Sunak appears to be abandoning the RedWall – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Dogs do not understand 'later': or perhaps it would be more accurate to say they understand, but are having no truck with it.Nigelb said:
Quite.Carnyx said:
The friends' dogs I occasionally take for walkies when I am staying with them have a very definite logical chain thus:Nigelb said:
The immediate future, but little beyond that, probably.Benpointer said:Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
I can see what might have prompted you to mention it on this particular thread.
1. I pick up the leash and get my jacket down.
2. Therefore walkies in the near future.
3. Joyful reaction.
Admittedly not necessarily very abstract, or very far into the future. But saying 'walk' has a similar effect, as does the sign language equivalent if the hound is deaf (one would want to observe numerous instances, of course, in a serious study, with double blind tests):
https://twitter.com/thepuppiesclub/status/1251911204911681538
Immediate gratification is a concept dogs and Tory members understand well. The longer term future, perhaps not.0 -
Everything might be a bit shit at the mo, but this’ll make you smile at least - https://twitter.com/sarkies_proxy/status/1555448520664141833?s=12
4 -
Yup. They live in the present. Any dog owner knows that.Dura_Ace said:
This is a pretty pointless question along the lines of would you rather bang a very pregnant Gina Gershon or Jenny McCarthy after a car accident (© Lt. Glenn Quagmire, USN).Benpointer said:Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.1 -
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/animals/hearing-the-word-walk-is-our-cocaine-dogs-confirm-20220803224012Carnyx said:
The friends' dogs I occasionally take for walkies when I am staying with them have a very definite logical chain thus:Nigelb said:
The immediate future, but little beyond that, probably.Benpointer said:Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
I can see what might have prompted you to mention it on this particular thread.
1. I pick up the leash and get my jacket down.
2. Therefore walkies in the near future.
3. Joyful reaction.
Admittedly not necessarily very abstract, or very far into the future. But saying 'walk' has a similar effect, as does the sign language equivalent if the hound is deaf (one would want to observe numerous instances, of course, in a serious study, with double blind tests):
https://twitter.com/thepuppiesclub/status/1251911204911681538
"Hearing the word 'walk' is our cocaine, dogs confirm."1 -
InterestingDura_Ace said:
This is a pretty pointless question along the lines of would you rather bang a very pregnant Gina Gershon or Jenny McCarthy after a car accident (© Lt. Glenn Quagmire, USN).Benpointer said:Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying0 -
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
5 -
I think that, all other things being equal, higher tax will result in lower inflation and vice versa, but in this case we also have high government spending - so the government is running a deficit even with historically high tax - and a huge amount of money was pumped into the economy via QE (which the BoE have said they will now start to reverse).MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
So this means that all other things are not equal when comparing to previous years.
If Truss cuts taxes, and does nothing else, that will be inflationary, because in that situation all other things would be equal.0 -
I’d make it 80. Let the selfish old fucks croak itMaxPB said:I think after this new, err, policy from Rishi he may not even make the Cabinet.
I still think he'd make for a good health secretary because the NHS needs a bean counter in charge and to cut waste and costs so there's headroom for doing better elsewhere in the service.
I also think he's the most likely to take an actuarial approach to healthcare rather than the current approach of unlimited negative return investment in life lengthening treatments for very old people. Simply because he seems hard hearted enough to push it and not care about the consequences to his personal reputation (it's already smashed beyond repair IMO).
As we were talking about yesterday, a whole new discussion around healthcare provision in the UK needs to be had. We're entering a 20-30 year period of exponentially rising healthcare demand from people who are refusing to pay their own way and have the divine belief that only they worked hard so deserve millions spent on their healthcare and care needs while not wanting to pay any additional tax on their incomes or wealth. That means services need to be curtailed because there is no unlimited pot of cash from working age people, the UK just becomes an uncompetitive place to do business as corporate and personal taxes rise to meet this need from that generation to retire at 60 and live to 100 while taking no income hit or taxes on their wealth.
Rishi, to me, seems like exactly the kind of guy who could blunder into that discussion and make those changes. 2024 looks lost either way given the economic circumstances, a change to healthcare provision for over 85s in terms of life lengthening treatment (even something as technically simple as making a DNR opt-out after 85) would pay very, very good long term dividends for the nation and he'd eventually restore his reputation off the back of it as the man who saved the economy from certain ruin.
I hereby nominate myself for the leadership of the Conservative and Unionist Party0 -
Cutting taxes or increasing spending usually leads to stronger aggregate demand, which if supply is constrained will generate more inflation. The BOE will respond by raising interest rates by more.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Taxes are high now but they are matched by high spending so on net are not disinflationary. There is no link between the level of taxes per se and inflation (except that raising indirect taxes leads to temporary inflation) if taxes are matched by spending, but unfunded tax cuts will be inflationary and lead to higher interest rates, Sunak is not wrong about that.
If the economy wasn't supply constrained then Truss's argument would be valid but that is self-evidently not the case, since current high inflation is a result of a series of negative supply shocks (including Brexit of course).0 -
From one meal to the next, and the next meal can be immediately after the last.Peter_the_Punter said:
Yup. They live in the present. Any dog owner knows that.Dura_Ace said:
This is a pretty pointless question along the lines of would you rather bang a very pregnant Gina Gershon or Jenny McCarthy after a car accident (© Lt. Glenn Quagmire, USN).Benpointer said:Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
Their body clocks are well honed too. 6pm means its meal time even if the last meal was at 5.30pm0 -
Arguably, that’s a more accurate depiction of life. We exist in the present, doing what we are doing at the minute. The past is a story we tell ourselves based on fallible memories, and so are any plans or predictions we have for the future.Leon said:
InterestingDura_Ace said:
This is a pretty pointless question along the lines of would you rather bang a very pregnant Gina Gershon or Jenny McCarthy after a car accident (© Lt. Glenn Quagmire, USN).Benpointer said:Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
There is only “now”. And Einstein shows us even that is a strictly personal concept.
0 -
Interesting. Neither Sunak nor Truss are advocating cutting spending as a way to dial down inflationary pressures, as some former tory chancellors might, although I guess this is an electoral ploy.LostPassword said:
I think that, all other things being equal, higher tax will result in lower inflation and vice versa, but in this case we also have high government spending - so the government is running a deficit even with historically high tax - and a huge amount of money was pumped into the economy via QE (which the BoE have said they will now start to reverse).MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
So this means that all other things are not equal when comparing to previous years.
If Truss cuts taxes, and does nothing else, that will be inflationary, because in that situation all other things would be equal.0 -
That is rather delightful :-)northern_monkey said:Everything might be a bit shit at the mo, but this’ll make you smile at least - https://twitter.com/sarkies_proxy/status/1555448520664141833?s=12
1 -
Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”1 -
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
0 -
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?OldKingCole said:
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
0 -
Yes but the primary tools for controlling inflation are monetary and not fiscal. Minford's case is that cutting taxes allows the Bank of England to be more aggressive on rates and other forms of tightening. Much more aggressive.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Cutting taxes or increasing spending usually leads to stronger aggregate demand, which if supply is constrained will generate more inflation. The BOE will respond by raising interest rates by more.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Taxes are high now but they are matched by high spending so on net are not disinflationary. There is no link between the level of taxes per se and inflation (except that raising indirect taxes leads to temporary inflation) if taxes are matched by spending, but unfunded tax cuts will be inflationary and lead to higher interest rates, Sunak is not wrong about that.
If the economy wasn't supply constrained then Truss's argument would be valid but that is self-evidently not the case, since current high inflation is a result of a series of negative supply shocks (including Brexit of course).
0 -
IF (and it is a big IF) inflation unwinds quickly next year as the Covid hangover dissipates globally and Ukraine wins, then a one year period of 10-15% inflation should at least take the edge off the Government’s debt mountain (provided we aren’t an outlier the bond markets can target).0
-
I would guess this is “Don't Sleep, There are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian” by Daniel Everett? It is an excellent book. The précis above is poor. Everett is not saying that the people he lived with have no conception of time at all.biggles said:
Arguably, that’s a more accurate depiction of life. We exist in the present, doing what we are doing at the minute. The past is a story we tell ourselves based on fallible memories, and so are any plans or predictions we have for the future.Leon said:
InterestingDura_Ace said:
This is a pretty pointless question along the lines of would you rather bang a very pregnant Gina Gershon or Jenny McCarthy after a car accident (© Lt. Glenn Quagmire, USN).Benpointer said:Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
There is only “now”. And Einstein shows us even that is a strictly personal concept.
0 -
Well, except for the minor matter of the likely new PM, Liz Truss, having a policy of massively increasing the debt mountain…biggles said:IF (and it is a big IF) inflation unwinds quickly next year as the Covid hangover dissipates globally and Ukraine wins, then a one year period of 10-15% inflation should at least take the edge off the Government’s debt mountain (provided we aren’t an outlier the bond markets can target).
1 -
It doesn't "allow" them to be more aggressive, it forces them to be. The reality is that both fiscal and monetary policy impact aggregate demand and hence inflation. If fiscal policy is looser, monetary policy has to be tighter. So if Truss cuts taxes without cutting spending, then either inflation or interest rates will be higher than otherwise. That doesn't seem a great outcome to me.MISTY said:
Yes but the primary tools for controlling inflation are monetary and not fiscal. Minford's case is that cutting taxes allows the Bank of England to be more aggressive on rates and other forms of tightening. Much more aggressive.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Cutting taxes or increasing spending usually leads to stronger aggregate demand, which if supply is constrained will generate more inflation. The BOE will respond by raising interest rates by more.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Taxes are high now but they are matched by high spending so on net are not disinflationary. There is no link between the level of taxes per se and inflation (except that raising indirect taxes leads to temporary inflation) if taxes are matched by spending, but unfunded tax cuts will be inflationary and lead to higher interest rates, Sunak is not wrong about that.
If the economy wasn't supply constrained then Truss's argument would be valid but that is self-evidently not the case, since current high inflation is a result of a series of negative supply shocks (including Brexit of course).0 -
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.1 -
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.ydoethur said:
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?OldKingCole said:
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
2 -
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”0 -
Right, that was explicitly Osborne's policy. Cut public spending as a deflationary measure, allowing the Bank of England to set interest rates lower.MISTY said:
Interesting. Neither Sunak nor Truss are advocating cutting spending as a way to dial down inflationary pressures, as some former tory chancellors might, although I guess this is an electoral ploy.LostPassword said:
I think that, all other things being equal, higher tax will result in lower inflation and vice versa, but in this case we also have high government spending - so the government is running a deficit even with historically high tax - and a huge amount of money was pumped into the economy via QE (which the BoE have said they will now start to reverse).MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
So this means that all other things are not equal when comparing to previous years.
If Truss cuts taxes, and does nothing else, that will be inflationary, because in that situation all other things would be equal.
We can argue about how they managed to do this and still win reelection, or whether there was a better option, but it's an interesting contrast even before going into that detail.0 -
“Gentleman”? Cummings?…Stuartinromford said:
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.ydoethur said:
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?OldKingCole said:
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
0 -
To help them win those tough inner city seats they have struggled so badly in?Mexicanpete said:
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”0 -
Is it? Inner city areas are all massively Labour anyway.Mexicanpete said:
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”0 -
I would imagine he is getting paid by someone in the HF/PE universe to provide his insights.Stuartinromford said:
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.ydoethur said:
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?OldKingCole said:
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.0 -
Well, since he is neither a scholar nor a gentleman, I'm sure he does as well!Stuartinromford said:
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.ydoethur said:
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?OldKingCole said:
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.0 -
I did say how he sees himself.biggles said:
“Gentleman”? Cummings?…Stuartinromford said:
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.ydoethur said:
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?OldKingCole said:
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
We know he has difficulties seeing.2 -
On the first half of the sentence "writing inane blog posts of inordinate length", I fit the profile!Stuartinromford said:
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.ydoethur said:
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?OldKingCole said:
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.0 -
Not so sure. He’s recently proven he’s unwilling to keep the confidence of former employers if he falls out with them. And he falls out with a lot of people. That’s not a good way to get advisory work.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I would imagine he is getting paid by someone in the HF/PE universe to provide his insights.Stuartinromford said:
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.ydoethur said:
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?OldKingCole said:
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
0 -
True, but I don’t think even he is that deluded.Stuartinromford said:
I did say how he sees himself.biggles said:
“Gentleman”? Cummings?…Stuartinromford said:
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.ydoethur said:
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?OldKingCole said:
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
We know he has difficulties seeing.
0 -
He still thinks he was a big success as an education reformer. How could he possibly be more deluded than that?biggles said:
True, but I don’t think even he is that deluded.Stuartinromford said:
I did say how he sees himself.biggles said:
“Gentleman”? Cummings?…Stuartinromford said:
I assume he sees himself as a gentleman-scholar.ydoethur said:
What does Cummings do for a living these days? Or does he just write inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus?OldKingCole said:
Or Barnard Castle whichever is more convenient!Peter_the_Punter said:
Welcome back, Dura, but may I suggest an early visit to Specsavers if you are once again in the UK.Dura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
So yes, writing inane blog posts of inordinate length while living off his missus.
I wish I could be a gentleman-scholar.
We know he has difficulties seeing.2 -
It’s not that book. I read this book years ago, I’ve forgotten the titlebondegezou said:
I would guess this is “Don't Sleep, There are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian” by Daniel Everett? It is an excellent book. The précis above is poor. Everett is not saying that the people he lived with have no conception of time at all.biggles said:
Arguably, that’s a more accurate depiction of life. We exist in the present, doing what we are doing at the minute. The past is a story we tell ourselves based on fallible memories, and so are any plans or predictions we have for the future.Leon said:
InterestingDura_Ace said:
This is a pretty pointless question along the lines of would you rather bang a very pregnant Gina Gershon or Jenny McCarthy after a car accident (© Lt. Glenn Quagmire, USN).Benpointer said:Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
There is only “now”. And Einstein shows us even that is a strictly personal concept.0 -
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
2 -
1. If a dog wags its tail as it smells/senses that its owner is returning home then that is anticipating a future event. If the owner comes home every day at the same time then, say, an hour before they return does the dog think somehow that shortly my owner will return.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.0 -
In 2017, Theresa May deprived the Tories of their majority. A campaign of taking heavy calibre weaponry to her kitten heels.HYUFD said:
William Hague, John Major, Theresa May, Michael Foot were elected solely by MPs. Their record is at least as patchy.MarqueeMark said:
Jo Swinson was elected by the members.HYUFD said:It should be noted Tunbridge Wells, where Rishi spoke and I was born and raised, is 46th on the LD target list and has a LD led council. It is very much bluewall.
I don't there was anything wrong with what he said, there are parts of Tunbridge Wells that are not that well off, Sherwood ward for
instance. Yes the redwall needs support but there are parts of the country elsewhere that do too.
It should also be noted that the last 2 general election winners for the Tories, Johnson and Cameron, were both elected by the membership. The last general election winner for Labour, Tony Blair, was elected by Labour members. Starmer was also elected by Labour members and Davey by LD members
Jeremy Corbyn was elected by the members.
Hell, IDS was elected by the members.
The record of member voting is, at best, patchy.
In 2017 Corbyn deprived the Tories of their majority0 -
wooliedyed said:
To help them win those tough inner city seats they have struggled so badly in?Mexicanpete said:
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
No, but the allusion is the transfer of resources out of poorer areas to more affluent areas. I don't suppose "inner city" or suburban s***hole is a diffential to be considered by the voters of Heanor or Hartlepool.alex_ said:
Is it? Inner city areas are all massively Labour anyway.Mexicanpete said:
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
Edit: "Deprived urban areas" was the term he used, and in Tunbridge Wells.
Zac Goldsmith and Jake Berry find it a remarkably daft statement to make.0 -
OnlyLivingBoy said:
It doesn't "allow" them to be more aggressive, it forces them to be. The reality is that both fiscal and monetary policy impact aggregate demand and hence inflation. If fiscal policy is looser, monetary policy has to be tighter. So if Truss cuts taxes without cutting spending, then either inflation or interest rates will be higher than otherwise. That doesn't seem a great outcome to me.MISTY said:
Yes but the primary tools for controlling inflation are monetary and not fiscal. Minford's case is that cutting taxes allows the Bank of England to be more aggressive on rates and other forms of tightening. Much more aggressive.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Cutting taxes or increasing spending usually leads to stronger aggregate demand, which if supply is constrained will generate more inflation. The BOE will respond by raising interest rates by more.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
Taxes are high now but they are matched by high spending so on net are not disinflationary. There is no link between the level of taxes per se and inflation (except that raising indirect taxes leads to temporary inflation) if taxes are matched by spending, but unfunded tax cuts will be inflationary and lead to higher interest rates, Sunak is not wrong about that.
If the economy wasn't supply constrained then Truss's argument would be valid but that is self-evidently not the case, since current high inflation is a result of a series of negative supply shocks (including Brexit of course).
IF what you say is true, then the bank of England should not need to raise rates much, because fiscal policy is already the tightest in 70 years, and has been for a while.
If anything, the BoE's comments yesterday were an admission that very tight fiscal policy was not controlling inflation, because if it were inflation would be falling. It isn't. It is accelerating.
0 -
Book of Mormon absolutely seconded.TOPPING said:1. If a dog wags its tail as it smells/senses that its owner is returning home then that is anticipating a future event. If the owner comes home every day at the same time then, say, an hour before they return does the dog think somehow that shortly my owner will return.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.
If “Straight Line Crazy” is still on at the Bridge theatre then I very much recommend it, and it will appeal to the political nerd in most of us on this site, since Ralph Fiennes plays a town planner.
0 -
Here’s the Amazon jungle book I meant. Fascinating anthropology. Strong recommend
https://www.amazon.co.uk/MATE-KING-KONG-Shifter-beastman-ebook/dp/B097LTTSRX/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3TJ2PHMPZDPOU&keywords=Bride+Kong&qid=1659702333&sprefix=bride+king,aps,271&sr=8-20 -
He has a point though. Councils in leafy areas still need to spend money, eg on roads, and if they do not get government grants there is little they can do. You would hope that funding for roads, for example, is at a fixed rate per km across the country, with a suitable adjustment for contractor and material costs if they vary geographicallyCarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”0 -
I forgot to post the image of the Convolvulus Hawkmoth:
6 -
...and the detail of the head, showing the grumpy alien:
1 -
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red2 -
I disagree. I think we should spend more on roads that I use and less on roads I do not.JohnLilburne said:
He has a point though. Councils in leafy areas still need to spend money, eg on roads, and if they do not get government grants there is little they can do. You would hope that funding for roads, for example, is at a fixed rate per km across the country, with a suitable adjustment for contractor and material costs if they vary geographicallyCarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
2 -
Isn't the Sunak comment as good or bad contingent on those who might change their vote perceive it (if he gets to be PM)?
Very Conservative rural areas and very Labour inner cities are unlikely to alter voting patterns. How do market town floating voters view it?0 -
The key difference might be that the client vote in this case was a genuinely (un)deserving recipient. Anyway, you are wrong, everybody knows the (un)deserving poor don't vote, and the deserving poor vote Tory.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
0 -
Fiennes is brilliant as ever but must admit I struggled to stay awake! Nothing happens!biggles said:
Book of Mormon absolutely seconded.TOPPING said:1. If a dog wags its tail as it smells/senses that its owner is returning home then that is anticipating a future event. If the owner comes home every day at the same time then, say, an hour before they return does the dog think somehow that shortly my owner will return.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.
If “Straight Line Crazy” is still on at the Bridge theatre then I very much recommend it, and it will appeal to the political nerd in most of us on this site, since Ralph Fiennes plays a town planner.1 -
Ben Houchen tying himself in knots over this one.Mexicanpete said:wooliedyed said:
To help them win those tough inner city seats they have struggled so badly in?Mexicanpete said:
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
No, but the allusion is the transfer of resources out of poorer areas to more affluent areas. I don't suppose "inner city" or suburban s***hole is a diffential to be considered by the voters of Heanor or Hartlepool.alex_ said:
Is it? Inner city areas are all massively Labour anyway.Mexicanpete said:
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
Edit: "Deprived urban areas" was the term he used, and in Tunbridge Wells.
Zac Goldsmith and Jake Berry find it a remarkably daft statement to make.
Claims Teesside is "very rural".
Well. It isn't a big city, no.1 -
To be fair that was my wife’s reaction. I was sucked in to the concept. Might be a bit marmite.noneoftheabove said:
Fiennes is brilliant as ever but must admit I struggled to stay awake! Nothing happens!biggles said:
Book of Mormon absolutely seconded.TOPPING said:1. If a dog wags its tail as it smells/senses that its owner is returning home then that is anticipating a future event. If the owner comes home every day at the same time then, say, an hour before they return does the dog think somehow that shortly my owner will return.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.
If “Straight Line Crazy” is still on at the Bridge theatre then I very much recommend it, and it will appeal to the political nerd in most of us on this site, since Ralph Fiennes plays a town planner.
1 -
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.wooliedyed said:
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red1 -
Key point on this.
During stagflation you don't get to choose which out of inflation or a stagnant economy or public debt is a problem.2 -
It really depends on whether those in deprived rural and small town areas see it as them getting access to the money labour splurged on inner cities or somehow not getting the money they already don't get in favour of a new bandstand in Tunny town centre.Mexicanpete said:wooliedyed said:
To help them win those tough inner city seats they have struggled so badly in?Mexicanpete said:
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
No, but the allusion is the transfer of resources out of poorer areas to more affluent areas. I don't suppose "inner city" or suburban s***hole is a diffential to be considered by the voters of Heanor or Hartlepool.alex_ said:
Is it? Inner city areas are all massively Labour anyway.Mexicanpete said:
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
Edit: "Deprived urban areas" was the term he used, and in Tunbridge Wells.
Zac Goldsmith and Jake Berry find it a remarkably daft statement to make.0 -
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.2 -
Tbh I'll always associate the name "Houchen" with the best ever FA cup final goal. Bit like the economist David Dean and your username. Another bod that always makes me think of someone else is David Allen Green the Irish comedian twitter lawyer.dixiedean said:
Ben Houchen tying himself in knots over this one.Mexicanpete said:wooliedyed said:
To help them win those tough inner city seats they have struggled so badly in?Mexicanpete said:
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
No, but the allusion is the transfer of resources out of poorer areas to more affluent areas. I don't suppose "inner city" or suburban s***hole is a diffential to be considered by the voters of Heanor or Hartlepool.alex_ said:
Is it? Inner city areas are all massively Labour anyway.Mexicanpete said:
Whether Sunak becomes Leader or not, “Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas" is going on a Labour election bill poster isn't it?CarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”
Edit: "Deprived urban areas" was the term he used, and in Tunbridge Wells.
Zac Goldsmith and Jake Berry find it a remarkably daft statement to make.
Claims Teesside is "very rural".
Well. It isn't a big city, no.1 -
Man does 19 point turn on a cliff. Phenomenal
https://twitter.com/thefigen/status/1554865683900649476?s=21&t=yQBeq3WXEBZQL7cXN8ZHgA1 -
Its not ideal politics no, but as always the outrage is exquisitely manufacturedMexicanpete said:
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.wooliedyed said:
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red0 -
True. Imagine him and Starmer facing off against each other at the next election - two political duds competing to be the least inspiring.Mexicanpete said:
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.wooliedyed said:
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red0 -
What the comment does do is to refute absolutely, in his own words, that the government he was Chancellor of really did any "levelling up". It in fact shows the ex-Chancellor claiming credit for doing the opposite. If Sunak was not running in the leadership election it would still be absolute dynamite.Mexicanpete said:
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.wooliedyed said:
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red2 -
Fixed rates for roads wouldn't be a good idea. Some roads are used far more than others and require far higher levels of maintenance. On the flip side there are widely varying ability to raise money from Parking (which is supposed to be ringfenced for Highways expenditure).JohnLilburne said:
He has a point though. Councils in leafy areas still need to spend money, eg on roads, and if they do not get government grants there is little they can do. You would hope that funding for roads, for example, is at a fixed rate per km across the country, with a suitable adjustment for contractor and material costs if they vary geographicallyCarlottaVance said:Sunak gaff second item on WATO headlines.
He’s just not very good at politics.
“Labour had skewed funding to inner city areas ignoring poorer areas outside them.”0 -
And suspension of the green levy.Sandpit said:
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
And reform: apparently you pay green levy on green electricity tariffs, for some reason.1 -
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.Sandpit said:
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.0 -
The Tesla scheme was mentioned a while back.Nigelb said:This is interesting.
Tesla Powerwalls Create Huge 'Distributed Battery' For Grid Reliability
Tesla has invited some 25,000 PG&E customers with Powerwalls to join the program.
https://insideevs.com/news/602480/tesla-powerwall-pge-worlds-largest-distributed-battery/
...Through the collaboration, Tesla will participate in PG&E’s Emergency Load Reduction Program (ELRP) pilot by combining residential Powerwalls into a virtual power plant to discharge power back to the California grid during times of high electricity demand. Participating customers will receive $2 for every incremental kilowatt-hour of electricity their Powerwall discharges during an event. They can use the Tesla app to set their backup power needs or to opt out of a particular event, as necessary....
While not massive in terms of power, imagine ubiquitous EV* usage. Even if only around 20% of vehicles' better capacity was available, it would give you a virtual distributed battery with multiple GWh capacity.
UK drivers do an average of around 20 miles a day, so there's plenty of headroom.
(* two way chargers are already being planned for electric vehicles, so the ability to discharge back to the grid will be designed in.)
The various companies planing superchargers are looking at building in storage to time shift/spread the load. Several are looking at over sizing the storage and using that to time shift larger amount of electricity for ££££. For reference, you can put 3/4GWh of storage in a shipping container sized installation.0 -
QE - there is of course (I think
) a problem with unwinding this, for a reason entirely of George Osborne's "being clever" making. Namely that the Government decided to "bank" all the interest earned against the debt received by the BoE bond purchase programme (which of course is mostly Govt bonds).
Unwinding the debt involves selling those bonds to the private markets, which will as a result reduce Government income whilst retaining the otherwise circular expenditure.0 -
Whichever way this contest goes, 2024 is either a borefest between Starmer and Sunak or Starmer and Truss.Fishing said:
True. Imagine him and Starmer facing off against each other at the next election - two political duds competing to be the least inspiring.Mexicanpete said:
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.wooliedyed said:
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
As I commented yesterday the Conservative USP of "Labour will be as useless as the Conservatives" isn't going to be an easy sell.0 -
Like Sunak you don't seem to understand that presenting one's opponents with an open goal and a noose with which to hang oneself is not clever politics.wooliedyed said:
Its not ideal politics no, but as always the outrage is exquisitely manufacturedMexicanpete said:
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.wooliedyed said:
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red0 -
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.MISTY said:
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.Sandpit said:
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.3 -
Brent Crude is $94.59 atm. Well below its peak but still high.MISTY said:
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.Sandpit said:
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.1 -
I suspect the next election will not be about which party is more or less useless, but about which party leader is more or less honest. And at the moment I think Starmer wins over Truss but I'm not sure about Starmer over Sunak.Mexicanpete said:
Whichever way this contest goes, 2024 is either a borefest between Starmer and Sunak or Starmer and Truss.Fishing said:
True. Imagine him and Starmer facing off against each other at the next election - two political duds competing to be the least inspiring.Mexicanpete said:
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.wooliedyed said:
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red
As I commented yesterday the Conservative USP of "Labour will be as useless as the Conservatives" isn't going to be an easy sell.
Although I suspect Starmer could beat Sunak on overall competence.1 -
Today's NFP upside surprise not great for GBP I guess.LostPassword said:
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.MISTY said:
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.Sandpit said:
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.0 -
I voted Truss, being a late convert from Sunak, primarily due to his desperate policy announcements. Should have stuck to his guns if he wanted to appear the sensible one. Plus I was never convinced he'd be strong enough on China/Russia. Also not convinced there's much difference between them on the economy, despite all the chatter, and I could imagine Kwarteng doing a good job as Chancellor, more so than a Sunak minion.stjohn said:
Are you going to declare how you voted? I'm keeping score.Jamei said:Got mine in the post yesterday, voted online yesterday. Got an email confirmation yesterday from Graham reminding me it's an offence to vote more than once, and if I haven't actually voted yet to contact them immediately.
2 -
As one who grew up in the 40s and 50s I find the concept of 'pre-war' as being about six months ago quite difficult to come to terms with!LostPassword said:
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.MISTY said:
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.Sandpit said:
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.2 -
'Its not ideal politics'Mexicanpete said:
Like Sunak you don't seem to understand that presenting one's opponents with an open goal and a noose with which to hang oneself is not clever politics.wooliedyed said:
Its not ideal politics no, but as always the outrage is exquisitely manufacturedMexicanpete said:
You're all dancing on the head of a pin. It's a stupid comment for Sunak to have made in any context. As Carlotta suggested earlier, Sunak is just not very good at politics.wooliedyed said:
Labour are shameless full stop. Yesterday they were apoplectic that Bozo had left Raab in charge after demanding Bozo leave and put Raab in charge. And the B team had to tweet about it because Starmer is on holiday.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
Today they are furious about funding to rural and small town deprivation areas because those areas are not as solidly red0 -
First time I've heard white van man called the deserving poor.Mexicanpete said:
The key difference might be that the client vote in this case was a genuinely (un)deserving recipient. Anyway, you are wrong, everybody knows the (un)deserving poor don't vote, and the deserving poor vote Tory.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
The Tories don't bother campaigning among the poor. They'd get bricked if they tried.0 -
Ah. I did wonder why GBP suddenly lost half a cent. That would explain it alright.MISTY said:
Today's NFP upside surprise not great for GBP I guess.LostPassword said:
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.MISTY said:
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.Sandpit said:
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.0 -
Surely the point Mark is making is the evidence points to it being inclusive, whereas you were trying to imply it wasn't. It clearly is from the evidence Mark provided.HYUFD said:
William Hague, John Major, Theresa May, Michael Foot were elected solely by MPs. Their record is at least as patchy.MarqueeMark said:
Jo Swinson was elected by the members.HYUFD said:It should be noted Tunbridge Wells, where Rishi spoke and I was born and raised, is 46th on the LD target list and has a LD led council. It is very much bluewall.
I don't there was anything wrong with what he said, there are parts of Tunbridge Wells that are not that well off, Sherwood ward for
instance. Yes the redwall needs support but there are parts of the country elsewhere that do too.
It should also be noted that the last 2 general election winners for the Tories, Johnson and Cameron, were both elected by the membership. The last general election winner for Labour, Tony Blair, was elected by Labour members. Starmer was also elected by Labour members and Davey by LD members
Jeremy Corbyn was elected by the members.
Hell, IDS was elected by the members.
The record of member voting is, at best, patchy.
In 2017 Corbyn deprived the Tories of their majority
Personally I think members should elect leaders whilst in opposition and the public can decide on the party's members wisdom in a GE. However if you are appointing a PM of an already elected governing party it should be left to those who have the detailed knowledge i.e. the MPs to mitigate the risk of appointing a loony as PM (although the MPs might manage that also).0 -
I am
Still means before 1939 to me and I'm ... well never mind what I am but I'm no spring chicken.OldKingCole said:
As one who grew up in the 40s and 50s I find the concept of 'pre-war' as being about six months ago quite difficult to come to terms with!LostPassword said:
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.MISTY said:
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.Sandpit said:
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.1 -
But he was 55 seats short of becoming PM.HYUFD said:
William Hague, John Major, Theresa May, Michael Foot were elected solely by MPs. Their record is at least as patchy.MarqueeMark said:
Jo Swinson was elected by the members.HYUFD said:It should be noted Tunbridge Wells, where Rishi spoke and I was born and raised, is 46th on the LD target list and has a LD led council. It is very much bluewall.
I don't there was anything wrong with what he said, there are parts of Tunbridge Wells that are not that well off, Sherwood ward for
instance. Yes the redwall needs support but there are parts of the country elsewhere that do too.
It should also be noted that the last 2 general election winners for the Tories, Johnson and Cameron, were both elected by the membership. The last general election winner for Labour, Tony Blair, was elected by Labour members. Starmer was also elected by Labour members and Davey by LD members
Jeremy Corbyn was elected by the members.
Hell, IDS was elected by the members.
The record of member voting is, at best, patchy.
In 2017 Corbyn deprived the Tories of their majority0 -
Betfair next prime ministerDecrepiterJohnL said:
Rishi continues his slow drift. Remember he was around 11before winning yesterday's debate and 8.4 this morning. How long has Team Truss been sitting on that video?DecrepiterJohnL said:Betfair next prime minister
1.12 Liz Truss 89%
8.6 Rishi Sunak 12%
Next Conservative leader
1.12 Liz Truss 89%
8.6 Rishi Sunak 12%
Betfair next prime minister
1.12 Liz Truss 89%
9 Rishi Sunak 11%
Next Conservative leader
1.12 Liz Truss 89%
9 Rishi Sunak 11%
1.11 Liz Truss 90%
9.4 Rishi Sunak 11%
Next Conservative leader
1.11 Liz Truss 90%
9.6 Rishi Sunak 10%0 -
Sister Act is on at the Hammersmith Apollo through August. A friend went to see it yesterday and loved it.TOPPING said:1. If a dog wags its tail as it smells/senses that its owner is returning home then that is anticipating a future event. If the owner comes home every day at the same time then, say, an hour before they return does the dog think somehow that shortly my owner will return.
2. Book of Mormon is absolutely fantastic, one of the funniest things I've seen on stage; Hamilton is overrated there is so much exposition that the music gets lost. Many of the musicals are wondrously joyous. I went to see Sister Act last week (I think it's closed now) and it was great, a really uplifting time. Same with Joseph last year (not sure if that is coming back again this year).
3. As for non-musicals I think Jerusalem is on for a short while longer with Rylance and Crook but I would imagine that tickets will be as rare as rocking horse shit.
4. As for Sunak I reported a short while ago that there is a groundswell of opinion backing him amongst the Cons membership but I still can't see him overturning Truss' strong position.
I saw Jerusalem a couple of weeks ago (but yes, sold out, cancellations only) - I was worried that it'd be tediously Private Eye stuff about a robust English hero standing up to council bureaucrats) but that's a tiny fraction of it and it's really good. An f***/c*** swear count making TSE and Leon sound like Edwardian vicars, but clever multi-level characterisation - we spent an hour after the performance dissecting what we'd seen.0 -
Yes, I can imagine that.OldKingCole said:
As one who grew up in the 40s and 50s I find the concept of 'pre-war' as being about six months ago quite difficult to come to terms with!LostPassword said:
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.MISTY said:
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.Sandpit said:
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.
I wonder whether the dividing line will look as sharp in five years time.0 -
Except it's not the policy. No other major economy is hiking taxes like Sunak is for very good reason. Let alone hiking them to a 74 year high while planning to slash income tax on unearned incomes.bondegezou said:
Well, except for the minor matter of the likely new PM, Liz Truss, having a policy of massively increasing the debt mountain…biggles said:IF (and it is a big IF) inflation unwinds quickly next year as the Covid hangover dissipates globally and Ukraine wins, then a one year period of 10-15% inflation should at least take the edge off the Government’s debt mountain (provided we aren’t an outlier the bond markets can target).
Reversing those unjustified tax hikes is a rounding error in our national accounts, especially relative to the inflationary write off of debts.0 -
No it clearly isn't, of the last 4 Tory leaders elected solely by MPs, May, Howard, Hague and Major, none of them apart from Major won a general election majority and he also led the party to its worst defeat since 1832 in 1997.kjh said:
Surely the point Mark is making is the evidence points to it being inclusive, whereas you were trying to imply it wasn't. It clearly is from the evidence Mark provided.HYUFD said:
William Hague, John Major, Theresa May, Michael Foot were elected solely by MPs. Their record is at least as patchy.MarqueeMark said:
Jo Swinson was elected by the members.HYUFD said:It should be noted Tunbridge Wells, where Rishi spoke and I was born and raised, is 46th on the LD target list and has a LD led council. It is very much bluewall.
I don't there was anything wrong with what he said, there are parts of Tunbridge Wells that are not that well off, Sherwood ward for
instance. Yes the redwall needs support but there are parts of the country elsewhere that do too.
It should also be noted that the last 2 general election winners for the Tories, Johnson and Cameron, were both elected by the membership. The last general election winner for Labour, Tony Blair, was elected by Labour members. Starmer was also elected by Labour members and Davey by LD members
Jeremy Corbyn was elected by the members.
Hell, IDS was elected by the members.
The record of member voting is, at best, patchy.
In 2017 Corbyn deprived the Tories of their majority
Personally I think members should elect leaders whilst in opposition and the public can decide on the party's members wisdom in a GE. However if you are appointing a PM of an already elected governing party it should be left to those who have the detailed knowledge i.e. the MPs to mitigate the risk of appointing a loony as PM (although the MPs might manage that also).
If members get a say in electing the party leader then that applies in government as much as opposition. MPs select the final 2 anyway and members then choose from them, so MPs have plenty of opportunity to exclude an extremist. Braverman or Badenoch may well have won the leadership amongst members and were probably the most hardline of the candidates standing but MPs put neither in the final 2.
Labour also let members choose their leader so they equally could choose the PM in power. Had John McDonnell got enough MP nominations to take on Gordon Brown in 2007 that would certainly have been the case0 -
Kent has some of the most deprived areas of the country, especially around Margate, Ramsgate, Gravesend, Isle of Sheppey etcCarnyx said:Re the thread topic, I don't know if it has been noticed on here that someone has conveniently unearthed a clip of Mr S saying he'd managed to change fuinding in favour of Kent etc. (No idea if this is a fair interpretation or not, myself.)
https://www.thenational.scot/news/20603278.rishi-sunak-boasts-diverting-cash-deprived-urban-areas-unearthed-video/?ref=ebbn1 -
Those plus the tendency to tell anthropologists (amateur and expert) stuff that -Leon said:
InterestingDura_Ace said:
This is a pretty pointless question along the lines of would you rather bang a very pregnant Gina Gershon or Jenny McCarthy after a car accident (© Lt. Glenn Quagmire, USN).Benpointer said:Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
(a) people think they want to hear
(b) troll the stupid foreigner
0 -
Reminds me of the joke under Stalin: "The future is certain. Only the past needs revision."biggles said:
Arguably, that’s a more accurate depiction of life. We exist in the present, doing what we are doing at the minute. The past is a story we tell ourselves based on fallible memories, and so are any plans or predictions we have for the future.
There is only “now”. And Einstein shows us even that is a strictly personal concept.2 -
There’s not much they can do. I would probably keep the cap fixed at the current level and compensation the energy companies for the difference. That would eat up the entire headroom they might or might not have, but is the kind of last resort insurance that only the government can do.Taz said:"Auxilione’s forecast comes less than a day after analysts at Investec forecast that October’s price cap will be £3,523, with bills rising to an eye-watering £4,210 in January."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/energy-bills-to-hit-4-000-by-january-as-gas-prices-spiral-out-of-control/ar-AA10kUv2?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=135bd667ba7647f193c061bf7cf46e7c
The govt still does little about this issue.
1 -
You can imagine Kwarteng being a good Chancellor?Jamei said:
I voted Truss, being a late convert from Sunak, primarily due to his desperate policy announcements. Should have stuck to his guns if he wanted to appear the sensible one. Plus I was never convinced he'd be strong enough on China/Russia. Also not convinced there's much difference between them on the economy, despite all the chatter, and I could imagine Kwarteng doing a good job as Chancellor, more so than a Sunak minion.stjohn said:
Are you going to declare how you voted? I'm keeping score.Jamei said:Got mine in the post yesterday, voted online yesterday. Got an email confirmation yesterday from Graham reminding me it's an offence to vote more than once, and if I haven't actually voted yet to contact them immediately.
I feel a Temptations classic coming on.0 -
A litre of unleaded presently is about £1.77 Vs a pre-war typical £1.25, +42% (+46% accounting for duty changes)LostPassword said:
Pre-war Sterling was $1.36, and now it's $1.20.MISTY said:
also a more efficient fuel pricing market.Sandpit said:
The idea that cutting taxes drives inflation would be correct, according to the conventional Treasury economics textbooks - but the current situation is so far outside any economics textbooks.MISTY said:
His argument would appear to be that Liz's tax cuts make our inflationary problems worse, and keeping taxes high would help to control inflation.bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
I think its a very shaky argument and its hampering him badly.
There’s unheard-of levels of government debt and QE to unwind, and the inflation is very specifically imported, driven by only a handful of large but essential items, with very low price elacticity of demand.
The rising interest rates are driving inflation themselves, thanks to variable rate debt, and government debt is so high that debt repayment is the size of a major government department - so raising interest rates squeezes funds to the whole public sector.
The end result, is that what’s required is immediate relief from the worst of the energy bills. Fuel duty, and VAT on domestic energy being the most obvious places to start.
Crude prices are now below Russian invasion commencement levels. Under USD90 a barrel.
That means a $90 barrel of oil is now £75, compared to £66, +14%.
So there's still more than just sterling or crude prices in play presumably?0 -
Delusional. In 2019 the Conservatives won the category DE by 47:33. Labour did a little better amongst the ABs. The highest proportion of Tory voters were in the C2 at 49%Dynamo said:
First time I've heard white van man called the deserving poor.Mexicanpete said:
The key difference might be that the client vote in this case was a genuinely (un)deserving recipient. Anyway, you are wrong, everybody knows the (un)deserving poor don't vote, and the deserving poor vote Tory.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
The Tories don't bother campaigning among the poor. They'd get bricked if they tried.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
The fantasy that Labour is the party of the poorer classes is just that. They turned their back on them a while ago when they became obsessed with middle class privilege.2 -
It’s specifically experience of “counter battery” warfare ie firing rockets at South Koreansalex_ said:https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/100000-north-korean-soldiers-could-be-sent-to-bolster-putins-forces-fighting-ukraine/news-story/1126782c8c5e6fe08a8ad2d9fa38dff0
Are there multiple wars that North Korean soldiers have been engaged in over the last several decades (to gain this 'wealth of experience' that i am unaware of?
0 -
Re dog's view of the world. We have a Sproodle. It is bonkers. I have never come across a dog so excitable. It definitely has triggers that tell it something is happening and therefore it should do stuff, but I think it only has a limited measure of time, say 1 hour at most.
Our dog suffers from separation anxiety (of course he does!). He would go mad if left. We can leave him for up to an hour now. My wife wants to keep paying a fortune to trainers. I reckon he is fixed and we could leave him longer, but that isn't so profitable for the trainer.
PS as a puppy he was expelled from dog training classes for being
belligerent. He basically got all the other dogs to misbehave en mass. He is actually well trained provided another human or dog is not in sight.0 -
Doesn't a lot depend on both the tax cut, and the nature of the inflation?bondegezou said:
Is he actually arguing that Government borrowing leads to higher inflation, and Liz’s tax cuts are predicated on higher borrowing? So he’s not saying that well-funded tax cuts are a problem.MISTY said:It seems to me that there's a basic flaw in Rishi's argument that is hampering him badly, namely the link he presupposes between inflation and taxation.
He contends that cutting taxes would stoke inflation, but if that's the case then how come taxation and inflation are both at the highest in decades, and have been for a while? If Sunak is right then that situation should be impossible, inflation should be falling.
It should also be true that during periods of low taxation, inflation should be higher, when that is also not necessarily true.
It's obvious that the link Sunak is claiming does not exist, or at least not in the way Sunak claims it does, and its just a line he's been fed by his mates at HM Treasury.
The present inflation is mostly imported inflation in the price of petrol, diesel and gas. This is increasing costs for businesses which in turn are having to raise prices to remain profitable. If the government was to abolish fuel duty, that would act against this driver of inflation - businesses wouldn't raise prices as much, and as a result a wage-price spiral is less likely to be triggered. Because the market for petrol and diesel is global, and demand is very inelastic, cutting tax on fuel is unlikely to cause a noticable demand and thus price increase for fuel.
On the other hand cutting say stamp duty just releases more cash to fight over scarce resources, and will just accelerate the rate of house price inflation.2 -
Exactly, a public sector employed graduate manager who voted Remain is less likely to vote Tory now than even someone living on a council estate if they voted LeaveDavidL said:
Delusional. In 2019 the Conservatives won the category DE by 47:33. Labour did a little better amongst the ABs. The highest proportion of Tory voters were in the C2 at 49%Dynamo said:
First time I've heard white van man called the deserving poor.Mexicanpete said:
The key difference might be that the client vote in this case was a genuinely (un)deserving recipient. Anyway, you are wrong, everybody knows the (un)deserving poor don't vote, and the deserving poor vote Tory.MarqueeMark said:
How shameless was Labour about funnelling it to their client voters? Pretty fucking shameless....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Isn't the Tory funelling of cash to their client voters getting a bit too shameless and embarrassing, even for them?MarqueeMark said:Politically, it matters little if the Conservatives - under whatever leader - robbed funding from Liverpool or Manchester or any of the seats that elected a Labour MP in 2019. It will matter if they don't offer significant support for Workington or Ashfield or Hartlepool.
The Tories don't bother campaigning among the poor. They'd get bricked if they tried.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
The fantasy that Labour is the party of the poorer classes is just that. They turned their back on them a while ago when they became obsessed with middle class privilege.1 -
Yes, and on thinking about it, I believe @bondegezou is right, and it is this book I am referring toMalmesbury said:
Those plus the tendency to tell anthropologists (amateur and expert) stuff that -Leon said:
InterestingDura_Ace said:
This is a pretty pointless question along the lines of would you rather bang a very pregnant Gina Gershon or Jenny McCarthy after a car accident (© Lt. Glenn Quagmire, USN).Benpointer said:Most important question of the day: "Does a dog have any concept of the future?"
(As discussed at length and inconclusively over too many bottles of wine last night with an old friend who came to stop with us. Our dog declined to get involved tbf.)
However I did spend almost a year in a garden shed and the only other living thing with which I would interact in that time was my parents' dog so I have possibly unmatched observational experience of canine behaviour and psychology.
My conclusion is that they do have a concept of the future in the sense that they are able to anticipate as yet unmanifested but probable events. However, this horizon is very short by human terms and they have almost no concept of the passage of time. Their internal chronology is based around events rather than duration.
There are Amazon tribes with similar conceptions of the world. I read a book by a guy that lived with one of them. They had no words for past, present or future, and certainly no past or future tense. Everything was quickly forgotten. The world was seen as a series of events. ‘Now this is happening, now this, now we are eating, now it is raining’
The author admitted this kept the tribal lifestyle very primitive, but it also - he claimed - made them happy. If you never remember anything you never need to feel guilt, regret or sadness
Of course, the European author might have been idealizing. Or lying
(a) people think they want to hear
(b) troll the stupid foreigner
"The Pirahã have no socially lubricating "hello" and "thank you" and "sorry". They have no words for colours, no words for numbers and no way of expressing any history beyond that experienced in their lifetimes"
Which is not quite how I recalled it, as he says
Great book, however
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/10/daniel-everett-amazon0 -
This analysis is bollocks, she has a great arseDura_Ace said:
Badenoch has limited appeal outside the alt-right curious (as well as being fucking ugly which matters) and Penny Dreadful is just a fucking charlatan.Stuartinromford said:Mordaunt and Badenoch are interesting as potential LotOs after 2024, but their CVs were way too thin to take over as PM now.
0 -
In other news, OneWeb looks to complete it's Gen-1 constellation by next year.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/07/26/oneweb-to-merge-with-eutelsat-needs-five-more-launches-to-complete-first-gen-network/
While offering a more limited service (mostly back haul) than Starlink, this is the first LEO data provision constellation that will be completed.2