Howdy, Stranger!

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

Voters don’t care about identity – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • TazTaz Posts: 14,296

    I would be interested if any other PBers have gone to therapy and how they found it.

    My wife did, and she didn’t find it a great help. It was when she was suffering for a lot of stress at work. She found leaving the role for something less demanding more helpful.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,931

    I would be interested if any other PBers have gone to therapy and how they found it.

    Several family member have found it useful.

    The sensible approach is to consider the brain and its function as just another part of the body. If it’s not firing on all cylinders, get a specialist and fix it.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,430
    edited November 9

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,676
    One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.

    I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,935
    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,146
    MaxPB said:

    One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.

    I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.

    All those trips to New York and LA. The theory on here was that he was doing it for fund raising purposes. I had NBC on in the hotel in Milan this week. They reckon he did it to try to win the popular vote.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,486
    edited November 9
    MaxPB said:

    EPG said:

    tlg86 said:

    @Casino_Royale - I stopped buying the Arsenal programme years ago mainly because I was running out of space and there's only so much they can write about.

    At our last home game, I had to buy a few for a friend of a friend who sadly lost his Arsenal supporting son and there was a tribute in the programme. I had a flick through it and every other article was to do with Black History Month.

    Now, Arsenal's history re black players is something that the club can be proud of and it's absolutely right to talk about it. But when every other article is framed in that way, it does get a bit much.

    Well, quite. I have loads of albums in my collection by black artists - some of them not particularly surprising like Michael Jackson, Gabrielle and Imagination- but it's not about whether you are open to enjoying music by such artists (we already are) it's about whether you're sufficiently supportive of being politically Black, and this is what people detest being foisted on them.
    Culture does change; many or most people in the sixties were disgusted by the rise of a youth culture that we would now consider pretty tame or even at times backward looking. Taking the long scale view, we might just be back in that time of rapid cultural change that we sort of sidestepped for a couple of decades.
    Except, unfortunately for you and your ilk, this one isn't sticking and is starting to go into reverse - just look at the stats for younger voters.

    Because you've overreached with downright weird obsessions and ideology.
    There's a state of denial among left activists around identity politics at the moment. They're so far down the rabbit hole, everything I've seen from them is anger at Latinos and black men for having the temerity to vote for Trump. The most stupid accusations are that they're "acting white" or "giving in to slave owners" etc... and it all goes unchallenged, there's no one on the left telling these people to stfu with their lecturing and hectoring.

    I don't think it will ever be as bad as that here, when the leftists accused Kemi of "racism in blackface" or whatever the phrase was there was wide condemnation even among leftists. Voices that try to stop black people celebrating the first elected leader of a major party being black are being drowned out.

    We also saw in July that Labour ran away from identity politics, they completely repudiated it all in the run up to the election because Starmer and his advisers realised how big of a drag it would be for them to go into the election attached to it and the people that push it.
    So many commentators in the US appearing to be doubling down and hard, saying that they weren’t clear enough that people are racist and sexist, and that it’s all the fault of Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.

    Hopefully with time they’ll draw the right conclusions, but that could take a while. The seven stages of grief usually do.

    Great piece by the way.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,246
    AnthonyT said:

    Not sure if this has been posted but quite an interesting assessment. Note the top topic for swing voters.

    https://blueprint2024.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8/

    It's not that voters don't care about identity. They don't. But they do care when politicians seem to focus on some batshirt form of identity which either does nothing for them or harms them or distracts politicians from what voters care about.

    The Democrats - like the Tories - like all losing parties, in particular and those currently in power - need to listen to voters. Rather than lecture them.

    In the immediate aftermath of defeat, parties tend to be in the mode of lecturing.
  • Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,252

    One of the great things about PB is that we can have a heated and (relatively?) polite discussion on something as arcane as planetary protection!

    The whole point about planetary protection is to do with heat, shurely?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,246
    MaxPB said:

    One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.

    I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.

    Probably in Blue States, wokeism begins to grate with a lot of voters.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,931
    ydoethur said:

    One of the great things about PB is that we can have a heated and (relatively?) polite discussion on something as arcane as planetary protection!

    The whole point about planetary protection is to do with heat, shurely?
    Not really - in fact heat may week be the least effective method. Some bacteria can survive even Farage levels of hot air blasts.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,931
    Sean_F said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Not sure if this has been posted but quite an interesting assessment. Note the top topic for swing voters.

    https://blueprint2024.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8/

    It's not that voters don't care about identity. They don't. But they do care when politicians seem to focus on some batshirt form of identity which either does nothing for them or harms them or distracts politicians from what voters care about.

    The Democrats - like the Tories - like all losing parties, in particular and those currently in power - need to listen to voters. Rather than lecture them.

    In the immediate aftermath of defeat, parties tend to be in the mode of lecturing.
    The People Have Spoken. The Bastards.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,722

    From the discussions on third term possibilities the other day, one thing occurred to me that I'd quite like put to bed. Whilst the intent of the 22nd Amendment is obvious, could a compliant Supreme Court bypass it by looking at the exact wording?

    What I'm thinking about is the immediately obvious "swap President and VP on the ticket." That is, a Vance/Trump ticket, with Vance resigning the day after inauguration (and could then be appointed VP by a succeeding Trump). Because the 22nd states that "no-one can be elected to the office of President more than twice."

    Nothing about succeeding outwith election, like Ford, LBJ, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Arthur, Johnson, Fillmore, Tyler - albeit some later won election as President, but all initially succeeded without being elected to the office of President. And, of course, what if it went further? Is an ex-President actually prohibited from any office in the line of succession? There seems to be no written legal rule saying "Oh, we'll skip over the Attorney General if it gets that far and a term-limited ex-President is doing the job." Maybe there is and I don't know about it?

    "Ah, but you can't run as VP if you're term-limited out as President."

    Can't you? The 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." A term-limited President is still constitutionally eligible to be President, as long as he or she gets there without having to be elected. Via a tragedy taking out everyone to the Secretary of Education, for example, and that person being an ex-President. Or anywhere else in the line of succession, for that matter.

    And being elected VP does not count as election to be President - otherwise every VP who has been elected on a ticket twice would be ineligible to even run once as President (including Biden, Gore, Bush senior, and Nixon before their first (or only) runs). The implication of the wording that you can serve up to 2 years of someone else's term before your first election as President underlines that.

    So - while it looks overwhelmingly obvious that the 22nd Amendment intends for no-one to be President for more than eight (or ten) years, and the implication that serving more than two years of someone else's term invalidates one of those two allowed elections underlines it - it isn't explicit on it. So a compliant SCOTUS could say "technically, the law allows that."

    I mean the entire ruling on Presidential Immunity looks similarly bad, so it wouldn't even be the most strained the Roberts Court has been, in my view. So - I'd like someone to tell me that there IS an explicit prohibition that stops that interpretation, because all I've done is wikipedia'd it.
    (In any case, I reckon it's far more likely that Trump gets 25th'd by Vance long before this even becomes a prospect)

    It was briefly mentioned on TRiP that people had discussed it in relation to Bill Clinton so that might be the place to look, with something about a Putin-style job swap. But probably that is what you've already gathered from Wikipedia.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,430

    Sean_F said:

    Despite winning fairly emphatically, Trump had quite short coat-tails.

    The Republicans will gain four, just possibly five, in the Senate. But, they'll only gain one in the House, and only a relative handful of seats in State legislatures.

    The bigger issue of interest is the collapse in the Democratic vote.

    Where did they all go? And why didn't they show up?
    But also, where it appears Trump vote stood still whilst Dem dropped more than 10 million, so it suggests Dem didn’t get vote out, analysis will probably still show quite a degree of churn.

    The broad stroke voters, who don’t pay great attention to political detail and who haven’t voted for Trump previously, put their hands in pocket and decided to kick the current lot out, whilst of those who do pay a lot of attention to politics and policy detail and previously voted Trump, Donald is probably shedding these at each election.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,961
    The National Theatre production of "Nye" is on YouTube until 11Nov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpN--d5bXSY
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,463
    edited November 9
    MaxPB said:

    One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.

    I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.

    That was factored in quite early though. It was why the swing states looked to be better for the Dems with the polling being as it was. Trump putting on votes where it didn't help him, it was said.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,001

    From the discussions on third term possibilities the other day, one thing occurred to me that I'd quite like put to bed. Whilst the intent of the 22nd Amendment is obvious, could a compliant Supreme Court bypass it by looking at the exact wording?

    What I'm thinking about is the immediately obvious "swap President and VP on the ticket." That is, a Vance/Trump ticket, with Vance resigning the day after inauguration (and could then be appointed VP by a succeeding Trump). Because the 22nd states that "no-one can be elected to the office of President more than twice."

    Nothing about succeeding outwith election, like Ford, LBJ, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Arthur, Johnson, Fillmore, Tyler - albeit some later won election as President, but all initially succeeded without being elected to the office of President. And, of course, what if it went further? Is an ex-President actually prohibited from any office in the line of succession? There seems to be no written legal rule saying "Oh, we'll skip over the Attorney General if it gets that far and a term-limited ex-President is doing the job." Maybe there is and I don't know about it?

    "Ah, but you can't run as VP if you're term-limited out as President."

    Can't you? The 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." A term-limited President is still constitutionally eligible to be President, as long as he or she gets there without having to be elected. Via a tragedy taking out everyone to the Secretary of Education, for example, and that person being an ex-President. Or anywhere else in the line of succession, for that matter.

    And being elected VP does not count as election to be President - otherwise every VP who has been elected on a ticket twice would be ineligible to even run once as President (including Biden, Gore, Bush senior, and Nixon before their first (or only) runs). The implication of the wording that you can serve up to 2 years of someone else's term before your first election as President underlines that.

    So - while it looks overwhelmingly obvious that the 22nd Amendment intends for no-one to be President for more than eight (or ten) years, and the implication that serving more than two years of someone else's term invalidates one of those two allowed elections underlines it - it isn't explicit on it. So a compliant SCOTUS could say "technically, the law allows that."

    I mean the entire ruling on Presidential Immunity looks similarly bad, so it wouldn't even be the most strained the Roberts Court has been, in my view. So - I'd like someone to tell me that there IS an explicit prohibition that stops that interpretation, because all I've done is wikipedia'd it.
    (In any case, I reckon it's far more likely that Trump gets 25th'd by Vance long before this even becomes a prospect)

    It was briefly mentioned on TRiP that people had discussed it in relation to Bill Clinton so that might be the place to look, with something about a Putin-style job swap. But probably that is what you've already gathered from Wikipedia.
    The only real arguments I've seen have been ambiguous. There's scholars who say "nope, the 12th means you can't" and others who say "actually, you can, you just can't run for election."

    The one who was loudest on "nope" (Nordlinger) also said: "If anyone tried this, it would for sure end up at the Supreme Court. Because that’s who decides conflicts within the constitution.”

    Which brings me to the point where it looks to me as if even those experts who are most sure that you can't do this end up pointing to SCOTUS to adjudicate on it. Bringing me back to wondering if this IS a route by which a compliant SCOTUS could enable an end-run around it without needing any Constitutional Amendment.

  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 678

    MaxPB said:

    Thanks everyone for the kind comments about the piece btw, I realise it's a bit of a hot take given the closeness to the result but I wanted to write this as a comparison to how Labour won here. As a few have pointed out a centre left party won a landslide here and did it by adopting the centre right position on woke/identity politics and campaigning on the economy and competence.

    I hope that the Dems are able to find the right candidate, male, female, black, Latino whatever who won't fall into the identity trap. The candidate needs to win with ideas and what they can do for average Americans and not on the basis of how well the average American identifies with the candidate. There are voters out there who voted for Obama, a black man, in 2008 and 2012 who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2024. Until the Dems work out that these voters aren't racist or misogynists or whatever the buzzword is in 2028 they won't be able to win and we're stuck with MAGA and all of the awful downsides it has for the world.

    It’s a good piece. The problem with anyone espousing identity politics from any angle is that to succeed they have to know someone’s identity better than they know it themselves.
    Which takes us back to the dark genius of Donald J Trump. What you describe is the thing every conman does- read their mark so well that they can know their thoughts better than their victim does. On one level, we all do it; it's how empathy works. But the key question is what you do with that information.

    Two other caveats on the Trump win. One is that one set of weird obsessions is just going to be replaced by a different set which are, if anything, weirder. The other is the whole... you know... November 2020 to January 2021 thing. It may be my weird obsession, but that really ought to have ruled him out completely.

    Still, we all know the reason that treason never prospers.

    Nobody cares. He’s a fraud. A crook. An abuser. An insurrectionist. A proto-fascist. And nobody cares.

    I think the issue is this: Trump naysayers (hi) have been looking in the wrong place. Now of that matters if the guy can diagnose your issues and offer you a solution. Ok so he’s all that. He’s also All That.
    The French seem to muddle along with corrupt, philandering Presidents with autocratic and protectionist tendencies. Is the only reason we care about the US because it's such an important country?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,722

    Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
    Elon Musk, after caving to Brazil but before having the White House at his back, said something along the lines of being happy to comply with the law in any country but did not want moderation at the whim of politicians who had not legislated.
  • Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
    Hmmmm. Trump displays fascist behaviours. Trump partners up with a guy who has a social media platform which can both create a bullshit bubble and project the fascism globally as both popular and the way that right-thinking people think.

    Why on earth would you see an issue with that?

    Let me raise your fear levels. What if President Trump actually succeeds…?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,835

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,722
    Stereodog said:

    MaxPB said:

    Thanks everyone for the kind comments about the piece btw, I realise it's a bit of a hot take given the closeness to the result but I wanted to write this as a comparison to how Labour won here. As a few have pointed out a centre left party won a landslide here and did it by adopting the centre right position on woke/identity politics and campaigning on the economy and competence.

    I hope that the Dems are able to find the right candidate, male, female, black, Latino whatever who won't fall into the identity trap. The candidate needs to win with ideas and what they can do for average Americans and not on the basis of how well the average American identifies with the candidate. There are voters out there who voted for Obama, a black man, in 2008 and 2012 who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2024. Until the Dems work out that these voters aren't racist or misogynists or whatever the buzzword is in 2028 they won't be able to win and we're stuck with MAGA and all of the awful downsides it has for the world.

    It’s a good piece. The problem with anyone espousing identity politics from any angle is that to succeed they have to know someone’s identity better than they know it themselves.
    Which takes us back to the dark genius of Donald J Trump. What you describe is the thing every conman does- read their mark so well that they can know their thoughts better than their victim does. On one level, we all do it; it's how empathy works. But the key question is what you do with that information.

    Two other caveats on the Trump win. One is that one set of weird obsessions is just going to be replaced by a different set which are, if anything, weirder. The other is the whole... you know... November 2020 to January 2021 thing. It may be my weird obsession, but that really ought to have ruled him out completely.

    Still, we all know the reason that treason never prospers.

    Nobody cares. He’s a fraud. A crook. An abuser. An insurrectionist. A proto-fascist. And nobody cares.

    I think the issue is this: Trump naysayers (hi) have been looking in the wrong place. Now of that matters if the guy can diagnose your issues and offer you a solution. Ok so he’s all that. He’s also All That.
    The French seem to muddle along with corrupt, philandering Presidents with autocratic and protectionist tendencies. Is the only reason we care about the US because it's such an important country?
    Not the only reason, no. The special relationship might be one-sided but it is real. America is very much like us, and speaks the same language. We watch American films and television programmes, and its domestic news is beamed into our journalists' homes and phones 24x7.
  • As soon as the Democrats start attacking Trump they’ve already lost. They need to get over it.

    They should be worried about facing JD Vance. He’s genuinely impressive.
  • https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1855232490228564335

    Kemi Badenoch and her media supporters spent this week attacking Labour for past criticisms of Trump.

    However, her archives reveal she:

    - Described herself as being "not a Trump fan"
    - Shared a "superb" analysis calling Trump a "Useful Idiot" for Putin
  • Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
    Hmmmm. Trump displays fascist behaviours. Trump partners up with a guy who has a social media platform which can both create a bullshit bubble and project the fascism globally as both popular and the way that right-thinking people think.

    Why on earth would you see an issue with that?

    Let me raise your fear levels. What if President Trump actually succeeds…?
    Indeed. I don't think people have yet grasped the danger to our established norms, from the world's largest media network pumping out amounts of quite unashamed and unvarnished racial hatred that are increasing day by.day.

    That's on a scale of threat to our societies in the short-term, as large as war with Russia, or the climate crisi.
  • Trump adviser says Ukraine focus must be peace not retaking territory

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxrwr078v7o
  • Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
    Hmmmm. Trump displays fascist behaviours. Trump partners up with a guy who has a social media platform which can both create a bullshit bubble and project the fascism globally as both popular and the way that right-thinking people think.

    Why on earth would you see an issue with that?

    Let me raise your fear levels. What if President Trump actually succeeds…?
    Indeed. I don't think people have yet grasped the danger to our established norms, from the world's largest media network pumping out amounts of quite unashamed and unvarnished racial hatred that are increasing day by.day.

    That's on a scale of threat to our societies in the short-term, as large as war with Russia, or the climate crisi.
    I need to correct something. Twitter isn’t pumping out race hate. Racists are pumping out race hate. Twitter is just the platform they’re being allowed to use.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,722

    As soon as the Democrats start attacking Trump they’ve already lost. They need to get over it.

    They should be worried about facing JD Vance. He’s genuinely impressive.

    Trump's rallies are all over YouTube and invariably contain crude abuse of his opponents.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,835
    edited November 9
    My early political experience was canvassing for the Liberals during my early adulthood in the 1980s. Back then it was clear and simple; you could judge voting intention from social class and wealth, and as a Liberal and later LibDem canvasser, you simply needed to obtain a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ from the doorstep, and in the (sadly more common) cases of a ‘no’, you could pretty accurately guess at voting intention from the combination of social (class) behaviour and evident wealth of the person you were speaking to. Educated folk who we British would classify as middle class were Tory, and working class folk were Labour.

    Applying British social class categories to the US, the same would broadly have been true there.

    During my lifetime this has all been turned on its head. Now, educated more wealthy folk increasingly have more liberal social values, whereas working class ones have conservative ones. Which, despite the view that most elections turn on economics, leads many higher earning folk to be voting for higher taxes and many lower income folk voting for tax cuts aimed at big business and the wealthy.

    In the US, the right has been able to capitalise on religion and associated issues such as abortion to rally support amongst lower income (white) voters. In the UK, these issues don’t play, but Brexit offered them a chance to play the same card - which proved to be transient since when implemented it was always going to be the case that the promises made by the Brexit campaign would be proved illusory and would turn to dust.

    On economic policy, both right and left now have a significant challenge, since their policies and the type of economy they prefer are dramatically out of kilter with the self-interests of the majority of their voters. That’s why, on both sides, social policies and those of ‘identity’ - pro and against - have increasingly come to the fore. For both left and right, resolving and escaping from this conundrum represents a significant challenge.
  • Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
    Hmmmm. Trump displays fascist behaviours. Trump partners up with a guy who has a social media platform which can both create a bullshit bubble and project the fascism globally as both popular and the way that right-thinking people think.

    Why on earth would you see an issue with that?

    Let me raise your fear levels. What if President Trump actually succeeds…?
    Indeed. I don't think people have yet grasped the danger to our established norms, from the world's largest media network pumping out amounts of quite unashamed and unvarnished racial hatred that are increasing day by.day.

    That's on a scale of threat to our societies in the short-term, as large as war with Russia, or the climate crisi.
    I need to correct something. Twitter isn’t pumping out race hate. Racists are pumping out race hate. Twitter is just the platform they’re being allowed to use.
    Yes, but its algorithms are also actively promoting it.

    I've seen antisemitic conspiracy accounts that were in the thousands a few months ago, that now have over a million followers. Their tweets are continually also now continually being promoted to people who didn't ask them, as PB'ers here have also mentioned.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,552
    Just witnessed my first mass shoplifting event, about 10 16-year olds sweeping a Scotmid.

    Happily they left the avocado, feta and sourdough alone.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,893
    Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    If anyone still hasn't figured it out yet a US led by Trump is not our ally, if anything it will be closer to an adversary.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,430
    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,676

    Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
    Hmmmm. Trump displays fascist behaviours. Trump partners up with a guy who has a social media platform which can both create a bullshit bubble and project the fascism globally as both popular and the way that right-thinking people think.

    Why on earth would you see an issue with that?

    Let me raise your fear levels. What if President Trump actually succeeds…?
    Indeed. I don't think people have yet grasped the danger to our established norms, from the world's largest media network pumping out amounts of quite unashamed and unvarnished racial hatred that are increasing day by.day.

    That's on a scale of threat to our societies in the short-term, as large as war with Russia, or the climate crisi.
    I need to correct something. Twitter isn’t pumping out race hate. Racists are pumping out race hate. Twitter is just the platform they’re being allowed to use.
    Yes, but its algorithms are also actively promoting it.

    I've seen antisemitic conspiracy accounts that were in the thousands a few months ago, that now have over a million followers. Their tweets are continually also now continually being promoted to people who didn't ask them, as PB'ers here have also mentioned.
    No the algorithm is promoting whatever drives the most engagement and keeps people scrolling. If people preferred to see positive content then that's what would get into the feed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,752

    As soon as the Democrats start attacking Trump they’ve already lost. They need to get over it.

    They should be worried about facing JD Vance. He’s genuinely impressive.

    I genuinely do not think attacking Trump is the problem. The man is a misogynist, an oaf, corrupt, dishonest, a convicted felon, an absolute disgrace to the office he has now won for the second time.

    The problem is finding ways to appeal to those short of a college level education. To address their concerns rather than the concerns of the professional classes such as identity as @MaxPB points out, gender and race. Concerns like the price of groceries, the shortage of housing, the depression of wages by international and immigrant competition, the cost of medical care, etc etc. And the real challenge is to do this without sounding patronising, superior or simply no understanding of how hard life is for the only moderately skilled worker in the USA.

    It is bizarre that this half of America finds something more credible and easy to relate to in Trump than in the Democratic party. But it is a fact and until they find ways to address that fact they are going to struggle. 2020 Biden, with his blue collar, union links could do it enough. Harris, despite some policies specifically directed towards this group, did not.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,719
    MaxPB said:

    Cicero said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Bernie Sanders 20 years ago explaining what happened this week

    https://x.com/BaileyCarlin/status/1854340417761775741

    In essence, the left argument is that people are better collectively if they act (and vote) collectively. Womens' right are human rights. Minority rights are human rights. Everybody is better off with these things.

    So how do the right persuade people to vote against their own interests?

    By claiming that their problems are caused by other people.

    It's the fucking Brexit campaign all over again.

    You can quibble about the details, but you can't argue with the results.

    "I am voting for this guy because he hates all the same people I do, and he told me THEY ARE THE CAUSE OF ALL MY "

    It's bullshit, but it works.

    Have you thought about, you know, getting some help?
    I suspect rejoin is the help Scott needs. Some people like Scott and AC Grayling have taken Brexit badly and still do to this day.

    They lost. It’s over. Most of us have moved on.
    I think this is a wish not a reality. Britain is seen by virtually every measure to be worse off since 2016, and there is still no positive vision for what kind of better future we can now have. Until that vision is articulated, the UK will continue its backward looking decline.
    Any such vision has to include what choice we wish to make between the US and the EU.
    If you phrase it as choosing between Europe and the Anglosphere then it becomes clear that it is a false choice. We are part of both by definition and we don't need to in the EU or the 51st state.
    Yes, there's an insecurity on both sides of this, they feel as though we need to suck up to the biggest bully in the room of their preference. The answer is that we don't need to do either, we go our own way and choose our own path. Sometimes that might be siding with the EU and others it's siding with the US depending on what our interests are.
    Just for a bit of fun: if the other 5 Anglosphere nations had taken part in Tuesday's vote, based on their most recent national elections, and distributing Electors by population pro rata with the USA:

    UK: 109 Electors DEM (Lab or other Left-leaning largest in all four Nations)
    inc:
    England 92 Electors DEM (Lab largest)
    Scotland 9 Electors DEM (Lab largest)
    Wales 5 Electors DEM (Lab largest)
    NI 3 Electors DEM (SF largest)


    Ireland: 8 Electors DEM (SF largest)

    New Zealand: 8 Electors REP

    Australia: 43 Electors - 34 DEM, 9 REP
    inc:
    NSW inc. Canberra 14 Electors DEM
    Victoria 11 Electors DEM
    West. Aus inc North. Terr. 5 Electors DEM
    South Aus 3 Electors DEM
    Tasmania 1 Elector DEM
    Queensland 9 Electors REP


    Canada: 60 Electors - 41 DEM, 19 REP
    inc:
    Ontario 23 Electors DEM
    Quebec 14 Electors DEM
    Novi Scotia inc. PEI 2 Electors DEM
    New Brunswick 1 Elector DEM
    Newfoundland 1 Elector DEM
    British Columbia inc. Yukon 8 Electors REP
    Alberta inc. NW Terr. 7 Electors REP
    Manitoba inc. Nunavut 2 Electors REP
    Saskatchewan 2 Electors REP


    Total above:
    192 DEM
    36 REP

    Added to USA totals (312 REP, 226 DEM)
    418 DEM
    348 REP

    Saluting Lady Protector of the Anglophone Commonwealth, Kamala Harris!

    Remember, this is just for a bit of fun! :lol:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,463
    glw said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    If anyone still hasn't figured it out yet a US led by Trump is not our ally, if anything it will be closer to an adversary.
    Let's see if Europe has the strength to ban X and Trump's mouthpiece if the US leaves NATO or walks away from Ukraine. Time for a game for boys with big balls, I reckon.
  • MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
    Hmmmm. Trump displays fascist behaviours. Trump partners up with a guy who has a social media platform which can both create a bullshit bubble and project the fascism globally as both popular and the way that right-thinking people think.

    Why on earth would you see an issue with that?

    Let me raise your fear levels. What if President Trump actually succeeds…?
    Indeed. I don't think people have yet grasped the danger to our established norms, from the world's largest media network pumping out amounts of quite unashamed and unvarnished racial hatred that are increasing day by.day.

    That's on a scale of threat to our societies in the short-term, as large as war with Russia, or the climate crisi.
    I need to correct something. Twitter isn’t pumping out race hate. Racists are pumping out race hate. Twitter is just the platform they’re being allowed to use.
    Yes, but its algorithms are also actively promoting it.

    I've seen antisemitic conspiracy accounts that were in the thousands a few months ago, that now have over a million followers. Their tweets are continually also now continually being promoted to people who didn't ask them, as PB'ers here have also mentioned.
    No the algorithm is promoting whatever drives the most engagement and keeps people scrolling. If people preferred to see positive content then that's what would get into the feed.
    I disagree.

    On every post I see now it’s always Elon or Wolf at the top. Even on posts that are non-political. I always choose “show me less of this”.

    So please explain that to me? Never used to happen before he bought Twitter. I think the algorithm is broken.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,463
    Eabhal said:

    Just witnessed my first mass shoplifting event, about 10 16-year olds sweeping a Scotmid.

    Happily they left the avocado, feta and sourdough alone.

    Just take satisfaction that they will likely die young then.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,835

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,463

    As soon as the Democrats start attacking Trump they’ve already lost. They need to get over it.

    They should be worried about facing JD Vance. He’s genuinely impressive.

    Doesn't have to be impressive. He's genuinely connected into the money behind 2025. He wrote the forward to it, don't forget.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,835

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
    Hmmmm. Trump displays fascist behaviours. Trump partners up with a guy who has a social media platform which can both create a bullshit bubble and project the fascism globally as both popular and the way that right-thinking people think.

    Why on earth would you see an issue with that?

    Let me raise your fear levels. What if President Trump actually succeeds…?
    Indeed. I don't think people have yet grasped the danger to our established norms, from the world's largest media network pumping out amounts of quite unashamed and unvarnished racial hatred that are increasing day by.day.

    That's on a scale of threat to our societies in the short-term, as large as war with Russia, or the climate crisi.
    I need to correct something. Twitter isn’t pumping out race hate. Racists are pumping out race hate. Twitter is just the platform they’re being allowed to use.
    Yes, but its algorithms are also actively promoting it.

    I've seen antisemitic conspiracy accounts that were in the thousands a few months ago, that now have over a million followers. Their tweets are continually also now continually being promoted to people who didn't ask them, as PB'ers here have also mentioned.
    No the algorithm is promoting whatever drives the most engagement and keeps people scrolling. If people preferred to see positive content then that's what would get into the feed.
    I disagree.

    On every post I see now it’s always Elon or Wolf at the top. Even on posts that are non-political. I always choose “show me less of this”.

    So please explain that to me? Never used to happen before he bought Twitter. I think the algorithm is broken.
    A respected commentator suggested that Musk spending what to him is small change to buy Twitter, actually just delivered Trump his win.
  • I actually think Starmer has essentially copied Cameron’s strategy ever since 2020. And I have said so many times.
  • ajbajb Posts: 147

    I would be interested if any other PBers have gone to therapy and how they found it.

    In the past I have gone to a few therapists who I didn't find useful. In fact, ultimately I hired an actor instead and not only was that more useful, it was also considerably cheaper.

    Although most therapists are nice people, their incentives are terrible. The thing that struck me most about the difference between them and the actor was their complacency. If you think about it, an actor is someone who everyone, from the audience to their bosses to their fellows, can see if they are not doing a good job. For a therapist, the opposite is true. With the actor, I felt like I was talking to an equal, whereas the therapists expected deference.

    If you do therapy, bear in mind that you are going to have to be the one to
    make a call as to whether it is working. The therapist always has the incentive to err on the side of believing that a few more sessions would be worth it.

    (It would be more correct to say I hired an acting teacher. They weren't playing the role of a therapist - although I wouldn't be surprised if that worked at least as well as an actual therapist).
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,430
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,931
    Eabhal said:

    Just witnessed my first mass shoplifting event, about 10 16-year olds sweeping a Scotmid.

    Happily they left the avocado, feta and sourdough alone.

    What about the pre-flaked Parmesan? Don’t want @SeanT starting a race riot because they ran out…
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,961
    Dammit, Tony Todd has died! Only 69!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,835

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    I'm thinking that maybe economics isn't your strong subject?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,931
    edited November 9

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,430
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    I'm thinking that maybe economics isn't your strong subject?
    Is that all you got left Ian, insults?

    “What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.” I stand by it. You explain yourself.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,931

    Taz said:

    I would be interested if any other PBers have gone to therapy and how they found it.

    My wife did, and she didn’t find it a great help. It was when she was suffering for a lot of stress at work. She found leaving the role for something less demanding more helpful.
    I went after my wife died suddenly.. Initially I was against it but it was the best thing I ever did. It helped me come to terms with it and not feel guilty about surviving her... it's not a bad thing for a man to cry when having "therapy". I didn't refer to it as therapy. I went for counselling. The little lady I saw was incredible and I will always be grateful to her.
    Not sure a like is the right thing…. But…
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,736

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
    5) Shrinkflation!
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,430

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much NOPE
    2) They squeeze even harder of suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY REGARDLESS OF BUDGET.
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY
    4) raise consumer prices. LETS SEE, I’M NOT CONVINCED. UNLESS THEY ARE A CARTEL, AND NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.

    it’s all politics, you can’t go on what they are threatening, is what I am saying. Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, and how they threw their toys out the pram and threatened end of all life on earth if she did, the case in point.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,990
    MaxPB said: "One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me."

    Neither state has had super-successful Democratic leaders recently. New York City has a genuine crisis, and San Francisco has been throwing the rascals out for a couple of years now.

    I feel sorry for the ordinary people of New York City, but I found this magazine cover hilarious: https://nymag.com/press/article/how-much-longer-can-the-eric-adams-regime-last.html

    (I hope rcs1000 has not been affected by the massive fires in southern California.)
  • Taz said:

    I would be interested if any other PBers have gone to therapy and how they found it.

    My wife did, and she didn’t find it a great help. It was when she was suffering for a lot of stress at work. She found leaving the role for something less demanding more helpful.
    I went after my wife died suddenly.. Initially I was against it but it was the best thing I ever did. It helped me come to terms with it and not feel guilty about surviving her... it's not a bad thing for a man to cry when having "therapy". I didn't refer to it as therapy. I went for counselling. The little lady I saw was incredible and I will always be grateful to her.
    I cried in one of my first sessions too. It’s by far the best thing I’ve done in my life.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,961
    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
    Hmmmm. Trump displays fascist behaviours. Trump partners up with a guy who has a social media platform which can both create a bullshit bubble and project the fascism globally as both popular and the way that right-thinking people think.

    Why on earth would you see an issue with that?

    Let me raise your fear levels. What if President Trump actually succeeds…?
    Indeed. I don't think people have yet grasped the danger to our established norms, from the world's largest media network pumping out amounts of quite unashamed and unvarnished racial hatred that are increasing day by.day.

    That's on a scale of threat to our societies in the short-term, as large as war with Russia, or the climate crisi.
    I need to correct something. Twitter isn’t pumping out race hate. Racists are pumping out race hate. Twitter is just the platform they’re being allowed to use.
    Yes, but its algorithms are also actively promoting it.

    I've seen antisemitic conspiracy accounts that were in the thousands a few months ago, that now have over a million followers. Their tweets are continually also now continually being promoted to people who didn't ask them, as PB'ers here have also mentioned.
    No the algorithm is promoting whatever drives the most engagement and keeps people scrolling. If people preferred to see positive content then that's what would get into the feed.
    I understand the argument but in the specific case of Twitter It's known that Elon interferes with the algo. It's not just engagement based.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,906
    edited November 9
    ajb said:

    I would be interested if any other PBers have gone to therapy and how they found it.

    In the past I have gone to a few therapists who I didn't find useful. In fact, ultimately I hired an actor instead and not only was that more useful, it was also considerably cheaper.

    Although most therapists are nice people, their incentives are terrible. The thing that struck me most about the difference between them and the actor was their complacency. If you think about it, an actor is someone who everyone, from the audience to their bosses to their fellows, can see if they are not doing a good job. For a therapist, the opposite is true. With the actor, I felt like I was talking to an equal, whereas the therapists expected deference.

    If you do therapy, bear in mind that you are going to have to be the one to
    make a call as to whether it is working. The therapist always has the incentive to err on the side of believing that a few more sessions would be worth it.

    (It would be more correct to say I hired an acting teacher. They weren't playing the role of a therapist - although I wouldn't be surprised if that worked at least as well as an actual therapist).
    This was, unfortunately, my experience as well (minus the actor). I get that it works for some people, and certainly for short bursts of time to help you get over an external shock. But the law of diminishing returns kicks in very quickly and the therapist is highly incentivised to keep you going...
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,961
    I hate Arizona counting people. They are bad people who do bad things. Bad, Arizona, bad.

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
  • eekeek Posts: 28,231
    edited November 9

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much NOPE
    2) They squeeze even harder of suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY REGARDLESS OF BUDGET.
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY
    4) raise consumer prices. LETS SEE, I’M NOT CONVINCED. UNLESS THEY ARE A CARTEL, AND NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.

    it’s all politics, you can’t go on what they are threatening, is what I am saying. Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, and how they threw their toys out the pram and threatened end of all life on earth if she did, the case in point.
    I'm sorry but point 4 happens all the time - the supermarkets are just very good at hiding it by not focussing on the items people compare the prices of.

    And given that all supermarkets are in the same position all of them will be increasing prices by 1-2% between now and next June...
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,430

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
    5) Shrinkflation!
    Bog rolls are shrinking quicker than my chances of backing winner today!
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,736

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
    5) Shrinkflation!
    Bog rolls are shrinking quicker than my chances of backing winner today!
    Surely you still have some left from covid?
  • I just want the Tories to propose an alternative plan to Labour’s. I think they all agree money needs to be raised but from where?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,430
    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much NOPE
    2) They squeeze even harder of suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY REGARDLESS OF BUDGET.
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY
    4) raise consumer prices. LETS SEE, I’M NOT CONVINCED. UNLESS THEY ARE A CARTEL, AND NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.

    it’s all politics, you can’t go on what they are threatening, is what I am saying. Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, and how they threw their toys out the pram and threatened end of all life on earth if she did, the case in point.
    I'm sorry but point 4 happens all the time - the supermarkets are just very good at hiding it by not focussing on the items people compare the prices of.

    If it’s happening all the time, I’m sorry but that supports my argument 100%. The discussion is what actually happens differently thanks to the budget, despite the threats thrown around.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,736

    I just want the Tories to propose an alternative plan to Labour’s. I think they all agree money needs to be raised but from where?

    That suggests you may not be impressed by cutting red tape and trickle down economics by big tax cuts for billionaires?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,457

    MaxPB said: "One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me."

    Neither state has had super-successful Democratic leaders recently. New York City has a genuine crisis, and San Francisco has been throwing the rascals out for a couple of years now.

    I feel sorry for the ordinary people of New York City, but I found this magazine cover hilarious: https://nymag.com/press/article/how-much-longer-can-the-eric-adams-regime-last.html

    (I hope rcs1000 has not been affected by the massive fires in southern California.)

    A system with only two parties that count at all builds up a lot of pressure. SFAICS in USA if you don't like either party/candidate you either hold your nose and vote, or stay at home. You haven't got the LD/Green/Reform options with anything like then same political significance. And with two parties you can't really vote tactically.

    If you look at our politics, with Con/Lab on about 55%, therefore the others (sometimes known as SPLORG) on about 45%, you could view all those others as a very useful safety valve, as well as conceivably one day a source of government.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,461
    A CNN panellist becomes seriously unhinged when someone refers to the issue of boys in girls’ sports:

    https://x.com/actbrigitte/status/1855095025190797453
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,457

    I just want the Tories to propose an alternative plan to Labour’s. I think they all agree money needs to be raised but from where?

    I am not aware of any of the government's critics who have produced an alternative budget for analysis. If this is correct it is eloquent. SFAICS they have confined their comments to generalisations, unicorns, untruths and attacks of individual elements, like IHT on farms.

    As to the total picture of tax, spend, borrow, fiscal discipline, and so on, I think there is a lot of silence. Is this because it would be impossible to put forward an alternative budget without admitting that there are no easy or painfree solutions?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,463
    viewcode said:

    I hate Arizona counting people. They are bad people who do bad things. Bad, Arizona, bad.

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

    Not as bad as the voters if they have chosen Lake. A Senate majority compring Lake, Cruz and Scott is, on any objective assessment, a damning indictment of the quality control in the Republican Party.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,897
    algarkirk said:

    I just want the Tories to propose an alternative plan to Labour’s. I think they all agree money needs to be raised but from where?

    I am not aware of any of the government's critics who have produced an alternative budget for analysis. If this is correct it is eloquent. SFAICS they have confined their comments to generalisations, unicorns, untruths and attacks of individual elements, like IHT on farms.

    As to the total picture of tax, spend, borrow, fiscal discipline, and so on, I think there is a lot of silence. Is this because it would be impossible to put forward an alternative budget without admitting that there are no easy or painfree solutions?
    I don’t think we should expect detailed proposals until the next election. There’s no point saying what you will do now when you aren’t able to implement anything, and the economic situation may be significantly different when you can.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,296

    Taz said:

    I would be interested if any other PBers have gone to therapy and how they found it.

    My wife did, and she didn’t find it a great help. It was when she was suffering for a lot of stress at work. She found leaving the role for something less demanding more helpful.
    I went after my wife died suddenly.. Initially I was against it but it was the best thing I ever did. It helped me come to terms with it and not feel guilty about surviving her... it's not a bad thing for a man to cry when having "therapy". I didn't refer to it as therapy. I went for counselling. The little lady I saw was incredible and I will always be grateful to her.
    I’m glad it worked for you and so sorry for your loss.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,296

    A CNN panellist becomes seriously unhinged when someone refers to the issue of boys in girls’ sports:

    https://x.com/actbrigitte/status/1855095025190797453

    That’s insane. The guy making the point being shouted down by a bearded bloke is the one being reproached by the host rather than the bearded bro talking over him
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,931

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much NOPE
    2) They squeeze even harder of suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY REGARDLESS OF BUDGET.
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY
    4) raise consumer prices. LETS SEE, I’M NOT CONVINCED. UNLESS THEY ARE A CARTEL, AND NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.

    it’s all politics, you can’t go on what they are threatening, is what I am saying. Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, and how they threw their toys out the pram and threatened end of all life on earth if she did, the case in point.
    I'm sorry but point 4 happens all the time - the supermarkets are just very good at hiding it by not focussing on the items people compare the prices of.

    If it’s happening all the time, I’m sorry but that supports my argument 100%. The discussion is what actually happens differently thanks to the budget, despite the threats thrown around.
    The idea that increasing tax on business will have no effect on prices, because you don’t want it to, is for the birds.

    It’s basic Money Tree belief
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,786
    edited November 9
    Qatar withdraws as mediator between Israel and Hamas, reports say

    Qatar has withdrawn as the mediator in ceasefire and hostage release talks between Israel and Hamas, reports say.

    It comes after senior US officials reportedly said Washington would no longer accept the presence of Hamas representatives in Qatar, accusing the Palestinian group of rejecting fresh proposals for an end to the war in Gaza.

    Anonymous diplomatic sources told the AFP and Reuters news agencies that Hamas's political office in Doha "no longer serves its purpose" due to "a refusal to negotiate a deal in good faith".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c774d4p2mx6o
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,174

    viewcode said:

    I hate Arizona counting people. They are bad people who do bad things. Bad, Arizona, bad.

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

    Not as bad as the voters if they have chosen Lake. A Senate majority compring Lake, Cruz and Scott is, on any objective assessment, a damning indictment of the quality control in the Republican Party.
    What's the pressure on them to improve their quality control? As long as moderate Republican voters and heirachs are prepared to endorse this sort of thing, it will continue.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,786
    edited November 9

    A CNN panellist becomes seriously unhinged when someone refers to the issue of boys in girls’ sports:

    https://x.com/actbrigitte/status/1855095025190797453

    I notice a lot of the talking heads on outlets like the CNN are resorting to a narrative of Trump only won because of racism and sexism...just tar the majority of the voting public including loads of women and black / brown folk. And to think they got so offended by a comedian telling an unfunny joke about Puerto Rico.

    You never blame the voters for their choice, you blame the failure of government to fulfil their part of the bargain and campaign for not offering a vision that the public want to vote for! I fully understood why so many people voted Corbyn.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,463

    Qatar withdraws as mediator between Israel and Hamas, reports say

    Qatar has withdrawn as the mediator in ceasefire and hostage release talks between Israel and Hamas, reports say.

    It comes after senior US officials reportedly said Washington would no longer accept the presence of Hamas representatives in Qatar, accusing the Palestinian group of rejecting fresh proposals for an end to the war in Gaza.

    Anonymous diplomatic sources told the AFP and Reuters news agencies that Hamas's political office in Doha "no longer serves its purpose" due to "a refusal to negotiate a deal in good faith".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c774d4p2mx6o

    I thought Qatar had started effectively expelling Hamas officials from the country? Looks like everyone has had enough of Hamas.

    No doubt Israel will be closely following where they head next. Surprised if it is not Tehran
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,786
    edited November 9

    Qatar withdraws as mediator between Israel and Hamas, reports say

    Qatar has withdrawn as the mediator in ceasefire and hostage release talks between Israel and Hamas, reports say.

    It comes after senior US officials reportedly said Washington would no longer accept the presence of Hamas representatives in Qatar, accusing the Palestinian group of rejecting fresh proposals for an end to the war in Gaza.

    Anonymous diplomatic sources told the AFP and Reuters news agencies that Hamas's political office in Doha "no longer serves its purpose" due to "a refusal to negotiate a deal in good faith".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c774d4p2mx6o

    I thought Qatar had started effectively expelling Hamas officials from the country? Looks like everyone has had enough of Hamas.

    No doubt Israel will be closely following where they head next. Surprised if it is not Tehran
    All this has rather backfired on the Hamas multi-millionaires.....I presume they will either go to Turkey because they have lots of their wealth stashed there, but where they will have to be constantly looking over their shoulder or to somewhere lovely like Iran or Syria (and the men from Mossad can still get you).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,463

    viewcode said:

    I hate Arizona counting people. They are bad people who do bad things. Bad, Arizona, bad.

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

    Not as bad as the voters if they have chosen Lake. A Senate majority compring Lake, Cruz and Scott is, on any objective assessment, a damning indictment of the quality control in the Republican Party.
    What's the pressure on them to improve their quality control? As long as moderate Republican voters and heirachs are prepared to endorse this sort of thing, it will continue.
    Fair point. But their lack of shame hangs heavy. I mean, there are times when I shook my head at some of the Conservative MPs who got repeatedly re-elected... Not great adverts for democracy.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,738
    glw said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    If anyone still hasn't figured it out yet a US led by Trump is not our ally, if anything it will be closer to an adversary.
    Government of the oligarchs, by the oligarchs and for the oligarchs.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,252
    edited November 9
    carnforth said:

    Today's quota:



    An actual canvas, used for canvassing, 1715. It would be unrolled and hung up at each pub where the candidate was due to speak.

    King George Thomas Vernon? Not familiar with this monarch. Was he King of some German province?

    :smiley:

    Edited: if he used it in a pub was he the Elector With Hangover?
  • algarkirk said:

    I just want the Tories to propose an alternative plan to Labour’s. I think they all agree money needs to be raised but from where?

    I am not aware of any of the government's critics who have produced an alternative budget for analysis. If this is correct it is eloquent. SFAICS they have confined their comments to generalisations, unicorns, untruths and attacks of individual elements, like IHT on farms.

    As to the total picture of tax, spend, borrow, fiscal discipline, and so on, I think there is a lot of silence. Is this because it would be impossible to put forward an alternative budget without admitting that there are no easy or painfree solutions?
    Good afternoon

    Badenoch needs to concentrate on appealing to some Reform supporters but also those conservatives who either abstained or voted Labour in the GE

    As we have seen this week 'events' occur that have untold consequences, and as the next election is at least 4 years away policies can be ignored until much nearer the time

    Labour have some very serious issues going forward, and not just on Reeves Autumn Statement, but the dramatic change that comes from January as Trump seeks to end the war in Ukraine, withdraws from support for climate change, and raises the profile of immigration worldwide

    He is very anti EU and therein lies the real question for Starmer - does he back our special relationship with the US or turn his back and seek a very much closer relationship with the EU

    My preferred option ultimately is for the conservative party to increase the base rate to 25%:and apply it across all forms of income and abolish NI. This brings fairness to those in work and those whose income is not from work

    I would also add several bands to council tax or introduce a land tax

    I would look at encouraging more to go to FE colleges and concentrate financial help to students studying medicine and sciences

    Indeed I would subsidise medicine students subject to a commitment from them to work in the NHS for a minimum of 10 years

    I would reduce corporation tax to 20% and reduce red tape

    Depending on what happens with US trade I would join the single market but not the EU

    Anyway these are my hopes, but as I have said this is for the future and is some distance away
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,912

    Very much on topic.

    Thomas Frank, who has spent the last twenty years warning this would happen, writes in NY Times.

    "This was worth pointing out because working people were once the heart and soul of left-wing parties all over the world. It may seem like a distant memory, but not long ago, the left was not a movement of college professors, bankers or high-ranking officers at Uber or Amazon. Working people: That’s what parties of the left were very largely about. The same folks who just expressed such remarkable support for Donald Trump."

    "I have been writing about these things for 20 years, and I have begun to doubt that any combination of financial disaster or electoral chastisement will ever turn on the lightbulb for the liberals."

    The Elites Had It Coming
    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/09/opinion/democrats-trump-elites-centrism.html

    These seem to me to be weird narratives.

    "Such remarkable support for Donald Trump".

    What remarkable support?

    Currently 51% in a 2 horse race, made up of his base and a sprinkling of swing or newly aligned voters, to give a 3% majority. In a time when virtually all incumbent Governments are having their vote share reduce.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,684
    edited November 9
    carnforth said:

    Today's quota:



    An actual canvas, used for canvassing, 1715. It would be unrolled and hung up at each pub where the candidate was due to speak.

    Oh, that's lovely.

    Where is it preserved?

    Is that slogan 'For Trade and the good of our country'?

    I see he won - and became MP for Worcs but did little. More interested in his law practice?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Vernon_(lawyer)#MP_for_Worcestershire_in_1715_and_death_in_1721


  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,650

    Qatar withdraws as mediator between Israel and Hamas, reports say

    Qatar has withdrawn as the mediator in ceasefire and hostage release talks between Israel and Hamas, reports say.

    It comes after senior US officials reportedly said Washington would no longer accept the presence of Hamas representatives in Qatar, accusing the Palestinian group of rejecting fresh proposals for an end to the war in Gaza.

    Anonymous diplomatic sources told the AFP and Reuters news agencies that Hamas's political office in Doha "no longer serves its purpose" due to "a refusal to negotiate a deal in good faith".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c774d4p2mx6o

    I thought Qatar had started effectively expelling Hamas officials from the country? Looks like everyone has had enough of Hamas.

    No doubt Israel will be closely following where they head next. Surprised if it is not Tehran
    All this has rather backfired on the Hamas multi-millionaires.....I presume they will either go to Turkey because they have lots of their wealth stashed there, but where they will have to be constantly looking over their shoulder or to somewhere lovely like Iran or Syria (and the men from Mossad can still get you).
    Seems more likely that the US no longer wants them around, I'd guess they will go to Iran. The ever dangled ceasefire is dead and presumably the hostages are not coming back alive.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,174

    viewcode said:

    I hate Arizona counting people. They are bad people who do bad things. Bad, Arizona, bad.

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

    Not as bad as the voters if they have chosen Lake. A Senate majority compring Lake, Cruz and Scott is, on any objective assessment, a damning indictment of the quality control in the Republican Party.
    What's the pressure on them to improve their quality control? As long as moderate Republican voters and heirachs are prepared to endorse this sort of thing, it will continue.
    Fair point. But their lack of shame hangs heavy. I mean, there are times when I shook my head at some of the Conservative MPs who got repeatedly re-elected... Not great adverts for democracy.
    Though if shame, even vicarious shame, were a thing, none of this would be happening.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,430

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much NOPE
    2) They squeeze even harder of suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY REGARDLESS OF BUDGET.
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY
    4) raise consumer prices. LETS SEE, I’M NOT CONVINCED. UNLESS THEY ARE A CARTEL, AND NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.

    it’s all politics, you can’t go on what they are threatening, is what I am saying. Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, and how they threw their toys out the pram and threatened end of all life on earth if she did, the case in point.
    I'm sorry but point 4 happens all the time - the supermarkets are just very good at hiding it by not focussing on the items people compare the prices of.

    If it’s happening all the time, I’m sorry but that supports my argument 100%. The discussion is what actually happens differently thanks to the budget, despite the threats thrown around.
    The idea that increasing tax on business will have no effect on prices, because you don’t want it to, is for the birds.

    It’s basic Money Tree belief
    It’s how we see the actual nature of the world. I think you are seeing it wrong.

    It’s not natural law as you claim, that increasing tax on business will ALWAYS effect prices, there are many other factors at play, not least as the level of tax rates - low to high - when a change is made, the impact that follows.

    Most of all though, when business tax is cut, you saying this is always passed on to consumers?

    No. I argue, when governments cut business rates, it is not so it’s passed on to consumers, but in the belief entrepreneurs can start up or expand. That’s how I understand the system works - when you believe in entrepreneurial spirit and capitalism, you have to believe, where it’s possible entrepreneurial spirit and competition do absorb costs if they can to keep going forward - that’s the actual nature of the world.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,961

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This is why I'm so worried about huge amount of racist, and also now antisemitic material, now on Twitrer.

    Again today, I've seen hundreds of antisemitic cartoons, death threats against white and black people, radical Islamsm, all virtually completely unmoderated, and if may now be hard for the UK or Europe to do anything about this. I hate to sound like a doomsayer, but there is a real possibility that a Nazi-like era could now return.
    Hmmmm. Trump displays fascist behaviours. Trump partners up with a guy who has a social media platform which can both create a bullshit bubble and project the fascism globally as both popular and the way that right-thinking people think.

    Why on earth would you see an issue with that?

    Let me raise your fear levels. What if President Trump actually succeeds…?
    Indeed. I don't think people have yet grasped the danger to our established norms, from the world's largest media network pumping out amounts of quite unashamed and unvarnished racial hatred that are increasing day by.day.

    That's on a scale of threat to our societies in the short-term, as large as war with Russia, or the climate crisi.
    I need to correct something. Twitter isn’t pumping out race hate. Racists are pumping out race hate. Twitter is just the platform they’re being allowed to use.
    Yes, but its algorithms are also actively promoting it.

    I've seen antisemitic conspiracy accounts that were in the thousands a few months ago, that now have over a million followers. Their tweets are continually also now continually being promoted to people who didn't ask them, as PB'ers here have also mentioned.
    No the algorithm is promoting whatever drives the most engagement and keeps people scrolling. If people preferred to see positive content then that's what would get into the feed.
    I disagree.

    On every post I see now it’s always Elon or Wolf at the top. Even on posts that are non-political. I always choose “show me less of this”.

    So please explain that to me? Never used to happen before he bought Twitter. I think the algorithm is broken.
    Who is "Wolf"? And am I happier not knowing?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,786
    edited November 9

    Qatar withdraws as mediator between Israel and Hamas, reports say

    Qatar has withdrawn as the mediator in ceasefire and hostage release talks between Israel and Hamas, reports say.

    It comes after senior US officials reportedly said Washington would no longer accept the presence of Hamas representatives in Qatar, accusing the Palestinian group of rejecting fresh proposals for an end to the war in Gaza.

    Anonymous diplomatic sources told the AFP and Reuters news agencies that Hamas's political office in Doha "no longer serves its purpose" due to "a refusal to negotiate a deal in good faith".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c774d4p2mx6o

    I thought Qatar had started effectively expelling Hamas officials from the country? Looks like everyone has had enough of Hamas.

    No doubt Israel will be closely following where they head next. Surprised if it is not Tehran
    All this has rather backfired on the Hamas multi-millionaires.....I presume they will either go to Turkey because they have lots of their wealth stashed there, but where they will have to be constantly looking over their shoulder or to somewhere lovely like Iran or Syria (and the men from Mossad can still get you).
    Seems more likely that the US no longer wants them around, I'd guess they will go to Iran. The ever dangled ceasefire is dead and presumably the hostages are not coming back alive.
    I suspect that very few if any hostages are still alive. All the mumbling of previous deals over the past few months, release of alive hostages seems to be replaced by more ambiguous language. And obviously big boss man was found and killed out in the open without any human shields.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,252
    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Today's quota:



    An actual canvas, used for canvassing, 1715. It would be unrolled and hung up at each pub where the candidate was due to speak.

    Oh, that's lovely.

    Where is it preserved?

    Is that slogan 'For Trade and the good of our country'?

    I see he won - and became MP for Worcs but did little. More interested in his law practice?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Vernon_(lawyer)#MP_for_Worcestershire_in_1715_and_death_in_1721


    Wherever it is, it seems to han bury nicely.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,961

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much NOPE
    2) They squeeze even harder of suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY REGARDLESS OF BUDGET.
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY
    4) raise consumer prices. LETS SEE, I’M NOT CONVINCED. UNLESS THEY ARE A CARTEL, AND NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.

    it’s all politics, you can’t go on what they are threatening, is what I am saying. Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, and how they threw their toys out the pram and threatened end of all life on earth if she did, the case in point.
    I'm sorry but point 4 happens all the time - the supermarkets are just very good at hiding it by not focussing on the items people compare the prices of.

    If it’s happening all the time, I’m sorry but that supports my argument 100%. The discussion is what actually happens differently thanks to the budget, despite the threats thrown around.
    The idea that increasing tax on business will have no effect on prices, because you don’t want it to, is for the birds.

    It’s basic Money Tree belief
    It’s how we see the actual nature of the world. I think you are seeing it wrong.

    It’s not natural law as you claim, that increasing tax on business will ALWAYS effect prices, there are many other factors at play, not least as the level of tax rates - low to high - when a change is made, the impact that follows.

    Most of all though, when business tax is cut, you saying this is always passed on to consumers?

    No. I argue, when governments cut business rates, it is not so it’s passed on to consumers, but in the belief entrepreneurs can start up or expand. That’s how I understand the system works - when you believe in entrepreneurial spirit and capitalism, you have to believe, where it’s possible entrepreneurial spirit and competition do absorb costs if they can to keep going forward - that’s the actual nature of the world.
    When you find out "the actual nature of the world", please tell me... :)
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,736
    MattW said:

    Very much on topic.

    Thomas Frank, who has spent the last twenty years warning this would happen, writes in NY Times.

    "This was worth pointing out because working people were once the heart and soul of left-wing parties all over the world. It may seem like a distant memory, but not long ago, the left was not a movement of college professors, bankers or high-ranking officers at Uber or Amazon. Working people: That’s what parties of the left were very largely about. The same folks who just expressed such remarkable support for Donald Trump."

    "I have been writing about these things for 20 years, and I have begun to doubt that any combination of financial disaster or electoral chastisement will ever turn on the lightbulb for the liberals."

    The Elites Had It Coming
    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/09/opinion/democrats-trump-elites-centrism.html

    These seem to me to be weird narratives.

    "Such remarkable support for Donald Trump".

    What remarkable support?

    Currently 51% in a 2 horse race, made up of his base and a sprinkling of swing or newly aligned voters, to give a 3% majority. In a time when virtually all incumbent Governments are having their vote share reduce.
    People attach their preferred narratives to events, especially emotive ones like a Trump election.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,404

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Having 99% of Hollywood millionaire celebs preaching at you to vote Dem must grate a little, if you're not doing too well financially.
    A small easy win for the Dems might be to knock celebrity endorsements on the head.

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/nov/01/us-election-avengers-cast-kamala-harris-endorsement

    The billionaire Donald Trump was endorsed by Elon Musk, who hopes one day to be the richest man on Mars.
    So he wants to be an illegal alien - again?
    One thing that will come up in Trumps presidency is this.

    Using the rules on Planetary Protection, there is a strong group who want to try and ban any landing on Mars that isn’t “decontaminated” to a very exacting standard.

    The standard is largely bullshit, but that’s another conversation.

    It involves autoclaving the entire vehicle (why using renetry heat doesn’t count for this is a question that is refused to be answered). And you can’t autoclave Starship - too big.

    Interestingly, the Mars Sample return is hitting similar problem.

    So a decision that will be made is whether the Planetary Protection types get their vision of nothing much on Mars - forever. Or whether the first Starship landings occur before the end of the decade
    As JJ noted, it's more about settling the question of whether there was life on Mars ... before we introduce life on Mars.
    Which many of the more…. cultist Planetery Protection types seem to want to put off forever. Finding if there is life or not, that is.

    Vocal opposition to experiments capable of finding life is telling.

    The most farcical bit is the bizarre attitude to Mars Sample Return. Which won’t be fully sterilised, under current plans. But it has a waiver or 2, so that’s OK…
    "cultist Planetery Protection types seem to want to put off forever. "

    LOL. No. Simply, no.

    I want missions to go ahead. But if there is life on Mars (or elsewhere...) I want to be able to find it, and tell it is distinct. Having people who can advise missions on how best to prevent contamination is a great idea. Missions can still go ahead, but risks are reduced. Not removed, as the only way of doing this is doing nothing; but reduced. And some relatively simple processes can reduce risks by orders of magnitude.

    I could easily say the anti-PP people are simply uninterested in astrobiology and science.
    Have you actually met some of these people? I have.

    Quite a few say that they will never accept a crewed landing on Mars. Full stop. By anyone.

    When you ask them about the sterilisation level of the helicopter, they get all upset. It’s a naughty question, apparently.
    And their concerns will be listened to, and possibly ignored. But their concerns may also inform, and lead to a better mission. But don't pretend that all PP people are like that, by a long shot.

    You seem to hold PP in utter contempt; which is really anti-science.
    Ask some European scientists about their conversations with NASA over planetary protection. WTAF is a common response. Also “this makes no sense - this will contaminate like crazy”.

    It’s rather like the personal behaviours that stalled US space suit development for decades. I mean, when you have people claiming that the results from scientific trials should discarded, because the astronauts taking part in the trials must have been lying in their official, written reporting…. That’s definitely zany.
    Name some to ask, please. ;)

    What stalled US spacesuit development was funding. Bridenstine described it thusly: every few years NASA would start a program to develop a new space suit. They would develop concepts (and there are plenty of those on the web, such as the Z1 and Z2, the Constellation suit, etc, ...), and when it got to the expensive parts of the program, it would get canned as replacements for the current designs were not seen as critical. Then, a year or two later, a new program would be started, only to get canned a few years later. Bridenstine said that all the money spent on the initial concept stages over the last couple of decades would have been more than enough to get new suits.

    So from what I've heard and read, the problem was nothing to do with what you've said above, but more to do with the fact that new suits were not seen as being key, given the Shuttle / ISS ones were still usable and good enough.

    (I really hope Bridenstine is appointed again by Trump as NASA administrator, and far better than his successor. He was very good. But I think he had a falling out with the orange one.)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,931
    viewcode said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    It’s the economy, stupid.

    Labour in 2024 neutralised culture and ran on the Tories having failed on the economy.

    Sunak tried culture and failed as people simply said “I can’t afford to eat, why is this stuff relevant”.

    Labour would be wise to avoid culture going forward. And so far they don’t seem to my eye at least, to have done much in the way of identity politics.

    However Labour re making such a monumental hash of the economy their doing Badenoch's job for her. Election now !
    Is it a hash to do the bad news and war chest building this extremely early in a five year term?

    Those who historically came croppers done the big giveaways and growth budgets very early on, and lost control of the reigns. Trump for example, if he sticks to his plan, is going to lose control of inflation for the whole of his 2nd term - one click glance at today’s FT explains as much.

    Going by all current forcasts, either side of the Atlantic won’t find much economic growth in the next five or more years - it’s going to be a difficult economic time for all sitting governments this period - and there still appears to be inflationary pressures peeking round the corner, smiling at the reckless.

    Caution and war chest building right now doesn’t seem to me a hash of things at all, just very sensible.
    Broadly I agree - but the self-inflicted flaw in Labour’s approach arises if most of the increase on employers’ NI ends up being passed through to consumers through higher prices - as the announcements from some of the major supermarkets suggest is likely to happen.

    Firstly, this will deliver an inflationary spike that could destabilise Labour’s management of what is currently a relatively benign economy. Secondly, this will mean the burden of the tax increase will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes - the precise opposite of what would have happened had Labour taken the alternative, more honest, approach of pushing up tax on higher incomes and wealth.
    I’m not a believer in soak the rich to pay for everything, so obviously I disagree with your approach.

    But technically I don’t agree with you either. If NI on employers is passed on to household incomes, that would be deflationary not inflationary.

    Business is a broad industry, small business like already struggling hospitality definitely not given enough in budget to counteract the NI damage, but medium and larger businesses with plans to grow have the entrepreneurial spirit to absorb it and push on - which is the governments calculation. And the big businesses, let’s be honest there has been sneaky mugging us by some of them going on in the chaos of recent years.
    There is no way that the supermarkets announcing that their higher NI will be passed through to their customers through higher food and drink prices could possibly be deflationary.
    What makes households poorer is always deflationary, less money to spend.

    You actually believe the supermarkets will follow through that promise? Or is it just so predictable mood music?

    When Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, she was threatened by them she was causing untold damage. She called them out. Supermarkets are some of those ones who’s been mugging us and suppliers during inflation chaos. It’s at least equally possible rival supermarkets engage in price wars in coming years.
    The sums they are talking about are a considerable fraction of their profits. Supermarkets have huge turn over, and thanks to robust competition, small profit margins.

    So -

    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much
    2) They squeeze even harder on suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally
    4) raise consumer prices.

    Which do you think is likely?
    1) The supermarkets make a loss because they love the government so much NOPE
    2) They squeeze even harder of suppliers. Who have been massively squeezed over the years THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY REGARDLESS OF BUDGET.
    3) After years of squeezing internal costs, come up with even more cost cutting internally WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY
    4) raise consumer prices. LETS SEE, I’M NOT CONVINCED. UNLESS THEY ARE A CARTEL, AND NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.

    it’s all politics, you can’t go on what they are threatening, is what I am saying. Lady Thatcher windfall taxed oil companies and banks, and how they threw their toys out the pram and threatened end of all life on earth if she did, the case in point.
    I'm sorry but point 4 happens all the time - the supermarkets are just very good at hiding it by not focussing on the items people compare the prices of.

    If it’s happening all the time, I’m sorry but that supports my argument 100%. The discussion is what actually happens differently thanks to the budget, despite the threats thrown around.
    The idea that increasing tax on business will have no effect on prices, because you don’t want it to, is for the birds.

    It’s basic Money Tree belief
    It’s how we see the actual nature of the world. I think you are seeing it wrong.

    It’s not natural law as you claim, that increasing tax on business will ALWAYS effect prices, there are many other factors at play, not least as the level of tax rates - low to high - when a change is made, the impact that follows.

    Most of all though, when business tax is cut, you saying this is always passed on to consumers?

    No. I argue, when governments cut business rates, it is not so it’s passed on to consumers, but in the belief entrepreneurs can start up or expand. That’s how I understand the system works - when you believe in entrepreneurial spirit and capitalism, you have to believe, where it’s possible entrepreneurial spirit and competition do absorb costs if they can to keep going forward - that’s the actual nature of the world.
    When you find out "the actual nature of the world", please tell me... :)
    I’d also suggest reading some of the vast body of work on tax incidence.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,535
    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Today's quota:



    An actual canvas, used for canvassing, 1715. It would be unrolled and hung up at each pub where the candidate was due to speak.

    Oh, that's lovely.

    Where is it preserved?

    Is that slogan 'For Trade and the good of our country'?

    I see he won - and became MP for Worcs but did little. More interested in his law practice?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Vernon_(lawyer)#MP_for_Worcestershire_in_1715_and_death_in_1721


    Yes, that's the slogan. It was the year of the first Jacobite rising, so the stuff about the Church and the King was important. Why the trade part was so important I'm not sure.

    It's here: https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/worcestershire-herefordshire/hanbury-hall
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,736
    carnforth said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Today's quota:



    An actual canvas, used for canvassing, 1715. It would be unrolled and hung up at each pub where the candidate was due to speak.

    Oh, that's lovely.

    Where is it preserved?

    Is that slogan 'For Trade and the good of our country'?

    I see he won - and became MP for Worcs but did little. More interested in his law practice?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Vernon_(lawyer)#MP_for_Worcestershire_in_1715_and_death_in_1721


    Yes, that's the slogan. It was the year of the first Jacobite rising, so the stuff about the Church and the King was important. Why the trade part was so important I'm not sure.

    It's here: https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/worcestershire-herefordshire/hanbury-hall
    Maybe there was a threat of international tariffs incoming?
  • Is it just me but I haven't seen posts from @Anabobazina or @Roger since the Trump win
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,912
    edited November 9
    Scott_xP said:

    @Mij_Europe

    So, JD Vance is saying US support for NATO and the US' commitment to European security depends on the EU's regulatory posture towards Elon Musk.. ? US/EU relations about to enter a very new world

    https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1855237952936321239

    This new USA regime is sounding more and more like Chavez' Venezuela or Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

    The Usonians bent over, and voted to be Trumped good and hard. That I expect is just what they will get.
Sign In or Register to comment.