Corbyn stopped Starmer taking a second job doing high-paid consultancy work for law firm Mishcon de Reya in 2017, several key figures from the Corbyn leadership have confirmed to me.
Starmer argued he should be free to take up the role, but Corbyn decided "absolutely no."
Starmer has tried to capitalise on Tory sleaze despite ditching Labour's 2019 pledge to ban MPs' second jobs.
Yet sources say Starmer wanted to take a lucrative second job while in the shadow cabinet, was blocked by Corbyn, and then pretended otherwise.
The matter was raised at a meeting of the shadow cabinet, where "Jeremy very politely reminded Keir what Labour Party policy was," according to a senior member of Corbyn's shadow ministerial team.
Starmer's office had argued there was nothing to worry about in him taking the job, because the Mishcon training academy, which he would be advising, was "really cool."
When the issue blew up & the Tories attacked (Mishcon represented Gina Miller, Starmer's brief was Brexit), Starmer wanted to stick with Mishcon's words that "We are in discussions with Keir Starmer about reappointing him as an adviser" & say it was a limited role—ie ride it out.
However, the job was vetoed, whereupon Starmer switched to claim it was his decision, saying "I am grateful for Mischon de Reya for discussing a possible role advising the Mishcon Academy with me but given my other commitments, I have decided not to further the discussions."
Fast forward to Monday. Starmer tried to take the high ground on sleaze by quoting 2015 Labour policy that "paid consultancies ought to go."
@SamCoatesSky said "You were in talks to take a job yourself."
Starmer said "No I wasn't. I was in discussion."
Viewers got no sense from Starmer's response that, if not for Corbyn, he would have taken that job. In fact, not only was he in talks/discussions (potato/potato) with Mishcon in 2017, but he'd worked for them in 2016—while a Labour MP—getting paid £4,500 a month for 6 hours' work
In the Sky interview Starmer described Ed Miliband's 2015 policy banning MPs from taking paid consultancy jobs as "an obvious change we ought to make straight away," which begs the question why it wasn't so obvious to him in 2016.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is challenged by @SamCoatesSky about the roles he considered taking while a MP.
Unwilling to answer the Mishcon question, Starmer deflected onto the matter of MPs giving legal advice, saying he had given up his legal certificate two years ago. But even this is murky, as he has recently registered large sums with no transparency about who has paid him.
It is striking, given Starmer's conduct towards Corbyn since last autumn, that back in 2017 Corbyn's office didn't brief against Starmer, or criticise him, but let him present the decision as his own.
It now emerges that Starmer has Corbyn to thank for saving him from himself.
All four party leaders have made substantial outside earnings while MPs. Boris as a journo, Starmer as a lawyer, Blackford in the City or wherever, and even Ed Davey, apparently to help meet the costs of a disabled child.
The sole question, really, is whether MPs have tried to influence Govt through their paid activities.
Can't really see why Cox, working as a lawyer, is in the firing line, except for the huge amounts of the fees and the location he's been doing some of the work which is, admittedly, a gift to the tabloids.
I had a productive meeting with @POTUS at the White House
We touched upon a series of issues including the situation at the border with Belarus
This is a hybrid attack. Not a migration crisis
Beginning of next week, we will very quickly expand our sanctions against Belarus.
--
The EU and the US will cooperate on countries of origins and on sanctioning third countries airlines involved in trafficking.
Good to see this language being used. We need to be really tough on Putin over this. Using people in this way is functionally the same as deploying suicide bombers. Wasting the lives of vulnerable people to achieve fear and division. May he rot in hell.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Oh dear… that’s very expensive… I have 7 year money at 1.49%…
Given how many literal coups they have had this ruling from a Thai court seems highly ironic. A top Thai court has ruled that calls by three protest leaders to reform the monarchy amount to an attempt to overthrow the political system.
Given how many literal coups they have had this ruling from a Thai court seems highly ironic. A top Thai court has ruled that calls by three protest leaders to reform the monarchy amount to an attempt to overthrow the political system.
Given how many literal coups they have had this ruling from a Thai court seems highly ironic. A top Thai court has ruled that calls by three protest leaders to reform the monarchy amount to an attempt to overthrow the political system.
There are some political system overthrows we like, and some we don't like.
You can coup the Gov't in Thailand, but the Monarchy is sacrosanct.
Yeah, but the phrasing is real weak, since the former is still overthrowing the political system on a regular basis, just not as much as a campaign for mild reform is.
Q: Will you say sorry for what happened last week?
A: Johnson says, since he is speaking in an international context, he wants to say the UK is not remotely corrupt. Today we have seen MPs maybe breaking the rules, he says. He says MPs who do break the rules should face punishment.
[Reminder: last week Johnson ordered his MPs to back an unprecedented motion to stop Owen Paterson from being punished for breaking the rules]
I sure do hope Boris Johnson's never broken any rules.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Oh dear… that’s very expensive… I have 7 year money at 1.49%…
England cases still down WoW despite schools being open, that's the effect of having that additional R budget available. Even if cases fall more slowly than when they were closed, we're still going to see falling cases over the next few weeks and then very, very big drops over the Xmas holidays.
There aren't many children still to catch it. And we're vaccinating that group. (And vaccination + infection is as good as it gets for preventing transmission.)
I wouldn't be surprised if - thanks to Delta - we never get to the sub-1,000/day that we had in the Summer of 2020. But that's OK. 2,000 people getting, but not getting particularly sick from, Covid is not the end of the world.
Plenty of informed estimates have the long run equilibrium level of infections for the UK at something like 10x that given how often people get flu in their lifetime despite widespread immunity, and how much more infectious this is. Regardless, it doesn't need to be a big problem anymore.
20,000 positive influenza tests per day on average? That means 7.3 million people get influenza every year in the UK. That seems high. (Possible, but high.)
20k was the covid figure as it's more infectious - but even on that maths you're basically saying it's a 10 year waning cycle before people get it again.
Which is fine! We'll all get Covid (probably very mild) every decade or so. (Plus treatments will continue to improve.)
Q: Will you say sorry for what happened last week?
A: Johnson says, since he is speaking in an international context, he wants to say the UK is not remotely corrupt. Today we have seen MPs maybe breaking the rules, he says. He says MPs who do break the rules should face punishment.
[Reminder: last week Johnson ordered his MPs to back an unprecedented motion to stop Owen Paterson from being punished for breaking the rules]
The government is pursuing a very 'these are not the droids you're looking for' approach re Paterson.
I had a productive meeting with @POTUS at the White House
We touched upon a series of issues including the situation at the border with Belarus
This is a hybrid attack. Not a migration crisis
Beginning of next week, we will very quickly expand our sanctions against Belarus.
--
The EU and the US will cooperate on countries of origins and on sanctioning third countries airlines involved in trafficking.
Good to see this language being used. We need to be really tough on Putin over this. Using people in this way is functionally the same as deploying suicide bombers. Wasting the lives of vulnerable people to achieve fear and division. May he rot in hell.
But woke..mumble..Putin, defender of the traditional family..mumble..valyoos..mumble..
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
I had a productive meeting with @POTUS at the White House
We touched upon a series of issues including the situation at the border with Belarus
This is a hybrid attack. Not a migration crisis
Beginning of next week, we will very quickly expand our sanctions against Belarus.
--
The EU and the US will cooperate on countries of origins and on sanctioning third countries airlines involved in trafficking.
Sounds like a different tone compared to when Germany let in a million people or so...
Well there is quite a difference: the Belarus government is providing buses to dump migrants on the Polish border.
With the Mediterranean crisis, the government of Libya wasn't providing and manning the boats.
Several issues:
1. It's dawned on the governments of the EU, including the Germans this time, that if irregular migrants aren't deterred then the flow will be huge and endless. So the EU doesn't want them. 2. And it certainly doesn't want Lukashenko to get away with using them as weapons. 3. With armed guards on both sides of the border, there's a material risk of this escalating into an armed conflict by accident. The Poles have already alleged that Belarusian border guards have made an incursion into their territory, and it would be ever so easy for one or more Belarusians to be shot if desperate migrants try to storm the border en masse and Polish troops resort to the use of live rounds.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
If inflation and interest rates were 15%
Can we talk about more pleasent things please ? Like Covid.
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
Maybe capital will be more usefully engaged then, in improving economic productivity rather than thrown at a pumped-up housing market.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
Maybe capital will be more usefully engaged then, in improving economic productivity rather than thrown at a pumped-up housing market.
Yup. Capitalism = great Rentier capitalism = fucking terrible
This tweet would be considered utterly extraordinary if it was say from a BBC anchor regarding a trial
Jon Cooper Flag of United States @joncoopertweets Is it just me, or does anyone else think the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is blatantly working for the DEFENSE? Pouting face.
Meanwhile the twitter right have their tails up about the case
Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet Find it incredibly funny how the Rittenhouse prosecution is acting like all they need to persuade is a far-left Twitter echo chamber, rather than an actual jury.
This tweet would be considered utterly extraordinary if it was say from a BBC anchor regarding a trial
Jon Cooper Flag of United States @joncoopertweets Is it just me, or does anyone else think the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is blatantly working for the DEFENSE? Pouting face.
Meanwhile the twitter right have their tails up about the case
Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet Find it incredibly funny how the Rittenhouse prosecution is acting like all they need to persuade is a far-left Twitter echo chamber, rather than an actual jury.
Sense it is going Rittenhouse's way
The left are going to go totally mad if he’s found not guilty, not just a few idiots on Twitter.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
If inflation and interest rates were 15%
Can we talk about more pleasent things please ? Like Covid.
OK.
Has anyone noticed the growing sense of panic emanating from Germany yet?
This tweet would be considered utterly extraordinary if it was say from a BBC anchor regarding a trial
Jon Cooper Flag of United States @joncoopertweets Is it just me, or does anyone else think the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is blatantly working for the DEFENSE? Pouting face.
Meanwhile the twitter right have their tails up about the case
Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet Find it incredibly funny how the Rittenhouse prosecution is acting like all they need to persuade is a far-left Twitter echo chamber, rather than an actual jury.
Sense it is going Rittenhouse's way
The left are going to go totally mad if he’s found not guilty, not just a few idiots on Twitter.
I've just seen a few memes via WhatsApp but from those it doesn't seem as though the prosecution are having a good time of it. When your star witness says "yeah I pulled a gun on him" it's definitely not going well.
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
Q: Will you say sorry for what happened last week?
A: Johnson says, since he is speaking in an international context, he wants to say the UK is not remotely corrupt. Today we have seen MPs maybe breaking the rules, he says. He says MPs who do break the rules should face punishment.
[Reminder: last week Johnson ordered his MPs to back an unprecedented motion to stop Owen Paterson from being punished for breaking the rules]
This attempt at more patrician confidence to fall back on doesn't work here either. Coming from the mouth of a more traditional conservative, even from a figure like Jonathan Aitken, some voters might have bought it. But his brand is the 21st century troll, transgressor and provocateur, and it will just sound to people like more borrowed, second-hand lines again.
One senior Tory MP said: "It feels like a bit of a Black Wednesday moment. Very toxic. There is real fury, more deeply felt than when [former aide Dominic] Cummings went to Barnard Castle."
Another ex minister was overheard as saying 'we wish Boris would f*** off, he's only about himself'. “He has never had many friends in the Commons and the number of times he's marched us up the hill, he has fewer than ever."
One backbench Tory even predicted there could be a leadership challenge before the next election - if Labour pull ahead in the polls. They raged the Prime Minister is "lazy" and has "transactional friendships", surrounding himself with yes-men in a "weak" Cabinet.
Another Tory backbencher said: "A lot of us put our faith in him because he was an election winner. But the scales have started to fall away for many of us. If that lustre continues to fade..."
The word is he has never been liked. He got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch like a political José Mourinho. "And now this, and his craven running off to Northumberland – just like he did when Foreign Secretary and he ran off to Kabul when there was a third runway [for Heathrow Airport] vote."
Scott, the Mirror is less reliable of general opinion than the Guardian. And as for Twitter. There’s a reason why the first four letters of the site are ‘TWIT’.
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
Scott, the Mirror is less reliable of general opinion than the Guardian. And as for Twitter. There’s a reason why the first four letters of the site are ‘TWIT’.
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
Scott, the Mirror is less reliable of general opinion than the Guardian. And as for Twitter. There’s a reason why the first four letters of the site are ‘TWIT’.
Yes, but the second to fourth letters are ‘WIT’
No, more important that without those three it would be WITless!
This tweet would be considered utterly extraordinary if it was say from a BBC anchor regarding a trial
Jon Cooper Flag of United States @joncoopertweets Is it just me, or does anyone else think the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is blatantly working for the DEFENSE? Pouting face.
Meanwhile the twitter right have their tails up about the case
Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet Find it incredibly funny how the Rittenhouse prosecution is acting like all they need to persuade is a far-left Twitter echo chamber, rather than an actual jury.
Sense it is going Rittenhouse's way
The left are going to go totally mad if he’s found not guilty, not just a few idiots on Twitter.
I've just seen a few memes via WhatsApp but from those it doesn't seem as though the prosecution are having a good time of it. When your star witness says "yeah I pulled a gun on him" it's definitely not going well.
There was a video of the incident circulating at the time, that suggested self defence, and now the prosecution counsel appears to be agreeing that it was indeed self defence.
Looks like one of those prosecutions we get in the USA, as a result of the DA and state prosecutors being directly elected under partisan tickets.
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
Scott, the Mirror is less reliable of general opinion than the Guardian. And as for Twitter. There’s a reason why the first four letters of the site are ‘TWIT’.
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
If there’s an issue around Cox it’s that he was defending a ‘corrupt’ colonial Government against an inquiry by the British government. In HoC time.
Not saying BVI government are corrupt; it’s just that, AIUI, that’s the charge!
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
Cox obviously strikes as all as a bit an unviting pudding of a man. However he's very sharp. Labour must have something else, or think they do.
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
If there’s an issue around Cox it’s that he was defending a ‘corrupt’ colonial Government against an inquiry by the British government. In HoC time.
Not saying BVI government are corrupt; it’s just that, AIUI, that’s the charge!
A ‘corrupt’ colonial Government. Thank God the Mother of Parliaments is free of any such taint!
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
A 'comfortable' win for NZ (well, they had an over to spare), as I predicted on here at 2pm today. A fabulous, exciting game, though.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
It does seem incredible that US inflation is over 6%, the highest for over 30 years, yet the Fed not only keeps interest rates at zero, but is also planning on continuing with QE until mid next year. It seems to be completely asleep at the wheel.
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
If there’s an issue around Cox it’s that he was defending a ‘corrupt’ colonial Government against an inquiry by the British government. In HoC time.
Not saying BVI government are corrupt; it’s just that, AIUI, that’s the charge!
A ‘corrupt’ colonial Government. Thank God the Mother of Parliaments is free of any such taint!
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
Cox obviously strikes as all as a bit an unviting pudding of a man. However he's very sharp. Labour must have something else, or think they do.
He's sharp, he's had his day in the sun, he doesn't give a toss, he hasn't done anything dishonest, he arguably hasn't even technically broken the rules, and he's a fatter and more successful mirror image of SKS.
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
Cox obviously strikes as all as a bit an unviting pudding of a man. However he's very sharp. Labour must have something else, or think they do.
He's sharp, he's had his day in the sun, he doesn't give a toss, he hasn't done anything dishonest, he arguably hasn't even technically broken the rules, and he's a fatter and more successful mirror image of SKS.
SKS started as a humans rights lawyer, and cut his teeth taking on McDonalds. A very different life story, I would say.
But I 100% agree with you that the contracts are the big story. I'd be very interested to see if journalists have uncovered more on this by the weekend ; a once-in-a-generation test of the British media itself, even.
It does seem incredible that US inflation is over 6%, the highest for over 30 years, yet the Fed not only keeps interest rates at zero, but is also planning on continuing with QE until mid next year. It seems to be completely asleep at the wheel.
One assumes that the central banks are all assuming/hoping/praying that the inflation spike is transitory, which may very well turn out to be the case.
Governments, and an awful lot of businesses and households, are up to their eyeballs in debt. No-one wants to risk tanking the economy (and possibly triggering yet another banking crisis) by hiking rates substantially unless forced.
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
If there’s an issue around Cox it’s that he was defending a ‘corrupt’ colonial Government against an inquiry by the British government. In HoC time.
Not saying BVI government are corrupt; it’s just that, AIUI, that’s the charge!
It's as old as the hills that lawyers do their best for clients whoever they are, within the rules of the legal profession, and that the taintedness of the client has no relation to the taintedness of the lawyer. English lawyers routinely represent foreign governments of every sort in English courts, from Norway to North Korea, Saudi Arabia to Sweden.
If this were not the case how would, say, the killer of Sarah Everard be represented?
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
Cox obviously strikes as all as a bit an unviting pudding of a man. However he's very sharp. Labour must have something else, or think they do.
He's sharp, he's had his day in the sun, he doesn't give a toss, he hasn't done anything dishonest, he arguably hasn't even technically broken the rules, and he's a fatter and more successful mirror image of SKS.
Way, way more successful. Completely different class.
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
Cox obviously strikes as all as a bit an unviting pudding of a man. However he's very sharp. Labour must have something else, or think they do.
He's sharp, he's had his day in the sun, he doesn't give a toss, he hasn't done anything dishonest, he arguably hasn't even technically broken the rules, and he's a fatter and more successful mirror image of SKS.
How many of those critisicing him, are lawyers themselves who never got to the point of being able to bill £850 an hour?
The ‘use of facilities’ one is interesting. What’s the difference, in practice, between a phone call and a video conference? The only obvious one to me, would be if the background was obviously in the HoC, rather than just recognised as such by those who know it.
The Opposition spending time on Cox, are distracting themselves from more obvious cases such as undeclared corporate lobbying, which are definitely against the rules.
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
If there’s an issue around Cox it’s that he was defending a ‘corrupt’ colonial Government against an inquiry by the British government. In HoC time.
Not saying BVI government are corrupt; it’s just that, AIUI, that’s the charge!
A ‘corrupt’ colonial Government. Thank God the Mother of Parliaments is free of any such taint!
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
Maybe capital will be more usefully engaged then, in improving economic productivity rather than thrown at a pumped-up housing market.
Ummm: it is generally agreed there is a housing shortage in the UK. Now, it may be that - with Brexit - that demand for housing diminishes.
But the UK definitely has an issue that the average age of home ownership has risen sharply. Reducing the number of new homes built does not seem like an obvious help with that.
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
Cox obviously strikes as all as a bit an unviting pudding of a man. However he's very sharp. Labour must have something else, or think they do.
He's sharp, he's had his day in the sun, he doesn't give a toss, he hasn't done anything dishonest, he arguably hasn't even technically broken the rules, and he's a fatter and more successful mirror image of SKS.
Way, way more successful. Completely different class.
More financially successful, but probably less morally successful.
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
If there’s an issue around Cox it’s that he was defending a ‘corrupt’ colonial Government against an inquiry by the British government. In HoC time.
Not saying BVI government are corrupt; it’s just that, AIUI, that’s the charge!
A ‘corrupt’ colonial Government. Thank God the Mother of Parliaments is free of any such taint!
This tweet would be considered utterly extraordinary if it was say from a BBC anchor regarding a trial
Jon Cooper Flag of United States @joncoopertweets Is it just me, or does anyone else think the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is blatantly working for the DEFENSE? Pouting face.
Meanwhile the twitter right have their tails up about the case
Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet Find it incredibly funny how the Rittenhouse prosecution is acting like all they need to persuade is a far-left Twitter echo chamber, rather than an actual jury.
Sense it is going Rittenhouse's way
The left are going to go totally mad if he’s found not guilty, not just a few idiots on Twitter.
I'm sure it will go his way: in the US you only need to persuade one juror to ensure no Guilty verdict.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. If he'd been in his house defending his property, it would be one thing. If it was his street or town where there was a riot, even that would a key mitigating factor: we all want to defend our homes and towns.
But he went out - across state borders with his guns - looking for a fight. At some point it ceases to be righteous self defence.
It does seem incredible that US inflation is over 6%, the highest for over 30 years, yet the Fed not only keeps interest rates at zero, but is also planning on continuing with QE until mid next year. It seems to be completely asleep at the wheel.
One assumes that the central banks are all assuming/hoping/praying that the inflation spike is transitory, which may very well turn out to be the case.
Governments, and an awful lot of businesses and households, are up to their eyeballs in debt. No-one wants to risk tanking the economy (and possibly triggering yet another banking crisis) by hiking rates substantially unless forced.
Quite, but central banks are very much at risk of the term 'transitory' becoming a joke and being forced to react more than they would have done. There's lots of positive feedback loops with inflation where there is a historically tight labour market and inflation-linked pensions.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
Maybe capital will be more usefully engaged then, in improving economic productivity rather than thrown at a pumped-up housing market.
Ummm: it is generally agreed there is a housing shortage in the UK. Now, it may be that - with Brexit - that demand for housing diminishes.
But the UK definitely has an issue that the average age of home ownership has risen sharply. Reducing the number of new homes built does not seem like an obvious help with that.
The issue is the mix of housing actually built. The investor-led market, to date has supplied too many city-centre flats, sold off-plan to foreign investors, and not enough family houses - and definitely not enough self-build plots.
Restricting visa numbers to fewer than the number of houses (not flats) built the previous year might be a good starting point, and with exceptions such as healthcare subjecting the visas to an auction.
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
I see this as firmly in 'he sins of a father should not be visited on the son' territory.
Max Moseley made a fortune on his own account. His dad made money from a variety of endeavours (he was an MP for both Labour and the Conservatives at various times), and had his own inheritance. How can you tell what money came from which source?
Unless all Moseley family money is to be seen as somehow poisonous fruit for evermore?
(And before anyone says, I was not a fan of Max Moseley when he was involved in F1.)
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
Cox obviously strikes as all as a bit an unviting pudding of a man. However he's very sharp. Labour must have something else, or think they do.
He's sharp, he's had his day in the sun, he doesn't give a toss, he hasn't done anything dishonest, he arguably hasn't even technically broken the rules, and he's a fatter and more successful mirror image of SKS.
Way, way more successful. Completely different class.
More financially successful, but probably less morally successful.
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
I see this as firmly in 'he sins of a father should not be visited on the son' territory.
Max Moseley made a fortune on his own account. His dad made money from a variety of endeavours (he was an MP for both Labour and the Conservatives at various times), and had his own inheritance. How can you tell what money came from which source?
Unless all Moseley family money is to be seen as somehow poisonous fruit for evermore?
(And before anyone says, I was not a fan of Max Moseley when he was involved in F1.)
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
I cannot believe Labour are going after someone as bullet proof as Cox. This is the score: useful fuckwits like Paterson and IDS get fobbed off with tips of £25,000 - £100,000. A £500m PPE contract is worth 5% commission any day of the week. Not all greedy politicians are as fuckwitted as those two.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
Cox obviously strikes as all as a bit an unviting pudding of a man. However he's very sharp. Labour must have something else, or think they do.
He's sharp, he's had his day in the sun, he doesn't give a toss, he hasn't done anything dishonest, he arguably hasn't even technically broken the rules, and he's a fatter and more successful mirror image of SKS.
Way, way more successful. Completely different class.
More financially successful, but probably less morally successful.
Without the full litany of the cases he has worked I'm not sure how one would be able to judge that, even if we judge them by the cases they've worked or who they have represented in the first place.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
Of course.
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
If inflation and interest rates were 15%
Can we talk about more pleasent things please ? Like Covid.
OK.
Has anyone noticed the growing sense of panic emanating from Germany yet?
Who's panicking when they don't have a Government yet?
This tweet would be considered utterly extraordinary if it was say from a BBC anchor regarding a trial
Jon Cooper Flag of United States @joncoopertweets Is it just me, or does anyone else think the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is blatantly working for the DEFENSE? Pouting face.
Meanwhile the twitter right have their tails up about the case
Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet Find it incredibly funny how the Rittenhouse prosecution is acting like all they need to persuade is a far-left Twitter echo chamber, rather than an actual jury.
Sense it is going Rittenhouse's way
The left are going to go totally mad if he’s found not guilty, not just a few idiots on Twitter.
I'm sure it will go his way: in the US you only need to persuade one juror to ensure no Guilty verdict.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. If he'd been in his house defending his property, it would be one thing. If it was his street or town where there was a riot, even that would a key mitigating factor: we all want to defend our homes and towns.
But he went out - across state borders with his guns - looking for a fight. At some point it ceases to be righteous self defence.
Er - surely one dissenter leads to a hung jury and a mistrial? Not an automatic 'not guilty' verdict?
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
....and the awful farther had family money. Not sure that he actually made any money in his er... career.
Sir Oswald Mosley Bt inherited a fortune from his first wife, Cynthia, who was a co-heiress of Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, whose American wife was the heiress to the Marshall Fields fortune. So the cash really does have an Oxford link, as the Balliol rhyme makes clear:
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.
I had a great day f*x hunting from Kedleston, in the bad old days when that was a thing. Not quite Blenheim, but a fuck-off house by almost any other standard.
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
I see this as firmly in 'he sins of a father should not be visited on the son' territory.
Max Moseley made a fortune on his own account. His dad made money from a variety of endeavours (he was an MP for both Labour and the Conservatives at various times), and had his own inheritance. How can you tell what money came from which source?
Unless all Moseley family money is to be seen as somehow poisonous fruit for evermore?
(And before anyone says, I was not a fan of Max Moseley when he was involved in F1.)
Worth remembering how involved Max Mosley was in his father’s fascistnotfascist postwar party, into his 20s. I don’t think his bequests are entirely untainted in their own right.
Comments
The sole question, really, is whether MPs have tried to influence Govt through their paid activities.
Can't really see why Cox, working as a lawyer, is in the firing line, except for the huge amounts of the fees and the location he's been doing some of the work which is, admittedly, a gift to the tabloids.
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1458486145520652291
I had a productive meeting with
@POTUS
at the White House
We touched upon a series of issues including the situation at the border with Belarus
This is a hybrid attack. Not a migration crisis
Beginning of next week, we will very quickly expand our sanctions against Belarus.
--
The EU and the US will cooperate on countries of origins and on sanctioning third countries airlines involved in trafficking.
A top Thai court has ruled that calls by three protest leaders to reform the monarchy amount to an attempt to overthrow the political system.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59230566
There are some political system overthrows we like, and some we don't like.
With the Mediterranean crisis, the government of Libya wasn't providing and manning the boats.
Looking good for my only two pre-tournament bets: Pakistan to win, and Babar Azam to be top scorer (he needs 5 to overtake Buttler; others are way behind).
But there would be consequences to maximum mortgages being 3.5x salaries. It would mean - for example - that there was less profit to be made from developing land, so there would be fewer new houses built.
1. It's dawned on the governments of the EU, including the Germans this time, that if irregular migrants aren't deterred then the flow will be huge and endless. So the EU doesn't want them.
2. And it certainly doesn't want Lukashenko to get away with using them as weapons.
3. With armed guards on both sides of the border, there's a material risk of this escalating into an armed conflict by accident. The Poles have already alleged that Belarusian border guards have made an incursion into their territory, and it would be ever so easy for one or more Belarusians to be shot if desperate migrants try to storm the border en masse and Polish troops resort to the use of live rounds.
Can we talk about more pleasent things please ?
Like Covid.
We agree that the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol should be implemented.
They are an efficient answer to the difficulties created by Brexit.
Now, Northern Ireland has access to both the EU and UK single markets.
We can flexible. But we need to stick to them.
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1458493793766887427?s=20
Capitalism = great
Rentier capitalism = fucking terrible
Jon Cooper Flag of United States
@joncoopertweets
Is it just me, or does anyone else think the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is blatantly working for the DEFENSE? Pouting face.
Meanwhile the twitter right have their tails up about the case
Paul Joseph Watson
@PrisonPlanet
Find it incredibly funny how the Rittenhouse prosecution is acting like all they need to persuade is a far-left Twitter echo chamber, rather than an actual jury.
Sense it is going Rittenhouse's way
My latest cartoon for tomorrow's @Telegraph
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1458480686218760202
I truly wish I was joking.
Has anyone noticed the growing sense of panic emanating from Germany yet?
I expect a lot will depend on the next few weeks and the by election results before Christmas
And if labour cannot gain and hold a lead then when will they
Another ex minister was overheard as saying 'we wish Boris would f*** off, he's only about himself'. “He has never had many friends in the Commons and the number of times he's marched us up the hill, he has fewer than ever."
One backbench Tory even predicted there could be a leadership challenge before the next election - if Labour pull ahead in the polls. They raged the Prime Minister is "lazy" and has "transactional friendships", surrounding himself with yes-men in a "weak" Cabinet.
Another Tory backbencher said: "A lot of us put our faith in him because he was an election winner. But the scales have started to fall away for many of us. If that lustre continues to fade..."
The word is he has never been liked. He got lucky in 2019 and now he has lost his touch like a political José Mourinho. "And now this, and his craven running off to Northumberland – just like he did when Foreign Secretary and he ran off to Kabul when there was a third runway [for Heathrow Airport] vote."
And as for Twitter.
There’s a reason why the first four letters of the site are ‘TWIT’.
Looks like one of those prosecutions we get in the USA, as a result of the DA and state prosecutors being directly elected under partisan tickets.
Siri, calculate 5% of £500m.
And they go after Coxy for making a video call from the HoC. It's like watching two blindfolded drunks trying to have a fight, and failing to find each other.
Not saying BVI government are corrupt; it’s just that, AIUI, that’s the charge!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-59232955
Basically, the late Max Moseley (son of fascist Oswald Moseley), set up a trust in the name of his late son. The trust has given money to various Oxford colleges. It is claimed that the money came from the fortune Max Moseley inherited.
Therefore the money is tainted, and groups should have had a say in whether it was accepted.
The thing is, Max Moseley made plenty of money in his own right, and had strong links to Oxford University (he studied physics there, and was president of the Oxford Union). Discerning which chunk of money (if any) came from his awful father is probably going to be rather difficult.
I am not Jewish, and if I were my views might be different. But I think that even if the money did come from his father, and as a result of his fascism, then at least it'll be doing some good now.
(And not paying for hookers).
But I 100% agree with you that the contracts are the big story. I'd be very interested to see if journalists have uncovered more on this by the weekend ; a once-in-a-generation test of the British media itself, even.
The other problem is that the lib dems are extinct here and my constituency is a straight conservative - labour marginal
Time yet though
Governments, and an awful lot of businesses and households, are up to their eyeballs in debt. No-one wants to risk tanking the economy (and possibly triggering yet another banking crisis) by hiking rates substantially unless forced.
If this were not the case how would, say, the killer of Sarah Everard be represented?
https://twitter.com/cathyrusson/status/1458470303747964928?s=21
The ‘use of facilities’ one is interesting. What’s the difference, in practice, between a phone call and a video conference? The only obvious one to me, would be if the background was obviously in the HoC, rather than just recognised as such by those who know it.
The Opposition spending time on Cox, are distracting themselves from more obvious cases such as undeclared corporate lobbying, which are definitely against the rules.
But the UK definitely has an issue that the average age of home ownership has risen sharply. Reducing the number of new homes built does not seem like an obvious help with that.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. If he'd been in his house defending his property, it would be one thing. If it was his street or town where there was a riot, even that would a key mitigating factor: we all want to defend our homes and towns.
But he went out - across state borders with his guns - looking for a fight. At some point it ceases to be righteous self defence.
Restricting visa numbers to fewer than the number of houses (not flats) built the previous year might be a good starting point, and with exceptions such as healthcare subjecting the visas to an auction.
Max Moseley made a fortune on his own account. His dad made money from a variety of endeavours (he was an MP for both Labour and the Conservatives at various times), and had his own inheritance. How can you tell what money came from which source?
Unless all Moseley family money is to be seen as somehow poisonous fruit for evermore?
(And before anyone says, I was not a fan of Max Moseley when he was involved in F1.)
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon,
I am a most superior person.
My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek,
I dine at Blenheim once a week
Oswald Mosley was a bad man, but at least his cash can now do some good.