Howdy, Stranger!

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

Johnson’s still edging it in the Midlands right to the end – politicalbetting.com

1246

Comments

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    edited September 4

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Not true. Labours windfall extension would only have covered part of it - presumably the rest was borrowing as with Liz, whereas the impression I get from these front pages is a clamp down on public sector pay to go some way to funding Truss version.

    It doesn’t really matter what Labour propose as they have zero power - if they were in power they would have difficult questions how to pay for it - it’s noticeable as forcast on PB Truss is now talking pain and sacrifice - especially after the initial period of the scheme is up. One of the pleasures of winning elections and holding power is needing to answer those difficult questions.

    It’s noticeable the Tories are on the front of the FT talking up budget responsibility, because they should rightly fear judgement of the markets on their plans, problem is talk like that is worthless if you don’t deliver budget responsibility. And the clear problem of delivering tax cuts same time as the help package is any pain and sacrifice will be associated and remembered as paying for the tax cuts not the help package.

    The clear conclusion leaping out to us from this set of front pages is the new Government putting more workers out on strike not solving the strikes, isn’t it?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,308

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Price freeze with no signal to reduce demand is not going to end well.
    Freezing or capping prices at twice last year’s level, for example, would still be a pretty strong price signal.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    Andy_JS said:

    Seattle Times ($) - New polling of WA shows what really divides us - column by Danny Westneat

    Politics these days is all about divides — cultural, racial, urban versus rural. There’s the growing gender gap in voting. But a new post-primary poll of Washington state highlights a different gap, one that now trumps them all (pun intended).

    It’s the diploma divide. . . .

    . . . in the only publicly released poll of the entire state since the Aug. 2 primary, the GOP firm McLaughlin & Associates found that President Joe Biden, while of mixed popularity here, would beat former President Donald Trump in a rematch, by 13 points, 54% to 41%.

    The mid-August poll found a tighter race for U.S. Senate this November, with incumbent Sen. Patty Murray leading GOP newcomer Tiffany Smiley 49% to 43%.

    These top-line results aren’t what stands out, though. The poll, like a few before it had hinted, highlights how Washington state is fracturing more than ever along an educational fault line.

    Trump leads in the poll among the roughly 55% of the state that lacks a college degree, by about 5 points. But Biden is ahead among the college grads and those with advanced degrees by a blistering 37 points, 66% to 29%. That’s an enormous diploma divide between the two parties of 42 points.

    This is a Republican poll, remember, and yet it shows, buried in the cross tabs, that only 14% of college grads in this state identify with the GOP. It gets more extreme when the gender and diploma gaps are combined. The poll found that only 10% of college-educated women in Washington think of themselves as Republicans, while 55% side with Democrats — a massive 45-point gap.

    An earlier poll by Seattle pollster Stuart Elway, for the local news site Crosscut in July, likewise found that 75% of college-educated voters here now hold negative views of the GOP — most of them deeply so.

    This sorting cuts both ways. An academic “we know best” sense often breezes from Democratic politicians, which may be pushing some working-class voters — including an increasing share of minority voters — into the arms of Republicans. This is new because the GOP was for decades the party of white people, big business and the rich. Call it the Trump realignment. . . .

    All of this is light years away from Barack Obama’s vision of a “purple state” America.

    Of course Obama undermined that with his professorial comments about how the embittered working class “clings to guns and religion.” Then came Trump, who made that a badge of honor. The setup is almost perfectly crafted for more polarization: We are now the Know-Nothings versus the We-Know-Better-Than-Yous.

    Your reaction to all this? It probably depends on whether you, yourself, are out there right now clinging to your electric vehicle and your college degree.

    https://mclaughlinonline.com/pols/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/WA-Jordan-PPT-08-17-22.pdf

    https://mclaughlinonline.com/pols/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/WA-Jordan-05-17-22-X-Tabs.pdf

    Only a tiny percentage of people drive electric cars (as far as I know).
    While that's true, it's changing remarkably quickly. The best selling vehicle in the world is going to be the Tesla Model Y: https://electrek.co/2022/08/05/tesla-model-y-on-track-worlds-best-selling-car/
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:
    I think it's great. One of the most iconic covers of all time, alongside Warhol's banana, Sgt peppers and Floyd's prism.

    Using an intimate photo of someone who can't possibly consent just seems odd to me.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Why will they have to eat their words. I think it's OK but people who thought a freeze was not the solution a few weeks back won't have changed their mind tommorow.
    Not any self respecting poster here, anyway.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Not true. Labours windfall extension would only have covered part of it - presumably the rest was borrowing as with Liz, whereas the impression I get from these front pages is a clamp down on public sector pay to go some way to funding Truss version.

    It doesn’t really matter what Labour propose as they have zero power - if they were in power they would have difficult questions how to pay for it - it’s noticeable as forcast on PB Truss is now talking pain and sacrifice - especially after the initial period of the scheme is up. One of the pleasures of winning elections and holding power is needing to answer those difficult questions.

    It’s noticeable the Tories are on the front of the FT talking up budget responsibility, because they should rightly fear judgement of the markets on their plans, problem is talk like that is worthless if you don’t deliver budget responsibility. And the clear problem of delivering tax cuts same time as the help package is any pain and sacrifice will be associated and remembered as paying for the tax cuts not the help package.

    The clear conclusion leaping out to us from this set of front pages is the new Government putting more workers out on strike not solving the strikes, isn’t it?
    "A clampdown on Public sector pay?"
    That would be the public sector which has huge vacancies because of years of a pay freeze?
    That public sector?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    edited September 4
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Not true. Labours windfall extension would only have covered part of it - presumably the rest was borrowing as with Liz, whereas the impression I get from these front pages is a clamp down on public sector pay to go some way to funding Truss version.

    It doesn’t really matter what Labour propose as they have zero power - if they were in power they would have difficult questions how to pay for it - it’s noticeable as forcast on PB Truss is now talking pain and sacrifice - especially after the initial period of the scheme is up. One of the pleasures of winning elections and holding power is needing to answer those difficult questions.

    It’s noticeable the Tories are on the front of the FT talking up budget responsibility, because they should rightly fear judgement of the markets on their plans, problem is talk like that is worthless if you don’t deliver budget responsibility. And the clear problem of delivering tax cuts same time as the help package is any pain and sacrifice will be associated and remembered as paying for the tax cuts not the help package.

    The clear conclusion leaping out to us from this set of front pages is the new Government putting more workers out on strike not solving the strikes, isn’t it?
    "A clampdown on Public sector pay?"
    That would be the public sector which has huge vacancies because of years of a pay freeze?
    That public sector?
    Let me double check I have the right phrase, from the paper I read it on…

    Edit. I think I got it wrong - the phrase on front of the “I” is reign in public spending, so not necessary public sector pay - it could be public sector job losses and departmental budget cuts to pay for the joint tax cut/hand out package.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297
    Scratch that last comment.
    Cosplay Thatcher would love strikes. The more the merrier.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    FiveThirtyEight is giving the Democrats the edge in the Senate, Sabato's team is calling it even, and Politco is giving the Republicans the edge.

    (I would have to go over the races one by one before I would be willing to make a call -- and I don't plan to do that immediately.)

    I’m calling it zero change senate, and small double digit majority for gop in the house.
    I don't think that's unreasonable: I think the Dems probably gain Pennsylvania, while losing one (or possibly both) of Nevada and Georgia.

    With that said, I do wonder if the value is in the edges: either the Republicans outperform and pick up the trifecta of Arizona, Nevada and Georgia (while running the Dems close in WA and CO); or the Dems do - grabbing Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and maybe even Florida and Ohio.
  • Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Why will they have to eat their words. I think it's OK but people who thought a freeze was not the solution a few weeks back won't have changed their mind tommorow.
    Not any self respecting poster here, anyway.
    We’ll see. We were being told on here last night that universality would be immoral. Let’s see if that line sticks if Truss runs with it.

  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    edited September 4

    Don't freeze the price.

    Give everyone a council tax rebate, an uplift in benefit levels, some tax cuts. Whatever mix. But give people enough money to cover the expected uplift in the cap and then let the energy companies charge as per normal.

    Many people will cut demand and so keep some of the money for other matters.

    The demand cut is what we need for Winter 2022/3.

    Hmm.

    I kindof agree. Depends a lot on the details, but a blanket price cap at £1971/average (presumably also covering business at equivalent per kWh rates) seems like a bad way of doing it.

    As you said, we NEED people (and business, to an extent) to be reducing demand any way we can, without people freezing and businesses going bust - and the policy really should have that goal in mind. Capping at £1.9k/average ain’t going to achieve much demand destruction. Bad policy making.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453
    dixiedean said:

    Scratch that last comment.
    Cosplay Thatcher would love strikes. The more the merrier.

    Well, she is going to get them. Nurses vote this month, then the junior doctors next.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    Eco-zealots from Animal Rebellion claim they have 'cut off' milk supply to Midlands and south of England after more than 100 protesters target four major sites - as police at one blockade say they have arrested 23 people

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11179189/Animal-Rebellion-claim-cut-milk-supply-police-say-arrested-23-people.html

    "Eco-zealots" is a very charitable term.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453
    Andy_JS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:
    I think it's great. One of the most iconic covers of all time, alongside Warhol's banana, Sgt peppers and Floyd's prism.

    Using an intimate photo of someone who can't possibly consent just seems odd to me.
    Could you recognise him from the photo?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Not true. Labours windfall extension would only have covered part of it - presumably the rest was borrowing as with Liz, whereas the impression I get from these front pages is a clamp down on public sector pay to go some way to funding Truss version.

    It doesn’t really matter what Labour propose as they have zero power - if they were in power they would have difficult questions how to pay for it - it’s noticeable as forcast on PB Truss is now talking pain and sacrifice - especially after the initial period of the scheme is up. One of the pleasures of winning elections and holding power is needing to answer those difficult questions.

    It’s noticeable the Tories are on the front of the FT talking up budget responsibility, because they should rightly fear judgement of the markets on their plans, problem is talk like that is worthless if you don’t deliver budget responsibility. And the clear problem of delivering tax cuts same time as the help package is any pain and sacrifice will be associated and remembered as paying for the tax cuts not the help package.

    The clear conclusion leaping out to us from this set of front pages is the new Government putting more workers out on strike not solving the strikes, isn’t it?
    "A clampdown on Public sector pay?"
    That would be the public sector which has huge vacancies because of years of a pay freeze?
    That public sector?
    Let me double check I have the right phrase, from the paper I read it on…

    Edit. I think I got it wrong - the phrase on front of the “I” is reign in public spending, so not necessary public sector pay - it could be public sector job losses and departmental budget cuts to pay for the joint tax cut/hand out package.
    Even worse.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    edited September 4
    Oh.

    So Liz is going to do a bung after all.
    As predicted by me (and quite a few others) about a month ago.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297
    ping said:

    Don't freeze the price.

    Give everyone a council tax rebate, an uplift in benefit levels, some tax cuts. Whatever mix. But give people enough money to cover the expected uplift in the cap and then let the energy companies charge as per normal.

    Many people will cut demand and so keep some of the money for other matters.

    The demand cut is what we need for Winter 2022/3.

    Hmm.

    I kindof agree. Depends a lot on the details, but a blanket price cap at £1971/average (presumably also covering business at equivalent per kWh rates) seems like a bad way of doing it.

    As you said, we NEED people (and business, to an extent) to be reducing demand any way we can, without people freezing and businesses going bust - and the policy really should have that goal in mind. Capping at £1.9k/average ain’t going to achieve much demand destruction. Bad policy making.
    Blackouts are a possibility without a serious demand reduction drive.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,812
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1566483708177170432

    Andrew Bridgen, Conservative MP for Leicestershire North West, has been evicted from his home and has been ordered to pay £800,000 in legal costs, and could be ordered to pay £244,000 in rent arrears.

    He has also been described as ‘dishonest’ by a judge.

    Wow. That's quite a story.

    Mind you, what's most shocking is of course the idea that a Tory MP might be dishonest. That's extraordinary. After all these years of government by people who are models of integrity and frankness, who have set new standards in public life by their conduct, how could anyone think such a thing?
    'The Sunday Times says that Mr Bridgen accused the firm of forcing him out of a £93,000-a-year second job, which required him to attend a monthly board meeting.

    The judge found that, rather than being bullied out of the job as he alleged, Mr Bridgen resigned in order to reduce the amount he might owe his first wife in divorce proceedings.

    Judge Brian Rawlings also found that Mr Bridgen pressured the police inspector in his parliamentary constituency of North West Leicestershire to launch a costly one-year investigation into vexatious allegations against his estranged younger brother, Paul Bridgen, 55, who runs AB Produce.'

    https://coalville.nub.news/news/local-news/coalville-mp-is-evicted-from-home-by-judge-following-lengthy-legal-dispute-with-family-business-says-report-148881?fbclid=IwAR1zR9aGkNTdg8aNZKgUm-7rpQ7nywRDr6spiGjK1Lp8SOTp7uo5pqsc17U&utm_content=buffer9f44f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
    Looks a pretty safe seat, though held by the pleasant David Taylor for Labour up to 2010. It's the sort of Midlands area that has swung sharply to the Tories.
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    dixiedean said:

    ping said:

    Don't freeze the price.

    Give everyone a council tax rebate, an uplift in benefit levels, some tax cuts. Whatever mix. But give people enough money to cover the expected uplift in the cap and then let the energy companies charge as per normal.

    Many people will cut demand and so keep some of the money for other matters.

    The demand cut is what we need for Winter 2022/3.

    Hmm.

    I kindof agree. Depends a lot on the details, but a blanket price cap at £1971/average (presumably also covering business at equivalent per kWh rates) seems like a bad way of doing it.

    As you said, we NEED people (and business, to an extent) to be reducing demand any way we can, without people freezing and businesses going bust - and the policy really should have that goal in mind. Capping at £1.9k/average ain’t going to achieve much demand destruction. Bad policy making.
    Blackouts are a possibility without a serious demand reduction drive.
    Seems wrong to “like” your post, but, eh, what the hell.

    I agree.

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    ping said:

    Don't freeze the price.

    Give everyone a council tax rebate, an uplift in benefit levels, some tax cuts. Whatever mix. But give people enough money to cover the expected uplift in the cap and then let the energy companies charge as per normal.

    Many people will cut demand and so keep some of the money for other matters.

    The demand cut is what we need for Winter 2022/3.

    Hmm.

    I kindof agree. Depends a lot on the details, but a blanket price cap at £1971/average (presumably also covering business at equivalent per kWh rates) seems like a bad way of doing it.

    As you said, we NEED people (and business, to an extent) to be reducing demand any way we can, without people freezing and businesses going bust - and the policy really should have that goal in mind. Capping at £1.9k ain’t going to achieve much demand destruction. Bad policy making.
    I sort of agree with you both on it doesn’t reduce demand, without that element, but the problems here are so severe for those at the bottom, pain going so far up through the layer cake of society, and so catastrophic for business, the freeze does have much merit of simple huge safety net, at least for the coming six months, do you see what I mean? Where’s A mixed approach, for households, businesses, based on a sort of means test, builds in complication, more administration and winners and losers.

    We won’t get the smartest fiscal answer as it also has to be close to the right political one.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,742
    dixiedean said:
    Vermont feels half way between the two.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    dixiedean said:
    Perhaps we need tighter knife laws too
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Not true. Labours windfall extension would only have covered part of it - presumably the rest was borrowing as with Liz, whereas the impression I get from these front pages is a clamp down on public sector pay to go some way to funding Truss version.

    It doesn’t really matter what Labour propose as they have zero power - if they were in power they would have difficult questions how to pay for it - it’s noticeable as forcast on PB Truss is now talking pain and sacrifice - especially after the initial period of the scheme is up. One of the pleasures of winning elections and holding power is needing to answer those difficult questions.

    It’s noticeable the Tories are on the front of the FT talking up budget responsibility, because they should rightly fear judgement of the markets on their plans, problem is talk like that is worthless if you don’t deliver budget responsibility. And the clear problem of delivering tax cuts same time as the help package is any pain and sacrifice will be associated and remembered as paying for the tax cuts not the help package.

    The clear conclusion leaping out to us from this set of front pages is the new Government putting more workers out on strike not solving the strikes, isn’t it?
    "A clampdown on Public sector pay?"
    That would be the public sector which has huge vacancies because of years of a pay freeze?
    That public sector?
    Let me double check I have the right phrase, from the paper I read it on…

    Edit. I think I got it wrong - the phrase on front of the “I” is reign in public spending, so not necessary public sector pay - it could be public sector job losses and departmental budget cuts to pay for the joint tax cut/hand out package.
    Even worse.
    Nope. Even worse would be to tell the markets the tax cuts and bung budget can be paid for from efficiency savings so the markets crash, whilst trying to get away with public spending cuts on the sly getting everyone out on strike at once.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297
    ping said:

    dixiedean said:

    ping said:

    Don't freeze the price.

    Give everyone a council tax rebate, an uplift in benefit levels, some tax cuts. Whatever mix. But give people enough money to cover the expected uplift in the cap and then let the energy companies charge as per normal.

    Many people will cut demand and so keep some of the money for other matters.

    The demand cut is what we need for Winter 2022/3.

    Hmm.

    I kindof agree. Depends a lot on the details, but a blanket price cap at £1971/average (presumably also covering business at equivalent per kWh rates) seems like a bad way of doing it.

    As you said, we NEED people (and business, to an extent) to be reducing demand any way we can, without people freezing and businesses going bust - and the policy really should have that goal in mind. Capping at £1.9k/average ain’t going to achieve much demand destruction. Bad policy making.
    Blackouts are a possibility without a serious demand reduction drive.
    Seems wrong to “like” your post, but, eh, what the hell.

    I agree.

    Although. There are different ways of achieving demand reduction without a price signal. Nudging is one. Government and local authority buildings and street lighting, etc. is another. Rationing is a third.
  • This is going to be one hell of a ride. The public spending squeeze we’re going to see will be unlike anything there’s been before. It’s going to be savage.
  • Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    1.02 both in the last couple of minutes. Is this the leak?

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.02 Liz Truss 98%
    34 Rishi Sunak

    Next Conservative leader
    1.02 Liz Truss 98%
    38 Rishi Sunak

    1.01 vs 1.02

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.02 Liz Truss 98%
    42 Rishi Sunak

    Next Conservative leader
    1.01 Liz Truss 99%
    48 Rishi Sunak
    The last of the 1.02 has just been taken.

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.01 Liz Truss 99%
    46 Rishi Sunak

    Next Conservative leader
    1.01 Liz Truss 99%
    50 Rishi Sunak
    A small amount if 1.02 is back,

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.02 Liz Truss 98%
    50 Rishi Sunak

    Next Conservative leader
    1.01 Liz Truss 99%
    50 Rishi Sunak
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    edited September 4
    Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.
  • dixiedean said:
    Alberta kind of is.

    Canadian Tyre have row after row gun racks that would make a Texan blush.

    Why Canadians don't use guns to shoot at each other like Americans do is a really interesting unanswered question.

    Though one thing I heard from a Canadian is that there's remarkably little restrictions on guns, instead there's much tighter restrictions on ammunition. How true that is, I don't know, the amount of weaponry on display in shops there has to be seen to be believed.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:
    Perhaps we need tighter knife laws too
    I feel that violent criminals, the worst ones, should be sent to special prisons in Sub-Saharan Africa, paid for from the aid budget, for plentiful helpings of Bible and birch. See how stabby they feel after that.
  • Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Why will they have to eat their words. I think it's OK but people who thought a freeze was not the solution a few weeks back won't have changed their mind tommorow.
    Not any self respecting poster here, anyway.
    👏👏👏

    Totally agreed. There are some posters here who will spin on a sixpence depending upon who's saying what, eg criticising the raise in NI as outrageous and criticising the reduction in it as outrageous.

    But most people here say what they think, and while we all have our biases, almost all posters here tend to support parties that most closely match their beliefs, rather than match their beliefs to the parties we support.

    I said a price freeze was a bad idea as we need the price signal to go up to encourage people to reduce demand, or we'll be increasing the risk of blackouts. I stand by that. If we have a freeze and don't have blackouts that'll be a relief, but its a risk I wouldn't take.
  • Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    1.02 both in the last couple of minutes. Is this the leak?

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.02 Liz Truss 98%
    34 Rishi Sunak

    Next Conservative leader
    1.02 Liz Truss 98%
    38 Rishi Sunak

    1.01 vs 1.02

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.02 Liz Truss 98%
    42 Rishi Sunak

    Next Conservative leader
    1.01 Liz Truss 99%
    48 Rishi Sunak
    The last of the 1.02 has just been taken.

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.01 Liz Truss 99%
    46 Rishi Sunak

    Next Conservative leader
    1.01 Liz Truss 99%
    50 Rishi Sunak
    A small amount if 1.02 is back,

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.02 Liz Truss 98%
    50 Rishi Sunak

    Next Conservative leader
    1.01 Liz Truss 99%
    50 Rishi Sunak
    Taken.

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.01 Liz Truss 99%
    50 Rishi Sunak

    Next Conservative leader
    1.01 Liz Truss 99%
    65 Rishi Sunak
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1566483708177170432

    Andrew Bridgen, Conservative MP for Leicestershire North West, has been evicted from his home and has been ordered to pay £800,000 in legal costs, and could be ordered to pay £244,000 in rent arrears.

    He has also been described as ‘dishonest’ by a judge.

    Wow. That's quite a story.

    Mind you, what's most shocking is of course the idea that a Tory MP might be dishonest. That's extraordinary. After all these years of government by people who are models of integrity and frankness, who have set new standards in public life by their conduct, how could anyone think such a thing?
    'The Sunday Times says that Mr Bridgen accused the firm of forcing him out of a £93,000-a-year second job, which required him to attend a monthly board meeting.

    The judge found that, rather than being bullied out of the job as he alleged, Mr Bridgen resigned in order to reduce the amount he might owe his first wife in divorce proceedings.

    Judge Brian Rawlings also found that Mr Bridgen pressured the police inspector in his parliamentary constituency of North West Leicestershire to launch a costly one-year investigation into vexatious allegations against his estranged younger brother, Paul Bridgen, 55, who runs AB Produce.'

    https://coalville.nub.news/news/local-news/coalville-mp-is-evicted-from-home-by-judge-following-lengthy-legal-dispute-with-family-business-says-report-148881?fbclid=IwAR1zR9aGkNTdg8aNZKgUm-7rpQ7nywRDr6spiGjK1Lp8SOTp7uo5pqsc17U&utm_content=buffer9f44f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
    Looks a pretty safe seat, though held by the pleasant David Taylor for Labour up to 2010. It's the sort of Midlands area that has swung sharply to the Tories.
    Old coalfield areas like NW Leics have been trending Tory for some time. A lot of new housing and warehousing there too, including a massive Amazon, and a lot of freight from East Midlands Airport.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    dixiedean said:

    ping said:

    dixiedean said:

    ping said:

    Don't freeze the price.

    Give everyone a council tax rebate, an uplift in benefit levels, some tax cuts. Whatever mix. But give people enough money to cover the expected uplift in the cap and then let the energy companies charge as per normal.

    Many people will cut demand and so keep some of the money for other matters.

    The demand cut is what we need for Winter 2022/3.

    Hmm.

    I kindof agree. Depends a lot on the details, but a blanket price cap at £1971/average (presumably also covering business at equivalent per kWh rates) seems like a bad way of doing it.

    As you said, we NEED people (and business, to an extent) to be reducing demand any way we can, without people freezing and businesses going bust - and the policy really should have that goal in mind. Capping at £1.9k/average ain’t going to achieve much demand destruction. Bad policy making.
    Blackouts are a possibility without a serious demand reduction drive.
    Seems wrong to “like” your post, but, eh, what the hell.

    I agree.

    Although. There are different ways of achieving demand reduction without a price signal. Nudging is one. Government and local authority buildings and street lighting, etc. is another. Rationing is a third.
    So if Mogg is energy minister then, you saying the sensible thing for him to do first is issue a work from home this winter edict to the civil service, and not have the heating, and all electrical gadgets, on in the offices?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297

    dixiedean said:
    Alberta kind of is.

    Canadian Tyre have row after row gun racks that would make a Texan blush.

    Why Canadians don't use guns to shoot at each other like Americans do is a really interesting unanswered question.

    Though one thing I heard from a Canadian is that there's remarkably little restrictions on guns, instead there's much tighter restrictions on ammunition. How true that is, I don't know, the amount of weaponry on display in shops there has to be seen to be believed.
    Varies from Province to Province. For all the US bleating about State's Rights, Canada is far more devolved.
    Why they don't shoot first though is a mystery to me.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    Liz is taking a risk (around inflation and interest rates, and maybe on confidence in the pound), but what choice does she have?

    By the next election, Labour will likely have accepted the Conservative’s deficit plans and the choice will be between higher tax and social infrastructure or lower tax and smaller government.
  • Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" — Dick Cheney.

    Unless there is a Labour government, of course.
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    edited September 4
    I know this probably isn’t the place to ask, but, well, it’s worth a try….

    Bicycle insurance.

    I bought an expensive bike 8 years ago, for £1650. For various complex reasons, I cycled about 500 miles on it in the first year and haven’t used it since. I’m determined to change that, and I’m going to start using it again. Thankfully, it doesn’t look as fancy as the price tag would suggest, but it’s still very much in danger of getting nicked.

    Now, home insurance (which I normally can’t be arsed with) and specialist cycle insurance are all >£100/year, with £75-100 excess, but there’s a brand of bike locks called “Kryptonite” which offer add-on insurance, for $35 for 5 years. The lock itself is ~£40ish. That’s about £12/year, with no excess. The bike needs to be stolen with the lock used as per the instructions - and I need to provide evidence that the thieves have broken/sawn through the lock, for them to pay out the full cost of the bike.

    From what I can tell, they’re not regulated as a proper insurance product.

    I know it’s a long shot, but has anyone taken up Kryptonite’s “insurance” offer? How confident can I be that they’d pay out?

    Am I penny pinching, or is this an insurance “hack” that can save me serious money?

    I live in a low-to-moderate crime surburban part of the Midlands. I recon kryptonite have miscalculated the price vs payout vs risk with this and I’d be a fool not to take them up on their offer.

    Any advice, PB?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565

    Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    I like their audacity. I just wish they had 5 years not 2, and they weren’t sailing into a megastorm

    Nonetheless this is a real change. Also a challenge for Labour
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Why will they have to eat their words. I think it's OK but people who thought a freeze was not the solution a few weeks back won't have changed their mind tommorow.
    Not any self respecting poster here, anyway.
    👏👏👏

    Totally agreed. There are some posters here who will spin on a sixpence depending upon who's saying what, eg criticising the raise in NI as outrageous and criticising the reduction in it as outrageous.

    But most people here say what they think, and while we all have our biases, almost all posters here tend to support parties that most closely match their beliefs, rather than match their beliefs to the parties we support.

    I said a price freeze was a bad idea as we need the price signal to go up to encourage people to reduce demand, or we'll be increasing the risk of blackouts. I stand by that. If we have a freeze and don't have blackouts that'll be a relief, but its a risk I wouldn't take.
    I disagree with you. Wanting to see people helped and wanting to force reduced demand is cakeism in this situation.

    the problems here are so severe for those at the bottom, pain going so far up through the layer cake of society, and so catastrophic for business, the freeze does have much merit of simple huge safety net, at least for the coming six months,

    So what do you mean? A mixed approach, for households, businesses, based on a sort of means test, but this builds in complication, more administration,

    and it builds in winners and losers. If you were in government and wanted to stay there, you won’t enact the smartest purest fiscal answer as it also has to be close to the right political one.

    That is why your post and the argument in it is pie in the sky.
  • Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" — Dick Cheney.

    Unless there is a Labour government, of course.
    Cheney was wrong, deficits absolutely truly do matter.

    But deficit spending should be cyclical. Its standard to run a deficit during and after a recession, then recovering back to a balanced budget in times of growth before the next recession then restarts the cycle.

    In 2022 we're in the right part of the cycle for a deficit. We're recovering from the twin issues of the pandemic and the energy crisis, but thankfully the deficit had been cut every years for a decade before we went into this period.

    What screwed us royally in 2008 was that the deficit blew up before the crash, which meant that it then blew even further when the crash inevitably came.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297
    Leon said:

    Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    I like their audacity. I just wish they had 5 years not 2, and they weren’t sailing into a megastorm

    Nonetheless this is a real change. Also a challenge for Labour
    It's Reaganism.
    Unfortunately we don't have the US Dollar.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    Would Liz Truss call an election if she's more than 10 points ahead next spring? Probably yes.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297
    Andy_JS said:

    Would Liz Truss call an election if she's more than 10 points ahead next spring? Probably yes.

    Agreed. But she won't be.
  • BournvilleBournville Posts: 237
    Trying to "freeze" the price of gas (aka, either forcing the energy companies to sell gas below cost, forcing them into bankruptcy, or having the taxpayers bail out the energy companies by borrowing tens of billions, exacerbating the inflationary crisis) is absolutely crazy.

    As a country, the lesson we should learn from this is that allowing elderly NIMBYs to cripple national infrastructure for thirty years has dire consequences.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,812
    Leon said:

    Can I just say it is feels very good to be doing what i do best: which is drinking and eating loads of fine wine and seafood on someone else’s shilling? In a really nice sunny place?

    It’s not for everyone, I admit, no more than artisanal coal mining or trendy igloo designing or midwifery in Gabon, but something in me just gels with the whole idea of going to gorgeous places for free to be stuffed with booze and lobster. Odd

    I guess it’s a calling. And I answered. Someone has to

    Sounds tedious after the first day or two. ANOTHER effing octopus to eat? Eating a Sanisbury ready meal followed by some phone canvassing, now - that's the real joy of life.

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508

    Liz is taking a risk (around inflation and interest rates, and maybe on confidence in the pound), but what choice does she have?

    By the next election, Labour will likely have accepted the Conservative’s deficit plans and the choice will be between higher tax and social infrastructure or lower tax and smaller government.

    Cut our way to prosperity? Without decent public services, with apartheid of the pocket deciding who can and can’t have what, that is not a prosperous UK at all, on the basis of the Queen ruling over two Nations, the prosperous one and the poor one. 😠
  • Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Why will they have to eat their words. I think it's OK but people who thought a freeze was not the solution a few weeks back won't have changed their mind tommorow.
    Not any self respecting poster here, anyway.
    👏👏👏

    Totally agreed. There are some posters here who will spin on a sixpence depending upon who's saying what, eg criticising the raise in NI as outrageous and criticising the reduction in it as outrageous.

    But most people here say what they think, and while we all have our biases, almost all posters here tend to support parties that most closely match their beliefs, rather than match their beliefs to the parties we support.

    I said a price freeze was a bad idea as we need the price signal to go up to encourage people to reduce demand, or we'll be increasing the risk of blackouts. I stand by that. If we have a freeze and don't have blackouts that'll be a relief, but its a risk I wouldn't take.
    I disagree with you. Wanting to see people helped and wanting to force reduced demand is cakeism in this situation.

    the problems here are so severe for those at the bottom, pain going so far up through the layer cake of society, and so catastrophic for business, the freeze does have much merit of simple huge safety net, at least for the coming six months,

    So what do you mean? A mixed approach, for households, businesses, based on a sort of means test, but this builds in complication, more administration,

    and it builds in winners and losers. If you were in government and wanted to stay there, you won’t enact the smartest purest fiscal answer as it also has to be close to the right political one.

    That is why your post and the argument in it is pie in the sky.
    No means testing, I don't believe in means testing, I believe in universality.

    If there were to be support then my proposal would be to give every household a grant of £x whereby £x is the difference between what the price cap would be if frozen, and what it would be if the price cap rises. Or 85% of £x or similar.

    That way prices still go up on fuel based on market prices and those who consume less of it as a result will save money but still get the grant, while those who don't or consume lots of energy will pay for it still.

    A price cap helps those who refuse to save energy the most.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508

    Leon said:

    Can I just say it is feels very good to be doing what i do best: which is drinking and eating loads of fine wine and seafood on someone else’s shilling? In a really nice sunny place?

    It’s not for everyone, I admit, no more than artisanal coal mining or trendy igloo designing or midwifery in Gabon, but something in me just gels with the whole idea of going to gorgeous places for free to be stuffed with booze and lobster. Odd

    I guess it’s a calling. And I answered. Someone has to

    Sounds tedious after the first day or two. ANOTHER effing octopus to eat? Eating a Sanisbury ready meal followed by some phone canvassing, now - that's the real joy of life.

    Oh Nick! Have you asked yourself why Cyclefree isn’t flirting with YOU this evening?
  • Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" — Dick Cheney.

    Unless there is a Labour government, of course.
    Cheney was wrong, deficits absolutely truly do matter.

    But deficit spending should be cyclical. Its standard to run a deficit during and after a recession, then recovering back to a balanced budget in times of growth before the next recession then restarts the cycle.

    In 2022 we're in the right part of the cycle for a deficit. We're recovering from the twin issues of the pandemic and the energy crisis, but thankfully the deficit had been cut every years for a decade before we went into this period.

    What screwed us royally in 2008 was that the deficit blew up before the crash, which meant that it then blew even further when the crash inevitably came.
    The pre-GFC deficit was small and irrelevant. Throw away your big book of George Osborne quotes.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    ping said:

    I know this probably isn’t the place to ask, but, well, it’s worth a try….

    Bicycle insurance.

    I bought an expensive bike 8 years ago, for £1650. For various complex reasons, I cycled about 500 miles on it in the first year and haven’t used it since. I’m determined to change that, and I’m going to start using it again. Thankfully, it doesn’t look as fancy as the price tag would suggest, but it’s still very much in danger of getting nicked.

    Now, home insurance (which I normally can’t be arsed with) and specialist cycle insurance are all >£100/year, with £75-100 excess, but there’s a brand of bike locks called “Kryptonite” which offer add-on insurance, for $35 for 5 years. The lock itself is ~£40ish. That’s about £12/year, with no excess. The bike needs to be stolen with the lock used as per the instructions - and I need to provide evidence that the thieves have broken/sawn through the lock, for them to pay out the full cost of the bike.

    From what I can tell, they’re not regulated as a proper insurance product.

    I know it’s a long shot, but has anyone taken up Kryptonite’s “insurance” offer? How confident can I be that they’d pay out?

    Am I penny pinching, or is this an insurance “hack” that can save me serious money?

    I live in a low-to-moderate crime surburban part of the Midlands. I recon kryptonite have miscalculated the price vs payout vs risk with this and I’d be a fool not to take them up on their offer.

    Any advice, PB?

    Sounds like a good deal for angle grinder owners who wish to commit insurance fraud.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Why will they have to eat their words. I think it's OK but people who thought a freeze was not the solution a few weeks back won't have changed their mind tommorow.
    Not any self respecting poster here, anyway.
    👏👏👏

    Totally agreed. There are some posters here who will spin on a sixpence depending upon who's saying what, eg criticising the raise in NI as outrageous and criticising the reduction in it as outrageous.

    But most people here say what they think, and while we all have our biases, almost all posters here tend to support parties that most closely match their beliefs, rather than match their beliefs to the parties we support.

    I said a price freeze was a bad idea as we need the price signal to go up to encourage people to reduce demand, or we'll be increasing the risk of blackouts. I stand by that. If we have a freeze and don't have blackouts that'll be a relief, but its a risk I wouldn't take.
    I disagree with you. Wanting to see people helped and wanting to force reduced demand is cakeism in this situation.

    the problems here are so severe for those at the bottom, pain going so far up through the layer cake of society, and so catastrophic for business, the freeze does have much merit of simple huge safety net, at least for the coming six months,

    So what do you mean? A mixed approach, for households, businesses, based on a sort of means test, but this builds in complication, more administration,

    and it builds in winners and losers. If you were in government and wanted to stay there, you won’t enact the smartest purest fiscal answer as it also has to be close to the right political one.

    That is why your post and the argument in it is pie in the sky.
    No means testing, I don't believe in means testing, I believe in universality.

    If there were to be support then my proposal would be to give every household a grant of £x whereby £x is the difference between what the price cap would be if frozen, and what it would be if the price cap rises. Or 85% of £x or similar.

    That way prices still go up on fuel based on market prices and those who consume less of it as a result will save money but still get the grant, while those who don't or consume lots of energy will pay for it still.

    A price cap helps those who refuse to save energy the most.
    I agree with your proposal.
    We have to support the least well off, but we also need to use price to minimise demand.
  • Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" — Dick Cheney.

    Unless there is a Labour government, of course.
    Cheney was wrong, deficits absolutely truly do matter.

    But deficit spending should be cyclical. Its standard to run a deficit during and after a recession, then recovering back to a balanced budget in times of growth before the next recession then restarts the cycle.

    In 2022 we're in the right part of the cycle for a deficit. We're recovering from the twin issues of the pandemic and the energy crisis, but thankfully the deficit had been cut every years for a decade before we went into this period.

    What screwed us royally in 2008 was that the deficit blew up before the crash, which meant that it then blew even further when the crash inevitably came.
    The pre-GFC deficit was small and irrelevant. Throw away your big book of George Osborne quotes.
    The George Osborne days are long over, stop trying to excuse the inexcusable.

    3% of GDP years after a budget surplus, before a crash, is neither small nor irrelevant.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    edited September 4
    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Would Liz Truss call an election if she's more than 10 points ahead next spring? Probably yes.

    Agreed. But she won't be.
    Almost certainly.

    But on the question of Truss being afraid to call an election because of what happened to Theresa May in 2017, it just seems vanishingly unlikely that the same thing would happen again — ie. losing a massive lead during an election campaign. No leader would be stupid enough to make the same mistakes again that TM made, with care home fees, etc.
  • Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" — Dick Cheney.

    Unless there is a Labour government, of course.
    Cheney was wrong, deficits absolutely truly do matter.

    But deficit spending should be cyclical. Its standard to run a deficit during and after a recession, then recovering back to a balanced budget in times of growth before the next recession then restarts the cycle.

    In 2022 we're in the right part of the cycle for a deficit. We're recovering from the twin issues of the pandemic and the energy crisis, but thankfully the deficit had been cut every years for a decade before we went into this period.

    What screwed us royally in 2008 was that the deficit blew up before the crash, which meant that it then blew even further when the crash inevitably came.
    The pre-GFC deficit was small and irrelevant. Throw away your big book of George Osborne quotes.
    The George Osborne days are long over, stop trying to excuse the inexcusable.

    3% of GDP years after a budget surplus, before a crash, is neither small nor irrelevant.
    Well, it did not cause the GFC, nor affect our recovery: that was Osborne's austerity. So, yes, it was small and irrelevant.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,476
    Andy_JS said:

    Would Liz Truss call an election if she's more than 10 points ahead next spring? Probably yes.

    If she can avert the economic chaos that I assume is already in view she deserves her early election and a handsome majority.

    Anyway a refreshed Johnson will be batting for the Tories at the next election. I am convinced with an assured certainty only normally seen in HYUFD posts. And he will win a majority.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 875
    edited September 5
    ping said:

    I know this probably isn’t the place to ask, but, well, it’s worth a try….

    Bicycle insurance.

    I bought an expensive bike 8 years ago, for £1650. For various complex reasons, I cycled about 500 miles on it in the first year and haven’t used it since. I’m determined to change that, and I’m going to start using it again. Thankfully, it doesn’t look as fancy as the price tag would suggest, but it’s still very much in danger of getting nicked.

    Now, home insurance (which I normally can’t be arsed with) and specialist cycle insurance are all >£100/year, with £75-100 excess, but there’s a brand of bike locks called “Kryptonite” which offer add-on insurance, for $35 for 5 years. The lock itself is ~£40ish. That’s about £12/year, with no excess. The bike needs to be stolen with the lock used as per the instructions - and I need to provide evidence that the thieves have broken/sawn through the lock, for them to pay out the full cost of the bike.

    From what I can tell, they’re not regulated as a proper insurance product.

    I know it’s a long shot, but has anyone taken up Kryptonite’s “insurance” offer? How confident can I be that they’d pay out?

    Am I penny pinching, or is this an insurance “hack” that can save me serious money?

    I live in a low-to-moderate crime surburban part of the Midlands. I recon kryptonite have miscalculated the price vs payout vs risk with this and I’d be a fool not to take them up on their offer.

    Any advice, PB?

    Anecdotally its always been cheaper to stick it on the home insurance and self-insure away from home. The golden rule being don't leave it out at night.

    I wouldn't trust the Kryptonite warranty. Good locks but I've always doubted the promises. + With such an old bike Its likely the value will be < £500 anyway.
  • Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Would Liz Truss call an election if she's more than 10 points ahead next spring? Probably yes.

    Agreed. But she won't be.
    Almost certainly.

    But on the question of Truss being afraid to call an election because of what happened to Theresa May in 2017, it just seems vanishingly unlikely that the same thing would happen again — ie. losing a massive lead during an election campaign. No leader would be stupid enough to make the same mistakes again that TM made, with care home fees, etc.
    It was not just care home fees. It was an extraordinarily bad campaign, ill-suited to May, designed by Lynton Crosby, and he, or his team, will still be there. There were historic policies like police cuts coming home to roost, and heaven knows there are enough of those around.

    Liz Truss might be a lucky general, if outside events move to end the cost of living crisis. It is not as if Labour has come up with anything popular, except for its cost of living proposals which Truss will probably lift, more or less.

    But will Truss see anything much to be gained from an election in six months' time? I'm doubtful.
  • Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" — Dick Cheney.

    Unless there is a Labour government, of course.
    Cheney was wrong, deficits absolutely truly do matter.

    But deficit spending should be cyclical. Its standard to run a deficit during and after a recession, then recovering back to a balanced budget in times of growth before the next recession then restarts the cycle.

    In 2022 we're in the right part of the cycle for a deficit. We're recovering from the twin issues of the pandemic and the energy crisis, but thankfully the deficit had been cut every years for a decade before we went into this period.

    What screwed us royally in 2008 was that the deficit blew up before the crash, which meant that it then blew even further when the crash inevitably came.
    The pre-GFC deficit was small and irrelevant. Throw away your big book of George Osborne quotes.
    The George Osborne days are long over, stop trying to excuse the inexcusable.

    3% of GDP years after a budget surplus, before a crash, is neither small nor irrelevant.
    Well, it did not cause the GFC, nor affect our recovery: that was Osborne's austerity. So, yes, it was small and irrelevant.
    Of course it did not cause the GFC, but that's the issue, you never know when a bust is coming but one is inevitably coming, so you need to prepare for it. Brown didn't due to the hubris in believing he'd abolished 'Tory boom and bust'.

    Brown did did cause austerity, because austerity was the only way to bring the deficit back under control thanks to the pre-GFC spending.

    Had we entered the GFC with a balanced budget, let alone a budgetary surplus, then the deficit post-GFC would have been manageable under normal cyclical conditions. It wasn't the GFC that meant it wasn't, it was the pre-GFC deficit that made the post-GFC deficit so uncontrollable.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,004

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Why will they have to eat their words. I think it's OK but people who thought a freeze was not the solution a few weeks back won't have changed their mind tommorow.
    Not any self respecting poster here, anyway.
    👏👏👏

    Totally agreed. There are some posters here who will spin on a sixpence depending upon who's saying what, eg criticising the raise in NI as outrageous and criticising the reduction in it as outrageous.

    But most people here say what they think, and while we all have our biases, almost all posters here tend to support parties that most closely match their beliefs, rather than match their beliefs to the parties we support.

    I said a price freeze was a bad idea as we need the price signal to go up to encourage people to reduce demand, or we'll be increasing the risk of blackouts. I stand by that. If we have a freeze and don't have blackouts that'll be a relief, but its a risk I wouldn't take.
    There’s also the option of some for of energy rationing.
    But they’ve left it so late to come up with any coherent policy that I’m not optimistic about any option which ends up chosen being managed well.
  • Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" — Dick Cheney.

    Unless there is a Labour government, of course.
    Cheney was wrong, deficits absolutely truly do matter.

    But deficit spending should be cyclical. Its standard to run a deficit during and after a recession, then recovering back to a balanced budget in times of growth before the next recession then restarts the cycle.

    In 2022 we're in the right part of the cycle for a deficit. We're recovering from the twin issues of the pandemic and the energy crisis, but thankfully the deficit had been cut every years for a decade before we went into this period.

    What screwed us royally in 2008 was that the deficit blew up before the crash, which meant that it then blew even further when the crash inevitably came.
    The pre-GFC deficit was small and irrelevant. Throw away your big book of George Osborne quotes.
    The George Osborne days are long over, stop trying to excuse the inexcusable.

    3% of GDP years after a budget surplus, before a crash, is neither small nor irrelevant.
    Well, it did not cause the GFC, nor affect our recovery: that was Osborne's austerity. So, yes, it was small and irrelevant.
    Of course it did not cause the GFC, but that's the issue, you never know when a bust is coming but one is inevitably coming, so you need to prepare for it. Brown didn't due to the hubris in believing he'd abolished 'Tory boom and bust'.

    Brown did did cause austerity, because austerity was the only way to bring the deficit back under control thanks to the pre-GFC spending.

    Had we entered the GFC with a balanced budget, let alone a budgetary surplus, then the deficit post-GFC would have been manageable under normal cyclical conditions. It wasn't the GFC that meant it wasn't, it was the pre-GFC deficit that made the post-GFC deficit so uncontrollable.
    The best you've got is that if the GFC had not occurred, there might have been some home-based economic crisis. That is unknowable and, thanks to the GFC, irrelevant.

    Osborne inherited a recovering economy which he promptly flatlined. He also sent debt rocketing.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    IanB2 said:

    ..

    What sort of dog is this?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,004
    Pretty remarkable statistic from the US.

    https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-household-well-being/farm-household-income-estimates/
    … Estimated median total income for farm households decreased in 2020, reflecting decreases in both farm income and off-farm income. At the median, household income from farming was -$1,198 in 2020. Given the broad USDA definition of a farm (see glossary), many small farms are not profitable even in the best farm income years. Median off-farm income in 2020 was $67,873, while the median total household income was $80,060. (The median is the income level at which half of all households have lower incomes and half have higher incomes. Because farm and off-farm income are not distributed identically for every farm, median total income will generally not equal the sum of median off-farm and median farm income).…
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,004
    edited September 5
    Korea braces for super typhoon
    http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=335548
    … By then, it will have developed into a "super strong" typhoon, the strongest on a four-tier scale, according to the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA). Super strong refers to typhoons with a maximum wind speed of at least 54 meters per second. Woo Jin-kyu, a senior analyst at the weather agency, warned that it might be one of the most destructive typhoons ever to hit the country, saying the scope of damage it leaves behind could be "unprecedented."

    During a meeting held at the underground base of his building, President Yoon Suk-yeol told top-ranking officials to prepare for the storm proactively.

    "It is concerning because many people are still recovering from flood damage," he said. "The government should do its best to minimize damage … The areas affected by the recent floods require particular attention."…
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited September 5
    IanB2 said:

    ..

    I am sure that thing produces uniquely special dogshit, for you. It would be fucking fantastic if you kept the photos to yourself, though.

    And please feel free to keep your grief absolutely to yourself, if the utterly worst were to happen to it road accident wise. I don't think I could cope with that sort of bad news.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,004
    Article for Truss and her ageing nimby selectorate.

    Agrivoltaics emerge as new income source for aging Korean farmers
    http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=335503
    …. "Agrivoltaics enhances the sustainability of farms and enables more efficient use of renewable energy," said Yoo Jae-yeol, head of Hanwha Q Cells' Korean business division. "By manufacturing and supplying modules optimized for agrivoltaics, we will help Korea reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and counteract the climate crisis."

    According to the solar energy company, its small modules hardly disrupt cultivation, thanks to their modified size, position and tilt angle so that enough of the sun's rays shine on the crops. In addition, the modules are installed around three to five meters above the ground so that farmers can still operate rice transplanters and combine harvesters without difficulty.

    "Because the modules prevent evaporation of water and maintain humidity in farms, they can prevent drought. During the winter, the modules can reduce damage from cold weather by blocking the flow of cold air," said Yeungnam University professor Jung Jae-hak, who will also chair the AgriVoltaics Conference & Exhibition, the fourth annual international congress on agrivoltaic systems, which will be held next April in Daegu….
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Nigelb said:

    Article for Truss and her ageing nimby selectorate.

    Agrivoltaics emerge as new income source for aging Korean farmers
    http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=335503
    …. "Agrivoltaics enhances the sustainability of farms and enables more efficient use of renewable energy," said Yoo Jae-yeol, head of Hanwha Q Cells' Korean business division. "By manufacturing and supplying modules optimized for agrivoltaics, we will help Korea reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and counteract the climate crisis."

    According to the solar energy company, its small modules hardly disrupt cultivation, thanks to their modified size, position and tilt angle so that enough of the sun's rays shine on the crops. In addition, the modules are installed around three to five meters above the ground so that farmers can still operate rice transplanters and combine harvesters without difficulty.

    "Because the modules prevent evaporation of water and maintain humidity in farms, they can prevent drought. During the winter, the modules can reduce damage from cold weather by blocking the flow of cold air," said Yeungnam University professor Jung Jae-hak, who will also chair the AgriVoltaics Conference & Exhibition, the fourth annual international congress on agrivoltaic systems, which will be held next April in Daegu….

    Fab in theory, not in practice happening. Non mock up photos would be fab, as evidence it actually is.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    Article for Truss and her ageing nimby selectorate.

    Agrivoltaics emerge as new income source for aging Korean farmers
    http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=335503
    …. "Agrivoltaics enhances the sustainability of farms and enables more efficient use of renewable energy," said Yoo Jae-yeol, head of Hanwha Q Cells' Korean business division. "By manufacturing and supplying modules optimized for agrivoltaics, we will help Korea reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and counteract the climate crisis."

    According to the solar energy company, its small modules hardly disrupt cultivation, thanks to their modified size, position and tilt angle so that enough of the sun's rays shine on the crops. In addition, the modules are installed around three to five meters above the ground so that farmers can still operate rice transplanters and combine harvesters without difficulty.

    "Because the modules prevent evaporation of water and maintain humidity in farms, they can prevent drought. During the winter, the modules can reduce damage from cold weather by blocking the flow of cold air," said Yeungnam University professor Jung Jae-hak, who will also chair the AgriVoltaics Conference & Exhibition, the fourth annual international congress on agrivoltaic systems, which will be held next April in Daegu….

    Fab in theory, not in practice happening. Non mock up photos would be fab, as evidence it actually is.
    An ideal project for Cummings' DARPA-lite agency to run trials. We need to do more to protect agriculture and increase food security.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,004
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    Article for Truss and her ageing nimby selectorate.

    Agrivoltaics emerge as new income source for aging Korean farmers
    http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=335503
    …. "Agrivoltaics enhances the sustainability of farms and enables more efficient use of renewable energy," said Yoo Jae-yeol, head of Hanwha Q Cells' Korean business division. "By manufacturing and supplying modules optimized for agrivoltaics, we will help Korea reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and counteract the climate crisis."

    According to the solar energy company, its small modules hardly disrupt cultivation, thanks to their modified size, position and tilt angle so that enough of the sun's rays shine on the crops. In addition, the modules are installed around three to five meters above the ground so that farmers can still operate rice transplanters and combine harvesters without difficulty.

    "Because the modules prevent evaporation of water and maintain humidity in farms, they can prevent drought. During the winter, the modules can reduce damage from cold weather by blocking the flow of cold air," said Yeungnam University professor Jung Jae-hak, who will also chair the AgriVoltaics Conference & Exhibition, the fourth annual international congress on agrivoltaic systems, which will be held next April in Daegu….

    Fab in theory, not in practice happening. Non mock up photos would be fab, as evidence it actually is.
    The story is about a pilot project already operating, not a mock up.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,004
    Interesting perspective on the speech.

    Biden Laid the Trap. Trump Walked Into It.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/trump-pennsylvania-rally-republicans/671344/
    …. For the 2022 election cycle, smart Republicans had a clear and simple plan: Don’t let the election be about Trump. Make it about gas prices, or crime, or the border, or race, or sex education, or anything—anything but Trump. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. He lost control of the House in 2018. He lost the presidency in 2020. He lost both Senate seats in Georgia in 2021. Republicans had good reason to dread the havoc he’d create if he joined the fight in 2022…

    … One of the purposes of Biden’s Philadelphia attack on Trump’s faction within the Republican Party was surely to goad Trump. It worked.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,004
    This tends to support that perspective.

    Trump calls Biden ‘an enemy of the state’
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3628611-trump-calls-biden-an-enemy-of-the-state/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    Article for Truss and her ageing nimby selectorate.

    Agrivoltaics emerge as new income source for aging Korean farmers
    http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=335503
    …. "Agrivoltaics enhances the sustainability of farms and enables more efficient use of renewable energy," said Yoo Jae-yeol, head of Hanwha Q Cells' Korean business division. "By manufacturing and supplying modules optimized for agrivoltaics, we will help Korea reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and counteract the climate crisis."

    According to the solar energy company, its small modules hardly disrupt cultivation, thanks to their modified size, position and tilt angle so that enough of the sun's rays shine on the crops. In addition, the modules are installed around three to five meters above the ground so that farmers can still operate rice transplanters and combine harvesters without difficulty.

    "Because the modules prevent evaporation of water and maintain humidity in farms, they can prevent drought. During the winter, the modules can reduce damage from cold weather by blocking the flow of cold air," said Yeungnam University professor Jung Jae-hak, who will also chair the AgriVoltaics Conference & Exhibition, the fourth annual international congress on agrivoltaic systems, which will be held next April in Daegu….

    Fab in theory, not in practice happening. Non mock up photos would be fab, as evidence it actually is.
    The story is about a pilot project already operating, not a mock up.
    I know an Irish company working on a similar product: it's early days but it looks incredibly exciting.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    Article for Truss and her ageing nimby selectorate.

    Agrivoltaics emerge as new income source for aging Korean farmers
    http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=335503
    …. "Agrivoltaics enhances the sustainability of farms and enables more efficient use of renewable energy," said Yoo Jae-yeol, head of Hanwha Q Cells' Korean business division. "By manufacturing and supplying modules optimized for agrivoltaics, we will help Korea reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and counteract the climate crisis."

    According to the solar energy company, its small modules hardly disrupt cultivation, thanks to their modified size, position and tilt angle so that enough of the sun's rays shine on the crops. In addition, the modules are installed around three to five meters above the ground so that farmers can still operate rice transplanters and combine harvesters without difficulty.

    "Because the modules prevent evaporation of water and maintain humidity in farms, they can prevent drought. During the winter, the modules can reduce damage from cold weather by blocking the flow of cold air," said Yeungnam University professor Jung Jae-hak, who will also chair the AgriVoltaics Conference & Exhibition, the fourth annual international congress on agrivoltaic systems, which will be held next April in Daegu….

    Fab in theory, not in practice happening. Non mock up photos would be fab, as evidence it actually is.
    The story is about a pilot project already operating, not a mock up.
    I know an Irish company working on a similar product: it's early days but it looks incredibly exciting.
    Actually, my Irish friends are doing something slightly different: they've you a trio of LEDs that basically only put out light in the wavelengths that plants use in photosynthesis. For those in the hydroponics space, this could cut energy usage by 80+%
  • Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" — Dick Cheney.

    Unless there is a Labour government, of course.
    Cheney was wrong, deficits absolutely truly do matter.

    But deficit spending should be cyclical. Its standard to run a deficit during and after a recession, then recovering back to a balanced budget in times of growth before the next recession then restarts the cycle.

    In 2022 we're in the right part of the cycle for a deficit. We're recovering from the twin issues of the pandemic and the energy crisis, but thankfully the deficit had been cut every years for a decade before we went into this period.

    What screwed us royally in 2008 was that the deficit blew up before the crash, which meant that it then blew even further when the crash inevitably came.
    The pre-GFC deficit was small and irrelevant. Throw away your big book of George Osborne quotes.
    The George Osborne days are long over, stop trying to excuse the inexcusable.

    3% of GDP years after a budget surplus, before a crash, is neither small nor irrelevant.
    Well, it did not cause the GFC, nor affect our recovery: that was Osborne's austerity. So, yes, it was small and irrelevant.
    Of course it did not cause the GFC, but that's the issue, you never know when a bust is coming but one is inevitably coming, so you need to prepare for it. Brown didn't due to the hubris in believing he'd abolished 'Tory boom and bust'.

    Brown did did cause austerity, because austerity was the only way to bring the deficit back under control thanks to the pre-GFC spending.

    Had we entered the GFC with a balanced budget, let alone a budgetary surplus, then the deficit post-GFC would have been manageable under normal cyclical conditions. It wasn't the GFC that meant it wasn't, it was the pre-GFC deficit that made the post-GFC deficit so uncontrollable.
    The best you've got is that if the GFC had not occurred, there might have been some home-based economic crisis. That is unknowable and, thanks to the GFC, irrelevant.

    Osborne inherited a recovering economy which he promptly flatlined. He also sent debt rocketing.
    Saying we'd have been fine if it weren't for the GFC is like saying we'd have had enough of a harvest to get through the year, if there hadn't been winter. Crashes happen, once a decade on average, but we don't normally go into them with the deficit having ballooned pre-crash.

    That the GFC happened isn't* Brown's fault, that we were so exposed when it hit is though.

    * It partially is, but that's another story.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    The Daily Mail are still running with this huge news story no one else seems brave enough to touch.

    The BBC are paying comedians to mock Liz Truss and Boris Johnson. 😡

    It’s allowing us a unique inside into the minds of those who own and write the Daily Mail, what they think is right and wrong in this world today, and what really angers them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,004
    In its most recently disclosed filing, the Justice Department makes a large point out of the fact that the grand jury subpoena demanded all documents with classified markings in Trump's custody or control.

    NOT JUST FLORIDA

    https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1566427715271643145

    Could just be boilerplate, but equally possibly it’s significant.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,286
    edited September 5
    A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch with another 51 Starlink internet satellites at 10:09 p.m. EDT (0209 GMT) tonight. That is 3 minutes from now.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZNGUOSftI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NONM-xsKMSs
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    The Daily Mail are still running with this huge news story no one else seems brave enough to touch.

    The BBC are paying comedians to mock Liz Truss and Boris Johnson. 😡

    It’s allowing us a unique inside into the minds of those who own and write the Daily Mail, what they think is right and wrong in this world today, and what really angers them.

    To be fair, SKS is such a humorless prick that mocking him is going to be no fun at all.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch with another 51 Starlink internet satellites at 10:09 p.m. EDT (0209 GMT) tonight. That is 3 minutes from now.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZNGUOSftI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NONM-xsKMSs

    SpaceX are so bloody reliable, and manage such an extraordinary cadence that they've made space boring.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    New article in the Spectator.

    "I’ve seen the future of AI art – and it’s terrifying
    These images are disturbing, but they show us something important
    Sean Thomas" (£)

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-ve-seen-the-future-of-ai-art-and-it-s-terrifying
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,974
    rcs1000 said:

    A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch with another 51 Starlink internet satellites at 10:09 p.m. EDT (0209 GMT) tonight. That is 3 minutes from now.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZNGUOSftI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NONM-xsKMSs

    SpaceX are so bloody reliable, and manage such an extraordinary cadence that they've made space boring.
    That's their greatest achievement IMO. Forget landing rockets; forget putting Americans back into space on their own launcher; forget Starlink: the sheer routine monotony (*) of their launches is *exactly* what we need if mankind is going to have a long-term future in space.

    (*) in a good way
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,347

    Leon said:

    The cost of living is by far the biggest priority for the new prime minister, according to the public
    Of the following issues, which three do you think should be the top priority for the next prime minister? Please select up to three. %

    Cost of living: 74% say is a top 3 priority
    Economy: 47%
    Climate change: 28%
    Health: 25%
    Immigration: 20%
    Ukraine: 13%

    Brexit 9%

    Education 5%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/09/03/cost-living-should-be-top-priority-new-prime-minis

    Those are astonishing figures. Climate Change third, above Health and Immigration?
    I’ve travelled extremely widely this year. For the first time in my quite long life a lot of people are talking about climate change as a matter of fact not speculation, and volunteering opinions

    The droughts seem to be everywhere. In Rome the Tiber is 2 metres lower than it should be
    You know all those dystopian future books, where what’s left of mankind battle for survival, after “something” not specific happened, that we all dismissed as fantasy…
    No one told me it was future history

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseclans

    (Much underrated member of its oeuvre fwiw)
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,347

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    A windfall tax is a bad tax.

    As for universality - one of the functions of the government is to provide tail risk insurance for the population. That’s all this is. The problem of energy prices is not the fault of the general population and it is beyond their ability to plan for or handle. So government steps in.

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,347

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Price freeze with no signal to reduce demand is not going to end well.
    People are already reducing demand at current prices

  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,311
    Any thoughts on the vote split on the leadership ballot, my instinct is Truss 64%, RS 34% and 1+% spoilt ballots... interested in others thoughts..
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,347

    This is going to be one hell of a ride. The public spending squeeze we’re going to see will be unlike anything there’s been before. It’s going to be savage.

    I wish someone had the courage to do a zero based budget. Rather than salami slicing everything government needs to do less and do it better
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,347
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:
    Alberta kind of is.

    Canadian Tyre have row after row gun racks that would make a Texan blush.

    Why Canadians don't use guns to shoot at each other like Americans do is a really interesting unanswered question.

    Though one thing I heard from a Canadian is that there's remarkably little restrictions on guns, instead there's much tighter restrictions on ammunition. How true that is, I don't know, the amount of weaponry on display in shops there has to be seen to be believed.
    Varies from Province to Province. For all the US bleating about State's Rights, Canada is far more devolved.
    Why they don't shoot first though is a mystery to me.
    Speculation - perhaps because they are serious hunters and therefore respect guns?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,347

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Looks like it's a price freeze.
    Times and Telegraph both saying so.

    Yep - and now all those on here and elsewhere who criticised the universality of the Labour plan will have to eat their words.

    The only real difference between the two seems to be the Tories will be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the energy companies, while Labour proposed levying a windfall tax.

    Why will they have to eat their words. I think it's OK but people who thought a freeze was not the solution a few weeks back won't have changed their mind tommorow.
    Not any self respecting poster here, anyway.
    👏👏👏

    Totally agreed. There are some posters here who will spin on a sixpence depending upon who's saying what, eg criticising the raise in NI as outrageous and criticising the reduction in it as outrageous.

    But most people here say what they think, and while we all have our biases, almost all posters here tend to support parties that most closely match their beliefs, rather than match their beliefs to the parties we support.

    I said a price freeze was a bad idea as we need the price signal to go up to encourage people to reduce demand, or we'll be increasing the risk of blackouts. I stand by that. If we have a freeze and don't have blackouts that'll be a relief, but its a risk I wouldn't take.
    I disagree with you. Wanting to see people helped and wanting to force reduced demand is cakeism in this situation.

    the problems here are so severe for those at the bottom, pain going so far up through the layer cake of society, and so catastrophic for business, the freeze does have much merit of simple huge safety net, at least for the coming six months,

    So what do you mean? A mixed approach, for households, businesses, based on a sort of means test, but this builds in complication, more administration,

    and it builds in winners and losers. If you were in government and wanted to stay there, you won’t enact the smartest purest fiscal answer as it also has to be close to the right political one.

    That is why your post and the argument in it is pie in the sky.
    No means testing, I don't believe in means testing, I believe in universality.

    If there were to be support then my proposal would be to give every household a grant of £x whereby £x is the difference between what the price cap would be if frozen, and what it would be if the price cap rises. Or 85% of £x or similar.

    That way prices still go up on fuel based on market prices and those who consume less of it as a result will save money but still get the grant, while those who don't or consume lots of energy will pay for it still.

    A price cap helps those who refuse to save energy the most.
    Cue lots of stories about giving money to millionaires.

    Remember the complaints with Rishi’s discount on bills - renters who pay all inclusive rent so didn’t receive the grant but who’s rent was going up to cover the cost of energy.


  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,347

    Interesting thread here, based on Kwarteng in the FT.

    https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1566539237834608649?s=21&t=T3I89iya7Tz10vxA2vPEDQ

    We’re gonna tax-cut our way to prosperity, the BoE can worry about inflation, and hang the deficits.

    Austerity is dead.

    But so is levelling up.

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" — Dick Cheney.

    Unless there is a Labour government, of course.
    Cheney was wrong, deficits absolutely truly do matter.

    But deficit spending should be cyclical. Its standard to run a deficit during and after a recession, then recovering back to a balanced budget in times of growth before the next recession then restarts the cycle.

    In 2022 we're in the right part of the cycle for a deficit. We're recovering from the twin issues of the pandemic and the energy crisis, but thankfully the deficit had been cut every years for a decade before we went into this period.

    What screwed us royally in 2008 was that the deficit blew up before the crash, which meant that it then blew even further when the crash inevitably came.
    The pre-GFC deficit was small and irrelevant. Throw away your big book of George Osborne quotes.
    That’s bollocks - iirc it was a structural deficit of 7-8% of gdp. Just not sustainable
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,347
    rcs1000 said:

    A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch with another 51 Starlink internet satellites at 10:09 p.m. EDT (0209 GMT) tonight. That is 3 minutes from now.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZNGUOSftI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NONM-xsKMSs

    SpaceX are so bloody reliable, and manage such an extraordinary cadence that they've made space boring.
    To be fair NASA are predictable even if they aren’t reliable
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,421

    Andy_JS said:

    New article in the Spectator.

    "I’ve seen the future of AI art – and it’s terrifying
    These images are disturbing, but they show us something important
    Sean Thomas" (£)

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-ve-seen-the-future-of-ai-art-and-it-s-terrifying

    Poor old Speccie readers .
    Median age 89. They are not going to make to the end of that drivel without a nap anyway.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,004
    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New article in the Spectator.

    "I’ve seen the future of AI art – and it’s terrifying
    These images are disturbing, but they show us something important
    Sean Thomas" (£)

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-ve-seen-the-future-of-ai-art-and-it-s-terrifying

    Poor old Speccie readers .
    Median age 89. They are not going to make to the end of that drivel without a nap anyway.
    That’s the party membership.
    The Spectator skews younger.


    Around 83.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,004
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,631

    dixiedean said:

    ping said:

    dixiedean said:

    ping said:

    Don't freeze the price.

    Give everyone a council tax rebate, an uplift in benefit levels, some tax cuts. Whatever mix. But give people enough money to cover the expected uplift in the cap and then let the energy companies charge as per normal.

    Many people will cut demand and so keep some of the money for other matters.

    The demand cut is what we need for Winter 2022/3.

    Hmm.

    I kindof agree. Depends a lot on the details, but a blanket price cap at £1971/average (presumably also covering business at equivalent per kWh rates) seems like a bad way of doing it.

    As you said, we NEED people (and business, to an extent) to be reducing demand any way we can, without people freezing and businesses going bust - and the policy really should have that goal in mind. Capping at £1.9k/average ain’t going to achieve much demand destruction. Bad policy making.
    Blackouts are a possibility without a serious demand reduction drive.
    Seems wrong to “like” your post, but, eh, what the hell.

    I agree.

    Although. There are different ways of achieving demand reduction without a price signal. Nudging is one. Government and local authority buildings and street lighting, etc. is another. Rationing is a third.
    So if Mogg is energy minister then, you saying the sensible thing for him to do first is issue a work from home this winter edict to the civil service, and not have the heating, and all electrical gadgets, on in the offices?
    The first thing he should do is resign.

    He won't, because he's as unselfaware as he is stupid, but he should.
This discussion has been closed.