Nobody wants to face up to climate change. It either isn't happening because look at those Starmerite Just Stop Oil lunatics, or its too big to deal with so lets not bother.
The reality is that what *we* do is a drop in the ocean when billions of people are continuing to increase their carbon footprint.
Is anyone going to ground 1000 planes to offset the ones India is putting into service? Even that would just mean emissions would stand still.
We should carry on polluting until everyone else stops polluting? That won't end well.
We aren't setting a terrible example.
I'd love to see that figure updated - the last year in it is pretty old now. I think the UK might look even better with more recent years included. The last few years have had some large increases in wind capacity added.
I've used figures from the OECD, which don't yet have 2022. Obviously you can see the pandemic year for all the countries, and the major development over the extra years is that Germany has pretty much matched the UK's declines in emissions over the last few years, which isn't what I was expecting given the nuclear shutdown there.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I.
Look on average about 7 private members bills get passed a year.
So since the start of the eu parliament in 1958 we have a score of mp's getting bills considered and passed of 455 to mep's getting bills considered and passed of 0.
You may mock private members bills but at least our mp's can table them if they feel strongly. Mep's cant even initiate one. They merely get to vote on what is proposed by council and commision. The EU brings in a bad law and there is no chance of revocation unless the commission decides to put it up for repeal.
Understood, and it's a fair point: as you say, hundreds of Private Member's bills have been tabled and thus the meaning of "initiate law" is met. So yes you are correct.
My point was based on my assumption that @Leon thinks that laws are generated by parliament generally, and that Leon was making a common mistake in eliding Parliament and Government - see also "we elect a Prime Minister" for another.
Incidentally (and why is everybody assuming bad faith today?) I was not mocking private Member's Bills: quite the contrary, and see The Abortion Act 1967 for an example of one that succeeded.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
It’s a pointless argument. The EU is not democratic, it has no demos. Let alone democratic levers they can pull
The UK is democratic. It has a demos. There are multiple democratic levers we can pull. And we do
Nonetheless it is still very arguable that Brexit was an act of foolish self harm, destroying our trade links, upsetting our neighbours, diminishing our influence. I don’t argue with that. It’s a valid position
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
It’s a pointless argument. The EU is not democratic, it has no demos. Let alone democratic levers they can pull
The UK is democratic. It has a demos. There are multiple democratic levers we can pull. And we do
Nonetheless it is still very arguable that Brexit was an act of foolish self harm, destroying our trade links, upsetting our neighbours, diminishing our influence. I don’t argue with that. It’s a valid position
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness includes being whatever gender you want to be. What business is it of yours what gender someone presents as? They aren’t hurting you by doing so.
The libertarians have this one right.
In some dim & distant future, medical technology will probably advance to the point that altering the gender of your physical form is a matter of dropping into the local DNA reprogramming centre, just as we can now control our fertility at will if we choose to. Exactly what point will your insistence on this kind of gender purism have then?
Because if a man calls himself a woman and is one for legal purposes it most certainly does affect me. It means that I no longer have the right to a single sex space or service, my ability to challenge discrimination on the grounds of sex is diminished, my ability to compete fairly in sports is taken away and so on.
A man can dress and call himself what he wants. But giving legal effect to such a private choice does impact others and it is only the selfish narcissism of those demanding this which fails to see this and/or attacks those who raise this. It is not libertarianism. It is a childish "I want, I get" demand.
As for your second para, I'll believe that when I see it. I'll take the view of Professor Sir Robert Winston over yours.
Oh, I’m fairly sure both you & I will be dead & buried before that comes to pass, but the arc of progress is long.
Meanwhile in the here & now you insist on referring to trans people in ever more demeaning ways & seem to be almost unable to post about them without associating them with some kind of sexual deviance. I find that a little sad: the trans people I know have never struck me as narcissistic, or particularly selfish: They just want to live their lives.
Your insistence on never having to see them in your so-called “single sex spaces” has the effect of forcing them out of public life altogether. This hardly seems a fair exchange? If I’m honest it sounds to me as if you’re projecting “I want & I get” onto them: You want them out of your spaces & you don’t care what it costs them.
Wrong on so many counts. I have never referred to people with gender dysphoria in demeaning or insulting ways. I make a distinction between someone with dysphoria and someone who does not have dysphoria but has a private sexual fetish. I see no reason why the latter should be entitled to go into the space reserved for the opposite sex - especially when they seek to do so for the purpose of humiliating or scaring women. That is what autogynephiles seek to do. They are not trans - but they seek to use the very real issues which people with dysphoria have to get their way. It is sad that you support this
Your reference to so-called single sex spaces betrays your agenda. You do not want women to have spaces where they are free from the risk of attack, where they can have privacy and dignity, as the law demands - see the EA, the ECHR and the Goodwin case. You simply do not accept that women are allowed to have boundaries.
Requiring men to go into spaces for men or unisex ones and to stay out of female only spaces does not keep men out of public life. Removing female only spaces will keep many women out of public life but you do not care about that. The EA has single and separate sex exemptions for a reason. But it is clear that you - like far too many - want to abolish them and do not care what the effect on women of this is. Men - their demands, their feelings - matter more to you, regardless of the harm this will do to women.
Those with dysphoria, those who fall under the definition of gender reassignment deserve all possible help. I have no issue with them.
But as the law permits I think that women should be entitled to have single sex spaces and single sex services for all the reasons permitted in the EA and the ECHR.
You appear not to. I find this very sad and worrying because it seems to me that there is a very real risk that women will, as a result of views like yours, lose existing rights.
See, there you go again: Your insistence on dividing trans people according to a theory of sexual arousal that Ray Blanchard made up & remains entirely unproven just demonstrates how far into the GC cult you are.
Blanchard’s research most notably fails to ask cis women whether they experience self-arousal at seeing themselves. Turns out that many cis women do & score highly on the same scales used by Blanchard to diagnose autogynephilia. Are these women deviants to be feared? It seems unlikely! This lack of any kind of non-trans controls in Blanchard’s studies make the entirely thing extremely suspect - it’s practically junk science. Even if it turned out to be true observationally, it is still entirely unclear which is cause & which effect.
So we end up back where we started: with you projecting sexual deviance onto trans people in order to justify your desires. You are entirely uninterested in examining the actual studies & whether they have any predictive power behind them because you don’t really care - Blanchard’s trans typology is little more than a useful frame in which you can paint trans women as being fundamentally sexual deviants & a danger to others so that you can justify your actions.
For all those of you trying to follow the @Cyclefree/@Phil debate, the "Goodwin case" refers to "Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom" (2002), a European Court of Human Rights judgement, not the similarly named Employment Tribunal decision "Mrs Linda Goodwin v The Secretary of State for Education: 1308506/2019" (2020).
The former led to transsexuals being legally recognized (I now turn you over to the debate about sex vs gender), the latter dealt with discrimination between people in same-sex vs opposite-sex relationships.
Neither of course would be related to Matt Goodwin.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
Any comparison between a national and the EU parliament is doomed from the start due to the fundamental difference between what is being bound together under its aegis. A national parliament is sovereign and represents a single country. The EU parliament is a body that sits across a couple of dozen sovereign states. The reason legislation comes from smaller groups stems from that fact.
The EU has to legislate in a way that balances the interests of not just the people, but the governments of the constituent countries. Putting more power in the hands of the European Parliament would be taking it away from those governments. The EU's solution is one that's made necessary by the wish of most of its governments to maintain that ultimate sovereignty.
For this reason, I think the EU is best thought of as an international organisation of states that has, by way of an extra safeguard, a parliament attached to it. The argument that the parliament should have more powers, sovereign powers, is a valid one but the consequence would be the EU would really become the superstate its critics claim it (wrongly) to be. Given that the criticism of the parliament's lack of sovereign power usually comes from the same people, it's pure cake-ism: they want to claim that the EU has more power than it really does and simultaneously complain it should have more.
Ok, this is it. Fold your tents. Go home. Here is the smoking gun
“Three researchers at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, who had fallen ill in November 2019 had been experimenting with SARS-like coronaviruses under inadequate biosafety conditions, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing current and former U.S. officials.”
Did they all go to the market at the same time and eat the same pangolin succotash? Give me a break
It’s over. It’s done. You can all grovellingly apologise to me tomorrow
Ok, this is it. Fold your tents. Go home. Here is the smoking gun
“Three researchers at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, who had fallen ill in November 2019 had been experimenting with SARS-like coronaviruses under inadequate biosafety conditions, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing current and former U.S. officials.”
Did they all go to the market at the same time and eat the same pangolin succotash? Give me a break
It’s over. It’s done. You can all grovellingly apologise to me tomorrow
Are you implying all three getting sick is too much of a coincidence? Because if they worked together, two being infected by one is a highly plausible mechanism, however the first got infected. There is no coincidence at play here, whichever way around it happened.
*haven't read the article, the page won't load for me
It only counts as a proper "railing" if the pass is made below the level of the target's taffrail, aft to fore on the port side. I've done quite a few but the greatest and unvarnished joy in the exercise is if you can provoke some prissy Officer of the Watch to come on UHF on Guard and complain about it.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
Any comparison between a national and the EU parliament is doomed from the start due to the fundamental difference between what is being bound together under its aegis. A national parliament is sovereign and represents a single country. The EU parliament is a body that sits across a couple of dozen sovereign states. The reason legislation comes from smaller groups stems from that fact.
The EU has to legislate in a way that balances the interests of not just the people, but the governments of the constituent countries. Putting more power in the hands of the European Parliament would be taking it away from those governments. The EU's solution is one that's made necessary by the wish of most of its governments to maintain that ultimate sovereignty.
For this reason, I think the EU is best thought of as an international organisation of states that has, by way of an extra safeguard, a parliament attached to it. The argument that the parliament should have more powers, sovereign powers, is a valid one but the consequence would be the EU would really become the superstate its critics claim it (wrongly) to be. Given that the criticism of the parliament's lack of sovereign power usually comes from the same people, it's pure cake-ism: they want to claim that the EU has more power than it really does and simultaneously complain it should have more.
@Farooq. Arguably the European Parliament should never have been created, or should have remained an appointed body like the Council of Europe. @Leon is correct about a lack of demos (although one seems to be evolving, absent us): had the Parliament not been recast as a democratic institution elected by people instead of an appointed institution appointed by governments, a lot of the objections would have gone away.
Ok, this is it. Fold your tents. Go home. Here is the smoking gun
“Three researchers at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, who had fallen ill in November 2019 had been experimenting with SARS-like coronaviruses under inadequate biosafety conditions, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing current and former U.S. officials.”
Did they all go to the market at the same time and eat the same pangolin succotash? Give me a break
It’s over. It’s done. You can all grovellingly apologise to me tomorrow
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
Any comparison between a national and the EU parliament is doomed from the start due to the fundamental difference between what is being bound together under its aegis. A national parliament is sovereign and represents a single country. The EU parliament is a body that sits across a couple of dozen sovereign states. The reason legislation comes from smaller groups stems from that fact.
The EU has to legislate in a way that balances the interests of not just the people, but the governments of the constituent countries. Putting more power in the hands of the European Parliament would be taking it away from those governments. The EU's solution is one that's made necessary by the wish of most of its governments to maintain that ultimate sovereignty.
For this reason, I think the EU is best thought of as an international organisation of states that has, by way of an extra safeguard, a parliament attached to it. The argument that the parliament should have more powers, sovereign powers, is a valid one but the consequence would be the EU would really become the superstate its critics claim it (wrongly) to be. Given that the criticism of the parliament's lack of sovereign power usually comes from the same people, it's pure cake-ism: they want to claim that the EU has more power than it really does and simultaneously complain it should have more.
@Farooq. Arguably the European Parliament should never have been created, or should have remained an appointed body like the Council of Europe. @Leon is correct about a lack of demos (although one seems to be evolving, absent us): had the Parliament not been recast as a democratic institution elected by people instead of an appointed institution appointed by governments, a lot of the objections would have gone away.
It's crazy but there's a strong point there. Giving that public accountability through elections has led a lot of people to believe the EU is something that it's not. It's counterintuitive that the most "democratic" of all international organisations is the one that gets most widely criticised for being undemocratic.
I think we can probably all agree, I hope, that there should be a positive correlation between powers delegated to the EU and the amount of power that goes to democratically elected MEPs. If the EU were to become sovereign, all political authority should lie in its parliament.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness includes being whatever gender you want to be. What business is it of yours what gender someone presents as? They aren’t hurting you by doing so.
The libertarians have this one right.
In some dim & distant future, medical technology will probably advance to the point that altering the gender of your physical form is a matter of dropping into the local DNA reprogramming centre, just as we can now control our fertility at will if we choose to. Exactly what point will your insistence on this kind of gender purism have then?
This has somewhat turned me against libertarianism. I was already partially moving away from it over the issue of legalising drugs like cannabis, which it's clear don't just damage the person taking it but society more generally. I'm also sceptical about libertarian arguments on guns.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness includes being whatever gender you want to be. What business is it of yours what gender someone presents as? They aren’t hurting you by doing so.
The libertarians have this one right.
In some dim & distant future, medical technology will probably advance to the point that altering the gender of your physical form is a matter of dropping into the local DNA reprogramming centre, just as we can now control our fertility at will if we choose to. Exactly what point will your insistence on this kind of gender purism have then?
This has somewhat turned me against libertarianism. I was already partially moving away from it over the issue of legalising drugs like cannabis, which it's clear don't just damage the person taking it but society more generally. I'm also sceptical about libertarian arguments on guns.
Legalizing cannabis in the US cut the income of the Mexican cartels by about a third. The damage to society more generally is overwhelmingly because of prohibition.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
Any comparison between a national and the EU parliament is doomed from the start due to the fundamental difference between what is being bound together under its aegis. A national parliament is sovereign and represents a single country. The EU parliament is a body that sits across a couple of dozen sovereign states. The reason legislation comes from smaller groups stems from that fact.
The EU has to legislate in a way that balances the interests of not just the people, but the governments of the constituent countries. Putting more power in the hands of the European Parliament would be taking it away from those governments. The EU's solution is one that's made necessary by the wish of most of its governments to maintain that ultimate sovereignty.
For this reason, I think the EU is best thought of as an international organisation of states that has, by way of an extra safeguard, a parliament attached to it. The argument that the parliament should have more powers, sovereign powers, is a valid one but the consequence would be the EU would really become the superstate its critics claim it (wrongly) to be. Given that the criticism of the parliament's lack of sovereign power usually comes from the same people, it's pure cake-ism: they want to claim that the EU has more power than it really does and simultaneously complain it should have more.
The problem is that that international body had lawmaking powers, that overruled national democratically created law. It was government by bureaucratic elite.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness includes being whatever gender you want to be. What business is it of yours what gender someone presents as? They aren’t hurting you by doing so.
The libertarians have this one right.
In some dim & distant future, medical technology will probably advance to the point that altering the gender of your physical form is a matter of dropping into the local DNA reprogramming centre, just as we can now control our fertility at will if we choose to. Exactly what point will your insistence on this kind of gender purism have then?
This has somewhat turned me against libertarianism. I was already partially moving away from it over the issue of legalising drugs like cannabis, which it's clear don't just damage the person taking it but society more generally. I'm also sceptical about libertarian arguments on guns.
Fair enough. Those attributes (guns, drugs, trans) have turned you against libertarianism. What was it that attracted you in the first place?
Nobody wants to face up to climate change. It either isn't happening because look at those Starmerite Just Stop Oil lunatics, or its too big to deal with so lets not bother.
The reality is that what *we* do is a drop in the ocean when billions of people are continuing to increase their carbon footprint.
Is anyone going to ground 1000 planes to offset the ones India is putting into service? Even that would just mean emissions would stand still.
We should carry on polluting until everyone else stops polluting? That won't end well.
We aren't setting a terrible example.
I'd love to see that figure updated - the last year in it is pretty old now. I think the UK might look even better with more recent years included. The last few years have had some large increases in wind capacity added.
All of Europe (and the US) is going to look pretty good considering the amount of wind installed in recent years, and the impact of COVID on economic activity.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness includes being whatever gender you want to be. What business is it of yours what gender someone presents as? They aren’t hurting you by doing so.
The libertarians have this one right.
In some dim & distant future, medical technology will probably advance to the point that altering the gender of your physical form is a matter of dropping into the local DNA reprogramming centre, just as we can now control our fertility at will if we choose to. Exactly what point will your insistence on this kind of gender purism have then?
This has somewhat turned me against libertarianism. I was already partially moving away from it over the issue of legalising drugs like cannabis, which it's clear don't just damage the person taking it but society more generally. I'm also sceptical about libertarian arguments on guns.
Legalizing cannabis in the US cut the income of the Mexican cartels by about a third. The damage to society more generally is overwhelmingly because of prohibition.
That's not quite true, is it? driving whilst under the influence can affect other people just like drink-driving.
Then there is the issue of smoking cannabis in front of children, which IMO should be taken as a serious crime.
And also the long-term mental effects of cannabis use.
Nobody wants to face up to climate change. It either isn't happening because look at those Starmerite Just Stop Oil lunatics, or its too big to deal with so lets not bother.
The reality is that what *we* do is a drop in the ocean when billions of people are continuing to increase their carbon footprint.
Is anyone going to ground 1000 planes to offset the ones India is putting into service? Even that would just mean emissions would stand still.
We should carry on polluting until everyone else stops polluting? That won't end well.
We aren't setting a terrible example.
I'd love to see that figure updated - the last year in it is pretty old now. I think the UK might look even better with more recent years included. The last few years have had some large increases in wind capacity added.
All of Europe (and the US) is going to look pretty good considering the amount of wind installed in recent years, and the impact of COVID on economic activity.
For the UK, if you go to https://grid.iamkate.com/ , clock 'All time' on the top banner, then scroll down to "Emissions per kWh", you can see the UK's generation has decreased from 505g / kWh in 2012 to 157g / kWh so far this year. I don't know how accurate that site's data is though.
What is the social utility of allowing this? What are the disadvantages and for whom?
Because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness includes being whatever gender you want to be. What business is it of yours what gender someone presents as? They aren’t hurting you by doing so.
The libertarians have this one right.
In some dim & distant future, medical technology will probably advance to the point that altering the gender of your physical form is a matter of dropping into the local DNA reprogramming centre, just as we can now control our fertility at will if we choose to. Exactly what point will your insistence on this kind of gender purism have then?
This has somewhat turned me against libertarianism. I was already partially moving away from it over the issue of legalising drugs like cannabis, which it's clear don't just damage the person taking it but society more generally. I'm also sceptical about libertarian arguments on guns.
Legalizing cannabis in the US cut the income of the Mexican cartels by about a third. The damage to society more generally is overwhelmingly because of prohibition.
That's not quite true, is it? driving whilst under the influence can affect other people just like drink-driving.
Then there is the issue of smoking cannabis in front of children, which IMO should be taken as a serious crime.
And also the long-term mental effects of cannabis use.
Users often want to pretend it is harmless, but it isnt:
Nobody wants to face up to climate change. It either isn't happening because look at those Starmerite Just Stop Oil lunatics, or its too big to deal with so lets not bother.
The reality is that what *we* do is a drop in the ocean when billions of people are continuing to increase their carbon footprint.
Is anyone going to ground 1000 planes to offset the ones India is putting into service? Even that would just mean emissions would stand still.
We can't fix the whole world - but we can't even ask the developing world to do anything if we are not ourselves.
So focus on our own communities and our own families. We're killing our own kids, or giving them asthma and other ailments in towns and cities thanks to local pollution. But when efforts are made to do anything, you Tories throw a strop. "No to clan air, we want to choke" etc
Remind us of the business you are involved in and how that helps the environment ?
All that money which will be swallowed by bigger mortgage payments is money taken from the economy. Money no longer being spent on products and services, which will cost people jobs...
I don't disagree but where does that money actually go?
I assume: higher savers interest payments, higher bank profits/dividends, higher bank bonuses. None of which will do much to keep the economy going.
I don’t know why this suddenly seems a damascene revelation when this is exactly what raising interest rates does, takes money out of the economy, and always has been. It is nothing new.
Elizabeth Warren makes the point, regularly, When questioning J Powell and the fed that their policies have real life consequences for peoples lives and has been since the rate hike cycle started. She gets mocked but she’s right.
It is not about stoppping the economy but dampening demand.
Higher savings rates also takes money out of the economy as people save more.
The skill is in achieving a soft landing that doesn’t tip us over into a recession and causing increasing unemployment and hardship. The Fed May achieve it, the MPC less likely.
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
Find a mechanism to postpone the next General Election to say 2050?
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
Resign
Major did resign, in 1995. It didn’t make a difference.
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
Culture war appears to be the last desperate hope.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
But we can’t have another vote on it because that would be anti-democratic, even though there’s clear evidence that opinion has shifted in the face of the actual experience of Brexit.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
EEA respected the referendum, but May and subsequent Tory PMs ruled it out. A "slightly smaller economy" ie everyone poorer and less money for schools and hospitals is IMHO a luxury we simply can't afford.
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
Culture war appears to be the last desperate hope.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
We could have asked them for a second opinion in 2019 after they had been furnished with further details of what Brexit meant to their wallets, and that Dominic Raab had previously been unaware that Dover-Calais was quite an important trading route.
The Conservatives didn't seem to object to rechecking voter opinions every couple of years during the latter part of the last decade even though we had a fixed term parliament of five years.
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
Bear in mind as well by 1995 the economy was past its worst, not heading for recession as the BOE grappled with an ingrained inflation problem, and Major was someone the public liked and respected... The Tories are toast.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
We could have asked them for a second opinion in 2019 after they had been furnished with further details of what Brexit meant to their wallets, and that Dominic Raab had previously been unaware the Dover-Calais was quite an important trading route.
The Conservatives didn't seem to object to rechecking voter opinions every couple of years during the latter part of the last decade even though we had a fixed term parliament of five years.
Or indeed changing administrations without reference to the voters.
They're very fond of lecturing the rest of us on democracy, nonetheless.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
We could have asked them for a second opinion in 2019 after they had been furnished with further details of what Brexit meant to their wallets, and that Dominic Raab had previously been unaware the Dover-Calais was quite an important trading route.
The Conservatives didn't seem to object to rechecking voter opinions every couple of years during the latter part of the last decade even though we had a fixed term parliament of five years.
The main problem for the Tories is not that a further vote would be anti democratic, but that it would expose the fact that their party has been taken over by economically illiterate demagogues.
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
As I keep saying to your constant complaints about this site, if you don't like it why don't you sod off elsewhere. There are plenty of other places to go and whinge.
Nobody wants to face up to climate change. It either isn't happening because look at those Starmerite Just Stop Oil lunatics, or its too big to deal with so lets not bother.
The reality is that what *we* do is a drop in the ocean when billions of people are continuing to increase their carbon footprint.
Is anyone going to ground 1000 planes to offset the ones India is putting into service? Even that would just mean emissions would stand still.
We can't fix the whole world - but we can't even ask the developing world to do anything if we are not ourselves.
So focus on our own communities and our own families. We're killing our own kids, or giving them asthma and other ailments in towns and cities thanks to local pollution. But when efforts are made to do anything, you Tories throw a strop. "No to clan air, we want to choke" etc
Remind us of the business you are involved in and how that helps the environment ?
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
Culture war appears to be the last desperate hope.
I am sure Suella with the approval of Rishi has some red meat to turn both the election and ultimately our accepted way of life upside down.
The gravy train has to stay on the tracks until the rails stop at the edge of the flat earth.
Russia’s state news agency decides to revert to the Soviet lies on Katyn, the site where Moscow executed several thousand Polish POWs in 1940. Now it’s a “Nazi provocation” again and USSR was falsely accused. Russia only acknowledged its responsibility for Katyn massacre in 1992. https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1671732692105265157
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
We could have asked them for a second opinion in 2019 after they had been furnished with further details of what Brexit meant to their wallets, and that Dominic Raab had previously been unaware the Dover-Calais was quite an important trading route.
The Conservatives didn't seem to object to rechecking voter opinions every couple of years during the latter part of the last decade even though we had a fixed term parliament of five years.
The main problem for the Tories is not that a further vote would be anti democratic, but that it would expose the fact that their party has been taken over by economically illiterate demagogues.
That isn't being exposed on a daily basis right now?
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
We could have asked them for a second opinion in 2019 .
The voters were consulted in 2019 - in a General Election. Who won?
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
Even if they do half a point they'll still drip, drip. Go big.
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
Culture war appears to be the last desperate hope.
It's going to be chicks with dicks 24/7. Brace.
I feel sorry for any chick that has to be with Jacob Rees-Mogg 24/7.
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
Culture war appears to be the last desperate hope.
It's going to be chicks with dicks 24/7. Brace.
I’ve yet to see any evidence that the culture war will move a significant number of seats back to the Conservatives. Its appeal is largely to the sort of retired colonel who votes Tory anyway, and to a particular breed of embittered 1970s feminist - one which isn’t, AFAICT, numerous enough to register statistically anywhere apart from Mumsnet’s Google Analytics trends.
In the Blue Wall™️ it’ll arguably hinder them. Resurrecting the Nasty Party tag is not a good way of winning voters back from the LibDems. If people were genuinely worried about their daughters being menaced by trans kids at school, you might have expected it to have affected the tide of councils falling to the LibDems, given that much of education is a local government responsibility. It hasn’t.
In the Red Wall it might swing a few votes. A very few. Labour has been mute on culture war issues and the LibDems aren’t contenders in the Red Wall. Besides, when your mortgage rate is heading skywards you are not going to vote purely on the basis of an angry Daily Mail rant about some prisoner somewhere who has decided to become Terri rather than Terry.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
We could have asked them for a second opinion in 2019 .
The voters were consulted in 2019 - in a General Election. Who won?
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
The LD proposal is a terrible idea and is essentially a transfer of wealth from poorer taxpaying renters to richer mortgage holders.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
If I had made a kit car out of some plywood from the shed and an old Austin Seven I think I might have taken out breakdown insurance before I ventured onto the M25.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
EEA respected the referendum, but May and subsequent Tory PMs ruled it out. A "slightly smaller economy" ie everyone poorer and less money for schools and hospitals is IMHO a luxury we simply can't afford.
Then why didn’t parties campaign for that, rather than demanding “you got it wrong, vote again!”?
There was another vote - in the 2019 General Election. How did that turn out?
Nobody wants to face up to climate change. It either isn't happening because look at those Starmerite Just Stop Oil lunatics, or its too big to deal with so lets not bother.
The reality is that what *we* do is a drop in the ocean when billions of people are continuing to increase their carbon footprint.
Is anyone going to ground 1000 planes to offset the ones India is putting into service? Even that would just mean emissions would stand still.
We can't fix the whole world - but we can't even ask the developing world to do anything if we are not ourselves.
So focus on our own communities and our own families. We're killing our own kids, or giving them asthma and other ailments in towns and cities thanks to local pollution. But when efforts are made to do anything, you Tories throw a strop. "No to clan air, we want to choke" etc
Remind us of the business you are involved in and how that helps the environment ?
Promoting EVs on YouTube?
Out of interest does that actually give you any income (a side hustle is the modern term I believe), has it reached the critical mass to attract advertisers ?
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
I am sure they will but ultimately they will be the ones in the firing line and will need answers
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
There is no easy way out - debt at 100% of GDP and rising both illustrates the problem and means there are no magic solutions for government.
Fiscal capacity for easing the pain is extremely limited.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
EEA respected the referendum, but May and subsequent Tory PMs ruled it out. A "slightly smaller economy" ie everyone poorer and less money for schools and hospitals is IMHO a luxury we simply can't afford.
Then why didn’t parties campaign for that, rather than demanding “you got it wrong, vote again!”?
There was another vote - in the 2019 General Election. How did that turn out?
The parties did campaign for it, Labour pushed for a compromise in the commons but the Tories whipped their MPs to vote it down. Whatever happened to the guy who won the 2019 election?
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
We could have asked them for a second opinion in 2019 .
The voters were consulted in 2019 - in a General Election. Who won?
And where is he now?
Where he deserves to be - but his slogan “Get Brexit Done!” lives on. The electorate were effectively consulted twice - and when the result of the first consultation looked like it was being ignored, were more emphatic in their response. If rejoining the EU is such a popular idea no doubt some party will prosper mightily campaigning on it. Why do you think that’s not happening?
The Committee’s updated projections for activity and inflation are set out in the accompanying May Monetary Policy Report. They are conditioned on a market-implied path for Bank Rate that peaks at around 4¾% in 2023 Q4 before ending the forecast period at just over 3½%.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I find the criticism of the current interest rate policy, and in particular this slightly bizarre idea of a Tory mortgage premium, incredibly parochial. It completely ignores the fact that our interest rates are in lockstep with both the US and the EU, the latter having recently put its interest rate up to a 20 year high with more to come. The idea we could have somehow avoided this or prevented our interest rates from going up would be cynical if it was not so naive.
Where we have got into trouble is where the MPC seemed to think we were special or had some room for manoeuvre that we don't. So they were too slow to increase rates, falling behind the mighty Fed, and as a result both our currency and gilt rates took a bit of a hammering, the former importing another swig of inflation and the latter increasing borrowing costs.
Once we recognise that we are not only following the herd but are obliged to do so unless we want to incur serious penalties it becomes obvious that not only is our Chancellor pretending he has control that he does not but that Reeves is also pretending she could do something differently, which she couldn't.
There are things that government can do at the margins, such as reduce its own borrowing needs, ideally to zero, but no political party is contemplating such moves which would come with a world of pain attached. Instead, we seem to inhabit an Alice in Wonderland world where we argue about things beyond our control rather than address those things that we can control.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
We could have asked them for a second opinion in 2019 .
The voters were consulted in 2019 - in a General Election. Who won?
On the same false premise of fiction, Leaver wet dreams and Johnsonian lies. The 2019 GE was not a plural Brexit in or out vote, it was more about which of these two clowns is most unsuitable for government. As it turned out the voters gave the most unsuitable an 80 seat majority.
If Leave were so confident of a 2019 victory, perhaps they should have called Starmer's bluff and agreed to a second vote. There could be no arguments that we weren't fully availed of the risks.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
I am sure they will but ultimately they will be the ones in the firing line and will need answers
It took about 10 years for the Tories’ attacks on Brown to lose its bite. They’re still at it, but look increasingly silly.
An incoming Labour government will be able to legitimately point the finger at the Tories for a good while, such is the mess they’re bequeathing.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
We could have asked them for a second opinion in 2019 .
The voters were consulted in 2019 - in a General Election. Who won?
And where is he now?
Where he deserves to be - but his slogan “Get Brexit Done!” lives on. The electorate were effectively consulted twice - and when the result of the first consultation looked like it was being ignored, were more emphatic in their response. If rejoining the EU is such a popular idea no doubt some party will prosper mightily campaigning on it. Why do you think that’s not happening?
Because politicians are cowards and would rather wait for Brexit voters to die than risk upsetting them by telling them they're wrong. Johnson was thrown out for lying and his lies were never bigger and more damaging than over Brexit.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
Won't help them much if inflation remains high, taxes going up and strikes.
Voters think with their wallets and have selective memories.
Even Michael Foot and Ed Miliband swiftly took poll leads in Opposition during the early economic challenges of the Thatcher and Cameron governments. Hague trailed badly mainly because the economy under Blair stayed relatively strong with low inflation, few strikes, no big tax hikes and low unemployment
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
I am sure they will but ultimately they will be the ones in the firing line and will need answers
It took about 10 years for the Tories’ attacks on Brown to lose its bite. They’re still at it, but look increasingly silly.
An incoming Labour government will be able to legitimately point the finger at the Tories for a good while, such is the mess they’re bequeathing.
Gordon Brown continued to blame the Tories for everything right up to 2010.
John Major was still invoking Callaghan in 1997.
All politicians do it. It's tedious and cowardly, as well as dishonest, but it will be effective.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
The LD proposal is a terrible idea and is essentially a transfer of wealth from poorer taxpaying renters to richer mortgage holders.
And made with the knowledge it will never be implemented. Cynical pandering from them, sadly.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
At least that will be true.
It is true, but Labour will be elected if voters are confident they can improve their lives and in so voting will have an expectation that Labour will do so
The Committee’s updated projections for activity and inflation are set out in the accompanying May Monetary Policy Report. They are conditioned on a market-implied path for Bank Rate that peaks at around 4¾% in 2023 Q4 before ending the forecast period at just over 3½%.
They'll have to raise rates higher and earlier than implied.
And interest rates will not fall nearly as fast as they are predicting because they were forecasting a fall back to target which, bluntly, isn't going to happen in the medium term. I suspect we are back in a world of interest rates in a 5-7% band for the next 3-4 years unless the incoming Labour government does something stupid, in which case it will be longer. The abandonment of the £26bn on renewables commitment shows how Reeves is trying hard to prevent that stupidity but there is going to be an awful lot of disappointed supporters who expect much more money for public sector wages and the NHS.
This sort of thread just encourages Heatherner.....
It's a betting site that uses polling evidence to determine value bets.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
Gold standard ICMs from autumn 1995. Lab 47-48% Con 30-31% LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week. Lab 46-47% Con 26-29% LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
Blair had a bigger lead over Major as preferred PM than Starmer does over Sunak as preferrred PM though
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I find the criticism of the current interest rate policy, and in particular this slightly bizarre idea of a Tory mortgage premium, incredibly parochial. It completely ignores the fact that our interest rates are in lockstep with both the US and the EU, the latter having recently put its interest rate up to a 20 year high with more to come. The idea we could have somehow avoided this or prevented our interest rates from going up would be cynical if it was not so naive.
Where we have got into trouble is where the MPC seemed to think we were special or had some room for manoeuvre that we don't. So they were too slow to increase rates, falling behind the mighty Fed, and as a result both our currency and gilt rates took a bit of a hammering, the former importing another swig of inflation and the latter increasing borrowing costs.
Once we recognise that we are not only following the herd but are obliged to do so unless we want to incur serious penalties it becomes obvious that not only is our Chancellor pretending he has control that he does not but that Reeves is also pretending she could do something differently, which she couldn't.
There are things that government can do at the margins, such as reduce its own borrowing needs, ideally to zero, but no political party is contemplating such moves which would come with a world of pain attached. Instead, we seem to inhabit an Alice in Wonderland world where we argue about things beyond our control rather than address those things that we can control.
Until Labour are in government, and faced with the problems themselves, it's inevitable rhetoric. We haven't had grownup economic debate since Brexit was first proposed, so a bit late in the day to be complaining about it now.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
I am sure they will but ultimately they will be the ones in the firing line and will need answers
It took about 10 years for the Tories’ attacks on Brown to lose its bite. They’re still at it, but look increasingly silly.
An incoming Labour government will be able to legitimately point the finger at the Tories for a good while, such is the mess they’re bequeathing.
Gordon Brown continued to blame the Tories for everything right up to 2010.
John Major was still invoking Callaghan in 1997.
All politicians do it. It's tedious and cowardly, as well as dishonest, but it will be effective.
The Conservatives have dined out on Liam Byrne's note for 13 years. It was a comedic error and factually untrue, because compared to 2010 in 2023 there really is no money left.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
I am sure they will but ultimately they will be the ones in the firing line and will need answers
It took about 10 years for the Tories’ attacks on Brown to lose its bite. They’re still at it, but look increasingly silly.
An incoming Labour government will be able to legitimately point the finger at the Tories for a good while, such is the mess they’re bequeathing.
Gordon Brown continued to blame the Tories for everything right up to 2010.
John Major was still invoking Callaghan in 1997.
All politicians do it. It's tedious and cowardly, as well as dishonest, but it will be effective.
You get about ten years or two elections to remind people, then you’re on your own. The utter chaos of the Tory years will linger on. Never go back.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
The LD proposal is a terrible idea and is essentially a transfer of wealth from poorer taxpaying renters to richer mortgage holders.
Agreed, it is completely incompetent policy that just undermines the BoE and helps keep inflation elevated.
And I say that as someone who generally votes Lib Dem.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I find the criticism of the current interest rate policy, and in particular this slightly bizarre idea of a Tory mortgage premium, incredibly parochial. It completely ignores the fact that our interest rates are in lockstep with both the US and the EU, the latter having recently put its interest rate up to a 20 year high with more to come. The idea we could have somehow avoided this or prevented our interest rates from going up would be cynical if it was not so naive.
Where we have got into trouble is where the MPC seemed to think we were special or had some room for manoeuvre that we don't. So they were too slow to increase rates, falling behind the mighty Fed, and as a result both our currency and gilt rates took a bit of a hammering, the former importing another swig of inflation and the latter increasing borrowing costs.
Once we recognise that we are not only following the herd but are obliged to do so unless we want to incur serious penalties it becomes obvious that not only is our Chancellor pretending he has control that he does not but that Reeves is also pretending she could do something differently, which she couldn't.
There are things that government can do at the margins, such as reduce its own borrowing needs, ideally to zero, but no political party is contemplating such moves which would come with a world of pain attached. Instead, we seem to inhabit an Alice in Wonderland world where we argue about things beyond our control rather than address those things that we can control.
Reliably sound, well argued and balanced as usual. But just in case anyone thinks that "importing inflation" means we are affected by external forces outwith our control, that is not the case. The effects of currency movements on our prices emanate from our own lax monetary control and are just another channel through which inflation comes about. It is entirely home-grown, even if it is "imported".
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I find the criticism of the current interest rate policy, and in particular this slightly bizarre idea of a Tory mortgage premium, incredibly parochial. It completely ignores the fact that our interest rates are in lockstep with both the US and the EU, the latter having recently put its interest rate up to a 20 year high with more to come. The idea we could have somehow avoided this or prevented our interest rates from going up would be cynical if it was not so naive.
Where we have got into trouble is where the MPC seemed to think we were special or had some room for manoeuvre that we don't. So they were too slow to increase rates, falling behind the mighty Fed, and as a result both our currency and gilt rates took a bit of a hammering, the former importing another swig of inflation and the latter increasing borrowing costs.
Once we recognise that we are not only following the herd but are obliged to do so unless we want to incur serious penalties it becomes obvious that not only is our Chancellor pretending he has control that he does not but that Reeves is also pretending she could do something differently, which she couldn't.
There are things that government can do at the margins, such as reduce its own borrowing needs, ideally to zero, but no political party is contemplating such moves which would come with a world of pain attached. Instead, we seem to inhabit an Alice in Wonderland world where we argue about things beyond our control rather than address those things that we can control.
Inflation is a problem everywhere in the West but looks to be more embedded here and our interest rates are probably going to have to go higher. Asking why the Tories have left the UK economy especially vulnerable and exposed is absolutely a legitimate question, and the BOE are absolutely worthy of criticism too. One thing we do have control over is costly additional checks on EU food that we are set to introduce, which will push up food inflation further. Another example of how Tory economic policies are making our situation worse.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
I am sure they will but ultimately they will be the ones in the firing line and will need answers
It took about 10 years for the Tories’ attacks on Brown to lose its bite. They’re still at it, but look increasingly silly.
An incoming Labour government will be able to legitimately point the finger at the Tories for a good while, such is the mess they’re bequeathing.
It seems you are not confident Labour will be able to make a distinction
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
I am sure they will but ultimately they will be the ones in the firing line and will need answers
It took about 10 years for the Tories’ attacks on Brown to lose its bite. They’re still at it, but look increasingly silly.
An incoming Labour government will be able to legitimately point the finger at the Tories for a good while, such is the mess they’re bequeathing.
It seems you are not confident Labour will be able to make a distinction
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I find the criticism of the current interest rate policy, and in particular this slightly bizarre idea of a Tory mortgage premium, incredibly parochial. It completely ignores the fact that our interest rates are in lockstep with both the US and the EU, the latter having recently put its interest rate up to a 20 year high with more to come. The idea we could have somehow avoided this or prevented our interest rates from going up would be cynical if it was not so naive.
Where we have got into trouble is where the MPC seemed to think we were special or had some room for manoeuvre that we don't. So they were too slow to increase rates, falling behind the mighty Fed, and as a result both our currency and gilt rates took a bit of a hammering, the former importing another swig of inflation and the latter increasing borrowing costs.
Once we recognise that we are not only following the herd but are obliged to do so unless we want to incur serious penalties it becomes obvious that not only is our Chancellor pretending he has control that he does not but that Reeves is also pretending she could do something differently, which she couldn't.
There are things that government can do at the margins, such as reduce its own borrowing needs, ideally to zero, but no political party is contemplating such moves which would come with a world of pain attached. Instead, we seem to inhabit an Alice in Wonderland world where we argue about things beyond our control rather than address those things that we can control.
Until Labour are in government, and faced with the problems themselves, it's inevitable rhetoric. We haven't had grownup economic debate since Brexit was first proposed, so a bit late in the day to be complaining about it now.
As I have said on here many times the debate on Brexit (at least in economic terms) was completely fantastical on both sides with many leavers claiming benefits that were either non existent or massively overstated and remainers claiming economic effects massively beyond any actual effect.
But the idea that we had a grown up discussion before that is somewhat optimistic.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
At least that will be true.
It is true, but Labour will be elected if voters are confident they can improve their lives and in so voting will have an expectation that Labour will do so
I think I disagree. There isn't much of a "Things can only get better" vibe that I'm detecting. And yet Labour are doing almost as well, and the Conservatives slightly worse, than at the same distance from 1997. At least with the pollster who knew how to get the answer right.
Hypothesis: People are really really hacked off with the Conservatives, and are going Labour largely as the main way to throw the rascals out in most of the country.
If success is achievement minus expectations, it really won't be difficult for Starmer to succeed.
Nobody wants to face up to climate change. It either isn't happening because look at those Starmerite Just Stop Oil lunatics, or its too big to deal with so lets not bother.
The reality is that what *we* do is a drop in the ocean when billions of people are continuing to increase their carbon footprint.
Is anyone going to ground 1000 planes to offset the ones India is putting into service? Even that would just mean emissions would stand still.
We should carry on polluting until everyone else stops polluting? That won't end well.
We aren't setting a terrible example.
I'd love to see that figure updated - the last year in it is pretty old now. I think the UK might look even better with more recent years included. The last few years have had some large increases in wind capacity added.
I've used figures from the OECD, which don't yet have 2022. Obviously you can see the pandemic year for all the countries, and the major development over the extra years is that Germany has pretty much matched the UK's declines in emissions over the last few years, which isn't what I was expecting given the nuclear shutdown there.
Integrate to obtain cumulative emissions per capita before patting ourselves on the back and pointing the finger at China and India. (Yes, I know it doesn't include greenhouse gases other than CO2.)
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
The LD proposal is a terrible idea and is essentially a transfer of wealth from poorer taxpaying renters to richer mortgage holders.
Agreed, it is completely incompetent policy that just undermines the BoE and helps keep inflation elevated.
And I say that as someone who generally votes Lib Dem.
Apparently lib dems have rolled out yet another windfall tax to pay for their mortgage scheme, this time on the banks, but to be fair to Labour they have just said the banks should increase their savings rates rather than a windfall tax
The lib dems are not going to be in government so encouraging to hear Labour acting sensibly
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
The LD proposal is a terrible idea and is essentially a transfer of wealth from poorer taxpaying renters to richer mortgage holders.
And made with the knowledge it will never be implemented. Cynical pandering from them, sadly.
The Tories might get bounced into implementing it. Taxpaying renters have been the ones to get squeezed throughout and amongst the under 50s the Tories only hope are homeowners. Media types also often have stretched mortgages so will keep the pressure up.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I think Sunak and Hunt get it and are prepared to take the flack as there is no alternative that doesn't make things worse.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
They’ll just blame the Tories and Brexit for all ills for the next 10 years.
I am sure they will but ultimately they will be the ones in the firing line and will need answers
It took about 10 years for the Tories’ attacks on Brown to lose its bite. They’re still at it, but look increasingly silly.
An incoming Labour government will be able to legitimately point the finger at the Tories for a good while, such is the mess they’re bequeathing.
It seems you are not confident Labour will be able to make a distinction
I think there could be more space for flexibility and creativity in the EU's approach to the UK under a @UKLabour@Keir_Starmer Govt than most assume - and the EU's current “official position” suggests. Thread 1/
Comments
Data from OECD.
My point was based on my assumption that @Leon thinks that laws are generated by parliament generally, and that Leon was making a common mistake in eliding Parliament and Government - see also "we elect a Prime Minister" for another.
Incidentally (and why is everybody assuming bad faith today?) I was not mocking private Member's Bills: quite the contrary, and see The Abortion Act 1967 for an example of one that succeeded.
The UK is democratic. It has a demos. There are multiple democratic levers we can pull. And we do
Nonetheless it is still very arguable that Brexit was an act of foolish self harm, destroying our trade links, upsetting our neighbours, diminishing our influence. I don’t argue with that. It’s a valid position
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
https://thelightpaper.co.uk/
https://thelightpaper.co.uk/assets/pdf/Light-34-June-23-Web.pdf
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001n1p1
The former led to transsexuals being legally recognized (I now turn you over to the debate about sex vs gender), the latter dealt with discrimination between people in same-sex vs opposite-sex relationships.
Neither of course would be related to Matt Goodwin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin_v_United_Kingdom
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-57974
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-linda-goodwin-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-education-1308506-2019
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f2ac0858fa8f57acac33793/Mrs_L_Goodwin__vs__SOS_for_Education_-_JUDGMENT.pdf
The EU has to legislate in a way that balances the interests of not just the people, but the governments of the constituent countries. Putting more power in the hands of the European Parliament would be taking it away from those governments.
The EU's solution is one that's made necessary by the wish of most of its governments to maintain that ultimate sovereignty.
For this reason, I think the EU is best thought of as an international organisation of states that has, by way of an extra safeguard, a parliament attached to it. The argument that the parliament should have more powers, sovereign powers, is a valid one but the consequence would be the EU would really become the superstate its critics claim it (wrongly) to be.
Given that the criticism of the parliament's lack of sovereign power usually comes from the same people, it's pure cake-ism: they want to claim that the EU has more power than it really does and simultaneously complain it should have more.
“Three researchers at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, who had fallen ill in November 2019 had been experimenting with SARS-like coronaviruses under inadequate biosafety conditions, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing current and former U.S. officials.”
Did they all go to the market at the same time and eat the same pangolin succotash? Give me a break
It’s over. It’s done. You can all grovellingly apologise to me tomorrow
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/21/opinion/covid-lab-leak-origins.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
*haven't read the article, the page won't load for me
It only counts as a proper "railing" if the pass is made below the level of the target's taffrail, aft to fore on the port side. I've done quite a few but the greatest and unvarnished joy in the exercise is if you can provoke some prissy Officer of the Watch to come on UHF on Guard and complain about it.
It's counterintuitive that the most "democratic" of all international organisations is the one that gets most widely criticised for being undemocratic.
I think we can probably all agree, I hope, that there should be a positive correlation between powers delegated to the EU and the amount of power that goes to democratically elected MEPs. If the EU were to become sovereign, all political authority should lie in its parliament.
Then there is the issue of smoking cannabis in front of children, which IMO should be taken as a serious crime.
And also the long-term mental effects of cannabis use.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35429874/
Elizabeth Warren makes the point, regularly, When questioning J Powell and the fed that their policies have real life consequences for peoples lives and has been since the rate hike cycle started. She gets mocked but she’s right.
It is not about stoppping the economy but dampening demand.
Higher savings rates also takes money out of the economy as people save more.
The skill is in achieving a soft landing that doesn’t tip us over into a recession and causing increasing unemployment and hardship. The Fed May achieve it, the MPC less likely.
If you disagree you are a PB Tory.
Do you just want headers that ignore evidence for a less than optimal performance for the Conservatives at the next GE, even though that would impact on betting advice/ guidance?
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
Lab 47-48%
Con 30-31%
LD 16-19%
Polls so far this week.
Lab 46-47%
Con 26-29%
LD 10-12%
What can Rishi Sunak do to turn this round that John Major couldn't?
https://twitter.com/Jose_Pagliery/status/1671611073139712002
Judge Bough just sentenced her to 46 months in prison, just shy of 4 years behind bars.
That's far less than the max term of 10 years, but it's close to what the feds requested here.
And there you have it. The likely first sentencing under 793(e) since Trump was indicted.
The Conservatives didn't seem to object to rechecking voter opinions every couple of years during the latter part of the last decade even though we had a fixed term parliament of five years.
They're very fond of lecturing the rest of us on democracy, nonetheless.
https://twitter.com/TurnerNovak/status/1671728784695762946
Do they plan to bore each other to death ?
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
https://twitter.com/curiouswavefn/status/1671747304901206017
Looks an interesting book.
The anecdote is from 1922.
The gravy train has to stay on the tracks until the rails stop at the edge of the flat earth.
Russia’s state news agency decides to revert to the Soviet lies on Katyn, the site where Moscow executed several thousand Polish POWs in 1940. Now it’s a “Nazi provocation” again and USSR was falsely accused. Russia only acknowledged its responsibility for Katyn massacre in 1992.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1671732692105265157
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLDbEcEyO5w&feature=youtu.be
The Titanic is at 12,600 feet.
Go big.
In the Blue Wall™️ it’ll arguably hinder them. Resurrecting the Nasty Party tag is not a good way of winning voters back from the LibDems. If people were genuinely worried about their daughters being menaced by trans kids at school, you might have expected it to have affected the tide of councils falling to the LibDems, given that much of education is a local government responsibility. It hasn’t.
In the Red Wall it might swing a few votes. A very few. Labour has been mute on culture war issues and the LibDems aren’t contenders in the Red Wall. Besides, when your mortgage rate is heading skywards you are not going to vote purely on the basis of an angry Daily Mail rant about some prisoner somewhere who has decided to become Terri rather than Terry.
They know GE24 is lost and they are doing the right thing for the country and at the very least Labour should hope it works, as it will make their job easier but even then it is not going to be a benign economic environment for labour for their first term
Darwin speaks!
"Mark Zuckerberg wins first jiu-jitsu tournament, takes home multiple medals"
Whereas Musky Baby's apparently a bit portly.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/mark-zuckerberg-wins-jiu-jitsu-b2336281.html
There was another vote - in the 2019 General Election. How did that turn out?
Fiscal capacity for easing the pain is extremely limited.
Whatever happened to the guy who won the 2019 election?
The Committee’s updated projections for activity and inflation are set out in the accompanying May Monetary Policy Report. They are conditioned on a market-implied path for Bank Rate that peaks at around 4¾% in 2023 Q4 before ending the forecast period at just over 3½%.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-summary-and-minutes/2023/may-2023
They'll have to raise rates higher and earlier than implied.
Where we have got into trouble is where the MPC seemed to think we were special or had some room for manoeuvre that we don't. So they were too slow to increase rates, falling behind the mighty Fed, and as a result both our currency and gilt rates took a bit of a hammering, the former importing another swig of inflation and the latter increasing borrowing costs.
Once we recognise that we are not only following the herd but are obliged to do so unless we want to incur serious penalties it becomes obvious that not only is our Chancellor pretending he has control that he does not but that Reeves is also pretending she could do something differently, which she couldn't.
There are things that government can do at the margins, such as reduce its own borrowing needs, ideally to zero, but no political party is contemplating such moves which would come with a world of pain attached. Instead, we seem to inhabit an Alice in Wonderland world where we argue about things beyond our control rather than address those things that we can control.
If Leave were so confident of a 2019 victory, perhaps they should have called Starmer's bluff and agreed to a second vote. There could be no arguments that we weren't fully availed of the risks.
An incoming Labour government will be able to legitimately point the finger at the Tories for a good while, such is the mess they’re bequeathing.
Johnson was thrown out for lying and his lies were never bigger and more damaging than over Brexit.
Voters think with their wallets and have selective memories.
Even Michael Foot and Ed Miliband swiftly took poll leads in Opposition during the early economic challenges of the Thatcher and Cameron governments. Hague trailed badly mainly because the economy under Blair stayed relatively strong with low inflation, few strikes, no big tax hikes and low unemployment
John Major was still invoking Callaghan in 1997.
All politicians do it. It's tedious and cowardly, as well as dishonest, but it will be effective.
We haven't had grownup economic debate since Brexit was first proposed, so a bit late in the day to be complaining about it now.
The days of mass relatively high paid manufacturing jobs are not coming back, indeed robotics can now do most factory work
And I say that as someone who generally votes Lib Dem.
Then onto 6.0% by Dec 2023, likely to stay that way throughout 2024 and 2025.
My forecast CPI Dec 2023 = 6%. May well fall slowly to 4% Dec 2024 and 3% Dec 2025.
One thing we do have control over is costly additional checks on EU food that we are set to introduce, which will push up food inflation further. Another example of how Tory economic policies are making our situation worse.
But the idea that we had a grown up discussion before that is somewhat optimistic.
Hypothesis: People are really really hacked off with the Conservatives, and are going Labour largely as the main way to throw the rascals out in most of the country.
If success is achievement minus expectations, it really won't be difficult for Starmer to succeed.
https://ibb.co/S7CycL3
Integrate to obtain cumulative emissions per capita before patting ourselves on the back and pointing the finger at China and India. (Yes, I know it doesn't include greenhouse gases other than CO2.)
The lib dems are not going to be in government so encouraging to hear Labour acting sensibly
run a loose monetary policy and now needs to pay for it
I think there could be more space for flexibility and creativity in the EU's approach to the UK under a @UKLabour @Keir_Starmer Govt than most assume - and the EU's current “official position” suggests. Thread 1/
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1671766022703964160?s=20