Musk is creating a truly hideous environment within Twitter; one where his word is law. He could do that in Tesla and SpaceX because he was either the founder, or there early. He is trying to inflict the same Musk-is-God attitude inside a company that has its own culture.

    It may well be a problem.

    And whilst you are right about “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions” (I have had bosses like that, and tried to be like that), that is not what Musk is doing. Musk is defining problems and spewing verbal diarrhea about solutions in public. A decent manager would talk to people. Except now people will try to tell him what they think he wants to hear, rather than what they believe.

    Musk is turning Twitter into the Russian army of tech. ;)
    So its failings were massive and systemic well before the appointment of the latest general?
    Yes.

    But the failings only come to light when the new general changes the orders and calls on the troops to shoot each other. ;)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    Raab formal complaints made now - refers himself to non existent independent standards investigation 2 hours before PMQs.

    Problem is PM hasn’t appointed a standards adviser yet

    https://twitter.com/dominicraab/status/1592820403676020737
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,841
    Driver said:

    darkage said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    I am very sceptical about the 'living wage'. Two incomes at the living wage (At £10.40 per hour) is a household take home pay of £3000 per month. In most cases this is going to far exceed likely household expenditure. It seems to me that the problems in the UK relate mainly to housing costs which is a problem that is concentrated very heavily in the South. By creating a 'one size fits all' solution you end up driving inflation without tackling the underlying problem.

    I don't think that's take home pay, I think that's pre-tax, pre-National Insurance.

    40 hours x £10.40 x 4 = £1,650 x 2 = £3,300.

    Less 13.25% employees NIC contributions. Less 20% on the £7,230/year above the tax free rate (each). So that's about £241 of income tax per month, and £437 of National Insurance, which brings you down to £2,621/month.
    I used the calculator on this website. https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/hourly.php

    10.40/ hour for 37.5 hours per week = £1476.37 per month (per person), £1484 from November.

    I think your calculations exclude the weekly allowance on employees national insurance contributions (about £240) where you don't pay employee NI
    There's more than 4 weeks in a month, too.
    4.3 to be precise.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,339
    Ouch. But also OMG

    “THE NICHOLAS BROTHERS’ iconic "Jumpin' Jive" dance sequence from STORMY WEATHER (1943).

    FRED ASTAIRE called it the greatest movie dance number he’d ever seen.”

    https://twitter.com/michaelwarbur17/status/1576183184479641601?s=46&t=Cx4vPTbspYa4DL6rruC2QQ
  • Why did Rishi have to get all mealy mouthed when asked about bloody Liz Truss of all people? He should have just said, 'Of course I'm sorry. I bitterly regret the damage that idiotic Truss woman did and apologize without reservation. If only the membership had listened to me when I warned about exactly this during the hustings, then the country wouldn't now be facing the calamitous economic circumstances it now is.' What could be clearer?
  • Am I dead?

    Pulpstar said:

    I borrowed 7 grand at 4.7% the other day. Should probably have gone for more

    I owe the bank £26k for my kitchen borrowed at 3.8% and my mortgage is currently on a 2 year fix (expires Dec 23) at 0.92% so.. painful for them now, and for me when my mortgage rolls over.
    £26,000 sounds a lot for a kitchen unless you are shacked up with Gordon Ramsay. Lots of marble tops?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,190
    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    "Why Trump Is Favored To Win The 2024 Republican Presidential Primary"
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-2024-president/

    Seems to ignore the latest head-to-head Trump vs DeSantis polling - the 2 polls conducted since the midterms both have DeSantis ahead. The momentum now looks very much against Trump, once he looks more and more like a loser there's going to be more and more substantial figures saying "it's time to move on", and the Murdoch seems to be turning against him. The fact that he's unlikely to go without a (very ugly) fight is probably quite bad news for Republicans in 2024.

    Biden: of course his age should be an issue. He's going to be 80 next week.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    The current 2.4 price isn't enough, 2 years out, but I like the Dems for the WH. Three main reasons:
    1. Biden is underestimated. He'll be a good candidate if he's healthy enough to run again and does; and if he doesn't run they'll probably find a younger alternative who's also a good candidate.
    2. DeSantis is maybe being overrated in this first flush of him emerging as the GOP favourite. He isn't particularly moderate and is untested nationally. His broad appeal might not match the hype.
    3. Trump. He has that base and could still get the nomination, meaning the Dems win with anyone, and if he doesn't I can see him trying to spike the GOP's chances, either with an independent run (which he might in any case use as blackmail to try and get the nom in the first place) or in other ways. The last thing he'll want is the party winning without him.
    Despite the midterms I still worry at the idea Trump would lose against anyone. Biden squeaked a couple of states which a worse candidate might lose, even though you'd think his actions last time and since would make Trump weaker among his base, even if just a little.
  • Driver said:

    darkage said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    I am very sceptical about the 'living wage'. Two incomes at the living wage (At £10.40 per hour) is a household take home pay of £3000 per month. In most cases this is going to far exceed likely household expenditure. It seems to me that the problems in the UK relate mainly to housing costs which is a problem that is concentrated very heavily in the South. By creating a 'one size fits all' solution you end up driving inflation without tackling the underlying problem.

    I don't think that's take home pay, I think that's pre-tax, pre-National Insurance.

    40 hours x £10.40 x 4 = £1,650 x 2 = £3,300.

    Less 13.25% employees NIC contributions. Less 20% on the £7,230/year above the tax free rate (each). So that's about £241 of income tax per month, and £437 of National Insurance, which brings you down to £2,621/month.
    I used the calculator on this website. https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/hourly.php

    10.40/ hour for 37.5 hours per week = £1476.37 per month (per person), £1484 from November.

    I think your calculations exclude the weekly allowance on employees national insurance contributions (about £240) where you don't pay employee NI
    There's more than 4 weeks in a month, too.
    4.3 to be precise.

    Or do 4 weeks x 13 works reasonably well too.
  • Am I dead?

    Pulpstar said:

    I borrowed 7 grand at 4.7% the other day. Should probably have gone for more

    I owe the bank £26k for my kitchen borrowed at 3.8% and my mortgage is currently on a 2 year fix (expires Dec 23) at 0.92% so.. painful for them now, and for me when my mortgage rolls over.
    £26,000 sounds a lot for a kitchen unless you are shacked up with Gordon Ramsay. Lots of marble tops?
    Mainly (British) labour costs. I think goods were only about £10k. Plus a lot of rearranging/reorientation work to the layout.

    You can get cheaper kitchens if you go Wicks etc but we didn't want that. Even then you'd probably struggle to do it for less than £15-16k in our kitchen.

    Cheapest way is to buy all the kit and do absolutely everything yourself- but don't have the skills, time, competence or certification to sign it all off.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,829

    Am I dead?

    Pulpstar said:

    I borrowed 7 grand at 4.7% the other day. Should probably have gone for more

    I owe the bank £26k for my kitchen borrowed at 3.8% and my mortgage is currently on a 2 year fix (expires Dec 23) at 0.92% so.. painful for them now, and for me when my mortgage rolls over.
    £26,000 sounds a lot for a kitchen unless you are shacked up with Gordon Ramsay. Lots of marble tops?
    Mainly (British) labour costs. I think goods were only about £10k. Plus a lot of rearranging/reorientation work to the layout.

    You can get cheaper kitchens if you go Wicks etc but we didn't want that. Even then you'd probably struggle to do it for less than £15-16k in our kitchen.

    Cheapest way is to buy all the kit and do absolutely everything yourself- but don't have the skills, time, competence or certification to sign it all off.
    Yeah we paid £22k for ours and that was as part of a wider refurb of the house so the marginal labour cost was lower (they were already there doing stuff).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Informative thread on the potential consequences of the Russian attacks.

    Today, RU has fired nearly 100 missiles at civilian targets. It is still trying to destroy heating and power generation and distribution to make many cities uninhabitable this winter.

    A 🧵 based on the insights I got from the extremely smart @VVoytsitska
    and other 🇺🇦 experts.

    https://twitter.com/mattia_n/status/1592598635371728896

    As the guy points out, if Ukraine doesn't get its electricity supplies back up, we could see another million or two refugees this winter.

    That would be more expensive for Europe than helping to solve the problem.
    On a more positive note, and without meaning to trigger Topping, there are more noises that Russia's stock of missiles is getting lower. Which might explain why we're seeing 'spectaculars' of largish volleys every couple of weeks rather than steady usage at targets.
    It's the "there are more noises" bit which I am cautious about.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    edited November 2022
    Dura_Ace said:

    moonshine said:

    LOL.

    Elon Musk Demands Twitter Servers Explain What All These Wires For

    " At press time, sources confirmed Musk had publicly fired a prominent CPU for loudly humming in a way that he said constituted insubordination."

    https://www.theonion.com/elon-musk-demands-twitter-servers-explain-what-all-thes-1849786227

    When I was fresh in the workplace I had a boss who told me “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions”. Employees whining to Musk in public forums obviously never learnt this lesson. There’s extensive info about his management style. He has a thin skin for criticism he sees as baseless or obstructive. Come to him in the right way with a solution to a problem and he’ll promote you on the spot and give you a team to execute the plan.

    This in large part explains why gross margins at Tesla are industry leading, ditto SpaceX with launch costs.

    He will never love you back in the way you deserve,
    "Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" is one of the stupidest management mantras out there anyway, particularly in the hands of a poor manager.

    Sometimes people won't be able, quite legitimately, to have a solution. Maybe the problem is insoluble, maybe it needs involvement of others that the boss needs to sign off on, maybe the boss's big picture view is necessary to perceive the solution.

    All you get with that approach is reluctance to be honest about problems until it may be too late. Sure, don't raise some minor issue, but people should not feel they will get yelled at for raising concerns.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    "Why Trump Is Favored To Win The 2024 Republican Presidential Primary"
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-2024-president/

    Seems to ignore the latest head-to-head Trump vs DeSantis polling - the 2 polls conducted since the midterms both have DeSantis ahead...

    Those weren't of prospective Republican primary voters, though, were they ?

    The battle for the nomination is likely to be ugly, and offer betting opportunities.
    And it's not yet certain, though it's likely, that DeSantis will run.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    edited November 2022
    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    "Why Trump Is Favored To Win The 2024 Republican Presidential Primary"
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-2024-president/

    Seems to ignore the latest head-to-head Trump vs DeSantis polling - the 2 polls conducted since the midterms both have DeSantis ahead. The momentum now looks very much against Trump, once he looks more and more like a loser there's going to be more and more substantial figures saying "it's time to move on", and the Murdoch seems to be turning against him. The fact that he's unlikely to go without a (very ugly) fight is probably quite bad news for Republicans in 2024.

    Biden: of course his age should be an issue. He's going to be 80 next week.

    DeSantis needs to pick a good moment to throw his hat in the ring (should have done already). Otherwise he may face ages of attacks from Trump and people thinking him weak if he doesn't respond in some way, or assume he is not daring to stand after all and tie themselves to Trump.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,297
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    @MaxPB I am having trouble with the reply function this morning. The Bank also have a duty to ensure stability in the economy and they run the risk of causing unnecessary zig zags as they firstly kept interest rates too low and now risk tightening monetary policy too much, too quickly. It is pretty clumsy work and makes Hunt's job on the fiscal side even more difficult.

    No they don't. The BoE remit is to keep CPI inflation at 2%. Their stability remit is in respect of market stability, not economic stability. The latter is wholly up to the government. One thing Kwasi got right was reminding the BoE that it's remit was to keep inflation at target, not make economic pronouncements every 5 minutes.
    It is not as narrow as that. Here is the remit letter: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/letter/2021/october/mpc-remit-october-2021.pdf?la=en&hash=999E337FDD28B1019213FB3EFF3AA5FEBF10D0F9

    It says "In accordance with the Act, I also confirm that the government’s economic policy
    objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. Price and financial
    stability are essential pre-requisites to achieve this objective in all parts of the UK and
    sectors of the economy, providing the stability required for businesses to thrive and to
    help keep the cost of living low for families."

    The duty of the Bank is to facilitate that objective and it is doing the reverse.
    The government's remit is strong economic growth. The bank's remit is the 2% inflation target (price stability) and market stability (financial stability). That's what the letter says. It has no remit to care about anything beyond that and recognition that both of those factors feed into economic growth. The BoE has, for some reason, decided to give a shit about economic growth and that's meant it decided not to raise interest rates for fear of a recession/housing market crash and now it's completely lost sight if the 2% CPI target.
    It's supposed to be a team effort. To quote the next paragraph of the letter:
    "Monetary policy has played a critical role in supporting the economy in its strong recovery
    from the Covid-19 pandemic and the monetary policy framework remains a central pillar
    of the government’s macroeconomic strategy. As life continues to return to normal,
    monetary policy will remain vital in supporting businesses and households by ensuring
    inflation returns sustainably to target in the medium term."

    Monetary policy is of course the responsibility of the Bank. The idea that the Bank is to have a laser focus on inflation and be totally indifferent to the effect of its policies in the real world would be absolutely bonkers if it had been put in place. But, of course, it wasn't.
    No, it's a recognition that the two bits of their remit (price and financial stability) feed into the economic picture but it's the government's job to fix the economy, not the Bank's. These are just words to make it sound nice that the BoE doesn't have economic growth in the remit (which is why Truss and Kwasi had the idea to give them a nominal GDP remit rather than inflation).
    "The Bank of England Act 1998 (“the Act”) came into effect on 1 June 1998. The
    Act states that in relation to monetary policy, the objectives of the Bank of
    England shall be:
    a. to maintain price stability; and
    b. subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty’s
    Government, including its objectives for growth and employment. "

    It is the objective of the Bank of England to support the economic policy of the government, subject to maintaining price stability. So economic growth is definitely in their remit.
    As opposed to:
    a. Letting inflation run out of control past 11%
    b. Slagging off the government in public, causing a liquidity crisis in the pensions industry, and ultimately leading to the fall of the government.
    I guess I just don't see what could have been done to prevent inflation rising, short of not fighting a war in Ukraine.
    Energy just costs more now, the Bank of England could set interest rates at 25%, and the cost of energy would still be high. Interest rate rises can only do so much.
  • Pulpstar said:

    I note a fair few PBers would have got us into WW3 last evening.

    It was all a bit bonkers last night.

    Clear fact of the situation is that NATO isn’t going to go to war over a stray missile. It may step up patrols, or put in place more systems, but it isn’t going to start WWIII.

    Furthermore, Russias vociferous denials give away the fact it’s not an outcome they want either, IMHO.

    The way this potentially escalates to WWIII is exactly the same as it was this time yesterday - Russia using a tactical nuke in Ukraine. That is still a low risk.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103

    Why did Rishi have to get all mealy mouthed when asked about bloody Liz Truss of all people? He should have just said, 'Of course I'm sorry. I bitterly regret the damage that idiotic Truss woman did and apologize without reservation. If only the membership had listened to me when I warned about exactly this during the hustings, then the country wouldn't now be facing the calamitous economic circumstances it now is.' What could be clearer?

    Truss failed because she was Ill prepared and, critically, didn't prepare her MPs for her plans (I do think she would have gotten their support had she not just assumed it).

    Sunak theoretically has their support since they swung behind him en masse, but he knows a big chunk liked the thrust of Truss's plans and will definitely hate what he is planning on doing. So for unitys sake he will try to be gentle
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    "Why Trump Is Favored To Win The 2024 Republican Presidential Primary"
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-2024-president/

    Seems to ignore the latest head-to-head Trump vs DeSantis polling - the 2 polls conducted since the midterms both have DeSantis ahead. The momentum now looks very much against Trump, once he looks more and more like a loser there's going to be more and more substantial figures saying "it's time to move on", and the Murdoch seems to be turning against him. The fact that he's unlikely to go without a (very ugly) fight is probably quite bad news for Republicans in 2024.

    Biden: of course his age should be an issue. He's going to be 80 next week.
    Was that polling among Americans in general, or among the Republican primary voters who will decide the nomination?

    Yes, the worry is that Trump will blow the whole thing up, even to the point of doing a Ross Perot and handing the Dems a massive majority.

    Biden’s age will definitely be an issue - he’s clearly getting old, and there’s a lot of videos of him having memory lapses and speaking incoherently.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    kle4 said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    "Why Trump Is Favored To Win The 2024 Republican Presidential Primary"
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-2024-president/

    Seems to ignore the latest head-to-head Trump vs DeSantis polling - the 2 polls conducted since the midterms both have DeSantis ahead. The momentum now looks very much against Trump, once he looks more and more like a loser there's going to be more and more substantial figures saying "it's time to move on", and the Murdoch seems to be turning against him. The fact that he's unlikely to go without a (very ugly) fight is probably quite bad news for Republicans in 2024.

    Biden: of course his age should be an issue. He's going to be 80 next week.

    DeSantis needs to pick a good moment to throw his hat in the ring (should have done already). Otherwise he may face ages of attacks from Trump and people thinking him weak if he doesn't respond in some way, or assume he is not daring to stand after all and tie themselves to Trump.
    DeSantis’ problem in this regard, is that he just last week won re-election in Florida, to serve as their governor for the next four years. He needs to wait another year before formally announcing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    "Why Trump Is Favored To Win The 2024 Republican Presidential Primary"
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-2024-president/

    Seems to ignore the latest head-to-head Trump vs DeSantis polling - the 2 polls conducted since the midterms both have DeSantis ahead. The momentum now looks very much against Trump, once he looks more and more like a loser there's going to be more and more substantial figures saying "it's time to move on", and the Murdoch seems to be turning against him. The fact that he's unlikely to go without a (very ugly) fight is probably quite bad news for Republicans in 2024.

    Biden: of course his age should be an issue. He's going to be 80 next week.

    DeSantis needs to pick a good moment to throw his hat in the ring (should have done already). Otherwise he may face ages of attacks from Trump and people thinking him weak if he doesn't respond in some way, or assume he is not daring to stand after all and tie themselves to Trump.
    DeSantis’ problem in this regard, is that he just last week won re-election in Florida, to serve as their governor for the next four years. He needs to wait another year before formally announcing.
    Should be a law to stop people announcing presidential runs until a year before the election!

    No, not really, but it feels like they never stop fundraising or campaigning, which must affect their day jobs. Trump of course can just sit on his arse dictating tweets.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson’s dramatic downfall to be the subject of new book by Nadine Dorries - working title “The Political Assassination of Boris Johnson” - exclusive by @DJBond6873
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nadine-dorries-writing-book-boris-johnson-political-assassination-tory-conservative-mp-b1040256.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Scott_xP said:
    So far reports seem to be he's an unpleasant person to work for but not at the Priti level. He could survive being a dick.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,592
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Informative thread on the potential consequences of the Russian attacks.

    Today, RU has fired nearly 100 missiles at civilian targets. It is still trying to destroy heating and power generation and distribution to make many cities uninhabitable this winter.

    A 🧵 based on the insights I got from the extremely smart @VVoytsitska
    and other 🇺🇦 experts.

    https://twitter.com/mattia_n/status/1592598635371728896

    As the guy points out, if Ukraine doesn't get its electricity supplies back up, we could see another million or two refugees this winter.

    That would be more expensive for Europe than helping to solve the problem.
    On a more positive note, and without meaning to trigger Topping, there are more noises that Russia's stock of missiles is getting lower. Which might explain why we're seeing 'spectaculars' of largish volleys every couple of weeks rather than steady usage at targets.
    It's the "there are more noises" bit which I am cautious about.
    Fair enough. But there is also logic. Russia is using up a load of missiles. Missiles are not easy or quick to make; particularly the long-range ones. I very much doubt they have more than they did back on February 24th. So it becomes a question of initial stocks and replenishment rate versus usage.

    It might also explain the usage patterns we are seeing.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,190

    Andy_JS said:

    Dr John Campbell has made it onto GB News.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4WyGpRCj1Q

    I don't think I was more disappointed by anyone as I was by his fall.
    He started off genuinely attempting to inform and educate (as his doctorate is in education (not science or medicine), he was very good at that), but when things slowed down in 2021 and we were obviously coming out of the emergency situation and his views started to fall off, he leaned into the nuttier conspiracy theories (Ivermectin! Hydroxochloroquine! They're concealing the truth!) when he fell for the ivermectin scam and saw how his views leapt up.

    And Campbell Teaching Ltd (Company number 12694554) got more money when he leant into that. And the ivermectin suckers were almost all antivaxxers, so he went directly back on his principles (he even covered many of the scams and misinformation tactics of the antivaxxers in his earlier videos) and went full antivaxxer.

    (There was one guy who put together Campbell's earlier "this is the misinformation they try" with specific examples of him doing exactly those misinformation tricks word-for-word).

    He now appears at the antivaxxer conferences and is a reliable source of whichever disinformation is to be pushed by them. For some people, I guess there's a point of test in their life when their integrity and principles face a big deal of money, and some fail that test.
    What do you expect from someone who isn't a medical doctor calling himself "Dr" when talking about medical matters? Bound to be misleading when it suits him.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson’s dramatic downfall to be the subject of new book by Nadine Dorries - working title “The Political Assassination of Boris Johnson” - exclusive by @DJBond6873
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nadine-dorries-writing-book-boris-johnson-political-assassination-tory-conservative-mp-b1040256.html

    I look forward to how she ignores the many many issues he provoked, his continual shafting of MPs as a result, and some top grade nonsense about how its treason to remove a leader, even though they have a mechanism for, he resigned anyway, and she will have probably supported other oustings.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,190
    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    "Why Trump Is Favored To Win The 2024 Republican Presidential Primary"
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-2024-president/

    Seems to ignore the latest head-to-head Trump vs DeSantis polling - the 2 polls conducted since the midterms both have DeSantis ahead...

    Those weren't of prospective Republican primary voters, though, were they ?

    The battle for the nomination is likely to be ugly, and offer betting opportunities.
    And it's not yet certain, though it's likely, that DeSantis will run.
    Why do you say they weren't?

    Here's the YouGov poll showing DeSantis 7 ahead of Trump head to head among Republicans and Republican-leaners:
    https://nypost.com/2022/11/12/new-primary-poll-finds-desantis-has-edge-over-trump-in-2024/
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,748
    Dura_Ace said:

    moonshine said:

    LOL.

    Elon Musk Demands Twitter Servers Explain What All These Wires For

    " At press time, sources confirmed Musk had publicly fired a prominent CPU for loudly humming in a way that he said constituted insubordination."

    https://www.theonion.com/elon-musk-demands-twitter-servers-explain-what-all-thes-1849786227

    When I was fresh in the workplace I had a boss who told me “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions”. Employees whining to Musk in public forums obviously never learnt this lesson. There’s extensive info about his management style. He has a thin skin for criticism he sees as baseless or obstructive. Come to him in the right way with a solution to a problem and he’ll promote you on the spot and give you a team to execute the plan.

    This in large part explains why gross margins at Tesla are industry leading, ditto SpaceX with launch costs.

    He will never love you back in the way you
    deserve,
    Glad I don’t have him as a manager, I’m too much of a coaster. Have thoroughly enjoyed being one of his shareholders mind.

  • THREAD WARNING - The Scottish Pathway for Trans Healthcare (SPATH):

    NHS Scotland has released a report with recommendations which is deeply concerning and demonstrates that Scotland has been infiltrated by gender ideology and poses a risk to vulnerable children.
    (1/8)…..

    NHS Scotland ignore the closure of the Tavistock, the complaints against the Sandyford and the issues raised by the Cass Review.

    They run counter to NHS England, who are limiting use of puberty blockers and acknowledge most gender dysphoria doesn’t persist into adulthood.

    Full document:

    https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SPATH-Sub-group-update-and-recommendations-v0.1.pdf


    https://twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1592834008664399873

    Notably, Section 1.2 “What informed this review” includes neither the Interim Cass Report nor the new NHS England guidelines….
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    "Why Trump Is Favored To Win The 2024 Republican Presidential Primary"
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-2024-president/

    Seems to ignore the latest head-to-head Trump vs DeSantis polling - the 2 polls conducted since the midterms both have DeSantis ahead. The momentum now looks very much against Trump, once he looks more and more like a loser there's going to be more and more substantial figures saying "it's time to move on", and the Murdoch seems to be turning against him. The fact that he's unlikely to go without a (very ugly) fight is probably quite bad news for Republicans in 2024.

    Biden: of course his age should be an issue. He's going to be 80 next week.

    DeSantis needs to pick a good moment to throw his hat in the ring (should have done already). Otherwise he may face ages of attacks from Trump and people thinking him weak if he doesn't respond in some way, or assume he is not daring to stand after all and tie themselves to Trump.
    DeSantis’ problem in this regard, is that he just last week won re-election in Florida, to serve as their governor for the next four years. He needs to wait another year before formally announcing.
    Should be a law to stop people announcing presidential runs until a year before the election!

    No, not really, but it feels like they never stop fundraising or campaigning, which must affect their day jobs. Trump of course can just sit on his arse dictating tweets.
    It’s even worse when they actually get elected - several hours a day on party phone banks arm-twisting donors, rather than doing the job for which they were elected. If you’re a House member, elected on a two-year term, it never stops.
  • ..
    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson’s dramatic downfall to be the subject of new book by Nadine Dorries - working title “The Political Assassination of Boris Johnson” - exclusive by @DJBond6873
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nadine-dorries-writing-book-boris-johnson-political-assassination-tory-conservative-mp-b1040256.html

    This looks like an exciting chapter. Hope Larry turned his nose up at the offering.


  • BREAKING:

    Poland’s PM and President announce at press conference that nothing indicates that the missile which killed 2 Poles was intentionally sent against Poland.

    They say it’s probable that it was a Ukrainian air defense missile which targeted Russian missiles.


    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1592836862561103872
  • Judgment will be handed down in the case UKSC 2022/0098 - Reference by the Lord Advocate - Scottish Independence Reference Bill - on Wednesday 23 November 2022, 9.45am https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0098.html


    https://twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt/status/1592838645840777216
  • New thread.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    Russian army launched over 90 Kh-101 and Kalibr missiles, and over 10 combat drones. Air Defence shot down 77 cruise missiles and 10 Shahed-136, 1 Orion drone , - General Staff of Armed Forces of Ukraine says in the morning report
    https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/16-november-russian-army-launched-over-90-kh101-and-kalibr

    That’s a pretty poor hit rate, the vast majority got nowhere near where they were supposed to go.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    It depends an awful lot on the candidates. Any Republican bar Trump should be favourite against Biden, but the incumbent likely beats the previous holder of the office. Of course, Biden could stand aside and there be a Dem primary season, which would likely be chaos as everyone tries to stop the very unpopular Harris.
    The current 2.4 price isn't enough, 2 years out, but I like the Dems for the WH. Three main reasons:
    1. Biden is underestimated. He'll be a good candidate if he's healthy enough to run again and does; and if he doesn't run they'll probably find a younger alternative who's also a good candidate.
    2. DeSantis is maybe being overrated in this first flush of him emerging as the GOP favourite. He isn't particularly moderate and is untested nationally. His broad appeal might not match the hype.
    3. Trump. He has that base and could still get the nomination, meaning the Dems win with anyone, and if he doesn't I can see him trying to spike the GOP's chances, either with an independent run (which he might in any case use as blackmail to try and get the nom in the first place) or in other ways. The last thing he'll want is the party winning without him.
    Despite the midterms I still worry at the idea Trump would lose against anyone. Biden squeaked a couple of states which a worse candidate might lose, even though you'd think his actions last time and since would make Trump weaker among his base, even if just a little.
    Yes good point. To *almost* anyone would be better putting it.
  • Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    Historically speaking, including 3rd millennium (so far), two-term presidencies are more common than one-term.

    For what THAT 's worth? Not a king's ransom maybe, but also not chopped liver!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    edited November 2022

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, does anything Biden said discount it having been a missile fired from Belarussian territory?

    No, I don’t think so.
    But note the methodical, patient response, set against our panic about armegeddon last night.
    Shame that I missed that last night. Were a lot of people quoting things from Twitter.

    Many on PB can't make their minds up whether Twitter is doomed to a Friends Reunited extinction event, now that Musk has bought it, or remains the fount of all knowledge wherein every tweet is a hotline to the minds of presidents and prime ministers.

    And speaking of hotlines, Biden's categoric response to the Polish issue suggests strongly that the back channels between the US and Russia (which we learned of officially recently) are in fully functioning mode.
    Biden is having a good week. Coming over authoritative, calm and in command of the situation.

    He is going to run in 2024, no doubt in my mind.
    He will be 86 at the end of his second term. I can see that being an even bigger issue in 2024 than it is now.
    If he's up against Trump the age issue won't work.
    Reps slight favs for the 2024 presidency. I'd have it the other way round but even at odds against I'm not tempted two years out.
    Historically speaking, including 3rd millennium (so far), two-term presidencies are more common than one-term.

    For what THAT 's worth? Not a king's ransom maybe, but also not chopped liver!
    Not really. Even if we include those who served partial terms, and leave Biden out, the split is 21-23.

    If we only include those who won two (or more) elections, it's 17-27.
This discussion has been closed.