Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sunak continues to defy gravity in YouGov’s favourability rati

SystemSystem Posts: 12,169
edited September 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sunak continues to defy gravity in YouGov’s favourability ratings

YouGov have just updated their favourability trackers and as can be seen the Chancellor continues to ride supreme although still a long way down from his net plus 49% just at the start of lockdown. He, of course, has been making many of the key lockdown announcements on things like the hugely expensive furlough scheme and, of course, the changes on VAT and last month the cheap meals offer.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    !!
  • Second! Like Trump!
  • Mr Gravity will come for Sunak sooner or later.....especially when the bill for his our largesse comes due.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,935
    I thought he was supposed to be a yes-man, a patsy? :D
  • Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Why do you hate democracy?
    Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
    I support Scotland staying in the UK, I just don't see how Indy Ref 2 can be turned down if the SNP win again
    Genuine question. Why do you want scotland to stay. I don't mind if they stay or go personally. However I am curious why you want them to stay or anyone else for that matter. It largely seems to consist of "well we have been together 300 years"
    As a general principle I'm opposed to creating borders between people. So I voted to Remain in the EU and would vote to Remain in the UK.
    Good fences make good neighbours....its an aphorism with a lot of truth. By all means advocate no fences but dont be surprised when your neighbours do things you find offensive
    Sure, but one of the things that Brexit has driven home to me is how much I dislike borders. So I'm prepared to put up with a lot to do without them. Including being joined in a Union with a country that voted for Johnson as Prime Minister.

    I accept the rough with the smooth.

    I can see the appeal of the alternative. I expect that if I was still in Scotland at the time of the vote that it would be the first time my wife and I would [knowingly] vote on opposite sides.

    But, well, I was at an impressionable age when the Berlin Wall came down. My grandmother was reliant on the kindness of strangers to see her safely across borders as a refugee before the war. "Workers of the World Unite" not "Workers divide yourselves and compete against each other".

    I'll vote against a border.
    We can make the border between England and Scotland as seamless as the border between Belgium and the Netherlands.
    Not with the SNP's declared policies....

    and NEW THREAD
    Have the SNP said they would veto English membership of the EU or SM/CU?
  • As someone likes to remind me that Gordon Brown was the most popular Chancellor since records began and then he became PM and his chickens came home to roost, and thus became the most unpopular PM since records began.

    Is Sunak the heir to Brown?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    The fact that the SNP appear to be a bunch of tw*ts and yet are still miles ahead in the polls just says it all.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,594
    "Apple overtakes value of entire FTSE 100

    Shares in the California-based iPhone maker enjoyed a boost after a stock split to make it more accessible to retail investors."

    https://news.sky.com/story/apple-overtakes-value-of-entire-ftse-100-12061087
  • The fact that the SNP appear to be a bunch of tw*ts and yet are still miles ahead in the polls just says it all.

    Identity.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:


    I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.

    It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.

    Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.

    Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.

    First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.

    Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.

    Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent rules being applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of a Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.

    The sovereignty win of becoming an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
    This is poppycock, sorry.

    Scotland has *more* influence in the UK than it would have in the EU (where it'd be an even smaller fish and overruled by QMV on most issues). In the UK it has almost 10% of all UK MPs, each of which have the exact same rights and privileges as any other MP - including all the English ones. Barely 10 years ago Scots were both the PM and the Chancellor, and during the coalition Chief Secretary of the Treasury, with direct representation on the security council of the UN, the G7/8 and the G20. None of which Scotland could ever do again post-independence.

    It's true at the moment as Scotland has chosen to elect largely separatist MPs. It thus has very limited representation in the UK Government as a whole. It's in this sense a feedback loop as the very election of the nationalist MPs helps create the grievances they rail against and rely upon to advance their agenda.

    All this pre-dated Brexit and goes back to the 2015GE and (crucially) the politics of the preceding 18 months when independence garnered a huge head of steam.

    Brexit was (and is) a convenient stick to beat the Union with but the roots run deeper. Far deeper.
    Scotland doesn't have formal representation in the UK. It doesn't have a vote. Any decision that isn't devolved to Holyrood is taken by the UK government alone in its interest. This is different from EU member states who have a formal vote and in practice a near veto on decisions made. If Scotland leaves the UK then obviously its informal influence on the affairs of what remains of the old United Kingdom also goes. However that influence isn't massive right now because of the difference in size of Scotland compared with England.

    BTW I am a supporters of unions (plural), which can be bigger than the sum of their parts. I do accept however there a real wins for Scotland if it becomes independent (against bigger losses IMO). Unlike Brexit, which has no real upsides at all and is a big mistake, albeit one we are committed to.
    Scotland does have formal representation in the UK, and it does have votes. Just as England does too.

    You repeating this (along with most of the rest of your previous post, without addressing the points in my response) doesn't make it true.
    Formal representation? At what level, please?

    The recent history of Scottish (and Welsh and sometimes NIrish) governments' treatment by the current and previous Conservative governments is not a happy one.

    And the Sec of State for Scotland is no longer Scotland's voice within the cabinet - but the Whitehall government's voice within Scotland.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    As someone likes to remind me that Gordon Brown was the most popular Chancellor since records began and then he became PM and his chickens came home to roost, and thus became the most unpopular PM since records began.

    Is Sunak the heir to Brown?

    Nothing as dodgy and self serving as the Granita pact in the mix, that we know of.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Andy_JS said:

    "Apple overtakes value of entire FTSE 100

    Shares in the California-based iPhone maker enjoyed a boost after a stock split to make it more accessible to retail investors."

    https://news.sky.com/story/apple-overtakes-value-of-entire-ftse-100-12061087

    Its almost as if lockdown was incredibly good for the technology sector. Retail? its almost like Bezos designed the current arrangements himself.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I continue to hold my lay of Sunak
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,357

    The fact that the SNP appear to be a bunch of tw*ts and yet are still miles ahead in the polls just says it all.

    They don't appear to be up here, only in England where shall we say the truth is a stranger as far as Scotland is concerned.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    edited September 2020

    As someone likes to remind me that Gordon Brown was the most popular Chancellor since records began and then he became PM and his chickens came home to roost, and thus became the most unpopular PM since records began.

    Is Sunak the heir to Brown?

    Could well be.

    To add to your point, Brown's popularity as Chancellor was well established after presiding over a decade of steady economic expansion combined with public service growth, yet it had little resilience in the face of an economic meltdown from 2008.

    As the table shows, Sunak's popularity derives solely from a favourable reaction to the measures he took in March. Unlike Brown, he doesn't have a well established track record. So there's potentially little substance underpinning those ratings, suggesting that those ratings will collapse once he has to announce unpopular measures to replace those popular ones coming to an end. In addition, if Britain's recession continues to be deeper than those of other countries, it'll be harder for our current Chancellor to deflect blame for that off the government.
  • The fact that the SNP appear to be a bunch of tw*ts and yet are still miles ahead in the polls just says it all.

    It says that they have succeeded in making themselves interchangeable with 'Scotland'. So any attack on how horrible, pervy, bullying, incompetent, venal or anything else they are, has become an attack on Scotland and Scots. That's why, whilst well intentioned, Douglas Ross's idea of a 'relentless war on the SNP' won't work, for the time being, in my opinion. Instead, opponents of the SNP need to try, however away with the fairies it seems, to envisage a Scotland after the SNP, and be relentless in their attempts to inspire people about that vision.
  • Andy_JS said:

    "Apple overtakes value of entire FTSE 100

    Shares in the California-based iPhone maker enjoyed a boost after a stock split to make it more accessible to retail investors."

    https://news.sky.com/story/apple-overtakes-value-of-entire-ftse-100-12061087

    Its almost as if lockdown was incredibly good for the technology sector. Retail? its almost like Bezos designed the current arrangements himself.
    Apple has always been a success this century, they didn't need a pandemic to become so huge.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,357
    Just a load of bollox apart from the Salmond stitch up attempt. Bet he cannot name anyone found guilty of anything. Usual unionist propaganda, it gets more fantastic by the day, lots of pans wetting going on.
  • When the time comes for the chickens to be encouraged back to their roosts, Sunak is going to have a very difficult problem, both macro-economic and political. The accumulated debt can be left festering for a long period, as long as it can be financed and refinanced at ultra-low interest rates, but the deficit can't be - it's the financial equivalent of the epidemiological R number, and has to be brought back under control to prevent a destabilising persistent rise in debt.. So there will have to be tax rises, and substantial ones, to get the deficit under control.

    The political problem is obvious - no-one likes tax rises if they fall on them, or in many cases even if they don't. However, the macro-economic conundrum is even harder to crack. This is because tax rises don't just raise money for the Treasury, they also clobber demand, which is the opposite of what is required if the economy is to recover. There is no pot of gold sitting there to be raided without any downside - if you tax the better-off a lot more, they will spend less, affecting the whole economy and thus the less well-off.

    George Osborne faced a somewhat similar dilemma in 2010, when he inherited a clearly unsustainable fiscal position whereby Alastair Darling and Gordon Brown were spending four pounds for every three raised in revenue. Luckily for us all, he judged it extremely well, managing to get the deficit down to reasonable levels within a few budget cycles and without provoking mass unemployment.

    Will Sunak be able to repeat the trick? There are big headwinds - not only the self-imposed looming disaster of a chaotic Brexit, but also disruption to the world economy which looks deeper and more widespread even than the global financial crisis of 2008/9. It's a bit early to be sure, but my hunch is that the economic hit of Covid-19 is going to take a long time to recover from.

    Overall, I'm not optimistic that Sunak will be able to emulate Osborne, talented though he is.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    Andy_JS said:

    "Apple overtakes value of entire FTSE 100

    Shares in the California-based iPhone maker enjoyed a boost after a stock split to make it more accessible to retail investors."

    https://news.sky.com/story/apple-overtakes-value-of-entire-ftse-100-12061087

    Its almost as if lockdown was incredibly good for the technology sector. Retail? its almost like Bezos designed the current arrangements himself.
    Apple has always been a success this century, they didn't need a pandemic to become so huge.
    Apple yes.
    But compulsory masking, social distancing, soaring parking charges and sky high business rates haven;t exactly helped your high street shop fight back against the online retailers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    Apple's 2T valuation is a lot more sensible than Tesla's 500B, or Uber's 60B.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Apple's 2T valuation is a lot more sensible than Tesla's 500B, or Uber's 60B.

    Uber's really does confound and vex me.

    I have also have huge concerns about the valuation of Netflix.
  • FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    FF43 said:


    I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.

    It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.

    Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.

    Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.

    First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.

    Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.

    Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent set of rules applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of the Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.

    The sovereignty win of being an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
    You do realise most of your pluses involve the eu giving scotland immediate entry and even as someone that supports scottish independence I dont expect eu entry to take less that 10 to 15 years
    I expect EU entry to take less time to negotiate than the exit itself.

    I expect the Scottish Government would start simultaneous negotiations for independence from the UK and membership of the EU and they would transition seemlessly from one to the other.
    With which Central Bank and Currency?
    Either the Scottish Central Bank and Scottish Pound, or the European Central Bank and Euro would be the only logical options in my opinion.

    Technically the latter isn't an option without years of the former - but it would take a unanimous treaty to let Scotland into the EU anyway and with a unanimous treaty the Europeans could change the rules for the Euro to let Scotland in, creating bespoke rules for Scotland as its a previously unheard of example of a country without a currency of its own.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    When the time comes for the chickens to be encouraged back to their roosts, Sunak is going to have a very difficult problem, both macro-economic and political. The accumulated debt can be left festering for a long period, as long as it can be financed and refinanced at ultra-low interest rates, but the deficit can't be - it's the financial equivalent of the epidemiological R number, and has to be brought back under control to prevent a destabilising persistent rise in debt.. So there will have to be tax rises, and substantial ones, to get the deficit under control.

    The political problem is obvious - no-one likes tax rises if they fall on them, or in many cases even if they don't. However, the macro-economic conundrum is even harder to crack. This is because tax rises don't just raise money for the Treasury, they also clobber demand, which is the opposite of what is required if the economy is to recover. There is no pot of gold sitting there to be raided without any downside - if you tax the better-off a lot more, they will spend less, affecting the whole economy and thus the less well-off.

    George Osborne faced a somewhat similar dilemma in 2010, when he inherited a clearly unsustainable fiscal position whereby Alastair Darling and Gordon Brown were spending four pounds for every three raised in revenue. Luckily for us all, he judged it extremely well, managing to get the deficit down to reasonable levels within a few budget cycles and without provoking mass unemployment.

    Will Sunak be able to repeat the trick? There are big headwinds - not only the self-imposed looming disaster of a chaotic Brexit, but also disruption to the world economy which looks deeper and more widespread even than the global financial crisis of 2008/9. It's a bit early to be sure, but my hunch is that the economic hit of Covid-19 is going to take a long time to recover from.

    Overall, I'm not optimistic that Sunak will be able to emulate Osborne, talented though he is.

    Maybe the government might consider repealing the law that made spending cuts illegal?
  • When the time comes for the chickens to be encouraged back to their roosts, Sunak is going to have a very difficult problem, both macro-economic and political. The accumulated debt can be left festering for a long period, as long as it can be financed and refinanced at ultra-low interest rates, but the deficit can't be - it's the financial equivalent of the epidemiological R number, and has to be brought back under control to prevent a destabilising persistent rise in debt.. So there will have to be tax rises, and substantial ones, to get the deficit under control.

    The political problem is obvious - no-one likes tax rises if they fall on them, or in many cases even if they don't. However, the macro-economic conundrum is even harder to crack. This is because tax rises don't just raise money for the Treasury, they also clobber demand, which is the opposite of what is required if the economy is to recover. There is no pot of gold sitting there to be raided without any downside - if you tax the better-off a lot more, they will spend less, affecting the whole economy and thus the less well-off.

    George Osborne faced a somewhat similar dilemma in 2010, when he inherited a clearly unsustainable fiscal position whereby Alastair Darling and Gordon Brown were spending four pounds for every three raised in revenue. Luckily for us all, he judged it extremely well, managing to get the deficit down to reasonable levels within a few budget cycles and without provoking mass unemployment.

    Will Sunak be able to repeat the trick? There are big headwinds - not only the self-imposed looming disaster of a chaotic Brexit, but also disruption to the world economy which looks deeper and more widespread even than the global financial crisis of 2008/9. It's a bit early to be sure, but my hunch is that the economic hit of Covid-19 is going to take a long time to recover from.

    Overall, I'm not optimistic that Sunak will be able to emulate Osborne, talented though he is.

    Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour. So far Sunak has at least managed to resist the siren voices of the austerity hawks. As you say, recovering from the pandemic will be hard enough, and Brexit is unlikely to help (subject to whatever deals might be achieved in the next few months). The last thing we need is an ill-judged bout of austerity.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Andy_JS said:

    "Apple overtakes value of entire FTSE 100

    Shares in the California-based iPhone maker enjoyed a boost after a stock split to make it more accessible to retail investors."

    https://news.sky.com/story/apple-overtakes-value-of-entire-ftse-100-12061087

    Its almost as if lockdown was incredibly good for the technology sector. Retail? its almost like Bezos designed the current arrangements himself.
    Apple has always been a success this century, they didn't need a pandemic to become so huge.
    Apple yes.
    But compulsory masking, social distancing, soaring parking charges and sky high business rates haven;t exactly helped your high street shop fight back against the online retailers.
    Got to get your snide mask comment in don’t you?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,672
    edited September 2020
    nichomar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Apple overtakes value of entire FTSE 100

    Shares in the California-based iPhone maker enjoyed a boost after a stock split to make it more accessible to retail investors."

    https://news.sky.com/story/apple-overtakes-value-of-entire-ftse-100-12061087

    Its almost as if lockdown was incredibly good for the technology sector. Retail? its almost like Bezos designed the current arrangements himself.
    Apple has always been a success this century, they didn't need a pandemic to become so huge.
    Apple yes.
    But compulsory masking, social distancing, soaring parking charges and sky high business rates haven;t exactly helped your high street shop fight back against the online retailers.
    Got to get your snide mask comment in don’t you?
    Don't waste your time, Contrarian defends the indefensible, like coked up racists using the words like 'Paki'.
  • sladeslade Posts: 2,041
    Roglic looks like a good bet to win Le Tour. But still a long way to go.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,357

    The fact that the SNP appear to be a bunch of tw*ts and yet are still miles ahead in the polls just says it all.

    It says that they have succeeded in making themselves interchangeable with 'Scotland'. So any attack on how horrible, pervy, bullying, incompetent, venal or anything else they are, has become an attack on Scotland and Scots. That's why, whilst well intentioned, Douglas Ross's idea of a 'relentless war on the SNP' won't work, for the time being, in my opinion. Instead, opponents of the SNP need to try, however away with the fairies it seems, to envisage a Scotland after the SNP, and be relentless in their attempts to inspire people about that vision.
    Ross is another dumpling, so far everything he has promoted for Scotland he has already voted to have banned from Westminster. He is a clown.


  • Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.


  • Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,935



    Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    Weren't Labour planning to cut even more relative to what Osborne actually did?
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    nichomar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Apple overtakes value of entire FTSE 100

    Shares in the California-based iPhone maker enjoyed a boost after a stock split to make it more accessible to retail investors."

    https://news.sky.com/story/apple-overtakes-value-of-entire-ftse-100-12061087

    Its almost as if lockdown was incredibly good for the technology sector. Retail? its almost like Bezos designed the current arrangements himself.
    Apple has always been a success this century, they didn't need a pandemic to become so huge.
    Apple yes.
    But compulsory masking, social distancing, soaring parking charges and sky high business rates haven;t exactly helped your high street shop fight back against the online retailers.
    Got to get your snide mask comment in don’t you?
    I get it.

    Authoritarians in favour of compulsory masking cannot stand it when the obvious downsides are pointed out. It does not compute.

    There isn;t strong evidence either way. Said the deputy chief medical officer only the other day.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205

    Pulpstar said:

    Apple's 2T valuation is a lot more sensible than Tesla's 500B, or Uber's 60B.

    Uber's really does confound and vex me.

    I have also have huge concerns about the valuation of Netflix.
    Tesla being worth more than pretty much the rest of the car industry combined is a hell of a reach too. Assumes we'll all be getting Teslas when the industry goes electric - currently the french (Renault (Owned by Nissan I think ?)/Peugeot) look to be offering models below any of Tesla's price points.
    Nissan's market cap is 15.8 billion compared to Tesla 446 billion !
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Apple's 2T valuation is a lot more sensible than Tesla's 500B, or Uber's 60B.

    Uber's really does confound and vex me.

    I have also have huge concerns about the valuation of Netflix.
    Tesla being worth more than pretty much the rest of the car industry combined is a hell of a reach too. Assumes we'll all be getting Teslas when the industry goes electric - currently the french (Renault (Owned by Nissan I think ?)/Peugeot) look to be offering models below any of Tesla's price points.
    Nissan's market cap is 15.8 billion compared to Tesla 446 billion !
    Tesla might have this market valuation but the latest issue of Which reckons their cars are very unreliable and develop a lot of faults.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    nichomar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Apple overtakes value of entire FTSE 100

    Shares in the California-based iPhone maker enjoyed a boost after a stock split to make it more accessible to retail investors."

    https://news.sky.com/story/apple-overtakes-value-of-entire-ftse-100-12061087

    Its almost as if lockdown was incredibly good for the technology sector. Retail? its almost like Bezos designed the current arrangements himself.
    Apple has always been a success this century, they didn't need a pandemic to become so huge.
    Apple yes.
    But compulsory masking, social distancing, soaring parking charges and sky high business rates haven;t exactly helped your high street shop fight back against the online retailers.
    Got to get your snide mask comment in don’t you?
    Don't waste your time, Contrarian defends the indefensible, like coked up racists using the words like 'Paki'.

    I did not defend that word and would never use it.

    Look, Why don't you just ban me mate, you've been dying to for ages. In some ways it would be a release. It would stop me wasting a bucket of my time as well. I could watch some paint dry.
  • nichomar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Apple overtakes value of entire FTSE 100

    Shares in the California-based iPhone maker enjoyed a boost after a stock split to make it more accessible to retail investors."

    https://news.sky.com/story/apple-overtakes-value-of-entire-ftse-100-12061087

    Its almost as if lockdown was incredibly good for the technology sector. Retail? its almost like Bezos designed the current arrangements himself.
    Apple has always been a success this century, they didn't need a pandemic to become so huge.
    Apple yes.
    But compulsory masking, social distancing, soaring parking charges and sky high business rates haven;t exactly helped your high street shop fight back against the online retailers.
    Got to get your snide mask comment in don’t you?
    Don't waste your time, Contrarian defends the indefensible, like coked up racists using the words like 'Paki'.

    I did not defend that word and would never use it.

    Look, Why don't you just ban me mate, you've been dying to for ages. In some ways it would be a release. It would stop me wasting a bucket of my time as well. I could watch some paint dry.
    Nah, PB needs its court jesters.
  • RobD said:



    Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    Weren't Labour planning to cut even more relative to what Osborne actually did?
    They weren't planning anything. Brown, in a most irresponsible piece of politicking, wouldn't let Darling carry out a comprehensive spending review. There was no plan at all.
  • RobD said:



    Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    Weren't Labour planning to cut even more relative to what Osborne actually did?
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Apple's 2T valuation is a lot more sensible than Tesla's 500B, or Uber's 60B.

    Uber's really does confound and vex me.

    I have also have huge concerns about the valuation of Netflix.
    Tesla being worth more than pretty much the rest of the car industry combined is a hell of a reach too. Assumes we'll all be getting Teslas when the industry goes electric - currently the french (Renault (Owned by Nissan I think ?)/Peugeot) look to be offering models below any of Tesla's price points.
    Nissan's market cap is 15.8 billion compared to Tesla 446 billion !
    Tesla might have this market valuation but the latest issue of Which reckons their cars are very unreliable and develop a lot of faults.
    I'm a fan of the company but the valuation looks completely bonkers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205

    RobD said:



    Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    Weren't Labour planning to cut even more relative to what Osborne actually did?
    They weren't planning anything. Brown, in a most irresponsible piece of politicking, wouldn't let Darling carry out a comprehensive spending review. There was no plan at all.
    Centrists such as Osborne, Mandelson, Hammond and Clegg would sell their granny to the Saudis or Russians for appropriate compensation but they're fundamentally competent when it comes to running a country's finances.


  • Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession
    It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.
    Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885
    edited September 2020
    malcolmg said:

    The fact that the SNP appear to be a bunch of tw*ts and yet are still miles ahead in the polls just says it all.

    It says that they have succeeded in making themselves interchangeable with 'Scotland'. So any attack on how horrible, pervy, bullying, incompetent, venal or anything else they are, has become an attack on Scotland and Scots. That's why, whilst well intentioned, Douglas Ross's idea of a 'relentless war on the SNP' won't work, for the time being, in my opinion. Instead, opponents of the SNP need to try, however away with the fairies it seems, to envisage a Scotland after the SNP, and be relentless in their attempts to inspire people about that vision.
    Ross is another dumpling, so far everything he has promoted for Scotland he has already voted to have banned from Westminster. He is a clown.
    Mr Johnson's majority is so great that Mr Ross could claim to oppose Mr Johnson on everything from Brexit to letting the Americans use the words "Scotch whisky" for their own home made brews, and have all his Scottish MPs vote against - and it would be a sham exercise in fact and, possibly, in intent.

    It would be so uncharacteristic anyway I'm not sure how credible it would be with many voters. It also risks falling into the converse of Labour's trap. Labour basically tried to be Unionist when there was a full fat Unionist party available to vote for. Mr Ross risks trying to be pro-Scotland when there is a far more credibly pro-Scotland party to vote for, and wehn the question of actual independence would (probably) be settled quite separately by a referendum (ie not by voting for any one party).

    Edit: Mr Ross would be more believable if his party had done a Murdo Fraser and gone independent from the London-based Tories. But would that still be credible enough now after their u-turn on Brexit?



  • Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession
    It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.
    Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.
    Yes, I know, it's one of my favourite pieces of bonkersness.

    Still, the question is what Sunak can do from the position he now faces. It looks more difficult even than what Osborne had to deal with. I expect he'll tread carefully for the next year or so, if only because no-one yet knows how big the Covid-19 hit will eventually be, nor what the resulting structural changes to the economy are going to be.
  • The fact that the SNP appear to be a bunch of tw*ts and yet are still miles ahead in the polls just says it all.

    Whether the SNP are a bunch of twats or not, as you imply the SNPbad Angry Brigade now look ridiculous. Just imagine if the SNP were as good as...well not any other UK parties...as good as imaginary good party X, indy would be on 75% and SNP the same.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,131

    The fact that the SNP appear to be a bunch of tw*ts and yet are still miles ahead in the polls just says it all.

    Many a successful party have been run and led by twats.
  • Carnyx said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:


    I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.

    It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.

    Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.

    Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.

    First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.

    Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.

    Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent rules being applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of a Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.

    The sovereignty win of becoming an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
    This is poppycock, sorry.

    Scotland has *more* influence in the UK than it would have in the EU (where it'd be an even smaller fish and overruled by QMV on most issues). In the UK it has almost 10% of all UK MPs, each of which have the exact same rights and privileges as any other MP - including all the English ones. Barely 10 years ago Scots were both the PM and the Chancellor, and during the coalition Chief Secretary of the Treasury, with direct representation on the security council of the UN, the G7/8 and the G20. None of which Scotland could ever do again post-independence.

    It's true at the moment as Scotland has chosen to elect largely separatist MPs. It thus has very limited representation in the UK Government as a whole. It's in this sense a feedback loop as the very election of the nationalist MPs helps create the grievances they rail against and rely upon to advance their agenda.

    All this pre-dated Brexit and goes back to the 2015GE and (crucially) the politics of the preceding 18 months when independence garnered a huge head of steam.

    Brexit was (and is) a convenient stick to beat the Union with but the roots run deeper. Far deeper.
    Scotland doesn't have formal representation in the UK. It doesn't have a vote. Any decision that isn't devolved to Holyrood is taken by the UK government alone in its interest. This is different from EU member states who have a formal vote and in practice a near veto on decisions made. If Scotland leaves the UK then obviously its informal influence on the affairs of what remains of the old United Kingdom also goes. However that influence isn't massive right now because of the difference in size of Scotland compared with England.

    BTW I am a supporters of unions (plural), which can be bigger than the sum of their parts. I do accept however there a real wins for Scotland if it becomes independent (against bigger losses IMO). Unlike Brexit, which has no real upsides at all and is a big mistake, albeit one we are committed to.
    Scotland does have formal representation in the UK, and it does have votes. Just as England does too.

    You repeating this (along with most of the rest of your previous post, without addressing the points in my response) doesn't make it true.
    Formal representation? At what level, please?

    The recent history of Scottish (and Welsh and sometimes NIrish) governments' treatment by the current and previous Conservative governments is not a happy one.

    And the Sec of State for Scotland is no longer Scotland's voice within the cabinet - but the Whitehall government's voice within Scotland.
    The United Kingdom Parliament.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,131
    I would love for one of the Corbynite intake to say:

    Why is it a contrast, Sir Keir? Weren't you a part of what you would say was a great opposition last year?

    I certainly don't think his history in the Corbynite shadow cabinet is a disqualifier, and he needed to do it to win the leadership too, but I imagine that crowd must really dislike the increasingly unsubtle digs at the Jezziah.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885

    Carnyx said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:


    I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.

    It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.

    Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.

    Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.

    First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.

    Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.

    Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent rules being applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of a Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.

    The sovereignty win of becoming an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
    This is poppycock, sorry.

    Scotland has *more* influence in the UK than it would have in the EU (where it'd be an even smaller fish and overruled by QMV on most issues). In the UK it has almost 10% of all UK MPs, each of which have the exact same rights and privileges as any other MP - including all the English ones. Barely 10 years ago Scots were both the PM and the Chancellor, and during the coalition Chief Secretary of the Treasury, with direct representation on the security council of the UN, the G7/8 and the G20. None of which Scotland could ever do again post-independence.

    It's true at the moment as Scotland has chosen to elect largely separatist MPs. It thus has very limited representation in the UK Government as a whole. It's in this sense a feedback loop as the very election of the nationalist MPs helps create the grievances they rail against and rely upon to advance their agenda.

    All this pre-dated Brexit and goes back to the 2015GE and (crucially) the politics of the preceding 18 months when independence garnered a huge head of steam.

    Brexit was (and is) a convenient stick to beat the Union with but the roots run deeper. Far deeper.
    Scotland doesn't have formal representation in the UK. It doesn't have a vote. Any decision that isn't devolved to Holyrood is taken by the UK government alone in its interest. This is different from EU member states who have a formal vote and in practice a near veto on decisions made. If Scotland leaves the UK then obviously its informal influence on the affairs of what remains of the old United Kingdom also goes. However that influence isn't massive right now because of the difference in size of Scotland compared with England.

    BTW I am a supporters of unions (plural), which can be bigger than the sum of their parts. I do accept however there a real wins for Scotland if it becomes independent (against bigger losses IMO). Unlike Brexit, which has no real upsides at all and is a big mistake, albeit one we are committed to.
    Scotland does have formal representation in the UK, and it does have votes. Just as England does too.

    You repeating this (along with most of the rest of your previous post, without addressing the points in my response) doesn't make it true.
    Formal representation? At what level, please?

    The recent history of Scottish (and Welsh and sometimes NIrish) governments' treatment by the current and previous Conservative governments is not a happy one.

    And the Sec of State for Scotland is no longer Scotland's voice within the cabinet - but the Whitehall government's voice within Scotland.
    The United Kingdom Parliament.
    In which it is numerically swamped, and has no distinct representation as a whole, as another has mentioned already today.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,131
    RobD said:



    Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    Weren't Labour planning to cut even more relative to what Osborne actually did?
    Ed Miliband was ok, but his position in the run up to the 2015 GE was incoherent, in that it was both that the Coalition cut too much, and that it had failed to cut as much as it said it would. It'd be possible to make that argument, but it was a poor line to attempt with the public, particular when enough people accepted that spending had been too high at the time.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:


    I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.

    It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.

    Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.

    Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.

    First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.

    Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.

    Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent rules being applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of a Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.

    The sovereignty win of becoming an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
    This is poppycock, sorry.

    Scotland has *more* influence in the UK than it would have in the EU (where it'd be an even smaller fish and overruled by QMV on most issues). In the UK it has almost 10% of all UK MPs, each of which have the exact same rights and privileges as any other MP - including all the English ones. Barely 10 years ago Scots were both the PM and the Chancellor, and during the coalition Chief Secretary of the Treasury, with direct representation on the security council of the UN, the G7/8 and the G20. None of which Scotland could ever do again post-independence.

    It's true at the moment as Scotland has chosen to elect largely separatist MPs. It thus has very limited representation in the UK Government as a whole. It's in this sense a feedback loop as the very election of the nationalist MPs helps create the grievances they rail against and rely upon to advance their agenda.

    All this pre-dated Brexit and goes back to the 2015GE and (crucially) the politics of the preceding 18 months when independence garnered a huge head of steam.

    Brexit was (and is) a convenient stick to beat the Union with but the roots run deeper. Far deeper.
    Scotland doesn't have formal representation in the UK. It doesn't have a vote. Any decision that isn't devolved to Holyrood is taken by the UK government alone in its interest. This is different from EU member states who have a formal vote and in practice a near veto on decisions made. If Scotland leaves the UK then obviously its informal influence on the affairs of what remains of the old United Kingdom also goes. However that influence isn't massive right now because of the difference in size of Scotland compared with England.

    BTW I am a supporters of unions (plural), which can be bigger than the sum of their parts. I do accept however there a real wins for Scotland if it becomes independent (against bigger losses IMO). Unlike Brexit, which has no real upsides at all and is a big mistake, albeit one we are committed to.
    Scotland does have formal representation in the UK, and it does have votes. Just as England does too.

    You repeating this (along with most of the rest of your previous post, without addressing the points in my response) doesn't make it true.
    Formal representation? At what level, please?

    The recent history of Scottish (and Welsh and sometimes NIrish) governments' treatment by the current and previous Conservative governments is not a happy one.

    And the Sec of State for Scotland is no longer Scotland's voice within the cabinet - but the Whitehall government's voice within Scotland.
    The United Kingdom Parliament.
    In which it is numerically swamped, and has no distinct representation as a whole, as another has mentioned already today.
    Just as Scotland would be in the European Parliament and Brussels. Only more so.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,400

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Apple's 2T valuation is a lot more sensible than Tesla's 500B, or Uber's 60B.

    Uber's really does confound and vex me.

    I have also have huge concerns about the valuation of Netflix.
    Tesla being worth more than pretty much the rest of the car industry combined is a hell of a reach too. Assumes we'll all be getting Teslas when the industry goes electric - currently the french (Renault (Owned by Nissan I think ?)/Peugeot) look to be offering models below any of Tesla's price points.
    Nissan's market cap is 15.8 billion compared to Tesla 446 billion !
    Tesla might have this market valuation but the latest issue of Which reckons their cars are very unreliable and develop a lot of faults.
    Tesla has big problems in Europe but that isn't obvious to people riding the Tesla stock chart and Tesla is rather sensible going to sell $5bn of shares to raise some capital at minimal cost to itself.

    Personally I suspect the VW's I3 and other cars will rather damage Tesla's european market share - I know which car I would rather own and it's not a Tesla 3.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,131



    Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession
    It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.
    Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.
    Yes, I know, it's one of my favourite pieces of bonkersness.

    Still, the question is what Sunak can do from the position he now faces. It looks more difficult even than what Osborne had to deal with. I expect he'll tread carefully for the next year or so, if only because no-one yet knows how big the Covid-19 hit will eventually be, nor what the resulting structural changes to the economy are going to be.
    When the options are all difficult, assume the path of least resistance will be taken, that is, kicking the can.


  • Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession
    It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.
    Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.
    Yes, I know, it's one of my favourite pieces of bonkersness.

    Still, the question is what Sunak can do from the position he now faces. It looks more difficult even than what Osborne had to deal with. I expect he'll tread carefully for the next year or so, if only because no-one yet knows how big the Covid-19 hit will eventually be, nor what the resulting structural changes to the economy are going to be.
    I'm optimistic that when all is said and done actually Sunak won't have anywhere near as difficult to deal with compared to Osborne.

    The reason being that Brown bequeathed a humongous structural deficit so growing out of it was never viable, even at full employment there was still a deficit. In contrast going into COVID19 there was no structural deficit. There has been a major systemic shock and it will lead to a lot of reforms but there seems to be little reason for a structural deficit.
  • Is there some unwritten rule that celebrities must give their children stupid names?


  • Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession
    It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.
    Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.
    Yes, I know, it's one of my favourite pieces of bonkersness.

    Still, the question is what Sunak can do from the position he now faces. It looks more difficult even than what Osborne had to deal with. I expect he'll tread carefully for the next year or so, if only because no-one yet knows how big the Covid-19 hit will eventually be, nor what the resulting structural changes to the economy are going to be.
    I'm optimistic that when all is said and done actually Sunak won't have anywhere near as difficult to deal with compared to Osborne.

    The reason being that Brown bequeathed a humongous structural deficit so growing out of it was never viable, even at full employment there was still a deficit. In contrast going into COVID19 there was no structural deficit. There has been a major systemic shock and it will lead to a lot of reforms but there seems to be little reason for a structural deficit.
    Pensions (both private relief and the triple lock) seem the obvious place to target if big savings are needed.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    Andy_JS said:

    "Apple overtakes value of entire FTSE 100

    Shares in the California-based iPhone maker enjoyed a boost after a stock split to make it more accessible to retail investors."

    https://news.sky.com/story/apple-overtakes-value-of-entire-ftse-100-12061087

    Impressive - but how would it cope with a wet Wednesday night in Stoke?
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:


    I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.

    It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.

    Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.

    Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.

    First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.

    Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.

    Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent rules being applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of a Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.

    The sovereignty win of becoming an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
    This is poppycock, sorry.

    Scotland has *more* influence in the UK than it would have in the EU (where it'd be an even smaller fish and overruled by QMV on most issues). In the UK it has almost 10% of all UK MPs, each of which have the exact same rights and privileges as any other MP - including all the English ones. Barely 10 years ago Scots were both the PM and the Chancellor, and during the coalition Chief Secretary of the Treasury, with direct representation on the security council of the UN, the G7/8 and the G20. None of which Scotland could ever do again post-independence.

    It's true at the moment as Scotland has chosen to elect largely separatist MPs. It thus has very limited representation in the UK Government as a whole. It's in this sense a feedback loop as the very election of the nationalist MPs helps create the grievances they rail against and rely upon to advance their agenda.

    All this pre-dated Brexit and goes back to the 2015GE and (crucially) the politics of the preceding 18 months when independence garnered a huge head of steam.

    Brexit was (and is) a convenient stick to beat the Union with but the roots run deeper. Far deeper.
    Scotland doesn't have formal representation in the UK. It doesn't have a vote. Any decision that isn't devolved to Holyrood is taken by the UK government alone in its interest. This is different from EU member states who have a formal vote and in practice a near veto on decisions made. If Scotland leaves the UK then obviously its informal influence on the affairs of what remains of the old United Kingdom also goes. However that influence isn't massive right now because of the difference in size of Scotland compared with England.

    BTW I am a supporters of unions (plural), which can be bigger than the sum of their parts. I do accept however there a real wins for Scotland if it becomes independent (against bigger losses IMO). Unlike Brexit, which has no real upsides at all and is a big mistake, albeit one we are committed to.
    Scotland does have formal representation in the UK, and it does have votes. Just as England does too.

    You repeating this (along with most of the rest of your previous post, without addressing the points in my response) doesn't make it true.
    Formal representation? At what level, please?

    The recent history of Scottish (and Welsh and sometimes NIrish) governments' treatment by the current and previous Conservative governments is not a happy one.

    And the Sec of State for Scotland is no longer Scotland's voice within the cabinet - but the Whitehall government's voice within Scotland.
    The United Kingdom Parliament.
    In which it is numerically swamped, and has no distinct representation as a whole, as another has mentioned already today.
    So is Hampshire, or London, or Wales, or Northern Ireland. Scotland is distinctly represented by its 59 MPs representing Scottish interests and through having the SoS for Scotland in the cabinet too.

    Of course, if you don't feel "British" at all - I do - then we have a different problem. Which is what this all hinges on really, isn't it?
  • HYUFD said:
    Trump won Montana by over 20% last time.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,851
    Haha. I see the Osborne zombies are out in force again. Don't give it up guys.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,131

    Haha. I see the Osborne zombies are out in force again. Don't give it up guys.

    The coalition did a good job. We could use it as a government right now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,131
    Stunning revelation.

    Quite why they couldn't just leave it at socialism without the Soviet symbol I dont know.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226



    Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession
    It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.
    Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.
    Yes, I know, it's one of my favourite pieces of bonkersness.

    Still, the question is what Sunak can do from the position he now faces. It looks more difficult even than what Osborne had to deal with. I expect he'll tread carefully for the next year or so, if only because no-one yet knows how big the Covid-19 hit will eventually be, nor what the resulting structural changes to the economy are going to be.
    I'm optimistic that when all is said and done actually Sunak won't have anywhere near as difficult to deal with compared to Osborne.

    The reason being that Brown bequeathed a humongous structural deficit so growing out of it was never viable, even at full employment there was still a deficit. In contrast going into COVID19 there was no structural deficit. There has been a major systemic shock and it will lead to a lot of reforms but there seems to be little reason for a structural deficit.
    Don't succumb to Brownaphobic abuse again. It clouds and distorts.
  • kle4 said:

    Stunning revelation.

    Quite why they couldn't just leave it at socialism without the Soviet symbol I dont know.
    Not all XR supporters are going to take this view though. It's a pretty diverse set of sub-groups and people.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:


    I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.

    It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.

    Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.

    Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.

    First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.

    Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.

    Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent rules being applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of a Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.

    The sovereignty win of becoming an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
    This is poppycock, sorry.

    Scotland has *more* influence in the UK than it would have in the EU (where it'd be an even smaller fish and overruled by QMV on most issues). In the UK it has almost 10% of all UK MPs, each of which have the exact same rights and privileges as any other MP - including all the English ones. Barely 10 years ago Scots were both the PM and the Chancellor, and during the coalition Chief Secretary of the Treasury, with direct representation on the security council of the UN, the G7/8 and the G20. None of which Scotland could ever do again post-independence.

    It's true at the moment as Scotland has chosen to elect largely separatist MPs. It thus has very limited representation in the UK Government as a whole. It's in this sense a feedback loop as the very election of the nationalist MPs helps create the grievances they rail against and rely upon to advance their agenda.

    All this pre-dated Brexit and goes back to the 2015GE and (crucially) the politics of the preceding 18 months when independence garnered a huge head of steam.

    Brexit was (and is) a convenient stick to beat the Union with but the roots run deeper. Far deeper.
    Scotland doesn't have formal representation in the UK. It doesn't have a vote. Any decision that isn't devolved to Holyrood is taken by the UK government alone in its interest. This is different from EU member states who have a formal vote and in practice a near veto on decisions made. If Scotland leaves the UK then obviously its informal influence on the affairs of what remains of the old United Kingdom also goes. However that influence isn't massive right now because of the difference in size of Scotland compared with England.

    BTW I am a supporters of unions (plural), which can be bigger than the sum of their parts. I do accept however there a real wins for Scotland if it becomes independent (against bigger losses IMO). Unlike Brexit, which has no real upsides at all and is a big mistake, albeit one we are committed to.
    Scotland does have formal representation in the UK, and it does have votes. Just as England does too.

    You repeating this (along with most of the rest of your previous post, without addressing the points in my response) doesn't make it true.
    Formal representation? At what level, please?

    The recent history of Scottish (and Welsh and sometimes NIrish) governments' treatment by the current and previous Conservative governments is not a happy one.

    And the Sec of State for Scotland is no longer Scotland's voice within the cabinet - but the Whitehall government's voice within Scotland.
    The United Kingdom Parliament.
    In which it is numerically swamped, and has no distinct representation as a whole, as another has mentioned already today.
    Just as Scotland would be in the European Parliament and Brussels. Only more so.
    Scotland would have distinct representation as a whole in the European Council. There's no equivalent UK body.
  • What's he trying to say? If Starmer some how wins its because the times are not normal?

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226



    Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

    I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
    But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession
    It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.
    Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.
    Yes, I know, it's one of my favourite pieces of bonkersness.

    Still, the question is what Sunak can do from the position he now faces. It looks more difficult even than what Osborne had to deal with. I expect he'll tread carefully for the next year or so, if only because no-one yet knows how big the Covid-19 hit will eventually be, nor what the resulting structural changes to the economy are going to be.
    The test will be who bears the pain not whether there will be pain. My assumption is that it will again not be the people who it never is.
  • HYUFD said:
    Trump won Montana by over 20% last time.
    Ironically, it's potentially good news for Trump in a sense if his leads in states that aren't going to be pivotal are fairly small as it suggests his vote nationally is efficiently distributed. Unless it's a blow-out election, Trump will win Montana anyway and it makes no difference if that's by a single or double figure margin. Equally, it's potentially bad news for Biden - there's no benefit in losing Montana marginally rather than massively and he'd rather have those votes in Michigan.

    Biden could do with some closer polling margins in California and New York whilst retaining a national lead. There does look to be some risk he's distributing his vote inefficiently.

    I mean, I get that a close poll in Montana could mean Biden is getting an 8% swing across the country, but the national polls don't support that (although they show him in a decent position).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,672
    edited September 2020
    kle4 said:

    Stunning revelation.

    Quite why they couldn't just leave it at socialism without the Soviet symbol I dont know.
    I reminded of a debate I had with a communist* a while back who said the Soviet Union really wasn't socialist because, drum roll, Stalin was in favour of war against Hitler, that a proper socialist would have sued for peace.

    That like the Nazis, Stalin misused the description socialist.

    *I'm not sure a true communist would wear Ralph Lauren articles of clothing.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226

    HYUFD said:
    Trump won Montana by over 20% last time.
    Yes. I have Montana as safe for Trump.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,131

    kle4 said:

    Stunning revelation.

    Quite why they couldn't just leave it at socialism without the Soviet symbol I dont know.
    Not all XR supporters are going to take this view though. It's a pretty diverse set of sub-groups and people.
    I'm sure it is diverse, yet small groups and factions can exert disproportionate influence, particularly when they can align with more mainstream goals. Thats why we guard against extremist voices, even small ones.
  • Black Candidates Are Now Winning in Mostly White Districts, Opening Path to Higher Office.

    More than two dozen new contenders are going up for election in November

    Black candidates have begun winning more House seats and statewide offices, such as attorney general, in places where most voters are white—a departure from decades in which Black political power was rooted largely in minority communities.

    Officials and political analysts say these recent victories could position Black candidates to win the highest statewide offices. There have been only two elected Black governors and six senators since Reconstruction.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-candidates-are-now-winning-in-mostly-white-districts-opening-path-to-higher-office-11598980352
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    I'll buy the spread on 8% MT/NV (Trump margin in MT + Biden margin in NV) if anyone is selling
  • On the subject of Tesla I wouldn't invest at current prices but nor would I assume they're necessarily overvalued either. As far as I can tell Tesla have a few significant advantages over their rivals that mean in the future they could make more earnings relative to their market share.
    1. More proprietary technology.
    2. Vertical integration
    3. Batteries
    4. They're not just a car manufacturer anymore. They're diversifying into the energy industry as a whole.
    5. They're constantly innovating so like their powerwalls you own a share of any future Tesla subsidiaries without them requiring to sell more cars.
    I think it's a mistake to think of Tesla as a car company alone. In the future it could be like thinking of Amazon as a book retailer alone.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    kle4 said:

    Stunning revelation.

    Quite why they couldn't just leave it at socialism without the Soviet symbol I dont know.
    Not all XR supporters are going to take this view though. It's a pretty diverse set of sub-groups and people.
    A pretty diverse group of people who nonetheless mysteriously manage to make the key manifesto planks of any movement they infiltrate exactly the same. E.g.

    'The Campaign for Better Buses'

    1. Abolish capitalism.
    2. Abolish capitalism.
    3. Abolish capitalism.
    4. Decolonize buses.
    5. Something something Israel.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    369. What is a bus again?
  • I am so glad I got into Apple in 2011 and Tesla in 2016 :)
  • I am so glad I got into Apple in 2011 and Tesla in 2016 :)

    JCL.

    I bought into Apple way before that.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,366
    edited September 2020
    UK cases - scaled to 100k population

    Note: Scottish case data by specimen date not being provided to PHE

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,366
    UK cases - absolute

    Note: Scottish case data by specimen date not being provided to PHE

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,366
    UK summary data (specimen date) and UK all settings death data (by day of death)

    Scottish data being provided at these aggregate levels.

    image
    image
    image
  • I am so glad I got into Apple in 2011 and Tesla in 2016 :)

    JCL.

    I bought into Apple way before that.
    You must be rich!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    edited September 2020
    I'd like to be able to buy a couple of hundred of SpaceX stock, I think in the near term Starlink and longer term Asteroid mining (For rare earths) is going to give them a literally out of this world valuation. They're not public though (They'd be worth loads more if they were) so it's not super simple.
    Mars for show, asteroids for dough.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,528
    edited September 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Apple's 2T valuation is a lot more sensible than Tesla's 500B, or Uber's 60B.

    Uber's really does confound and vex me.

    I have also have huge concerns about the valuation of Netflix.
    Tesla being worth more than pretty much the rest of the car industry combined is a hell of a reach too. Assumes we'll all be getting Teslas when the industry goes electric - currently the french (Renault (Owned by Nissan I think ?)/Peugeot) look to be offering models below any of Tesla's price points.
    Nissan's market cap is 15.8 billion compared to Tesla 446 billion !
    Not so long ago, Hasbro was more valuable than some of the "big" US car makers.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    HYUFD said:
    Trump won Montana by over 20% last time.
    Ironically, it's potentially good news for Trump in a sense if his leads in states that aren't going to be pivotal are fairly small as it suggests his vote nationally is efficiently distributed. Unless it's a blow-out election, Trump will win Montana anyway and it makes no difference if that's by a single or double figure margin. Equally, it's potentially bad news for Biden - there's no benefit in losing Montana marginally rather than massively and he'd rather have those votes in Michigan.

    Biden could do with some closer polling margins in California and New York whilst retaining a national lead. There does look to be some risk he's distributing his vote inefficiently.

    I mean, I get that a close poll in Montana could mean Biden is getting an 8% swing across the country, but the national polls don't support that (although they show him in a decent position).
    Yes, the way Trump wins is 2016 to the max. His vote efficiency was supreme in 2016, it is not implausible to improve on that further to universe beating levels. Biden gets close all across traditionally red state but not over the line which gives a huge pop lead but Trump still edges all the stated he held in 2016.

    Boom. Trump second term.
This discussion has been closed.