Perhaps I'll start talking to myself about knitting patterns, the latest series of the Great British Sewing Bee and the best recipe for banana bread.
Well if you want a change of subject I'd like to know if you've been to that infinity bridge at Honister and what you think. I intend to torture a relative with it in a couple of months and some actual experience would be handy.
the penny is at last dropping in Westminster that 6% mortgage rates are as painful - or worse - than the notorious 15% rate in the early 1990s because mortgage holders are now vastly more leveraged compared to their incomes
It's interesting, isn't it? More and more people are saying they don't mind Sunak, think he's maybe better than Starmer, but oh, let's vote Labour anyway. What's happening, I think, is that a majority of voters has made a firm decision that they want a change from the Tories, unless the alternative is dreadful, and they don't either like Sunak enough or dislike Starmer enough to override that.
Describes me perfectly. It'll be the first time I vote labour too.
Heathener, crazy as she is, is right. This will be the opposite of 1992, it'll be the election of shy labour voters. I mix with a diverse set* and those of us who would usually go tory are whispering it quietly...
I've never noticed this poster, but I am calling Leon on the basis of this post. The case for the prosecution: -Referencing Heathener, another of his ludicrous creations -Leon always chooses strange political stances for his aliases. The Lib Dem who loved Boris for example. Here we have a first time Labour voter who carries a torch for Sunak -The neat, punchy, lickety split sentences are Leon's style, though he's at least remembering to use full stops
*Dunbosaurus, if you are a genuine real poster, I apologise deeply, this post never happened, tis all a midsummer night's dream.
the penny is at last dropping in Westminster that 6% mortgage rates are as painful - or worse - than the notorious 15% rate in the early 1990s because mortgage holders are now vastly more leveraged compared to their incomes
There's a difference between making a respectable effort and making an all out effort to win. Labour will be doing the latter in Uxbridge, Selby and Rutherglen.
HYUFD doesn't understand what tactically standing a candidate is.
In 1997 Labour stood lots of candidates, like in Winchester. But they didn't ever really try.
Labour were a clear second in Mid Beds in 2019 not the LDs, the fact they are already putting Labour posters up looks like they are not running just a paper candidate there now.
Somerton and Frome now up for another by election where the LDs were second in 2019 suggests Labour decided to maybe only run a paper candidate there
While Conservative hopes for an even split in the Opposition vote everywhere are natural, there is a genuine problem for non-Tories in seats like mid-Beds and the Blue Wall, where Labour is now 16 points ahead of the LDs. That includes seats where Labour clearly are the main challengers, but what is the tactically-minded voter to do if the result last time in THEIR seat was something like Mid-Beds' 60-22-13? What if it was 50-32-13? Or 40-32-23?
Where the LibDems were second, or only just behind Labour, I think many tactical voters will reckon they have a better chance in a by-election. But there does come a point where that judgment changes, and it's not easy to determine when it should.
So even you agree that Labour will target Mid Beds
I don't know about "even", HYUFD? - I think we both try to be objective from our different standpoints, don't we? I think Labour is having a shot at it (I get regular requests to canvass there and I am nowhere near the area) and will make a judgment in a week or 10 days based on how it's going. We can't simply surrender a second place without an effort, and it's not obvious that there is a genuine LD chance there, so tactically voting for them may be a mistake.
By contrast, as you implied, I've so far had no requests so far to help in Somerton and Frome, where the result last time was Con 56, LD 26, Lab 13, Green 5.
Whoever wins, this is a brilliant advert for Bazball and for Test circket. They said they wanted it to be entertaining and this has served that up in spades. Well done to both England and Australia.
Absolutely, a fantastic advert for this form of the sport. Very well played by both teams, no matter what the result.
Yawwwwnnnnn
But someone threw a ball towards some sticks and then someone with a different stick sometimes hit the ball away from the sticks. Sometimes someone else threw the ball back at the original sticks.
Based on that someone got some numbers.
It's gripping.
Moronic post. Piss off.
Zzzzzzzzz
If you don’t like the sport, nobody is making you watch it. Childish comments like the above are just ridiculous.
Sorry - another light-hearted attempt at humour taken as venom.
Labour is drawing up plans to appoint dozens of new peers
Despite Starmer criticism of Johnson honours and commitment to abolish Lords, party insiders say new working age peers will be needed if he is to govern effectively
Labour is drawing up plans to appoint dozens of new peers
Despite Starmer criticism of Johnson honours and commitment to abolish Lords, party insiders say new working age peers will be needed if he is to govern effectively
It's interesting, isn't it? More and more people are saying they don't mind Sunak, think he's maybe better than Starmer, but oh, let's vote Labour anyway. What's happening, I think, is that a majority of voters has made a firm decision that they want a change from the Tories, unless the alternative is dreadful, and they don't either like Sunak enough or dislike Starmer enough to override that.
Is this actually reflected in the wider polling? Every poll I've seen reported here has Sunak's personal rating falling. This one only has it static.
Yes, I think people aren't especially keen on Sunak, they merely feel that both he and Starmer would, other things being equal, be OK. That's lukewarm in both cases, so the "time for a change" trumps it.
Whoever wins, this is a brilliant advert for Bazball and for Test circket. They said they wanted it to be entertaining and this has served that up in spades. Well done to both England and Australia.
Absolutely, a fantastic advert for this form of the sport. Very well played by both teams, no matter what the result.
Yawwwwnnnnn
But someone threw a ball towards some sticks and then someone with a different stick sometimes hit the ball away from the sticks. Sometimes someone else threw the ball back at the original sticks.
Based on that someone got some numbers.
It's gripping.
Moronic post. Piss off.
Zzzzzzzzz
If you don’t like the sport, nobody is making you watch it. Childish comments like the above are just ridiculous.
Sorry - another light-hearted attempt at humour taken as venom.
I thought it was a perfect description of cricket, other than they are always stopping for tea and cucumber sandwiches.
Scotland gub Georgia , 12 points from 4 games and miles clear at top of group.
Clark has been revelation for you. What’s going on?
It cannot last, though almost impossible not to qualify now as I think they only have to beat Cyprus to be through with 4 games to go. I wonder where you can find out where they would play, tickets will be like hens teeth for finals.
Perhaps I'll start talking to myself about knitting patterns, the latest series of the Great British Sewing Bee and the best recipe for banana bread.
Well if you want a change of subject I'd like to know if you've been to that infinity bridge at Honister and what you think. I intend to torture a relative with it in a couple of months and some actual experience would be handy.
No way would you get me on that thing. Walking up a mountain is one thing and enjoyable. Trying to cross a void on some dental floss is utter madness.
But if you have a head for heights I am sure it will be very enjoyable.
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
You don't come back from the sort of calamitous drop in support that she initiated. She sank her own intentions before they had a chance.
Going with a steady as she goes strategy from the start might have been ok. Going with a we need change strategy (despite running as the continuity Boris candidate, which is contradictory to that) might have been ok if done competently.
They've gone with the worst of both worlds by ineptly doing a we need change strategy, then switching to a steady as she goes strategy part way.
What they probably needed was Sunak to stop the rot, then be able to initiate his own bold plans once steadied. But they've never really recovered enough and his position is too weak even if he were inclined to try something now and have a year's run in to a GE.
This version of the Tories are the worst Government in British political history.
William the Bastard was a few degrees worse.
Incorrect.
Literal ethnic cleansing!
Apparently when he wanted to marry Matilda, she refused. So her dragged her out of mass and beat her. Later, when they were married and he was stressed about the upcoming war of conquest he was about to engage in, he kicked her. With his spurs. His wife. He kicked his wife with his spurs.
And then there's the ethnic cleansing. Did I mention the ethnic cleansing?
William the Utter Bastard
A boat person, though. Illegal immigrant across the English Channel. So I don't know why our more lickspittle Tories are so keen to cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era. Not exactly consistent.
'To cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era?'
Even most of the Lords now aren't descended from William the Conqueror's top earls and commanders.
The King has more Stuart and Tudor and Hanoverian and greek blood than Plantagenet and Norman
You said the other day most of the Lords aren't "toffs" so didn't count. Sou your reply is irrelevant. We're talking about so-called "aristicrats" here. Not the un-posh peers we get in the HoL/.
Less than 20% of the Lords are now from the old hereditary peerage. So there is nothing to cringe to as you switch from your vile and pathetic class war mockery of those trapped in the sub in the Atlantic as they happen to be rich to attacking the remaining hereditary peers who are more likely to be running their estates and preserving them for future generations than in the House of Lords.
Your deranged fantasy. I haven't said anything about the crew of the sub.
And as for hereditary peers - I'm not attacking them. I'm commenting on youjr Tory fantasies about the nobility of the thuggish boat people of 1066.
Meanwhile, an interesting tactic tomorrow. The Government dropped its proposal to ban live exports, saying that Labour was adding tiresome amendments, and they'd come back to it when there was time in the next session. Labour has now used its Opposition Day to put forward the identical Bill, with no amendments whatever, and a proposed date for all stages of July 12.
The Government can try to vote it down, but they'd then be voting against the Bill they put forward themselves, without the excuse that it would waste Government time or that there might be tiresome amendments. If they do, they risk a substantial Tory revolt - the influential Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation with 50+ MPs may have the votes to swing it. Or the Government can just give way gracefully and get the issue done with.
Of all the people to be accused of promoting any kind of masculinity.
I don't know, I've heard he's a fan of masculine men.
Oh, we're doing a Sturgeon again? Nodding and winking at rumors of sexualities without actually saying it out loud? When do we graduate to "ringing doors and running away"?
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
How would things have played out if she'd stuck to her guns on no energy bailouts and been a bit more strategic about her tax cuts instead?
Perhaps she was always doomed to unravel because of her style, but it would have been interesting to see a more competent version of Trussism implemented.
Of all the people to be accused of promoting any kind of masculinity.
I don't know, I've heard he's a fan of masculine men.
Oh, we're doing a Sturgeon again? Nodding and winking at rumors of sexualities without actually saying it out loud? When do we graduate to "ringing doors and running away"?
Labour is drawing up plans to appoint dozens of new peers
Despite Starmer criticism of Johnson honours and commitment to abolish Lords, party insiders say new working age peers will be needed if he is to govern effectively
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
You don't come back from the sort of calamitous drop in support that she initiated. She sank her own intentions before they had a chance.
Going with a steady as she goes strategy from the start might have been ok. Going with a we need change strategy (despite running as the continuity Boris candidate, which is contradictory to that) might have been ok if done competently.
They've gone with the worst of both worlds by ineptly doing a we need change strategy, then switching to a steady as she goes strategy part way.
What they probably needed was Sunak to stop the rot, then be able to initiate his own bold plans once steadied. But they've never really recovered enough and his position is too weak even if he were inclined to try something now and have a year's run in to a GE.
This was always Sunak's plan; the Truss interregnum didn't change his economic misery plan at all; though admittedly it gave him the mood music to get away with it.
And I think we can stop calling him some kind of steady eddy competent technocrat now that he's left Trussian gilt yield levels eating his dust. He and Hunt are the rot.
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
Cut your losses vs. go for broke.
Sunak's premiership bakes in a hefty defeat, and every month that passes makes it harder to explain why 1997 isn't providing the fundamental base map for thinking about the next election.
By throwing everything up in the air, Truss opened the door to a small possibility of a remarkable triumph, albeit with the downside of a high probability of utter disaster. I'm not sure it's a gamble I want tried in a country I'm living in.
The reason it's called going for broke is that's how you mostly end up.
This version of the Tories are the worst Government in British political history.
William the Bastard was a few degrees worse.
Incorrect.
Literal ethnic cleansing!
Apparently when he wanted to marry Matilda, she refused. So her dragged her out of mass and beat her. Later, when they were married and he was stressed about the upcoming war of conquest he was about to engage in, he kicked her. With his spurs. His wife. He kicked his wife with his spurs.
And then there's the ethnic cleansing. Did I mention the ethnic cleansing?
William the Utter Bastard
A boat person, though. Illegal immigrant across the English Channel. So I don't know why our more lickspittle Tories are so keen to cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era. Not exactly consistent.
'To cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era?'
Even most of the Lords now aren't descended from William the Conqueror's top earls and commanders.
The King has more Stuart and Tudor and Hanoverian and greek blood than Plantagenet and Norman
You said the other day most of the Lords aren't "toffs" so didn't count. Sou your reply is irrelevant. We're talking about so-called "aristicrats" here. Not the un-posh peers we get in the HoL/.
Less than 20% of the Lords are now from the old hereditary peerage. So there is nothing to cringe to as you switch from your vile and pathetic class war mockery of those trapped in the sub in the Atlantic as they happen to be rich to attacking the remaining hereditary peers who are more likely to be running their estates and preserving them for future generations than in the House of Lords.
Your deranged fantasy. I haven't said anything about the crew of the sub.
And as for hereditary peers - I'm not attacking them. I'm commenting on youjr Tory fantasies about the nobility of the thuggish boat people of 1066.
Most of the aristocracy are educated, cultured and care about the land and estates they manage and the people they employ.
I may as well condemn you for lauding the thuggish William Wallace
Of all the people to be accused of promoting any kind of masculinity.
I don't know, I've heard he's a fan of masculine men.
Oh, we're doing a Sturgeon again? Nodding and winking at rumors of sexualities without actually saying it out loud? When do we graduate to "ringing doors and running away"?
Sturgeon's marriage was always as fake as f*ck.
As for Macron, let's hand it to him. Not only has he made Marine Le Pen look like a liberal, but he's had a drink named after him - Lockdown Knockdown Ginger Beer.
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
Cut your losses vs. go for broke.
Sunak's premiership bakes in a hefty defeat, and every month that passes makes it harder to explain why 1997 isn't providing the fundamental base map for thinking about the next election.
By throwing everything up in the air, Truss opened the door to a small possibility of a remarkable triumph, albeit with the downside of a high probability of utter disaster. I'm not sure it's a gamble I want tried in a country I'm living in.
The reason it's called going for broke is that's how you mostly end up.
She also crashed the markets with her Chancellor and helped cause the high interest rates we now have for mortgage holders.
There is a possibility had she remained PM the Tories would have come 4th behind the LDs and SNP as well as Labour, at least on seats if not votes.
After all why vote for a libertarian Liberal like Truss who crashes the markets when you can vote for an Orange Book Liberal Democrat like Davey who is more sensible and was part of Cameron's coalition government too anyway?
This version of the Tories are the worst Government in British political history.
William the Bastard was a few degrees worse.
Incorrect.
Literal ethnic cleansing!
Apparently when he wanted to marry Matilda, she refused. So her dragged her out of mass and beat her. Later, when they were married and he was stressed about the upcoming war of conquest he was about to engage in, he kicked her. With his spurs. His wife. He kicked his wife with his spurs.
And then there's the ethnic cleansing. Did I mention the ethnic cleansing?
William the Utter Bastard
A boat person, though. Illegal immigrant across the English Channel. So I don't know why our more lickspittle Tories are so keen to cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era. Not exactly consistent.
'To cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era?'
Even most of the Lords now aren't descended from William the Conqueror's top earls and commanders.
The King has more Stuart and Tudor and Hanoverian and greek blood than Plantagenet and Norman
You said the other day most of the Lords aren't "toffs" so didn't count. Sou your reply is irrelevant. We're talking about so-called "aristicrats" here. Not the un-posh peers we get in the HoL/.
Less than 20% of the Lords are now from the old hereditary peerage. So there is nothing to cringe to as you switch from your vile and pathetic class war mockery of those trapped in the sub in the Atlantic as they happen to be rich to attacking the remaining hereditary peers who are more likely to be running their estates and preserving them for future generations than in the House of Lords.
Your deranged fantasy. I haven't said anything about the crew of the sub.
And as for hereditary peers - I'm not attacking them. I'm commenting on youjr Tory fantasies about the nobility of the thuggish boat people of 1066.
Most of the aristocracy are educated, cultured and care about the land and estates they manage and the people they employ.
I may as well condemn you for lauding the thuggish William Wallace
Meanwhile, an interesting tactic tomorrow. The Government dropped its proposal to ban live exports, saying that Labour was adding tiresome amendments, and they'd come back to it when there was time in the next session. Labour has now used its Opposition Day to put forward the identical Bill, with no amendments whatever, and a proposed date for all stages of July 12.
The Government can try to vote it down, but they'd then be voting against the Bill they put forward themselves, without the excuse that it would waste Government time or that there might be tiresome amendments. If they do, they risk a substantial Tory revolt - the influential Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation with 50+ MPs may have the votes to swing it. Or the Government can just give way gracefully and get the issue done with.
Of all the people to be accused of promoting any kind of masculinity.
I don't know, I've heard he's a fan of masculine men.
Oh, we're doing a Sturgeon again? Nodding and winking at rumors of sexualities without actually saying it out loud? When do we graduate to "ringing doors and running away"?
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
Cut your losses vs. go for broke.
Sunak's premiership bakes in a hefty defeat, and every month that passes makes it harder to explain why 1997 isn't providing the fundamental base map for thinking about the next election.
By throwing everything up in the air, Truss opened the door to a small possibility of a remarkable triumph, albeit with the downside of a high probability of utter disaster. I'm not sure it's a gamble I want tried in a country I'm living in.
The reason it's called going for broke is that's how you mostly end up.
Rishi Sunak cannot differentiate himself convincingly from Starmer in any meaningful way, or vice versa. Both offer a veneer of competence masking complete inability and/or disinclination to face up to the UK's problems, and both have a nationally-suicidal approach to Net Zero that literally no other Government in the world would even dream of adopting. Starmer will win (in the absence of a meaningful challenge from the right) because it so happens that Sunak is carrying the can at the moment.
Even coming in now, Truss would stand a better chance of victory, even if she had to start from her polling nadir. All she (or anyone else) would have to do would be to present completely obvious policies that neither Starmer nor Sunak are brave enough to do.
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
Cut your losses vs. go for broke.
Sunak's premiership bakes in a hefty defeat, and every month that passes makes it harder to explain why 1997 isn't providing the fundamental base map for thinking about the next election.
By throwing everything up in the air, Truss opened the door to a small possibility of a remarkable triumph, albeit with the downside of a high probability of utter disaster. I'm not sure it's a gamble I want tried in a country I'm living in.
The reason it's called going for broke is that's how you mostly end up.
She also crashed the markets with her Chancellor and helped cause the high interest rates we now have for mortgage holders.
There is a possibility had she remained PM the Tories would have come 4th behind the LDs and SNP as well as Labour, at least on seats if not votes.
After all why vote for a libertarian Liberal like Truss who crashes the markets when you can vote for an Orange Book Liberal Democrat like Davey who is more sensible and was part of Cameron's coalition government too anyway?
Do explain why gilt yields under Sunak have exceeded the levels they went to under Truss?
Most of the aristocracy are educated, cultured and care about the land and estates they manage and the people they employ.
@malcolmg , will you tell him about the Highland Clearances or shall I? I lack your gift for invective.
That was 300 years ago, it has about as much relevance to today's aristocracy as Wallace sacking much of Northern England.
Carnyx has already involved himself in disrespecting those on the sub in the Atlantic because they are rich he doesn't need to be encouraged anymore in his puerile repulsive class war usual chippyness by attacking today's aristocracy too
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
Cut your losses vs. go for broke.
Sunak's premiership bakes in a hefty defeat, and every month that passes makes it harder to explain why 1997 isn't providing the fundamental base map for thinking about the next election.
By throwing everything up in the air, Truss opened the door to a small possibility of a remarkable triumph, albeit with the downside of a high probability of utter disaster. I'm not sure it's a gamble I want tried in a country I'm living in.
The reason it's called going for broke is that's how you mostly end up.
She also crashed the markets with her Chancellor and helped cause the high interest rates we now have for mortgage holders.
There is a possibility had she remained PM the Tories would have come 4th behind the LDs and SNP as well as Labour, at least on seats if not votes.
After all why vote for a libertarian Liberal like Truss who crashes the markets when you can vote for an Orange Book Liberal Democrat like Davey who is more sensible and was part of Cameron's coalition government too anyway?
Do explain why gilt yields under Sunak have exceeded the levels they went to under Truss?
As it takes time to undo the damage she and Kwarteng wrecked on the economy, crashing the £, massively expanding borrowing and the deficit and starting the shift to much higher interest rates.
As I said, Truss would have led the Tories to Canada 1993 style wipeout, even a 1997 level defeat for Sunak would be better than that
This version of the Tories are the worst Government in British political history.
William the Bastard was a few degrees worse.
Incorrect.
Literal ethnic cleansing!
Apparently when he wanted to marry Matilda, she refused. So her dragged her out of mass and beat her. Later, when they were married and he was stressed about the upcoming war of conquest he was about to engage in, he kicked her. With his spurs. His wife. He kicked his wife with his spurs.
And then there's the ethnic cleansing. Did I mention the ethnic cleansing?
William the Utter Bastard
A boat person, though. Illegal immigrant across the English Channel. So I don't know why our more lickspittle Tories are so keen to cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era. Not exactly consistent.
'To cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era?'
Even most of the Lords now aren't descended from William the Conqueror's top earls and commanders.
The King has more Stuart and Tudor and Hanoverian and greek blood than Plantagenet and Norman
You said the other day most of the Lords aren't "toffs" so didn't count. Sou your reply is irrelevant. We're talking about so-called "aristicrats" here. Not the un-posh peers we get in the HoL/.
Less than 20% of the Lords are now from the old hereditary peerage. So there is nothing to cringe to as you switch from your vile and pathetic class war mockery of those trapped in the sub in the Atlantic as they happen to be rich to attacking the remaining hereditary peers who are more likely to be running their estates and preserving them for future generations than in the House of Lords.
Your deranged fantasy. I haven't said anything about the crew of the sub.
And as for hereditary peers - I'm not attacking them. I'm commenting on youjr Tory fantasies about the nobility of the thuggish boat people of 1066.
Most of the aristocracy are educated, cultured and care about the land and estates they manage and the people they employ.
I may as well condemn you for lauding the thuggish William Wallace
William Wallace was just the type of yeoman minor nobility (Scotch version) that people like you adulate. Turning one of his enemy's skins into a baldric is just the sort of behaviour he could have learned at a minor public school, if they had existed.
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
Cut your losses vs. go for broke.
Sunak's premiership bakes in a hefty defeat, and every month that passes makes it harder to explain why 1997 isn't providing the fundamental base map for thinking about the next election.
By throwing everything up in the air, Truss opened the door to a small possibility of a remarkable triumph, albeit with the downside of a high probability of utter disaster. I'm not sure it's a gamble I want tried in a country I'm living in.
The reason it's called going for broke is that's how you mostly end up.
She also crashed the markets with her Chancellor and helped cause the high interest rates we now have for mortgage holders.
There is a possibility had she remained PM the Tories would have come 4th behind the LDs and SNP as well as Labour, at least on seats if not votes.
After all why vote for a libertarian Liberal like Truss who crashes the markets when you can vote for an Orange Book Liberal Democrat like Davey who is more sensible and was part of Cameron's coalition government too anyway?
Do explain why gilt yields under Sunak have exceeded the levels they went to under Truss?
As it takes time to undo the damage she and Kwarteng wrecked on the economy, crashing the £, massively expanding borrowing and the deficit and starting the shift to much higher interest rates.
As I said, Truss would have led the Tories to Canada 1993 style wipeout, even a 1997 level defeat for Sunak would be better than that
1. Oh dear. That makes zero sense as any sort of attempted explanation. The markets officially have less confidence in the UK's ability to pay its debts after Sunak has been working his economic charm for the best part of a year, than they did in the immediate aftermath of the so-called catastrophic mini budget. Just let that sink in.
2. No. Polls are a snapshot not a prediction. It is almost inconceivable that polling levels for the Tories wouldn't have reverted nearer average, whether Truss had stayed or gone.
This version of the Tories are the worst Government in British political history.
William the Bastard was a few degrees worse.
Incorrect.
Literal ethnic cleansing!
Apparently when he wanted to marry Matilda, she refused. So her dragged her out of mass and beat her. Later, when they were married and he was stressed about the upcoming war of conquest he was about to engage in, he kicked her. With his spurs. His wife. He kicked his wife with his spurs.
And then there's the ethnic cleansing. Did I mention the ethnic cleansing?
Were there many non-bastard medieval monarchs though?
Perhaps aye, perhaps naw.
I just find it a stretch to say that Sunak's government is the worst ever. William the Bastard was egregiously bad, even for the time, though. I can't say confidently he was the worst, but possibly the worst of the famous ones.
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
Cut your losses vs. go for broke.
Sunak's premiership bakes in a hefty defeat, and every month that passes makes it harder to explain why 1997 isn't providing the fundamental base map for thinking about the next election.
By throwing everything up in the air, Truss opened the door to a small possibility of a remarkable triumph, albeit with the downside of a high probability of utter disaster. I'm not sure it's a gamble I want tried in a country I'm living in.
The reason it's called going for broke is that's how you mostly end up.
She also crashed the markets with her Chancellor and helped cause the high interest rates we now have for mortgage holders.
There is a possibility had she remained PM the Tories would have come 4th behind the LDs and SNP as well as Labour, at least on seats if not votes.
After all why vote for a libertarian Liberal like Truss who crashes the markets when you can vote for an Orange Book Liberal Democrat like Davey who is more sensible and was part of Cameron's coalition government too anyway?
Do explain why gilt yields under Sunak have exceeded the levels they went to under Truss?
As it takes time to undo the damage she and Kwarteng wrecked on the economy, crashing the £, massively expanding borrowing and the deficit and starting the shift to much higher interest rates.
As I said, Truss would have led the Tories to Canada 1993 style wipeout, even a 1997 level defeat for Sunak would be better than that
1. Oh dear. That makes zero sense as any sort of attempted explanation. The markets officially have less confidence in the UK's ability to pay its debts after Sunak has been working his economic charm for the best part of a year, than they did in the immediate aftermath of the so-called catastrophic mini budget. Just let that sink in.
2. No. Polls are a snapshot not a prediction. It is almost inconceivable that polling levels for the Tories wouldn't have reverted nearer average, whether Truss had stayed or gone.
This version of the Tories are the worst Government in British political history.
William the Bastard was a few degrees worse.
Incorrect.
Literal ethnic cleansing!
Apparently when he wanted to marry Matilda, she refused. So her dragged her out of mass and beat her. Later, when they were married and he was stressed about the upcoming war of conquest he was about to engage in, he kicked her. With his spurs. His wife. He kicked his wife with his spurs.
And then there's the ethnic cleansing. Did I mention the ethnic cleansing?
Were there many non-bastard medieval monarchs though?
Perhaps aye, perhaps naw.
I just find it a stretch to say that Sunak's government is the worst ever. William the Bastard was egregiously bad, even for the time, though. I can't say confidently he was the worst, but possibly the worst of the famous ones.
William Rufus was so unpopular, that in an age where accidentally injuring the king meant an unpleasant death, they all just said that the chap who shot him… was the real victim. And did nothing.
This version of the Tories are the worst Government in British political history.
William the Bastard was a few degrees worse.
Incorrect.
Literal ethnic cleansing!
Apparently when he wanted to marry Matilda, she refused. So her dragged her out of mass and beat her. Later, when they were married and he was stressed about the upcoming war of conquest he was about to engage in, he kicked her. With his spurs. His wife. He kicked his wife with his spurs.
And then there's the ethnic cleansing. Did I mention the ethnic cleansing?
Were there many non-bastard medieval monarchs though?
Perhaps aye, perhaps naw.
I just find it a stretch to say that Sunak's government is the worst ever. William the Bastard was egregiously bad, even for the time, though. I can't say confidently he was the worst, but possibly the worst of the famous ones.
William Rufus was so unpopular, that in an age where accidentally injuring the king meant an unpleasant death, they all just said that the chap who shot him… was the real victim. And did nothing.
Popularity be damned, I like to make my own judgements. In the case of William Rufus, I've got little to go on. What I have read about him has been forgotten. I have in mind he was thought a "deviant" in some way by his peers, is that the one?
This version of the Tories are the worst Government in British political history.
William the Bastard was a few degrees worse.
Incorrect.
Literal ethnic cleansing!
Apparently when he wanted to marry Matilda, she refused. So her dragged her out of mass and beat her. Later, when they were married and he was stressed about the upcoming war of conquest he was about to engage in, he kicked her. With his spurs. His wife. He kicked his wife with his spurs.
And then there's the ethnic cleansing. Did I mention the ethnic cleansing?
William the Utter Bastard
A boat person, though. Illegal immigrant across the English Channel. So I don't know why our more lickspittle Tories are so keen to cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era. Not exactly consistent.
'To cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era?'
Even most of the Lords now aren't descended from William the Conqueror's top earls and commanders.
The King has more Stuart and Tudor and Hanoverian and greek blood than Plantagenet and Norman
You said the other day most of the Lords aren't "toffs" so didn't count. Sou your reply is irrelevant. We're talking about so-called "aristicrats" here. Not the un-posh peers we get in the HoL/.
Less than 20% of the Lords are now from the old hereditary peerage. So there is nothing to cringe to as you switch from your vile and pathetic class war mockery of those trapped in the sub in the Atlantic as they happen to be rich to attacking the remaining hereditary peers who are more likely to be running their estates and preserving them for future generations than in the House of Lords.
Your deranged fantasy. I haven't said anything about the crew of the sub.
And as for hereditary peers - I'm not attacking them. I'm commenting on youjr Tory fantasies about the nobility of the thuggish boat people of 1066.
Most of the aristocracy are educated, cultured and care about the land and estates they manage and the people they employ.
I may as well condemn you for lauding the thuggish William Wallace
William Wallace was just the type of yeoman minor nobility (Scotch version) that people like you adulate. Turning one of his enemy's skins into a baldric is just the sort of behaviour he could have learned at a minor public school, if they had existed.
No he was a thuggish Scottish Nationalist who quite happily sacked most of northern England.
And given recent events amongst senior SNP figures you hardly are in a position to lecture about moral behaviour!
This version of the Tories are the worst Government in British political history.
William the Bastard was a few degrees worse.
Incorrect.
Literal ethnic cleansing!
Apparently when he wanted to marry Matilda, she refused. So her dragged her out of mass and beat her. Later, when they were married and he was stressed about the upcoming war of conquest he was about to engage in, he kicked her. With his spurs. His wife. He kicked his wife with his spurs.
And then there's the ethnic cleansing. Did I mention the ethnic cleansing?
William the Utter Bastard
A boat person, though. Illegal immigrant across the English Channel. So I don't know why our more lickspittle Tories are so keen to cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era. Not exactly consistent.
'To cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era?'
Even most of the Lords now aren't descended from William the Conqueror's top earls and commanders.
The King has more Stuart and Tudor and Hanoverian and greek blood than Plantagenet and Norman
You said the other day most of the Lords aren't "toffs" so didn't count. Sou your reply is irrelevant. We're talking about so-called "aristicrats" here. Not the un-posh peers we get in the HoL/.
Less than 20% of the Lords are now from the old hereditary peerage. So there is nothing to cringe to as you switch from your vile and pathetic class war mockery of those trapped in the sub in the Atlantic as they happen to be rich to attacking the remaining hereditary peers who are more likely to be running their estates and preserving them for future generations than in the House of Lords.
Your deranged fantasy. I haven't said anything about the crew of the sub.
And as for hereditary peers - I'm not attacking them. I'm commenting on youjr Tory fantasies about the nobility of the thuggish boat people of 1066.
Most of the aristocracy are educated, cultured and care about the land and estates they manage and the people they employ.
I may as well condemn you for lauding the thuggish William Wallace
William Wallace was just the type of yeoman minor nobility (Scotch version) that people like you adulate. Turning one of his enemy's skins into a baldric is just the sort of behaviour he could have learned at a minor public school, if they had existed.
No he was a thuggish Scottish Nationalist who quite happily sacked most of northern England.
And given recent events amongst senior SNP figures you hardly are in a position to lecture about moral behaviour!
^ A Conservative actually wrote this. Incredible stuff.
This version of the Tories are the worst Government in British political history.
William the Bastard was a few degrees worse.
Incorrect.
Literal ethnic cleansing!
Apparently when he wanted to marry Matilda, she refused. So her dragged her out of mass and beat her. Later, when they were married and he was stressed about the upcoming war of conquest he was about to engage in, he kicked her. With his spurs. His wife. He kicked his wife with his spurs.
And then there's the ethnic cleansing. Did I mention the ethnic cleansing?
William the Utter Bastard
A boat person, though. Illegal immigrant across the English Channel. So I don't know why our more lickspittle Tories are so keen to cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era. Not exactly consistent.
'To cringe to "aristocrats" descended from the most murderous boat people of that era?'
Even most of the Lords now aren't descended from William the Conqueror's top earls and commanders.
The King has more Stuart and Tudor and Hanoverian and greek blood than Plantagenet and Norman
You said the other day most of the Lords aren't "toffs" so didn't count. Sou your reply is irrelevant. We're talking about so-called "aristicrats" here. Not the un-posh peers we get in the HoL/.
Less than 20% of the Lords are now from the old hereditary peerage. So there is nothing to cringe to as you switch from your vile and pathetic class war mockery of those trapped in the sub in the Atlantic as they happen to be rich to attacking the remaining hereditary peers who are more likely to be running their estates and preserving them for future generations than in the House of Lords.
Your deranged fantasy. I haven't said anything about the crew of the sub.
And as for hereditary peers - I'm not attacking them. I'm commenting on youjr Tory fantasies about the nobility of the thuggish boat people of 1066.
Most of the aristocracy are educated, cultured and care about the land and estates they manage and the people they employ.
I may as well condemn you for lauding the thuggish William Wallace
William Wallace was just the type of yeoman minor nobility (Scotch version) that people like you adulate. Turning one of his enemy's skins into a baldric is just the sort of behaviour he could have learned at a minor public school, if they had existed.
No he was a thuggish Scottish Nationalist who quite happily sacked most of northern England.
And given recent events amongst senior SNP figures you hardly are in a position to lecture about moral behaviour!
I'm not lecturing anyone about 'moral behaviour' whatever the feck that might be, just making the obvious point that you'll drop your petit bourgeois drawers at any sniff of nobility.
I wonder if this missing submarine might bring to an end people going down to the wreck of Titanic to view and scout the sight?
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
I wonder if this missing submarine might bring to an end people going down to the wreck of Titanic to view and scout the sight?
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
I mean, the Titanic lay undiscovered for 73 years. What do you think is left of the people?
I wonder if this missing submarine might bring to an end people going down to the wreck of Titanic to view and scout the sight?
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
I mean, the Titanic lay undiscovered for 73 years. What do you think is left of the people?
Nothing. The sea took them long ago (probably within the first year in most cases) but... don't you think there's something kind of macabre about wanting to go 13,000 feet underwater to view what is in effect an enormous coffin/grave at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean?
I wonder if this missing submarine might bring to an end people going down to the wreck of Titanic to view and scout the sight?
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
I mean, the Titanic lay undiscovered for 73 years. What do you think is left of the people?
Probably nothing. There will not even be skeletons. There is a little known fact that below a certain depth pressure and temperature causes calcium carbonate to redissolve into the seawater. It is known as the carbonate compensation depth or CCD. The seawater is depleted in Carbonate so it causes bone and shell to dissolve into it. I am not sure exactly what depth it occurs at as it varies but I think the Titanic is probably below that depth.
I wonder if this missing submarine might bring to an end people going down to the wreck of Titanic to view and scout the sight?
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
I mean, the Titanic lay undiscovered for 73 years. What do you think is left of the people?
Nothing. The sea took them long ago (probably within the first year in most cases) but... don't you think there's something kind of macabre about wanting to go 13,000 feet underwater to view what is in effect an enormous coffin/grave at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean?
The Titanic partakes in a number of categories. Grave is one of them. But it's also a wreck, an icon of an era, a symbol of hubris, and so much more. It's intrinsically interesting beyond its status as grave.
If someone goes there just hoping to see a body, I'd find them strange. But if someone went there because hey -- it's the Titanic! -- then that's something I can perfectly well understand.
People visit sites of battles and places like the Tower of London without it necessarily being macabre.
I wonder if this missing submarine might bring to an end people going down to the wreck of Titanic to view and scout the sight?
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
I mean, the Titanic lay undiscovered for 73 years. What do you think is left of the people?
Nothing. The sea took them long ago (probably within the first year in most cases) but... don't you think there's something kind of macabre about wanting to go 13,000 feet underwater to view what is in effect an enormous coffin/grave at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean?
The Titanic partakes in a number of categories. Grave is one of them. But it's also a wreck, an icon of an era, a symbol of hubris, and so much more. It's intrinsically interesting beyond its status as grave.
If someone goes there just hoping to see a body, I'd find them strange. But if someone went there because hey -- it's the Titanic! -- then that's something I can perfectly well understand.
People visit sites of battles and places like the Tower of London without it necessarily being macabre.
Well I wouldn't want to visit... but each to their own I guess. 😂
Anyway, hopefully the submarine is found and everyone survives this latest Titanic drama... 🙏
Labour is drawing up plans to appoint dozens of new peers
Despite Starmer criticism of Johnson honours and commitment to abolish Lords, party insiders say new working age peers will be needed if he is to govern effectively
The backdrop behind this vile individual is no great surprise. A BBC investigation has uncovered an international network of people paying Indonesians to torture & kill baby monkeys on film
“The Torture King", American Mike McCartney, was reportedly a key distributor of the videos in the US.
Labour is drawing up plans to appoint dozens of new peers
Despite Starmer criticism of Johnson honours and commitment to abolish Lords, party insiders say new working age peers will be needed if he is to govern effectively
Didn't he say a few days ago that there would be no more honours while he was PM?
No, he said he wouldn't ask for resignation honours jimself when in due course he stepped down.
In the real world there is hardly going to be a political penalty for breaking a promise that he can keep right up until the day he steps down - especially since almost every PM is already discredited at that point anyway!
The backdrop behind this vile individual is no great surprise. A BBC investigation has uncovered an international network of people paying Indonesians to torture & kill baby monkeys on film
“The Torture King", American Mike McCartney, was reportedly a key distributor of the videos in the US.
There was a case in the U.K. 20 years ago of a group of people who filmed themselves stamping on insects and mice and torturing animals for sexual gratification.
I wonder if this missing submarine might bring to an end people going down to the wreck of Titanic to view and scout the sight?
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
I mean, the Titanic lay undiscovered for 73 years. What do you think is left of the people?
Probably nothing. There will not even be skeletons. There is a little known fact that below a certain depth pressure and temperature causes calcium carbonate to redissolve into the seawater. It is known as the carbonate compensation depth or CCD. The seawater is depleted in Carbonate so it causes bone and shell to dissolve into it. I am not sure exactly what depth it occurs at as it varies but I think the Titanic is probably below that depth.
I've only seen one picture that has any evidence of human bodies at the Titanic wreck It was of two boots on the seabed, a couple of feet apart, and angled slightly away from each other, as if the wearer had been lying on his side, with his legs apart. The body has decomposed leaving no trace, but the treated leather of the boots remains.
It was incredibly poignant.
Edit: from a quick google, it might be a myth that the boots were on a body.
I wonder if this missing submarine might bring to an end people going down to the wreck of Titanic to view and scout the sight?
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
I mean, the Titanic lay undiscovered for 73 years. What do you think is left of the people?
Probably nothing. There will not even be skeletons. There is a little known fact that below a certain depth pressure and temperature causes calcium carbonate to redissolve into the seawater. It is known as the carbonate compensation depth or CCD. The seawater is depleted in Carbonate so it causes bone and shell to dissolve into it. I am not sure exactly what depth it occurs at as it varies but I think the Titanic is probably below that depth.
Not even 6 am and I have ticked off the duty to learn something every day already.
I wonder if this missing submarine might bring to an end people going down to the wreck of Titanic to view and scout the sight?
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
I mean, the Titanic lay undiscovered for 73 years. What do you think is left of the people?
Nothing. The sea took them long ago (probably within the first year in most cases) but... don't you think there's something kind of macabre about wanting to go 13,000 feet underwater to view what is in effect an enormous coffin/grave at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean?
The Titanic partakes in a number of categories. Grave is one of them. But it's also a wreck, an icon of an era, a symbol of hubris, and so much more. It's intrinsically interesting beyond its status as grave.
If someone goes there just hoping to see a body, I'd find them strange. But if someone went there because hey -- it's the Titanic! -- then that's something I can perfectly well understand.
People visit sites of battles and places like the Tower of London without it necessarily being macabre.
Every time across the Atlantic by ship, you get an announcement if it’s not dead of the night and the ship passes anywhere near the spot.
Nowadays it seems a most unlikely spot for an iceberg to be knocking about in April.
I wonder if this missing submarine might bring to an end people going down to the wreck of Titanic to view and scout the sight?
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
The mythos of the Titanic is such that it was inevitable that people would search for it until it was found. And once found, that the wreck would be thoroughly surveyed - like, say, the Bismarck.
Yet other deep wrecks don't seem to have this 'tourism' angle. I'm also uneasy about stuff being brought up from the wreck - but having said that, I did go to an exhibition at the museum in Greenwich which featured objects raised from the Titanic, and it was fascinating. So perhaps I'm part of the problem.
Incidentally, a friend paid a lot of money to go to dive on HMS Repulse, on which 500+ people died. It is a deep, technical dive. When he arrived on the boat and was aclimatising, he got food poisoning and could not dive...
The wreck of Repulse is being destroyed by scrap metal dealers, so diving is hardly the worst sin on that war grave.
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
Cut your losses vs. go for broke.
Sunak's premiership bakes in a hefty defeat, and every month that passes makes it harder to explain why 1997 isn't providing the fundamental base map for thinking about the next election.
By throwing everything up in the air, Truss opened the door to a small possibility of a remarkable triumph, albeit with the downside of a high probability of utter disaster. I'm not sure it's a gamble I want tried in a country I'm living in.
The reason it's called going for broke is that's how you mostly end up.
She also crashed the markets with her Chancellor and helped cause the high interest rates we now have for mortgage holders.
There is a possibility had she remained PM the Tories would have come 4th behind the LDs and SNP as well as Labour, at least on seats if not votes.
After all why vote for a libertarian Liberal like Truss who crashes the markets when you can vote for an Orange Book Liberal Democrat like Davey who is more sensible and was part of Cameron's coalition government too anyway?
Do explain why gilt yields under Sunak have exceeded the levels they went to under Truss?
Roughly speaking gilts have 3 components
- the base cost of money - A policy premium (to control inflation) - A risk premium (for crazy government)
What has happened is that Truss had a high risk premium but a low policy premium
But the market has woken up to the fact that Bailey is a bit crap. Inflation is not going down as quickly as expected to the policy premium is higher (interest rates will need to be higher for longer).
This offsets the risk premium on the government side, sp the overall gilt rate is similar
The Tories should have kept Truss. She was a disaster but there was a tiny chance she could have won.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
Cut your losses vs. go for broke.
Sunak's premiership bakes in a hefty defeat, and every month that passes makes it harder to explain why 1997 isn't providing the fundamental base map for thinking about the next election.
By throwing everything up in the air, Truss opened the door to a small possibility of a remarkable triumph, albeit with the downside of a high probability of utter disaster. I'm not sure it's a gamble I want tried in a country I'm living in.
The reason it's called going for broke is that's how you mostly end up.
She also crashed the markets with her Chancellor and helped cause the high interest rates we now have for mortgage holders.
There is a possibility had she remained PM the Tories would have come 4th behind the LDs and SNP as well as Labour, at least on seats if not votes.
After all why vote for a libertarian Liberal like Truss who crashes the markets when you can vote for an Orange Book Liberal Democrat like Davey who is more sensible and was part of Cameron's coalition government too anyway?
Do explain why gilt yields under Sunak have exceeded the levels they went to under Truss?
Roughly speaking gilts have 3 components
- the base cost of money - A policy premium (to control inflation) - A risk premium (for crazy government)
What has happened is that Truss had a high risk premium but a low policy premium
But the market has woken up to the fact that Bailey is a bit crap. Inflation is not going down as quickly as expected to the policy premium is higher (interest rates will need to be higher for longer).
This offsets the risk premium on the government side, sp the overall gilt rate is similar
And, picking up the conv overnight, Truss only offers a theoretical chance of victory due to the high randomness assumed to apply to her electoral prospects. The mean, median and modal outcomes, had she stuck around, are all surely worse than Sunak’s.
Inflation 8.7%. Core inflation is up to 7.1%, above expectations
Beginning to think these figures are meaningless. Everyone's inflation rate is different. It depends what you buy... or don't buy. And above whose expectations.....
Inflation 8.7%. Core inflation is up to 7.1%, above expectations
0.7% month-on-month inflation.
Really quite bad numbers. Expect short-end gilt yields to sell off (increase) today. Wonder if it brings a 0.5% rate hike tomorrow onto the table, rather than just 0.25%.
The UK is failing to get inflation under control so far.
Inflation 8.7%. Core inflation is up to 7.1%, above expectations
Beginning to think these figures are meaningless. Everyone's inflation rate is different. It depends what you buy... or don't buy. And above whose expectations.....
Well I can only assume you are an extremely wealthy individual with no mortgage, tone deaf, or trolling?
Jeez. Seriously? I do my weekly shop and it's awful. And many of my closest relatives are in despair over their mortgage situation.*
And you think this is 'meaningless'?
* I don't have a mortgage because I don't own a house. I rent.
Wasn't this the month that was meant to be quite good as the energy price shock started to fall out of the calculation?
That happened in April 2023 when CPI fell from 10.1% to 8.7% - energy price cap had risen on 1 April 2022 so that rise dropped out of comparator in April 2023.
(As per above post, energy is only in headline CPI, not core CPI).
Inflation 8.7%. Core inflation is up to 7.1%, above expectations
0.7% month-on-month inflation.
Really quite bad numbers. Expect short-end gilt yields to sell off (increase) today. Wonder if it brings a 0.5% rate hike tomorrow onto the table, rather than just 0.25%.
The UK is failing to get inflation under control so far.
These are really bad figures.
The markets aren't going to be happy. Likely to be further serious trouble with LIBOR and it's now certain the BoE will put up interest rates again, perhaps by 0.5% rather than the expected 0.25%.
I can't begin to describe the despair I'm hearing from homeowners needing to renew their mortgages.
BBC: As per the Office for National Statistics, here's some more detail on that headline inflation figure.
- Rising prices for air travel, recreational and cultural goods and services, and second-hand cars resulted in the largest upward contributions - Falling prices for motor fuel led to the largest downward contribution - Prices for food and non-alcoholic beverages rose in May 2023 but by less than in May 2022
Oooh Starmer is showing me some leg and using the principle of the Windsor Agreement as some of us predicted.
Labour will go through Britain’s Brexit trade deal “page by page” to renegotiate closer economic ties with Brussels, the shadow foreign secretary has pledged.
In a speech to business leaders David Lammy said a future Labour government would seek a deal to cut checks on British food exports by agreeing to uphold EU veterinary standards.
He also suggested Labour was ready to look again at freedom of movement and would aim to strike a flexible mobility agreement to allow EU and UK citizens the right to travel for short-term business trips without requiring a visa.
The UK’s trade and co-operation agreement with the EU is due to be reopened in 2026, and Labour’s proposals would greatly increase its scope.
I've been banging on about the mortgage disaster for a couple of months and now it's hitting the headlines.
Really grim
A friend of mine is a Chartered Accountant specialising in businesses in distress. He advises that as well as the mortgage disaster, worse will be the business disaster. Too many businesses up to their eyeballs in debt post-Covid who will be demolished by the end of their current low interest rate financing.
I've been banging on about the mortgage disaster for a couple of months and now it's hitting the headlines.
Really grim
A friend of mine is a Chartered Accountant specialising in businesses in distress. He advises that as well as the mortgage disaster, worse will be the business disaster. Too many businesses up to their eyeballs in debt post-Covid who will be demolished by the end of their current low interest rate financing.
The figures aren't great. There has been a certain breezy insouciance that they'll come down quickly and soon. They aren't doing either.
I've been banging on about the mortgage disaster for a couple of months and now it's hitting the headlines.
Really grim
A friend of mine is a Chartered Accountant specialising in businesses in distress. He advises that as well as the mortgage disaster, worse will be the business disaster. Too many businesses up to their eyeballs in debt post-Covid who will be demolished by the end of their current low interest rate financing.
A key point: “People are thinking more and more about what they eat and how they cook as the cost of living crisis takes its toll on traditional behaviours.
“The most prominent change we’ve seen is that people are preparing simpler dishes with fewer ingredients.”
This may not be a bad thing - simpler food with less added crap would be good for our overall health. But its being done through desperation rather than positive choice.
Meanwhile in restaurants world, the same is being done. The amount of downgrading of ingredients on restaurant menus is mind-boggling. That the cheaper ingredient is being combined with a price rise for the diner just rubs salt in the wound...
I've been banging on about the mortgage disaster for a couple of months and now it's hitting the headlines.
Really grim
A friend of mine is a Chartered Accountant specialising in businesses in distress. He advises that as well as the mortgage disaster, worse will be the business disaster. Too many businesses up to their eyeballs in debt post-Covid who will be demolished by the end of their current low interest rate financing.
The figures aren't great. There has been a certain breezy insouciance that they'll come down quickly and soon. They aren't doing either.
Oooh Starmer is showing me some leg and using the principle of the Windsor Agreement as some of us predicted.
Labour will go through Britain’s Brexit trade deal “page by page” to renegotiate closer economic ties with Brussels, the shadow foreign secretary has pledged.
In a speech to business leaders David Lammy said a future Labour government would seek a deal to cut checks on British food exports by agreeing to uphold EU veterinary standards.
He also suggested Labour was ready to look again at freedom of movement and would aim to strike a flexible mobility agreement to allow EU and UK citizens the right to travel for short-term business trips without requiring a visa.
The UK’s trade and co-operation agreement with the EU is due to be reopened in 2026, and Labour’s proposals would greatly increase its scope.
If Labour is willing to sign up to some EU standards, such as the veterinary ones, then hopefully the current fiasco and paperwork maze for people travelling abroad with their pets will soon be brought to an end
Oooh Starmer is showing me some leg and using the principle of the Windsor Agreement as some of us predicted.
Labour will go through Britain’s Brexit trade deal “page by page” to renegotiate closer economic ties with Brussels, the shadow foreign secretary has pledged.
In a speech to business leaders David Lammy said a future Labour government would seek a deal to cut checks on British food exports by agreeing to uphold EU veterinary standards.
He also suggested Labour was ready to look again at freedom of movement and would aim to strike a flexible mobility agreement to allow EU and UK citizens the right to travel for short-term business trips without requiring a visa.
The UK’s trade and co-operation agreement with the EU is due to be reopened in 2026, and Labour’s proposals would greatly increase its scope.
It's interesting. I think a majority of people would take closer economic ties if it was made clear it would lead to 1. lower inflation and 2. mortgage relief
@RochdalePioneers has also just made a very good point about business so let's make that point 3.
If the Daily Mail think frothing about this is where their readership are at, then they are badly mistaken. You touch a person's home and you're politically finished.
This is no longer just about where we shop. It's about where we live.
I've been banging on about the mortgage disaster for a couple of months and now it's hitting the headlines.
Really grim
A friend of mine is a Chartered Accountant specialising in businesses in distress. He advises that as well as the mortgage disaster, worse will be the business disaster. Too many businesses up to their eyeballs in debt post-Covid who will be demolished by the end of their current low interest rate financing.
The figures aren't great. There has been a certain breezy insouciance that they'll come down quickly and soon. They aren't doing either.
Sunak, all mouth and no trousers.
To be fair, there isn't a simple solution. It isn't low interest rates that is causing inflation.
A more realistic offer on pay settlements is needed though, and most importantly a truly independent pay board rather than one stuffed with government lackeys.
I've been banging on about the mortgage disaster for a couple of months and now it's hitting the headlines.
Really grim
A friend of mine is a Chartered Accountant specialising in businesses in distress. He advises that as well as the mortgage disaster, worse will be the business disaster. Too many businesses up to their eyeballs in debt post-Covid who will be demolished by the end of their current low interest rate financing.
Expect the strikes to continue too.
BMA Consultants strike ballot closes this week.
(I am not in the BMA so not voting)
Where I work there is a talk of a 2% pay settlement. The unions will throw it back at the clowns at the top and industrial action will follow.
I've been banging on about the mortgage disaster for a couple of months and now it's hitting the headlines.
Really grim
A friend of mine is a Chartered Accountant specialising in businesses in distress. He advises that as well as the mortgage disaster, worse will be the business disaster. Too many businesses up to their eyeballs in debt post-Covid who will be demolished by the end of their current low interest rate financing.
Expect the strikes to continue too.
BMA Consultants strike ballot closes this week.
(I am not in the BMA so not voting)
Where I work there is a talk of a 2% pay settlement. The unions will throw it back at the clowns at the top and industrial action will follow.
Very poor inflation figures with a 30 year high for core inflation, food inflation still extremely high, if past its peak and the headline rate not falling.
The BoE have made such a mess of this. They assumed that the UK would be in a prolonged recession by now with inflation being squeezed out by a collapse in demand. This is just not happening.
I was in Inverness on Sunday night and the first 4 restaurants I tried did not have a table for 1. I got one in the 5th because someone had failed to appear. The bars were so full they were spilling out onto the streets. All this on a Sunday night. I appreciate it is a tourist location in mid June but a good friend of mine, who owns a fair sized business with several hotels in and around the area, tells me that they are having a record season.
Not sure if a tendency to holiday at home has built up during Covid but demand is much, much stronger than the Bank expected and this is keeping prices on an upward trend. The Bank really should increase interest rates by a half point tomorrow but my guess is that they will wimp out again and stick to a quarter.
I've been banging on about the mortgage disaster for a couple of months and now it's hitting the headlines.
Really grim
A friend of mine is a Chartered Accountant specialising in businesses in distress. He advises that as well as the mortgage disaster, worse will be the business disaster. Too many businesses up to their eyeballs in debt post-Covid who will be demolished by the end of their current low interest rate financing.
Expect the strikes to continue too.
BMA Consultants strike ballot closes this week.
(I am not in the BMA so not voting)
Where I work there is a talk of a 2% pay settlement. The unions will throw it back at the clowns at the top and industrial action will follow.
Comments
Perhaps I'll start talking to myself about knitting patterns, the latest series of the Great British Sewing Bee and the best recipe for banana bread.
I suggest using bananas.
-Referencing Heathener, another of his ludicrous creations
-Leon always chooses strange political stances for his aliases. The Lib Dem who loved Boris for example. Here we have a first time Labour voter who carries a torch for Sunak
-The neat, punchy, lickety split sentences are Leon's style, though he's at least remembering to use full stops
*Dunbosaurus, if you are a genuine real poster, I apologise deeply, this post never happened, tis all a midsummer night's dream.
By contrast, as you implied, I've so far had no requests so far to help in Somerton and Frome, where the result last time was Con 56, LD 26, Lab 13, Green 5.
Sunak is too boring, unimaginative and geeky to not lose in a big way.
I wonder where you can find out where they would play, tickets will be like hens teeth for finals.
But if you have a head for heights I am sure it will be very enjoyable.
Okay not really like. Just being different to everyone else in his diplomatic approach because he's French.
Going with a steady as she goes strategy from the start might have been ok. Going with a we need change strategy (despite running as the continuity Boris candidate, which is contradictory to that) might have been ok if done competently.
They've gone with the worst of both worlds by ineptly doing a we need change strategy, then switching to a steady as she goes strategy part way.
What they probably needed was Sunak to stop the rot, then be able to initiate his own bold plans once steadied. But they've never really recovered enough and his position is too weak even if he were inclined to try something now and have a year's run in to a GE.
And as for hereditary peers - I'm not attacking them. I'm commenting on youjr Tory fantasies about the nobility of the thuggish boat people of 1066.
The Government can try to vote it down, but they'd then be voting against the Bill they put forward themselves, without the excuse that it would waste Government time or that there might be tiresome amendments. If they do, they risk a substantial Tory revolt - the influential Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation with 50+ MPs may have the votes to swing it. Or the Government can just give way gracefully and get the issue done with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65964989
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/20/tory-mps-expected-to-back-labour-plans-to-reintroduce-animal-welfare-bill
Perhaps she was always doomed to unravel because of her style, but it would have been interesting to see a more competent version of Trussism implemented.
And I think we can stop calling him some kind of steady eddy competent technocrat now that he's left Trussian gilt yield levels eating his dust. He and Hunt are the rot.
Even now Sunak is heading for at worst about 1997 levels of Tory seats
Sunak's premiership bakes in a hefty defeat, and every month that passes makes it harder to explain why 1997 isn't providing the fundamental base map for thinking about the next election.
By throwing everything up in the air, Truss opened the door to a small possibility of a remarkable triumph, albeit with the downside of a high probability of utter disaster. I'm not sure it's a gamble I want tried in a country I'm living in.
The reason it's called going for broke is that's how you mostly end up.
I may as well condemn you for lauding the thuggish William Wallace
As for Macron, let's hand it to him. Not only has he made Marine Le Pen look like a liberal, but he's had a drink named after him - Lockdown Knockdown Ginger Beer.
There is a possibility had she remained PM the Tories would have come 4th behind the LDs and SNP as well as Labour, at least on seats if not votes.
After all why vote for a libertarian Liberal like Truss who crashes the markets when you can vote for an Orange Book Liberal Democrat like Davey who is more sensible and was part of Cameron's coalition government too anyway?
Fnaar, Fnarr.
Even coming in now, Truss would stand a better chance of victory, even if she had to start from her polling nadir. All she (or anyone else) would have to do would be to present completely obvious policies that neither Starmer nor Sunak are brave enough to do.
Carnyx has already involved himself in disrespecting those on the sub in the Atlantic because they are rich he doesn't need to be encouraged anymore in his puerile repulsive class war usual chippyness by attacking today's aristocracy too
As I said, Truss would have led the Tories to Canada 1993 style wipeout, even a 1997 level defeat for Sunak would be better than that
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65959097.amp
2. No. Polls are a snapshot not a prediction. It is almost inconceivable that polling levels for the Tories wouldn't have reverted nearer average, whether Truss had stayed or gone.
I just find it a stretch to say that Sunak's government is the worst ever.
William the Bastard was egregiously bad, even for the time, though. I can't say confidently he was the worst, but possibly the worst of the famous ones.
157 seats
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/8w0a2xhvy8/TheTimes_VI_Results_221021_W.pdf
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=51&LIB=9&Reform=3&Green=7&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=17.4&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=8&SCOTReform=1.4&SCOTGreen=2.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=37.8&display=AllMajoritySorted&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ig7p3wh5fs/TheTimes_VI_230607_W.pdf
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=26&LAB=42&LIB=11&Reform=7&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=17.4&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=8&SCOTReform=1.4&SCOTGreen=2.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=37.8&display=AllMajoritySorted&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
And given recent events amongst senior SNP figures you hardly are in a position to lecture about moral behaviour!
I've always felt there's something in rather bad taste about people constantly visiting this site... To me it's almost like digging up someone's grave to see what's in their coffin...
Optimum result for me is that the submarine is found and everyone is saved, and then the US government put a 100 year moratorium on people visiting Titanic... And the ship and all those that perished in 1912 are finally allowed to rest in peace.
If someone goes there just hoping to see a body, I'd find them strange. But if someone went there because hey -- it's the Titanic! -- then that's something I can perfectly well understand.
People visit sites of battles and places like the Tower of London without it necessarily being macabre.
Anyway, hopefully the submarine is found and everyone survives this latest Titanic drama... 🙏
A BBC investigation has uncovered an international network of people paying Indonesians to torture & kill baby monkeys on film
“The Torture King", American Mike McCartney, was reportedly a key distributor of the videos in the US.
Here is “The Torture King" at home in Virginia.
https://twitter.com/ChaoticVegasMan/status/1671197639386484736
There was a case in the U.K. 20 years ago of a group of people who filmed themselves stamping on insects and mice and torturing animals for sexual gratification.
You just think why ?
It was incredibly poignant.
Edit: from a quick google, it might be a myth that the boots were on a body.
Nowadays it seems a most unlikely spot for an iceberg to be knocking about in April.
Yet other deep wrecks don't seem to have this 'tourism' angle. I'm also uneasy about stuff being brought up from the wreck - but having said that, I did go to an exhibition at the museum in Greenwich which featured objects raised from the Titanic, and it was fascinating. So perhaps I'm part of the problem.
Incidentally, a friend paid a lot of money to go to dive on HMS Repulse, on which 500+ people died. It is a deep, technical dive. When he arrived on the boat and was aclimatising, he got food poisoning and could not dive...
The wreck of Repulse is being destroyed by scrap metal dealers, so diving is hardly the worst sin on that war grave.
- the base cost of money
- A policy premium (to control inflation)
- A risk premium (for crazy government)
What has happened is that Truss had a high risk premium but a low policy premium
But the market has woken up to the fact that Bailey is a bit crap. Inflation is not going down as quickly as expected to the policy premium is higher (interest rates will need to be higher for longer).
This offsets the risk premium on the government side, sp the overall gilt rate is similar
And above whose expectations.....
It's both a cost of living AND mortgage crisis
I've been banging on about the mortgage disaster for a couple of months and now it's hitting the headlines.
Really grim
Core inflation up from 6.8% to 7.1%.
Described as "very bad news" by analyst on Times Radio, who added that interest rates are now more likely to go up by 50 basis points.
Really quite bad numbers. Expect short-end gilt yields to sell off (increase) today. Wonder if it brings a 0.5% rate hike tomorrow onto the table, rather than just 0.25%.
The UK is failing to get inflation under control so far.
Jeez. Seriously? I do my weekly shop and it's awful. And many of my closest relatives are in despair over their mortgage situation.*
And you think this is 'meaningless'?
* I don't have a mortgage because I don't own a house. I rent.
(As per above post, energy is only in headline CPI, not core CPI).
The markets aren't going to be happy. Likely to be further serious trouble with LIBOR and it's now certain the BoE will put up interest rates again, perhaps by 0.5% rather than the expected 0.25%.
I can't begin to describe the despair I'm hearing from homeowners needing to renew their mortgages.
And don't get me started on John (serial rapist) and Richard III (infanticide).
- Rising prices for air travel, recreational and cultural goods and services, and second-hand cars resulted in the largest upward contributions
- Falling prices for motor fuel led to the largest downward contribution
- Prices for food and non-alcoholic beverages rose in May 2023 but by less than in May 2022
Labour will go through Britain’s Brexit trade deal “page by page” to renegotiate closer economic ties with Brussels, the shadow foreign secretary has pledged.
In a speech to business leaders David Lammy said a future Labour government would seek a deal to cut checks on British food exports by agreeing to uphold EU veterinary standards.
He also suggested Labour was ready to look again at freedom of movement and would aim to strike a flexible mobility agreement to allow EU and UK citizens the right to travel for short-term business trips without requiring a visa.
The UK’s trade and co-operation agreement with the EU is due to be reopened in 2026, and Labour’s proposals would greatly increase its scope.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-could-tear-up-brussels-deal-to-forge-closer-economic-links-with-europe-kbc6kvlmv
King James II, when he was Duke of York, branded slaves with his initials, however he wasn't the worst Duke of York.
There has been a certain breezy insouciance that they'll come down quickly and soon.
They aren't doing either.
BMA Consultants strike ballot closes this week.
(I am not in the BMA so not voting)
It's a struggle on the breadline.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/20/grocery-supermarket-inflation-great-britain-eases-remains-high-kantar
A key point: “People are thinking more and more about what they eat and how they cook as the cost of living crisis takes its toll on traditional behaviours.
“The most prominent change we’ve seen is that people are preparing simpler dishes with fewer ingredients.”
This may not be a bad thing - simpler food with less added crap would be good for our overall health. But its being done through desperation rather than positive choice.
Meanwhile in restaurants world, the same is being done. The amount of downgrading of ingredients on restaurant menus is mind-boggling. That the cheaper ingredient is being combined with a price rise for the diner just rubs salt in the wound...
@RochdalePioneers has also just made a very good point about business so let's make that point 3.
If the Daily Mail think frothing about this is where their readership are at, then they are badly mistaken. You touch a person's home and you're politically finished.
This is no longer just about where we shop. It's about where we live.
Would you say the abdication crisis was the UK's last proper constitutional crisis?
A more realistic offer on pay settlements is needed though, and most importantly a truly independent pay board rather than one stuffed with government lackeys.
Guess, this is the same everywhere?
The BoE have made such a mess of this. They assumed that the UK would be in a prolonged recession by now with inflation being squeezed out by a collapse in demand. This is just not happening.
I was in Inverness on Sunday night and the first 4 restaurants I tried did not have a table for 1. I got one in the 5th because someone had failed to appear. The bars were so full they were spilling out onto the streets. All this on a Sunday night. I appreciate it is a tourist location in mid June but a good friend of mine, who owns a fair sized business with several hotels in and around the area, tells me that they are having a record season.
Not sure if a tendency to holiday at home has built up during Covid but demand is much, much stronger than the Bank expected and this is keeping prices on an upward trend. The Bank really should increase interest rates by a half point tomorrow but my guess is that they will wimp out again and stick to a quarter.