Punters now betting that Truss will be out next year – politicalbetting.com

Pulpstar said:

Nigelb said:

It has become an article of faith among the MAGA crowd that Biden destroyed the pipeline.

Just want to make sure everyone understands that Republicans are now *trying to start WWIII* to own the libs, falsely accusing their own country of terrorism to try to justify a Russian attack on America, NATO, or Ukraine’s nuclear facilities whose fallout could trigger Article 5
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1575282878560276480

Must have missed when Radek Sikorski, Polish MEP put on his MAGA hat.

nova said:

Pulpstar said:

Razedabode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stocky said:

@MarqueeMark @eek @kinabalu

Found it! Knew I wasn't going crazy - at least not yet:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1574815174057496579

"Tory MPs may be penning new letters of no confidence in Liz Truss but, as we report on
@TheNewsDesk
tonight, there's a little known 1922 Committee rule (confirmed by Sir Graham Brady) that a new leader can't be challenged during their first 12 months. So she's safe for a year."

Quite right too, a new leader ought to be able to have time to front-load unpopular decisions and get their job done.

She needs an election then, so we can all have our say as to whether she has the mandate to take the sort of decisions she is taken

I’d agree with you had we’d just come out of a general election and she had won a stonking majority. She may be acting like it..

To be fair to May she did ask for just that and held a (poor as it turned out) General Election. One of the reasons I voted for her in that one was I thought coming out and asking for a mandate, putting it to the British people to bolster her negotiating position was (abstractly) the right thing to do.

To be "fair" to May, she was 20%+ ahead in the polls when she called the election, and was looking at a pretty much guaranteed mandate, a big majority and a couple of extra years till the next election.

She wasn't wrong either, as the local elections a couple of weeks into the campaign had the Tories 11% ahead of Labour. I suspect no-one around her thought she had even the slightest chance of losing when they called the election.

Leon said:

NorthofStoke said:

Leon said:

NorthofStoke said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Sabine Fischer
@SabFis3
·
18m
It’s official.

Tomorrow at 15.00 (Moscow time) 🇷🇺 will annex #Donetsk, #Luhansk, #Zaporizhzhia + #Kherson. They will „sign treaties“ at the Kremlin.

#Putin will give #annexation speech after the ceremony (time TBC).

Подписание состоится 30 сентября https://ria.ru/20220929/rossiya-1820292553.html

We are navel gazing. The Trussterfuck is bad and quite big, but this is dimensionally worse

Because it cements escalation in place. Putin is annexing a vast chunk of Ukraine (half of it he doesn’t even occupy). No way Kyiv can accept this, and Putin knows it

Kyiv will now be fighting “in Russia”. That legally allows Putin to threaten and use nukes. But it doesn’t just allow this, he will be obliged to wield nukes as otherwise he is just “letting Russia be attacked” and he will be toppled and a proper dictator will take over, who will actually defend Mother Russia. With nukes

I’m afraid to say all signs point to the use of nuclear weapons. Or something horribly close

It doesn't 'legally' allow him to do anything, since it's illegal.

He's probably mad enough to use at nuke, but all the signs are this is just another exercise in trying to scare rather than a direct prelude or preparation to use them. So in that sense no different for what he's been doing for months.

I've been mulling over this. It feels like time is our friend here.

The biggest risk is if things unfold very quickly, Putin panics / goes mad / makes one last throw of the dice and then things escalate into global nuclear conflict.

The longer the mobilisation goes on, with Ukraine continuing to take chunks of territory back and Russian citizens gradually becoming more disillusioned, the less momentum and less immediate casus belli there is for Putin to escalate to nuclear, and the less likelihood his leadership will go along with it.

We need the Ukraine war to go out not with a bang but a whimper. Incremental gains along with ongoing attritional Russian losses are probably a lot safer than a whirlwind rout with Ukraine marching on Sebastopol by Christmas.

That is an interesting and persuasive analysis. A Russian military collapse could end up being very rapid though and not under the control of anyone. The shockwaves and political changes within Russia could also be pretty rapid...

Except:


“Vladimir Putin has told aides that a staggering half a million Russian losses would be “acceptable” if it enables him to dismember Ukraine, it has been claimed.

The same source suggests he is ready to mobilise two million or more reservists out of a potential pool of 25 million - much larger than the initial 300,000 suggested.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-tells-close-aides-28101733

Putin has to win. And will do almost anything to win

Thousands of resentful, often drunk, unfit, untrained men who know they are meat for the meat grinder will surrender in droves, melt away, be slaughtered at a high rate, kill their officers etc. etc.

Of course. But it also, sometimes, works, as Russians know from their cruel history

Throw a nearly-infinite number of men at a battle against a superior enemy and it can be won. Along with General Winter, it is Russia's secret weapon. Their tolerance of vast suffering. Putin is gambling that this still exists

Scott_xP said:

"Liz Truss has finally broken her long painful silence with a series of short painful silences." @AngelaRayner just gets better and better.
https://twitter.com/heawood/status/1575445700242022400

Nigelb said:

Just looking at those Russian referendum results.
The official invented turnouts were around 30k, in regions with populations of 1-2 million*. They are just imbeciles in every respect.

*Except Luhansk, where the 'turnout' was reported as greater than the population.

PeterM said:

Beibheirli_C said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The striking thing about the 'discovery' that Liz Truss is both 'properly bonkers' (as Dominic Cummings put it) and an absolutely abysmal media performer is that it's not a discovery at all. Even if you weren't paying attention before the leadership campaign started, her performance in the campaign, complete with gaffes and screeching U-turns, was plentiful evidence of exactly how bad her premiership would be. It's baffling that Tory party members didn't notice, given all the hustings and the TV debates with Sunak.

The 1922 Committee encouraged members to vote early, possibly because they feared a postal strike, and also because they offered members the facility to change their votes online (an offer later withdrawn).

So a lot of votes would have been cast before members had a chance to watch the hustings, even if they'd been so inclined.

That does not explain her 12 years on complete non-achievement and frequent gaffes before she put herself up for leadership. Enough of us here commented on it. If we could see the problems, MPs and members should have been even more aware of it. After all, the MPs had met her at work. How long does it take you to determine that someone is utterly stupid?

Also after this disaster i think the conservatives will regret boasting how diverse their cabinet is

TOPPING said:

Chris said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The striking thing about the 'discovery' that Liz Truss is both 'properly bonkers' (as Dominic Cummings put it) and an absolutely abysmal media performer is that it's not a discovery at all. Even if you weren't paying attention before the leadership campaign started, her performance in the campaign, complete with gaffes and screeching U-turns, was plentiful evidence of exactly how bad her premiership would be. It's baffling that Tory party members didn't notice, given all the hustings and the TV debates with Sunak.

The membership polls had Truss top or thereabout for a long period but what is unclear is how much the anti-Sunak sentiment was a factor. He did better than expected but there was undoubtedly an "anyone but Sunak" faction. The reason for this seemed to be that they disliked his fiscal profligacy ......

Let's be honest, though. No doubt a fair few disliked the colour of his skin. I was assured by a Tory-inclined acquaintance that he was just "too dark".

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. No one - and certainly not a "Tory-inclined acquaintance" of yours - said to you that Sunak's skin was too dark. Plenty to attack the Cons about but they have just had one of the most diverse leadership contests in British history.

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Alastair McLellan
@HSJEditor
·
1h
WOAH!

BREAKING: Hospital admissions of covid positive patients in England up 48% in a week.

Fourth Covid wave of 2022 now in full effect

At this point the only answer is dark, sardonic laughter, and a stiff scotch before noon

At this point the only answer is to stop worrying about Covid.

I'm not joking when I say if people get sick and die, they get sick and die. We've spent years locked down, we've rolled out is four or five rounds of vaccines now. Seriously, get over it already.

We haven't "spent years locked down".

Leon said:

NorthofStoke said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Sabine Fischer
@SabFis3
·
18m
It’s official.

Tomorrow at 15.00 (Moscow time) 🇷🇺 will annex #Donetsk, #Luhansk, #Zaporizhzhia + #Kherson. They will „sign treaties“ at the Kremlin.

#Putin will give #annexation speech after the ceremony (time TBC).

Подписание состоится 30 сентября https://ria.ru/20220929/rossiya-1820292553.html

We are navel gazing. The Trussterfuck is bad and quite big, but this is dimensionally worse

Because it cements escalation in place. Putin is annexing a vast chunk of Ukraine (half of it he doesn’t even occupy). No way Kyiv can accept this, and Putin knows it

Kyiv will now be fighting “in Russia”. That legally allows Putin to threaten and use nukes. But it doesn’t just allow this, he will be obliged to wield nukes as otherwise he is just “letting Russia be attacked” and he will be toppled and a proper dictator will take over, who will actually defend Mother Russia. With nukes

I’m afraid to say all signs point to the use of nuclear weapons. Or something horribly close

It doesn't 'legally' allow him to do anything, since it's illegal.

He's probably mad enough to use at nuke, but all the signs are this is just another exercise in trying to scare rather than a direct prelude or preparation to use them. So in that sense no different for what he's been doing for months.

I've been mulling over this. It feels like time is our friend here.

The biggest risk is if things unfold very quickly, Putin panics / goes mad / makes one last throw of the dice and then things escalate into global nuclear conflict.

The longer the mobilisation goes on, with Ukraine continuing to take chunks of territory back and Russian citizens gradually becoming more disillusioned, the less momentum and less immediate casus belli there is for Putin to escalate to nuclear, and the less likelihood his leadership will go along with it.

We need the Ukraine war to go out not with a bang but a whimper. Incremental gains along with ongoing attritional Russian losses are probably a lot safer than a whirlwind rout with Ukraine marching on Sebastopol by Christmas.

That is an interesting and persuasive analysis. A Russian military collapse could end up being very rapid though and not under the control of anyone. The shockwaves and political changes within Russia could also be pretty rapid...

Except:


“Vladimir Putin has told aides that a staggering half a million Russian losses would be “acceptable” if it enables him to dismember Ukraine, it has been claimed.

The same source suggests he is ready to mobilise two million or more reservists out of a potential pool of 25 million - much larger than the initial 300,000 suggested.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-tells-close-aides-28101733

Putin has to win. And will do almost anything to win

wooliedyed said:

Scott_xP said:

Next stop: housing market crisis https://twitter.com/lizannsonders/status/1575444776878497792

Thats the US. We may catch it, yes. The global economy is on the verge of collapsing

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Sabine Fischer
@SabFis3
·
18m
It’s official.

Tomorrow at 15.00 (Moscow time) 🇷🇺 will annex #Donetsk, #Luhansk, #Zaporizhzhia + #Kherson. They will „sign treaties“ at the Kremlin.

#Putin will give #annexation speech after the ceremony (time TBC).

Подписание состоится 30 сентября https://ria.ru/20220929/rossiya-1820292553.html

We are navel gazing. The Trussterfuck is bad and quite big, but this is dimensionally worse

Because it cements escalation in place. Putin is annexing a vast chunk of Ukraine (half of it he doesn’t even occupy). No way Kyiv can accept this, and Putin knows it

Kyiv will now be fighting “in Russia”. That legally allows Putin to threaten and use nukes. But it doesn’t just allow this, he will be obliged to wield nukes as otherwise he is just “letting Russia be attacked” and he will be toppled and a proper dictator will take over, who will actually defend Mother Russia. With nukes

I’m afraid to say all signs point to the use of nuclear weapons. Or something horribly close

It doesn't 'legally' allow him to do anything, since it's illegal.

He's probably mad enough to use at nuke, but all the signs are this is just another exercise in trying to scare rather than a direct prelude or preparation to use them. So in that sense no different for what he's been doing for months.

I've been mulling over this. It feels like time is our friend here.

The biggest risk is if things unfold very quickly, Putin panics / goes mad / makes one last throw of the dice and then things escalate into global nuclear conflict.

The longer the mobilisation goes on, with Ukraine continuing to take chunks of territory back and Russian citizens gradually becoming more disillusioned, the less momentum and less immediate casus belli there is for Putin to escalate to nuclear, and the less likelihood his leadership will go along with it.

We need the Ukraine war to go out not with a bang but a whimper. Incremental gains along with ongoing attritional Russian losses are probably a lot safer than a whirlwind rout with Ukraine marching on Sebastopol by Christmas.

Any defeat is the end of Putin. Even more so now he has incorporated half of Ukraine into Russia. If he loses now he is losing a large chunk of Russia. That is intolerable. Not just for him but maybe for any future leader

This annexation makes serious escalation all-but-inevitable. And it is designed that way

Saddam survived losing the Gulf War. I think the fact that Putin will start to worry about his grip on power will make him more likely to walk away from Ukraine without using nukes, because he'll have more immediate threats to concentrate on.

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Sabine Fischer
@SabFis3
·
18m
It’s official.

Tomorrow at 15.00 (Moscow time) 🇷🇺 will annex #Donetsk, #Luhansk, #Zaporizhzhia + #Kherson. They will „sign treaties“ at the Kremlin.

#Putin will give #annexation speech after the ceremony (time TBC).

Подписание состоится 30 сентября https://ria.ru/20220929/rossiya-1820292553.html

We are navel gazing. The Trussterfuck is bad and quite big, but this is dimensionally worse

Because it cements escalation in place. Putin is annexing a vast chunk of Ukraine (half of it he doesn’t even occupy). No way Kyiv can accept this, and Putin knows it

Kyiv will now be fighting “in Russia”. That legally allows Putin to threaten and use nukes. But it doesn’t just allow this, he will be obliged to wield nukes as otherwise he is just “letting Russia be attacked” and he will be toppled and a proper dictator will take over, who will actually defend Mother Russia. With nukes

I’m afraid to say all signs point to the use of nuclear weapons. Or something horribly close

Russia won't declare war (Which I previously thought) - my sources indicate the SMO will change to a counter-terrorist operation (CTO). Which as everyone knows then "allows" circumventing of the Geneva convention.

The declaration of war, or not, is nearly irrelevant at this point

Russian nuclear doctrine allows for the use of nukes if Russia itself is under attack. By Friday, it will be under attack. By Ukraine, using NATO weapons

Putin is taking this to the absolute brink. He’s cornering himself

IMHO we are not likely to see an immediate nuclear escalation by Putin. We are more likely to enter a period of nervous ambiguity whilst Russia works out if the conventional mobilisation is working or not, and the West works out it’s response.

I imagine Putin has a couple of hands to play first. Chief among them an “I am ready to negotiate now”. I think if he is going to do the unthinkable he is going to want to show that it was the unreasonable west that forced him into it.

Yes, he will probably offer peace “on his terms”. Cede these annexed regions of Ukraine to Russia (while muttering quietly about nukes)

That might work. But probably not. Ukraine won’t give up all that territory. Ukraine will fight on - with or without NATO

And that’s when it gets truly dangerous

It wouldn't work.
Just demonstrates that nuclear blackmail works and guarantees round 3 at some point.

And as you say, Ukraine will say fuck off anyway. So pour yourself a stiff G&T.

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

NorthofStoke said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Sabine Fischer
@SabFis3
·
18m
It’s official.

Tomorrow at 15.00 (Moscow time) 🇷🇺 will annex #Donetsk, #Luhansk, #Zaporizhzhia + #Kherson. They will „sign treaties“ at the Kremlin.

#Putin will give #annexation speech after the ceremony (time TBC).

Подписание состоится 30 сентября https://ria.ru/20220929/rossiya-1820292553.html

We are navel gazing. The Trussterfuck is bad and quite big, but this is dimensionally worse

Because it cements escalation in place. Putin is annexing a vast chunk of Ukraine (half of it he doesn’t even occupy). No way Kyiv can accept this, and Putin knows it

Kyiv will now be fighting “in Russia”. That legally allows Putin to threaten and use nukes. But it doesn’t just allow this, he will be obliged to wield nukes as otherwise he is just “letting Russia be attacked” and he will be toppled and a proper dictator will take over, who will actually defend Mother Russia. With nukes

I’m afraid to say all signs point to the use of nuclear weapons. Or something horribly close

It doesn't 'legally' allow him to do anything, since it's illegal.

He's probably mad enough to use at nuke, but all the signs are this is just another exercise in trying to scare rather than a direct prelude or preparation to use them. So in that sense no different for what he's been doing for months.

I've been mulling over this. It feels like time is our friend here.

The biggest risk is if things unfold very quickly, Putin panics / goes mad / makes one last throw of the dice and then things escalate into global nuclear conflict.

The longer the mobilisation goes on, with Ukraine continuing to take chunks of territory back and Russian citizens gradually becoming more disillusioned, the less momentum and less immediate casus belli there is for Putin to escalate to nuclear, and the less likelihood his leadership will go along with it.

We need the Ukraine war to go out not with a bang but a whimper. Incremental gains along with ongoing attritional Russian losses are probably a lot safer than a whirlwind rout with Ukraine marching on Sebastopol by Christmas.

That is an interesting and persuasive analysis. A Russian military collapse could end up being very rapid though and not under the control of anyone. The shockwaves and political changes within Russia could also be pretty rapid...

Except:


“Vladimir Putin has told aides that a staggering half a million Russian losses would be “acceptable” if it enables him to dismember Ukraine, it has been claimed.

The same source suggests he is ready to mobilise two million or more reservists out of a potential pool of 25 million - much larger than the initial 300,000 suggested.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-tells-close-aides-28101733

Putin has to win. And will do almost anything to win

Putin can't win though.

He can kill 500k of his own citizens, mostly drafted from ethnic minorities he's happy to cleanse, but what is he going to arm them with?

Without logistics, he can't win, and his logistics are f***ed while Ukraine has NATO's behind him.

Soldiers win battles, but logistics win wars.

Except that nukes won the Battle of Japan in 1945. Without a single US soldier dying. The only logistics required were two planes and two bombs

eristdoof said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

turbotubbs said:

kinabalu said:

Just thinking, has a UK government ever imploded so spectacularly? In the space of a year they’ve gone from looking set for another landslide to looking finished. And it’s almost all self-inflicted. Ditch the man who won them the last election because for all his ‘charisma’ he couldn’t tell the truth or govern competently and was crapping all over standards in public life, replace him with a lightweight who their MPs didn’t want and whose politics and personality have no popular appeal. Wham bam, thank you Tories, I say, with my Labour partisan hat on. I can’t pretend not to be pleased at the political ramifications. But taking that hat off for a second, it’s something of a tragedy. The country is being let down very badly by the Conservative party.

Some of it is self inflicted but the covid recession and the war have been extreme head winds that would have been challenging for any government.

You don't need to use the subjunctive. The Covid recession and the war *is* challenging for many governments. Most have not reacted in a way that deliberately shafts the finances of their country though.

How exactly has Truss "deliberately shafted" the finances of the country.

SNIP

A quote from Cyclefree 5 minutes before your post..
"She planned on making all our pensions insolvent?!?!? Christ ...."

Leon said:

Use your brain. He can't now "walk away" even if he wants to. This is "Russia". No Russian leader can abandon parts of Russia. This annexation is designed to tie his own hands and those of any successor; the war is now existential and is being fought on Russian territory

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Scott_xP said:

Next stop: housing market crisis https://twitter.com/lizannsonders/status/1575444776878497792

Thats the US. We may catch it, yes. The global economy is on the verge of collapsing

22.5% drop? That seems to be volume, not prices.

Hopefully we do get a 50% or so drop in house prices in the UK. Would love to see house prices back at a 3x multiple in the North and a 4x multiple in London, just as it used to be.

Sometimes a bit of pain and disruption is needed to fix the fundamentals. We may need to go through that now.

148grss said:

If this sort of article gets written once a week, every week, between now and a GE (although in papers other than the Grauniad) - maybe the 10% figure for Tories at the next GE would be plausible:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/29/tory-mp-truss-kwarteng-labour

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Alastair McLellan
@HSJEditor
·
1h
WOAH!

BREAKING: Hospital admissions of covid positive patients in England up 48% in a week.

Fourth Covid wave of 2022 now in full effect

At this point the only answer is dark, sardonic laughter, and a stiff scotch before noon

At this point the only answer is to stop worrying about Covid.

I'm not joking when I say if people get sick and die, they get sick and die. We've spent years locked down, we've rolled out is four or five rounds of vaccines now. Seriously, get over it already.

We haven't "spent years locked down".

Yes we have. They lasted for a period of years and at any time during that period we didn't know when the next one was going to occur.

Please don't let's go down the old, rich blokes in charming houses wondering what the big fuss about lockdown route is again.

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

turbotubbs said:

kinabalu said:

Just thinking, has a UK government ever imploded so spectacularly? In the space of a year they’ve gone from looking set for another landslide to looking finished. And it’s almost all self-inflicted. Ditch the man who won them the last election because for all his ‘charisma’ he couldn’t tell the truth or govern competently and was crapping all over standards in public life, replace him with a lightweight who their MPs didn’t want and whose politics and personality have no popular appeal. Wham bam, thank you Tories, I say, with my Labour partisan hat on. I can’t pretend not to be pleased at the political ramifications. But taking that hat off for a second, it’s something of a tragedy. The country is being let down very badly by the Conservative party.

Some of it is self inflicted but the covid recession and the war have been extreme head winds that would have been challenging for any government.

You don't need to use the subjunctive. The Covid recession and the war *is* challenging for many governments. Most have not reacted in a way that deliberately shafts the finances of their country though.

How exactly has Truss "deliberately shafted" the finances of the country.

The UK spent hundreds of billions on Covid. A hundred and fifty billion was pencilled in for Energy Price Support without a murmur of dissent, and asked for by the Opposition. Thirty eight billion of tax cuts were already known about by the markets from her leadership election winning platform.

The "surprise" in the 45p announcement was a £2 billion tax cut.

Now I know as Reagan said, a billion here and a billion there and soon we're talking about real money, and I wouldn't sniff at the significance of that, but to suggest that has destroyed the finances of the country is being a tad extreme.

The markets have belatedly reacted to the debt the UK is dealing with, which is predominantly the hundreds of billions from locking down for Covid and for supporting energy prices, not a two billion pound tax cut.

“A hundred and fifty billion was pencilled in for Energy Price Support without a murmur of dissent”

You are fucking clueless Bart with that statement.

Enough of your comical psycho babbling now, this is a serious moment for this country, and I need to put my foot down on these red herrings. The truth is government tried to put the £150-250B for the important Energy Price Support on the UK credit card, and the markets declined it.

You are right though, the opposition party’s would have tried to put through the Energy Price Support “largely” on the UK credit card too, and they too would have got same response from the markets.

PeterM said:

TOPPING said:

Chris said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The striking thing about the 'discovery' that Liz Truss is both 'properly bonkers' (as Dominic Cummings put it) and an absolutely abysmal media performer is that it's not a discovery at all. Even if you weren't paying attention before the leadership campaign started, her performance in the campaign, complete with gaffes and screeching U-turns, was plentiful evidence of exactly how bad her premiership would be. It's baffling that Tory party members didn't notice, given all the hustings and the TV debates with Sunak.

The membership polls had Truss top or thereabout for a long period but what is unclear is how much the anti-Sunak sentiment was a factor. He did better than expected but there was undoubtedly an "anyone but Sunak" faction. The reason for this seemed to be that they disliked his fiscal profligacy ......

Let's be honest, though. No doubt a fair few disliked the colour of his skin. I was assured by a Tory-inclined acquaintance that he was just "too dark".

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. No one - and certainly not a "Tory-inclined acquaintance" of yours - said to you that Sunak's skin was too dark. Plenty to attack the Cons about but they have just had one of the most diverse leadership contests in British history.

TOPPING said:

Chris said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The striking thing about the 'discovery' that Liz Truss is both 'properly bonkers' (as Dominic Cummings put it) and an absolutely abysmal media performer is that it's not a discovery at all. Even if you weren't paying attention before the leadership campaign started, her performance in the campaign, complete with gaffes and screeching U-turns, was plentiful evidence of exactly how bad her premiership would be. It's baffling that Tory party members didn't notice, given all the hustings and the TV debates with Sunak.

The membership polls had Truss top or thereabout for a long period but what is unclear is how much the anti-Sunak sentiment was a factor. He did better than expected but there was undoubtedly an "anyone but Sunak"
faction. The reason for this seemed to be that they disliked his fiscal profligacy ......

Let's be honest, though. No doubt a
fair few disliked the colour of his skin. I was assured by a Tory-inclined acquaintance that he was just "too
dark".

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. No one and certainly not a "Tory-inclined
acquaintance" of yours - said to you that Sunak's skin was too dark. Plenty
to attack the Cons about but they have
just had one of the most diverse
leadership contests in British history.

Plenty of tories do think like that i trust you out in the provinces

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

NorthofStoke said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Sabine Fischer
@SabFis3
·
18m
It’s official.

Tomorrow at 15.00 (Moscow time) 🇷🇺 will annex #Donetsk, #Luhansk, #Zaporizhzhia + #Kherson. They will „sign treaties“ at the Kremlin.

#Putin will give #annexation speech after the ceremony (time TBC).

Подписание состоится 30 сентября https://ria.ru/20220929/rossiya-1820292553.html

We are navel gazing. The Trussterfuck is bad and quite big, but this is dimensionally worse

Because it cements escalation in place. Putin is annexing a vast chunk of Ukraine (half of it he doesn’t even occupy). No way Kyiv can accept this, and Putin knows it

Kyiv will now be fighting “in Russia”. That legally allows Putin to threaten and use nukes. But it doesn’t just allow this, he will be obliged to wield nukes as otherwise he is just “letting Russia be attacked” and he will be toppled and a proper dictator will take over, who will actually defend Mother Russia. With nukes

I’m afraid to say all signs point to the use of nuclear weapons. Or something horribly close

It doesn't 'legally' allow him to do anything, since it's illegal.

He's probably mad enough to use at nuke, but all the signs are this is just another exercise in trying to scare rather than a direct prelude or preparation to use them. So in that sense no different for what he's been doing for months.

I've been mulling over this. It feels like time is our friend here.

The biggest risk is if things unfold very quickly, Putin panics / goes mad / makes one last throw of the dice and then things escalate into global nuclear conflict.

The longer the mobilisation goes on, with Ukraine continuing to take chunks of territory back and Russian citizens gradually becoming more disillusioned, the less momentum and less immediate casus belli there is for Putin to escalate to nuclear, and the less likelihood his leadership will go along with it.

We need the Ukraine war to go out not with a bang but a whimper. Incremental gains along with ongoing attritional Russian losses are probably a lot safer than a whirlwind rout with Ukraine marching on Sebastopol by Christmas.

That is an interesting and persuasive analysis. A Russian military collapse could end up being very rapid though and not under the control of anyone. The shockwaves and political changes within Russia could also be pretty rapid...

Except:


“Vladimir Putin has told aides that a staggering half a million Russian losses would be “acceptable” if it enables him to dismember Ukraine, it has been claimed.

The same source suggests he is ready to mobilise two million or more reservists out of a potential pool of 25 million - much larger than the initial 300,000 suggested.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-tells-close-aides-28101733

Putin has to win. And will do almost anything to win

The Ukrainians have been sending thousands of soldiers to Britain to be trained properly. Russia is mobilising reservists, telling them to buy their own first aid kits and other essential equipment, and driving them straight to the front....

TOPPING said:

PeterM said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Alastair McLellan
@HSJEditor
·
1h
WOAH!

BREAKING: Hospital admissions of covid positive patients in England up 48% in a week.

Fourth Covid wave of 2022 now in full effect

At this point the only answer is dark, sardonic laughter, and a stiff scotch before noon

At this point the only answer is to stop worrying about Covid.

I'm not joking when I say if people get sick and die, they get sick and die. We've spent years locked down, we've rolled out is four or five rounds of vaccines now. Seriously, get over it already.

We haven't "spent years locked down".

Yes we have. They lasted for a period of years and at any time during that period we didn't know when the next one was going to occur.

Please don't let's go down the old, rich blokes in charming houses wondering what the big fuss about lockdown route is again.

Yes i imagine lockdown in a nice house in Hampstead was quite pleasant..a walk on the heath everyday whilst tutting at the covidiots sitting on park benches

Indeed.

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Ken Clarke is saying they have to makes some sort of statement in the next few days to calm the markets, and it can't wait until November, according to the jazzman.

Didn't the BoE do that just yesterday?

Not sure what kind of statement you expect them to make. Reversing on the mini budget won't calm the market since the market has woken up to the energy market money being the issue, not the two billion disputed politically in the news, and reversing that energy support isn't viable.

There's no point acting like headless chickens now, keep calm and carry on. And the BoE buying gilts rather than selling them should calm the markets down.

The market didn’t go crazy until the (non-)budget. The market was OK when the Government had previously announced action on energy costs.

Indeed, which was the market being illogical. The market often is.

As I said, the market knew about the hundred and fifty billion potentially for energy support, it knew about the hundreds of billions we've just borrowed for Covid, it knew about the £38 billion in tax rise reversals Truss had committed to.

The notion that a further £2 billion (in theory) tax cut, which will likely cost nothing like that and could even be revenue neutral or positive, is the irresponsible straw that broke the camel's back is just prima facie absurd.

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Chris said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The striking thing about the 'discovery' that Liz Truss is both 'properly bonkers' (as Dominic Cummings put it) and an absolutely abysmal media performer is that it's not a discovery at all. Even if you weren't paying attention before the leadership campaign started, her performance in the campaign, complete with gaffes and screeching U-turns, was plentiful evidence of exactly how bad her premiership would be. It's baffling that Tory party members didn't notice, given all the hustings and the TV debates with Sunak.

The membership polls had Truss top or thereabout for a long period but what is unclear is how much the anti-Sunak sentiment was a factor. He did better than expected but there was undoubtedly an "anyone but Sunak" faction. The reason for this seemed to be that they disliked his fiscal profligacy ......

Let's be honest, though. No doubt a fair few disliked the colour of his skin. I was assured by a Tory-inclined acquaintance that he was just "too dark".

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. No one - and certainly not a "Tory-inclined acquaintance" of yours - said to you that Sunak's skin was too dark. Plenty to attack the Cons about but they have just had one of the most diverse leadership contests in British history.

The two things are not incompatible.
You don't have to believe me, but I know a member who said just that, and voted. Though he used, somewhat inaccurately, the P word.

No doubt there are exist people who might do the same in Labour. And whether it made any difference to the result is deeply questionable.

Leon said:

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Sabine Fischer
@SabFis3
·
18m
It’s official.

Tomorrow at 15.00 (Moscow time) 🇷🇺 will annex #Donetsk, #Luhansk, #Zaporizhzhia + #Kherson. They will „sign treaties“ at the Kremlin.

#Putin will give #annexation speech after the ceremony (time TBC).

Подписание состоится 30 сентября https://ria.ru/20220929/rossiya-1820292553.html

We are navel gazing. The Trussterfuck is bad and quite big, but this is dimensionally worse

Because it cements escalation in place. Putin is annexing a vast chunk of Ukraine (half of it he doesn’t even occupy). No way Kyiv can accept this, and Putin knows it

Kyiv will now be fighting “in Russia”. That legally allows Putin to threaten and use nukes. But it doesn’t just allow this, he will be obliged to wield nukes as otherwise he is just “letting Russia be attacked” and he will be toppled and a proper dictator will take over, who will actually defend Mother Russia. With nukes

I’m afraid to say all signs point to the use of nuclear weapons. Or something horribly close

It doesn't 'legally' allow him to do anything, since it's illegal.

He's probably mad enough to use at nuke, but all the signs are this is just another exercise in trying to scare rather than a direct prelude or preparation to use them. So in that sense no different for what he's been doing for months.

I've been mulling over this. It feels like time is our friend here.

The biggest risk is if things unfold very quickly, Putin panics / goes mad / makes one last throw of the dice and then things escalate into global nuclear conflict.

The longer the mobilisation goes on, with Ukraine continuing to take chunks of territory back and Russian citizens gradually becoming more disillusioned, the less momentum and less immediate casus belli there is for Putin to escalate to nuclear, and the less likelihood his leadership will go along with it.

We need the Ukraine war to go out not with a bang but a whimper. Incremental gains along with ongoing attritional Russian losses are probably a lot safer than a whirlwind rout with Ukraine marching on Sebastopol by Christmas.

Any defeat is the end of Putin. Even more so now he has incorporated half of Ukraine into Russia. If he loses now he is losing a large chunk of Russia. That is intolerable. Not just for him but maybe for any future leader

This annexation makes serious escalation all-but-inevitable. And it is designed that way

Saddam survived losing the Gulf War. I think the fact that Putin will start to worry about his grip on power will make him more likely to walk away from Ukraine without using nukes, because he'll have more immediate threats to concentrate on.

If Putin is minded to "walk away from Ukraine" why the hell has he just formally annexed a quarter of Ukraine and turned it into "Russia"?

Use your brain. He can't now "walk away" even if he wants to. This is "Russia". No Russian leader can abandon parts of Russia. This annexation is designed to tie his own hands and those of any successor; the war is now existential and is being fought on Russian territory

The only way out now, bar a black swan like Putin dying, seems to be
.
1. outright defeat of Russia and the seizing of "Russian" territory, which feels unlikely given that Russia would use nukes to get us to back off

or

2. He threatens us. We blink. We oblige Ukraine to seek peace. A terrible peace. And then we all wait and pray for Putin to croak (during which time we will try to undermine Russia and the Ukrainians will go into partisan mode)

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Sabine Fischer
@SabFis3
·
18m
It’s official.

Tomorrow at 15.00 (Moscow time) 🇷🇺 will annex #Donetsk, #Luhansk, #Zaporizhzhia + #Kherson. They will „sign treaties“ at the Kremlin.

#Putin will give #annexation speech after the ceremony (time TBC).

Подписание состоится 30 сентября https://ria.ru/20220929/rossiya-1820292553.html

We are navel gazing. The Trussterfuck is bad and quite big, but this is dimensionally worse

Because it cements escalation in place. Putin is annexing a vast chunk of Ukraine (half of it he doesn’t even occupy). No way Kyiv can accept this, and Putin knows it

Kyiv will now be fighting “in Russia”. That legally allows Putin to threaten and use nukes. But it doesn’t just allow this, he will be obliged to wield nukes as otherwise he is just “letting Russia be attacked” and he will be toppled and a proper dictator will take over, who will actually defend Mother Russia. With nukes

I’m afraid to say all signs point to the use of nuclear weapons. Or something horribly close

It doesn't 'legally' allow him to do anything, since it's illegal.

He's probably mad enough to use at nuke, but all the signs are this is just another exercise in trying to scare rather than a direct prelude or preparation to use them. So in that sense no different for what he's been doing for months.

I've been mulling over this. It feels like time is our friend here.

The biggest risk is if things unfold very quickly, Putin panics / goes mad / makes one last throw of the dice and then things escalate into global nuclear conflict.

The longer the mobilisation goes on, with Ukraine continuing to take chunks of territory back and Russian citizens gradually becoming more disillusioned, the less momentum and less immediate casus belli there is for Putin to escalate to nuclear, and the less likelihood his leadership will go along with it.

We need the Ukraine war to go out not with a bang but a whimper. Incremental gains along with ongoing attritional Russian losses are probably a lot safer than a whirlwind rout with Ukraine marching on Sebastopol by Christmas.

Any defeat is the end of Putin. Even more so now he has incorporated half of Ukraine into Russia. If he loses now he is losing a large chunk of Russia. That is intolerable. Not just for him but maybe for any future leader

This annexation makes serious escalation all-but-inevitable. And it is designed that way

Saddam survived losing the Gulf War. I think the fact that Putin will start to worry about his grip on power will make him more likely to walk away from Ukraine without using nukes, because he'll have more immediate threats to concentrate on.

If Putin is minded to "walk away from Ukraine" why the hell has he just formally annexed a quarter of Ukraine and turned it into "Russia"?

Use your brain. He can't now "walk away" even if he wants to. This is "Russia". No Russian leader can abandon parts of Russia. This annexation is designed to tie his own hands and those of any successor; the war is now existential and is being fought on Russian territory

The only way out now, bar a black swan like Putin dying, seems to be
.
1. outright defeat of Russia and the seizing of "Russian" territory, which feels unlikely given that Russia would use nukes to get us to back off

or

2. He threatens us. We blink. We oblige Ukraine to seek peace. A terrible peace. And then we all wait and pray for Putin to croak (during which time we will try to undermine Russia and the Ukrainians will go into partisan mode)

How many Russians actually believe the declaration today means anything ?

Pulpstar said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

turbotubbs said:

kinabalu said:

Just thinking, has a UK government ever imploded so spectacularly? In the space of a year they’ve gone from looking set for another landslide to looking finished. And it’s almost all self-inflicted. Ditch the man who won them the last election because for all his ‘charisma’ he couldn’t tell the truth or govern competently and was crapping all over standards in public life, replace him with a lightweight who their MPs didn’t want and whose politics and personality have no popular appeal. Wham bam, thank you Tories, I say, with my Labour partisan hat on. I can’t pretend not to be pleased at the political ramifications. But taking that hat off for a second, it’s something of a tragedy. The country is being let down very badly by the Conservative party.

Some of it is self inflicted but the covid recession and the war have been extreme head winds that would have been challenging for any government.

You don't need to use the subjunctive. The Covid recession and the war *is* challenging for many governments. Most have not reacted in a way that deliberately shafts the finances of their country though.

How exactly has Truss "deliberately shafted" the finances of the country.

The UK spent hundreds of billions on Covid. A hundred and fifty billion was pencilled in for Energy Price Support without a murmur of dissent, and asked for by the Opposition. Thirty eight billion of tax cuts were already known about by the markets from her leadership election winning platform.

The "surprise" in the 45p announcement was a £2 billion tax cut.

Now I know as Reagan said, a billion here and a billion there and soon we're talking about real money, and I wouldn't sniff at the significance of that, but to suggest that has destroyed the finances of the country is being a tad extreme.

The markets have belatedly reacted to the debt the UK is dealing with, which is predominantly the hundreds of billions from locking down for Covid and for supporting energy prices, not a two billion pound tax cut.

“A hundred and fifty billion was pencilled in for Energy Price Support without a murmur of dissent”

You are fucking clueless Bart with that statement.

Enough of your comical psycho babbling now, this is a serious moment for this country, and I need to put my foot down on these red herrings. The truth is government tried to put the £150-250B for the important Energy Price Support on the UK credit card, and the markets declined it.

You are right though, the opposition party’s would have tried to put through the Energy Price Support “largely” on the UK credit card too, and they too would have got same response from the markets.

No, the market was extremely generous to our energy package since it was sold as a "one off". It was not declined. Kwarteng's subsequent SFO was.

Nigelb said:

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

NorthofStoke said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Sabine Fischer
@SabFis3
·
18m
It’s official.

Tomorrow at 15.00 (Moscow time) 🇷🇺 will annex #Donetsk, #Luhansk, #Zaporizhzhia + #Kherson. They will „sign treaties“ at the Kremlin.

#Putin will give #annexation speech after the ceremony (time TBC).

Подписание состоится 30 сентября https://ria.ru/20220929/rossiya-1820292553.html

We are navel gazing. The Trussterfuck is bad and quite big, but this is dimensionally worse

Because it cements escalation in place. Putin is annexing a vast chunk of Ukraine (half of it he doesn’t even occupy). No way Kyiv can accept this, and Putin knows it

Kyiv will now be fighting “in Russia”. That legally allows Putin to threaten and use nukes. But it doesn’t just allow this, he will be obliged to wield nukes as otherwise he is just “letting Russia be attacked” and he will be toppled and a proper dictator will take over, who will actually defend Mother Russia. With nukes

I’m afraid to say all signs point to the use of nuclear weapons. Or something horribly close

It doesn't 'legally' allow him to do anything, since it's illegal.

He's probably mad enough to use at nuke, but all the signs are this is just another exercise in trying to scare rather than a direct prelude or preparation to use them. So in that sense no different for what he's been doing for months.

I've been mulling over this. It feels like time is our friend here.

The biggest risk is if things unfold very quickly, Putin panics / goes mad / makes one last throw of the dice and then things escalate into global nuclear conflict.

The longer the mobilisation goes on, with Ukraine continuing to take chunks of territory back and Russian citizens gradually becoming more disillusioned, the less momentum and less immediate casus belli there is for Putin to escalate to nuclear, and the less likelihood his leadership will go along with it.

We need the Ukraine war to go out not with a bang but a whimper. Incremental gains along with ongoing attritional Russian losses are probably a lot safer than a whirlwind rout with Ukraine marching on Sebastopol by Christmas.

That is an interesting and persuasive analysis. A Russian military collapse could end up being very rapid though and not under the control of anyone. The shockwaves and political changes within Russia could also be pretty rapid...

Except:


“Vladimir Putin has told aides that a staggering half a million Russian losses would be “acceptable” if it enables him to dismember Ukraine, it has been claimed.

The same source suggests he is ready to mobilise two million or more reservists out of a potential pool of 25 million - much larger than the initial 300,000 suggested.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-tells-close-aides-28101733

Putin has to win. And will do almost anything to win

The Ukrainians have been sending thousands of soldiers to Britain to be trained properly. Russia is mobilising reservists, telling them to buy their own first aid kits and other essential equipment, and driving them straight to the front....

Not even that.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1575405893935665152
The sheer scale of Russian incompetence and disregard for its mobilized civilians. These men complain they were left in the freezing field with no shelter — not even a tent — and no rations for the second day. “Like a flock of sheep.” How many will make it to Ukraine?

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Ken Clarke is saying they have to makes some sort of statement in the next few days to calm the markets, and it can't wait until November, according to the jazzman.

Didn't the BoE do that just yesterday?

Not sure what kind of statement you expect them to make. Reversing on the mini budget won't calm the market since the market has woken up to the energy market money being the issue, not the two billion disputed politically in the news, and reversing that energy support isn't viable.

There's no point acting like headless chickens now, keep calm and carry on. And the BoE buying gilts rather than selling them should calm the markets down.

The market didn’t go crazy until the (non-)budget. The market was OK when the Government had previously announced action on energy costs.

Indeed, which was the market being illogical. The market often is.

As I said, the market knew about the hundred and fifty billion potentially for energy support, it knew about the hundreds of billions we've just borrowed for Covid, it knew about the £38 billion in tax rise reversals Truss had committed to.

The notion that a further £2 billion (in theory) tax cut, which will likely cost nothing like that and could even be revenue neutral or positive, is the irresponsible straw that broke the camel's back is just prima facie absurd.

TOPPING said:

PeterM said:

TOPPING said:

Chris said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The striking thing about the 'discovery' that Liz Truss is both 'properly bonkers' (as Dominic Cummings put it) and an absolutely abysmal media performer is that it's not a discovery at all. Even if you weren't paying attention before the leadership campaign started, her performance in the campaign, complete with gaffes and screeching U-turns, was plentiful evidence of exactly how bad her premiership would be. It's baffling that Tory party members didn't notice, given all the hustings and the TV debates with Sunak.

The membership polls had Truss top or thereabout for a long period but what is unclear is how much the anti-Sunak sentiment was a factor. He did better than expected but there was undoubtedly an "anyone but Sunak" faction. The reason for this seemed to be that they disliked his fiscal profligacy ......

Let's be honest, though. No doubt a fair few disliked the colour of his skin. I was assured by a Tory-inclined acquaintance that he was just "too dark".

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. No one - and certainly not a "Tory-inclined acquaintance" of yours - said to you that Sunak's skin was too dark. Plenty to attack the Cons about but they have just had one of the most diverse leadership contests in British history.

TOPPING said:

Chris said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The striking thing about the 'discovery' that Liz Truss is both 'properly bonkers' (as Dominic Cummings put it) and an absolutely abysmal media performer is that it's not a discovery at all. Even if you weren't paying attention before the leadership campaign started, her performance in the campaign, complete with gaffes and screeching U-turns, was plentiful evidence of exactly how bad her premiership would be. It's baffling that Tory party members didn't notice, given all the hustings and the TV debates with Sunak.

The membership polls had Truss top or thereabout for a long period but what is unclear is how much the anti-Sunak sentiment was a factor. He did better than expected but there was undoubtedly an "anyone but Sunak"
faction. The reason for this seemed to be that they disliked his fiscal profligacy ......

Let's be honest, though. No doubt a
fair few disliked the colour of his skin. I was assured by a Tory-inclined acquaintance that he was just "too
dark".

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. No one and certainly not a "Tory-inclined
acquaintance" of yours - said to you that Sunak's skin was too dark. Plenty
to attack the Cons about but they have
just had one of the most diverse
leadership contests in British history.

Plenty of tories do think like that i trust you out in the provinces

a) how do you know; and
b) no "Tory-inclined acquaintance" (whatever that means) of @Chris said that to him.

turbotubbs said:

kinabalu said:

eek said:

Alastair McLellan
@HSJEditor
·
1h
WOAH!

BREAKING: Hospital admissions of covid positive patients in England up 48% in a week.

Fourth Covid wave of 2022 now in full effect

Perhaps a short Lockdown to nip it in the bud?

Have you learned nothing from the last two and a half years? (I hope you are joking)

kinabalu said:

PeterM said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Alastair McLellan
@HSJEditor
·
1h
WOAH!

BREAKING: Hospital admissions of covid positive patients in England up 48% in a week.

Fourth Covid wave of 2022 now in full effect

At this point the only answer is dark, sardonic laughter, and a stiff scotch before noon

At this point the only answer is to stop worrying about Covid.

I'm not joking when I say if people get sick and die, they get sick and die. We've spent years locked down, we've rolled out is four or five rounds of vaccines now. Seriously, get over it already.

We haven't "spent years locked down".

Yes we have. They lasted for a period of years and at any time during that period we didn't know when the next one was going to occur.

Please don't let's go down the old, rich blokes in charming houses wondering what the big fuss about lockdown route is again.

Yes i imagine lockdown in a nice house in Hampstead was quite pleasant..a walk on the heath everyday whilst tutting at the covidiots sitting on park benches

C'mon, can't we have at least one day on here without softhead cliche mongering?

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

PeterM said:

TOPPING said:

Chris said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The striking thing about the 'discovery' that Liz Truss is both 'properly bonkers' (as Dominic Cummings put it) and an absolutely abysmal media performer is that it's not a discovery at all. Even if you weren't paying attention before the leadership campaign started, her performance in the campaign, complete with gaffes and screeching U-turns, was plentiful evidence of exactly how bad her premiership would be. It's baffling that Tory party members didn't notice, given all the hustings and the TV debates with Sunak.

The membership polls had Truss top or thereabout for a long period but what is unclear is how much the anti-Sunak sentiment was a factor. He did better than expected but there was undoubtedly an "anyone but Sunak" faction. The reason for this seemed to be that they disliked his fiscal profligacy ......

Let's be honest, though. No doubt a fair few disliked the colour of his skin. I was assured by a Tory-inclined acquaintance that he was just "too dark".

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. No one - and certainly not a "Tory-inclined acquaintance" of yours - said to you that Sunak's skin was too dark. Plenty to attack the Cons about but they have just had one of the most diverse leadership contests in British history.

TOPPING said:

Chris said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The striking thing about the 'discovery' that Liz Truss is both 'properly bonkers' (as Dominic Cummings put it) and an absolutely abysmal media performer is that it's not a discovery at all. Even if you weren't paying attention before the leadership campaign started, her performance in the campaign, complete with gaffes and screeching U-turns, was plentiful evidence of exactly how bad her premiership would be. It's baffling that Tory party members didn't notice, given all the hustings and the TV debates with Sunak.

The membership polls had Truss top or thereabout for a long period but what is unclear is how much the anti-Sunak sentiment was a factor. He did better than expected but there was undoubtedly an "anyone but Sunak"
faction. The reason for this seemed to be that they disliked his fiscal profligacy ......

Let's be honest, though. No doubt a
fair few disliked the colour of his skin. I was assured by a Tory-inclined acquaintance that he was just "too
dark".

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. No one and certainly not a "Tory-inclined
acquaintance" of yours - said to you that Sunak's skin was too dark. Plenty
to attack the Cons about but they have
just had one of the most diverse
leadership contests in British history.

Plenty of tories do think like that i trust you out in the provinces

a) how do you know; and
b) no "Tory-inclined acquaintance" (whatever that means) of @Chris said that to him.

Kemi Badenoch’s popularity with the membership seems to suggest that the problem wasn’t skin colour.

Among the Tory members I know, the issue with Sunak was the non-dom thing and it’s wider ramifications - the sense that he is semi detached from the U.K.

Kemi comes across as 100% British, by comparison.

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Ken Clarke is saying they have to makes some sort of statement in the next few days to calm the markets, and it can't wait until November, according to the jazzman.

Didn't the BoE do that just yesterday?

Not sure what kind of statement you expect them to make. Reversing on the mini budget won't calm the market since the market has woken up to the energy market money being the issue, not the two billion disputed politically in the news, and reversing that energy support isn't viable.

There's no point acting like headless chickens now, keep calm and carry on. And the BoE buying gilts rather than selling them should calm the markets down.

The market didn’t go crazy until the (non-)budget. The market was OK when the Government had previously announced action on energy costs.

Indeed, which was the market being illogical. The market often is.

As I said, the market knew about the hundred and fifty billion potentially for energy support, it knew about the hundreds of billions we've just borrowed for Covid, it knew about the £38 billion in tax rise reversals Truss had committed to.

The notion that a further £2 billion (in theory) tax cut, which will likely cost nothing like that and could even be revenue neutral or positive, is the irresponsible straw that broke the camel's back is just prima facie absurd.

eek said:

The Law Society
@TheLawSociety
·
1h
“If solicitors do not get parity on the bare minimum 15% recommended by Lord Bellamy, the Ministry of Justice will have made it clear that there is no future in criminal defence practice and

*we will advise our members not to undertake this work*" 6/7

Pulpstar said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

turbotubbs said:

kinabalu said:

Just thinking, has a UK government ever imploded so spectacularly? In the space of a year they’ve gone from looking set for another landslide to looking finished. And it’s almost all self-inflicted. Ditch the man who won them the last election because for all his ‘charisma’ he couldn’t tell the truth or govern competently and was crapping all over standards in public life, replace him with a lightweight who their MPs didn’t want and whose politics and personality have no popular appeal. Wham bam, thank you Tories, I say, with my Labour partisan hat on. I can’t pretend not to be pleased at the political ramifications. But taking that hat off for a second, it’s something of a tragedy. The country is being let down very badly by the Conservative party.

Some of it is self inflicted but the covid recession and the war have been extreme head winds that would have been challenging for any government.

You don't need to use the subjunctive. The Covid recession and the war *is* challenging for many governments. Most have not reacted in a way that deliberately shafts the finances of their country though.

How exactly has Truss "deliberately shafted" the finances of the country.

The UK spent hundreds of billions on Covid. A hundred and fifty billion was pencilled in for Energy Price Support without a murmur of dissent, and asked for by the Opposition. Thirty eight billion of tax cuts were already known about by the markets from her leadership election winning platform.

The "surprise" in the 45p announcement was a £2 billion tax cut.

Now I know as Reagan said, a billion here and a billion there and soon we're talking about real money, and I wouldn't sniff at the significance of that, but to suggest that has destroyed the finances of the country is being a tad extreme.

The markets have belatedly reacted to the debt the UK is dealing with, which is predominantly the hundreds of billions from locking down for Covid and for supporting energy prices, not a two billion pound tax cut.

“A hundred and fifty billion was pencilled in for Energy Price Support without a murmur of dissent”

You are fucking clueless Bart with that statement.

Enough of your comical psycho babbling now, this is a serious moment for this country, and I need to put my foot down on these red herrings. The truth is government tried to put the £150-250B for the important Energy Price Support on the UK credit card, and the markets declined it.

You are right though, the opposition party’s would have tried to put through the Energy Price Support “largely” on the UK credit card too, and they too would have got same response from the markets.

No, the market was extremely generous to our energy package since it was sold as a "one off". It was not declined. Kwarteng's subsequent SFO was.

eristdoof said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Ken Clarke is saying they have to makes some sort of statement in the next few days to calm the markets, and it can't wait until November, according to the jazzman.

Didn't the BoE do that just yesterday?

Not sure what kind of statement you expect them to make. Reversing on the mini budget won't calm the market since the market has woken up to the energy market money being the issue, not the two billion disputed politically in the news, and reversing that energy support isn't viable.

There's no point acting like headless chickens now, keep calm and carry on. And the BoE buying gilts rather than selling them should calm the markets down.

The market didn’t go crazy until the (non-)budget. The market was OK when the Government had previously announced action on energy costs.

Indeed, which was the market being illogical. The market often is.

As I said, the market knew about the hundred and fifty billion potentially for energy support, it knew about the hundreds of billions we've just borrowed for Covid, it knew about the £38 billion in tax rise reversals Truss had committed to.

The notion that a further £2 billion (in theory) tax cut, which will likely cost nothing like that and could even be revenue neutral or positive, is the irresponsible straw that broke the camel's back is just prima facie absurd.

If you believe in your statement "... the market being illogical." You have a much worse understanding of economics than you make out.

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Alastair McLellan
@HSJEditor
·
1h
WOAH!

BREAKING: Hospital admissions of covid positive patients in England up 48% in a week.

Fourth Covid wave of 2022 now in full effect

At this point the only answer is dark, sardonic laughter, and a stiff scotch before noon

At this point the only answer is to stop worrying about Covid.

I'm not joking when I say if people get sick and die, they get sick and die. We've spent years locked down, we've rolled out is four or five rounds of vaccines now. Seriously, get over it already.

We haven't "spent years locked down".

Yes we have. They lasted for a period of years and at any time during that period we didn't know when the next one was going to occur.

Please don't let's go down the old, rich blokes in charming houses wondering what the big fuss about lockdown route is again.

When I hear lockdown - I think about what Boris Johnson announced in March 2020.
So I think we've spent less than 1 year in lockdown... a few months in March 2020, and then again from the Winter of 2020/21, and we were definitely out by July 2021.

I've been going to watch Exeter Chiefs for years. (I haven't.)

Doesn't mean I was sitting in the stadium for two years solid.

It is an ongoing, pervasive, pernicious state of mind that went on for years. Whether the government was at any particular time telling us who we could have in our own houses or not.

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Alastair McLellan
@HSJEditor
·
1h
WOAH!

BREAKING: Hospital admissions of covid positive patients in England up 48% in a week.

Fourth Covid wave of 2022 now in full effect

At this point the only answer is dark, sardonic laughter, and a stiff scotch before noon

At this point the only answer is to stop worrying about Covid.

I'm not joking when I say if people get sick and die, they get sick and die. We've spent years locked down, we've rolled out is four or five rounds of vaccines now. Seriously, get over it already.

So I only just had it this summer after 3 jabs - the illness itself was a bad flu, I was bedbound for a few days with a high temp, and didn't actually have much in the way of bad lung stuff.

Problem I have now is, a few months after that, I'm still exhausted, I'm having headaches and brainfog, I'm getting muscle aches and chest pain all the time. I used to walk home most days from the office, about 4.5 miles in about an hour depending on weather and if I popped into the shops. I can't do half of that atm without breaking into flopsweats and wheezing.

Even if you think it's fine for people to get sick and die - the long term impact of this won't go away. My doc is assuming it's long covid, but I'm going to go for tests, impacting an already crippled healthcare system. I can't work as efficiently as I have been, my quality of life has dramatically reduced - hell I'm finding doing 30 mins - 1 hour of housework hard. And I'm in my early 30s. We have no idea how long these symptoms will last, or if we can treat them. That's a strain on our healthcare system, a strain on our labour productivity, a strain on society.

And if we keep letting wave after wave hit the populace, the chance people have of getting ill and staying ill gets closer to 1. A nation enfeebled by this is a pretty significant threat, in my view.

I'm sorry you're not feeling good, and hope you're feeling better soon.

Please take what follows as honest discord and not a belittlement of how you're feeling, but with all respect I'm sorry to say that shit happens, viruses exist, and we need to get used to it.

If the healthcare system is crippled, then people will die. If people die, then they come off waiting lists and stop needing pensions, or care, or ... eventually a new equilibrium is found.

Its horrible, and its unpleasant, but its also true. What is the alternative? How do we prevent a rampant virus from spreading? The virus can not be contained or controlled, its hubris to suggest it can be, unless we lockdown for about six months to remove and permanently seal up the borders, permanently prevent international trade and permanently prevent international travel.

Realistically, post-vaccines is as good as it gets.

We can reduce the spread of viruses and other pathogens, and routinely do so. We eradicated smallpox and rinderpest, and are making good progress against polio. We contained SARS and MERS. We work every year to minimise the impact of flu, through vaccinations, through behaviour and through reducing infection in animal populations. We work every year to minimise the impact of HIV/AIDS, through behaviour, testing and contact tracing.

Likewise, there is plenty we can do to reduce COVID-19 cases: good air filtration in buildings, encouraging those with symptoms to not go into work and to wear masks, vaccination campaigns. These methods are effective and they are cost effective. But libertarians like to pretend we’re impotent because they are so allergic* to any form of collective action. Bart’s “let them die in the streets” is perhaps at the extreme end of that…

You're right we do vaccinate against the flu. And I'm all for vaccines for Covid.

I've had 3 vaccines, I doubt I'll have any more but if offered more I would do my bit and get a jab. My grandparents that are still alive have had five vaccines each.

So yes, vaccinated for Covid, like we vaccinate against the flu. Great. But no to masks, or lockdowns, or restrictions or staying at home when you're healthy but a carrier or any other nonsense.

You response seems minimally connected to what I wrote. I didn’t mention a single restriction or lockdowns.

We have public health information campaigns to encourage people to wash their hands after using the toilet. What’s wrong with having public health information campaigns to encourage people to wear a mask and not go into work when they have symptoms of a respiratory infection?

We have sewerage systems to provide clean water (with the occasional outpouring of poo onto beaches under the Conservatives). What’s wrong with having air filtration systems in buildings to provide clean air?

You appear to be ideologically opposed to the mere idea that we can do something about COVID. We have to be impotent to justify your libertarianism, just as others on the right argue that the economy is in such a mess that we are impotent to the markets rather than admit that Truss/Kwarteng got it wrong, just as others on the right argue that there’s nothing we can do to stop Putin, so let’s make Ukraine sue for peace.

TOPPING said:

148grss said:

TOPPING said:

PeterM said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Alastair McLellan
@HSJEditor
·
1h
WOAH!

BREAKING: Hospital admissions of covid positive patients in England up 48% in a week.

Fourth Covid wave of 2022 now in full effect

At this point the only answer is dark, sardonic laughter, and a stiff scotch before noon

At this point the only answer is to stop worrying about Covid.

I'm not joking when I say if people get sick and die, they get sick and die. We've spent years locked down, we've rolled out is four or five rounds of vaccines now. Seriously, get over it already.

We haven't "spent years locked down".

Yes we have. They lasted for a period of years and at any time during that period we didn't know when the next one was going to occur.

Please don't let's go down the old, rich blokes in charming houses wondering what the big fuss about lockdown route is again.

Yes i imagine lockdown in a nice house in Hampstead was quite pleasant..a walk on the heath everyday whilst tutting at the covidiots sitting on park benches

Indeed.

But hasn't the opposite been shown? That those most in favour of lockdowns - the young, the precarious and the like - also had the worst experience of lockdown. They just understood that the sacrifice was necessary for society to keep functioning. Whereas a lot of the people moaning the most, and demanding people go into the office asap, are rich old guys who do have mansions, and in many cases, have worked from home as journalists for years...

I don't know I haven't read the breakdowns. I would be amazed (but then PB knowledge is amazing) if the young were in favour of lockdowns when as far as I can tell they almost continuously ignored them throughout the years they were in operation. Or is it one of those survey answer questions to "would you like world peace" or "should there be higher taxes".

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Ken Clarke is saying they have to makes some sort of statement in the next few days to calm the markets, and it can't wait until November, according to the jazzman.

Didn't the BoE do that just yesterday?

Not sure what kind of statement you expect them to make. Reversing on the mini budget won't calm the market since the market has woken up to the energy market money being the issue, not the two billion disputed politically in the news, and reversing that energy support isn't viable.

There's no point acting like headless chickens now, keep calm and carry on. And the BoE buying gilts rather than selling them should calm the markets down.

The market didn’t go crazy until the (non-)budget. The market was OK when the Government had previously announced action on energy costs.

Indeed, which was the market being illogical. The market often is.

As I said, the market knew about the hundred and fifty billion potentially for energy support, it knew about the hundreds of billions we've just borrowed for Covid, it knew about the £38 billion in tax rise reversals Truss had committed to.

The notion that a further £2 billion (in theory) tax cut, which will likely cost nothing like that and could even be revenue neutral or positive, is the irresponsible straw that broke the camel's back is just prima facie absurd.

I agree markets can be illogical. That’s why I favour strong regulation of the markets. What’s odd is you saying the markets are illogical when you want to leave everything up to the markets!

However, in this case, I think the markets saw a plan to massively increase borrowing to fund both specific spending (including energy support) and to support large tax cuts in order to, supposedly, create growth and they thought, “That’s bollocks. That won’t create growth. Kwarteng’s got it wrong, UK borrowing will go up way more than we’d previously expected, sell £s.”

This wasn’t about “a further £2 billion tax cut”. There was plenty more in the (non)budget that went beyond the previously announced reversal of Sunak’s increases. The market reacted to the (non)budget and the market said, “This is a stupid budget.” Pretending that the market just happened to react at that point to some earlier event is what’s absurd.