A 2023 Truss exit now a 58% chance in the betting – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Ok, what the hell is this?
http://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1580276545641271296
“BREAKING (confirming @dellcam)
Senior Meta executives Nick Clegg and Nichola Mendelsohn are accused in a civil lawsuit of taking bribes from OnlyFans to blacklist competitors of the multi-billion dollar company.
I can reveal that an improperly redacted subpoena in the civil proceedings reveals that adult performers say that Clegg has a secret trust account in the Philippines in the name of his son. He allegedly received at least tens of thousands of dollars.”1 -
I am not speaking from a pro tory or pro labour point in fact I despise both parties currently because they continue pretending the state can do more and more without taxing more and then borrowing from our children and grandchildren to finance it.GIN1138 said:
I actually think someone like Kemi might win an election at the end of the decade on a radical economic platform similar to what Liz and Kwasi are trying to do.Pagan2 said:
Where did I say that? Clue I didnt learn to read please. From Major to cameron we had 30 years of social democratic style governements both tory and labour. They laid the foundation for our current crisis and I already said I think truss and karteng made things worse still however the foundation was laid in the big state yearsRandallFlagg said:
Wanting to borrow to fund tax cuts for people who earn over £150,000 a year is 'social democracy' apparently...Pagan2 said:
Not what I am saying at all nor am I blaming centrist governments. I said centrist social democratic governements....the ones that always expand the state and get it to do more and more instead of saying this is how much money we have what can we do properly that will do most good they want to do more stuff and spread the money ever more thinly so we do less and less well and then raise taxes to keep pace because the one thing you can guarantee with anything the state does is that every year it will need more than inflation rise in expenditure just to stand still.Beibheirli_C said:
So you are blaming 30 years of "Centrist governments".Pagan2 said:What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Presumably you believe that 30 years of extremist governments would have been better?
We need a reset, a conversation. What are absolute necessities for the state to do....how much tax does that cost. Then what are second priorities and what how much more can we raise from tax without driving millions into poverty and we decide which we will continue.
Note there I am not ruling out tax rises. Just saying there is a limit to what we can raise in tax. Lets decide what to do with it then do it well in descending order of priority till we are spending only what we can raise. Sorry you find that contentious.
from 1992 to 2016
At the moment it's completely the wrong time for such policies delivered ineptly by completely the wrong people but that may not always be the case.
Give me a party that acknowledges...this is what we can raise in tax while leaving people enough to live, this is how we think it should be best spent and we will fund it properly. These are the things the state can no longer do.....I would vote for that party whether left or right0 -
As you say, "We need a reset, a conversation", but we are not getting that. We were just given a Fiat Accompli based on (apparently) faith since figures, revenues streams and forecasts were unneeded.Pagan2 said:
Not what I am saying at all nor am I blaming centrist governments. I said centrist social democratic governements....the ones that always expand the state and get it to do more and more instead of saying this is how much money we have what can we do properly that will do most good they want to do more stuff and spread the money ever more thinly so we do less and less well and then raise taxes to keep pace because the one thing you can guarantee with anything the state does is that every year it will need more than inflation rise in expenditure just to stand still.Beibheirli_C said:
So you are blaming 30 years of "Centrist governments".Pagan2 said:What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Presumably you believe that 30 years of extremist governments would have been better?
We need a reset, a conversation. What are absolute necessities for the state to do....how much tax does that cost. Then what are second priorities and what how much more can we raise from tax without driving millions into poverty and we decide which we will continue.
Note there I am not ruling out tax rises. Just saying there is a limit to what we can raise in tax. Lets decide what to do with it then do it well in descending order of priority till we are spending only what we can raise. Sorry you find that contentious.
I would also point out that there was not much "centrist socialism" from Boris's govt which spent huge volumes of money with no monitoring or any attempt at checking the contracts made sense. No govt in the history of Britain "spaffed" money like the current Conservative government.
The actions of this very govt are, to use your own words, "... driving millions into poverty ..." as they try to afford their mortgages, or hope that their pensions survive, or look for a way to balance food costs with energy bills (remember Truss was the minister who dumped the UK's gas stores as "uneconomic").
I suspect that you do not enjoy the sight of a Labour govt approaching. Well it is what it is. Labour do not look ready for govt to me, but they look way, WAY, better than the utter incompetents currently in charge. They will be the lesser of two evils.
And the Conservatives have no one to blame except themselves.1 -
Cameron had a veneer of centrism and was more liberal on social issues but the austerity measures he pushed through were hardly centre left. And while I have a lot of time for John Major he did privatise the trains - again, not a very centre left policy.Pagan2 said:
Oh do fuck off if you don't think Cameron and major both ran governements that werent social democratic.RandallFlagg said:
It's the same demented belief Peter Hitchens has that it was actually John Major founded New Labour and that New Labour are still in office.Benpointer said:
What are you smoking? 30 years of centrist social democratic style government? 17 of those years have been Tory-led, including years of pointless austerity.Pagan2 said:What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
You are in la-la land if you think the current economic catastrophes are caused by too much social democracy.1 -
I deliberately drew the line at Cameron....I really have no clue what Johnson thought he was doing...I suspect neither did heBeibheirli_C said:
As you say, "We need a reset, a conversation", but we are not getting that. We were just given a Fiat Accompli based on (apparently) faith since figures, revenues streams and forecasts were unneeded.Pagan2 said:
Not what I am saying at all nor am I blaming centrist governments. I said centrist social democratic governements....the ones that always expand the state and get it to do more and more instead of saying this is how much money we have what can we do properly that will do most good they want to do more stuff and spread the money ever more thinly so we do less and less well and then raise taxes to keep pace because the one thing you can guarantee with anything the state does is that every year it will need more than inflation rise in expenditure just to stand still.Beibheirli_C said:
So you are blaming 30 years of "Centrist governments".Pagan2 said:What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
Presumably you believe that 30 years of extremist governments would have been better?
We need a reset, a conversation. What are absolute necessities for the state to do....how much tax does that cost. Then what are second priorities and what how much more can we raise from tax without driving millions into poverty and we decide which we will continue.
Note there I am not ruling out tax rises. Just saying there is a limit to what we can raise in tax. Lets decide what to do with it then do it well in descending order of priority till we are spending only what we can raise. Sorry you find that contentious.
I would also point out that there was not much "centrist socialism" from Boris's govt which spent huge volumes of money with no monitoring or any attempt at checking the contracts made sense. No govt in the history of Britain "spaffed" money like the current Conservative government.
The actions of this very govt are, to use your own words, "... driving millions into poverty ..." as they try to afford their mortgages, or hope that their pensions survive, or look for a way to balance food costs with energy bills (remember Truss was the minister who dumped the UK's gas stores as "uneconomic").
I suspect that you do not enjoy the sight of a Labour govt approaching. Well it is what it is. Labour do not look ready for govt to me, but they look way, WAY, better than the utter incompetents currently in charge. They will be the lesser of two evils.
And the Conservative have no one to blame except themselves.0 -
He’s unlikely to win anything on Teresa MayRobD said:
Alright, how much money do you have on May as next PM?stjohn said:Mayday! Mayday!
Truss needs to be persuaded to step down immediately and Tory MPs need to rally around PM Teresa May who should assemble a new cabinet selected on merit alone. There exists a sufficient enough number of able Tory MPs to form a convincing government that could stabilise the current crisis. The national interest demands this.
https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/752809749238853632?lang=en-GB
0 -
One suspects that the War on Woke is somewhat less salient AND saleable, even among the Blue Meanies, than it was back in the last days of QEII.Northern_Al said:
I'm not sure if there's much left of Kemi if you ditch the culture wars stuff, though. It seems to be her main preoccupation, and was certainly her selling point in the leadership election.GIN1138 said:
Well she can actually string a sentence together and doesn't resemble an extra from Night Of The Living Dead so that's a start.dixiedean said:
Kemi seems to be the latest magic solution to 12 years of failure.GIN1138 said:
Yeah, I think Kemi needs a few years as LOTO. Up against dreary PM SKS she'll do well (and she'll be able to quietly ditch the culture wars stuff too)Jonathan said:
Potentially good choice for opposition. Not a safe pair of hands to stabilise government.Andy_JS said:Does Kemi Badenoch have a path to the leadership if Truss goes?
For Kemi's POV it would probably be better for her for Liz to stick around until the election disaster and then she (Kemi) can take over... If they go for Penny lets say and she manages to keep Con losses to a minimum shell deserve to be able to stick around as LOTO and maybe have another crack at an election in a few years.
But on the other hand if Liz sticks around Kemi might not have much of a party left to take over lol.
Do you think she would have been significantly better than Truss? Cos she ran on the same platform. With added culture war.
The culture wars stuff is a concern and needs ditching (or a least modifying)
Like I say, I can see her more as LOTO against PM Starmer building up her profile over 4 years or so. For now I'd go with Penny, as I would have done back in July.1 -
I think the best political bet currently is laying Truss to be PM after the next General Election with Smarkets. I started laying at 3.9 and have carried on taking everything offered up to the last price matched 5.0. This bet could, effectively, pay out quite soon and to my mind it is almost inconceivable Truss is PM after the next General Election.stjohn said:
About £50 at approx 100/1. So £5k payout if it happens. So yes, I'm talking up my book.RobD said:
Alright, how much money do you have on May as next PM?stjohn said:Mayday! Mayday!
Truss needs to be persuaded to step down immediately and Tory MPs need to rally around PM Teresa May who should assemble a new cabinet selected on merit alone. There exists a sufficient enough number of able Tory MPs to form a convincing government that could stabilise the current crisis. The national interest demands this.
But far more important than what happens to my £50 bet is what happens to everyone in the UK's finances while this incompetent government piles further avoidable damage to our economic prospects.1 -
It’s all Liz Truss’s fault!williamglenn said:@lisaabramowicz1
U.S. 30-year mortgage rates keep climbing, now to 6.81%, the highest in 16 years:
https://twitter.com/lisaabramowicz1/status/15801583338474823731 -
The reason it took them a long time to move against Boris is precisely because of what we're now seeing and to be fair @HYUFD warned about this right from the get go.nico679 said:We’ve heard it all before from the Tory MPs who took an age to get rid of Johnson and will likely hang around moaning for months about Truss .
If they had any sense they’d tell Brady to change the rules for challenges and also that due to exceptional circumstances the MPs will pick the next PM .
The Tory membership clearly can’t be trusted to not install someone even worse than the Maggie clone and should be treated as a clear and present danger to the UK !
When you throw all the cards up in the air you never know where it will lead. Yes, Boris was a rascal but at least he didn't run the economy into the iceberg with one financial statement. A lot of Con MP's were reluctant to move against Boris as they didn't know where it would lead and knew it could conceivably lead to someone worse becoming PM (which it has)
The scenario now is different and you really can't get any worse than Liz Truss. She's as bad as it gets on every level so what do they have lose?
She'll be gone soon IMO.6 -
The "War on woke" is nothing more than a distraction from sorting the real problems the country faces. As such it is an indulgence that we simply do not have the time for.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
One suspects that the War on Woke is somewhat less salient AND saleable, even among the Blue Meanies, than it was back in the last days of QEII.Northern_Al said:
I'm not sure if there's much left of Kemi if you ditch the culture wars stuff, though. It seems to be her main preoccupation, and was certainly her selling point in the leadership election.GIN1138 said:
Well she can actually string a sentence together and doesn't resemble an extra from Night Of The Living Dead so that's a start.dixiedean said:
Kemi seems to be the latest magic solution to 12 years of failure.GIN1138 said:
Yeah, I think Kemi needs a few years as LOTO. Up against dreary PM SKS she'll do well (and she'll be able to quietly ditch the culture wars stuff too)Jonathan said:
Potentially good choice for opposition. Not a safe pair of hands to stabilise government.Andy_JS said:Does Kemi Badenoch have a path to the leadership if Truss goes?
For Kemi's POV it would probably be better for her for Liz to stick around until the election disaster and then she (Kemi) can take over... If they go for Penny lets say and she manages to keep Con losses to a minimum shell deserve to be able to stick around as LOTO and maybe have another crack at an election in a few years.
But on the other hand if Liz sticks around Kemi might not have much of a party left to take over lol.
Do you think she would have been significantly better than Truss? Cos she ran on the same platform. With added culture war.
The culture wars stuff is a concern and needs ditching (or a least modifying)
Like I say, I can see her more as LOTO against PM Starmer building up her profile over 4 years or so. For now I'd go with Penny, as I would have done back in July.
Also, her far out Libertarianism will get short shrift from an electorate who are suffering as a result of Truss's milder Libertarianism.3 -
She is not long for the political world, I agree. But the MPs put her up there. They said to the members "Here are two candidates. Pick one of these two"GIN1138 said:
The reason it took them a long time to move against Boris is precisely because of what we're now seeing and to be fair @HYUFD warned about this right from the get go.nico679 said:We’ve heard it all before from the Tory MPs who took an age to get rid of Johnson and will likely hang around moaning for months about Truss .
If they had any sense they’d tell Brady to change the rules for challenges and also that due to exceptional circumstances the MPs will pick the next PM .
The Tory membership clearly can’t be trusted to not install someone even worse than the Maggie clone and should be treated as a clear and present danger to the UK !
When you all your throw the cards up in the air you never know where it will lead. Yes, Boris was a rascal but at least he didn't run the economy into the iceberg with one financial statement. A lot of Con MP's were reluctant to move against Boris as they didn't know where it would lead and knew it could conceivably lead to someone worse becoming PM.
The scenario now is different and you really can't get any worse than Liz Truss. She's as bad as it gets on every level so what do they have lose?
She'll be gone soon IMO.1 -
People keep seeming to think me some type of extremist and I dont understand why. I am not pro labour or pro tory.
Perhaps they could tell me which of these statements they disagree with?
1) We should not generally indebt future generations to pay for state spending(exceptions emergencies and some infrastructure)
2) We should not tax so much we make people unable to live while earning a full time wage
3) What services we deem necessary should be properly funded
4) Services we don't deem essential and are lower priority we stop if we cant fund them properly out of tax revenue
5) Business must be taxed in a way that make them want to set up here and invest in productivity and training of native britons
That is where I come at things from so why is any of that extreme. Feel free to enlighten me?2 -
I think a lot of the war on woke stuff needs to be jettisoned but I do think there is a genuine concern with a lot women that they are basically being... eradicated in a way? That more than 100 years of progress is being pushed back.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
One suspects that the War on Woke is somewhat less salient AND saleable, even among the Blue Meanies, than it was back in the last days of QEII.Northern_Al said:
I'm not sure if there's much left of Kemi if you ditch the culture wars stuff, though. It seems to be her main preoccupation, and was certainly her selling point in the leadership election.GIN1138 said:
Well she can actually string a sentence together and doesn't resemble an extra from Night Of The Living Dead so that's a start.dixiedean said:
Kemi seems to be the latest magic solution to 12 years of failure.GIN1138 said:
Yeah, I think Kemi needs a few years as LOTO. Up against dreary PM SKS she'll do well (and she'll be able to quietly ditch the culture wars stuff too)Jonathan said:
Potentially good choice for opposition. Not a safe pair of hands to stabilise government.Andy_JS said:Does Kemi Badenoch have a path to the leadership if Truss goes?
For Kemi's POV it would probably be better for her for Liz to stick around until the election disaster and then she (Kemi) can take over... If they go for Penny lets say and she manages to keep Con losses to a minimum shell deserve to be able to stick around as LOTO and maybe have another crack at an election in a few years.
But on the other hand if Liz sticks around Kemi might not have much of a party left to take over lol.
Do you think she would have been significantly better than Truss? Cos she ran on the same platform. With added culture war.
The culture wars stuff is a concern and needs ditching (or a least modifying)
Like I say, I can see her more as LOTO against PM Starmer building up her profile over 4 years or so. For now I'd go with Penny, as I would have done back in July.
I think Kemi is on to something there but the rest of it should be toned down and I suspect if she ever becomes leader/LOTO/PM Kemi will be sensible enough to know which battles to fight and which aren't worth it.1 -
Bear in mind that I think you’d still be waiting for the GE for a payout there. Seeing as it’s theoretically possible that Truss is ousted next week, but then could somehow enjoy a huge surge in popularity and become leader again and win the election, or something.stjohn said:
I think the best political bet currently is laying Truss to be PM after the next General Election with Smarkets. I started laying at 3.9 and have carried on taking everything offered up to the last price matched 5.0. This bet could, effectively, pay out quite soon and to my mind it is almost inconceivable Truss is PM after the next General Election.stjohn said:
About £50 at approx 100/1. So £5k payout if it happens. So yes, I'm talking up my book.RobD said:
Alright, how much money do you have on May as next PM?stjohn said:Mayday! Mayday!
Truss needs to be persuaded to step down immediately and Tory MPs need to rally around PM Teresa May who should assemble a new cabinet selected on merit alone. There exists a sufficient enough number of able Tory MPs to form a convincing government that could stabilise the current crisis. The national interest demands this.
But far more important than what happens to my £50 bet is what happens to everyone in the UK's finances while this incompetent government piles further avoidable damage to our economic prospects.
5.0 lay odds but potentially your money locked away for 2 years until a December 2024 election, maybe not that great in the current interest environment?0 -
Agreed. Why they thought putting Truss up against Sunak rather than Penny I don't know. I still think this probably all goes back to Sunak who thought he'd have a better chance against Liz. And that misjudgment alone should count him out from ever becoming leader.Beibheirli_C said:
She is not long for the political world, I agree. But the MPs put her up there. They said to the members "Here are two candidates. Pick one of these two"GIN1138 said:
The reason it took them a long time to move against Boris is precisely because of what we're now seeing and to be fair @HYUFD warned about this right from the get go.nico679 said:We’ve heard it all before from the Tory MPs who took an age to get rid of Johnson and will likely hang around moaning for months about Truss .
If they had any sense they’d tell Brady to change the rules for challenges and also that due to exceptional circumstances the MPs will pick the next PM .
The Tory membership clearly can’t be trusted to not install someone even worse than the Maggie clone and should be treated as a clear and present danger to the UK !
When you all your throw the cards up in the air you never know where it will lead. Yes, Boris was a rascal but at least he didn't run the economy into the iceberg with one financial statement. A lot of Con MP's were reluctant to move against Boris as they didn't know where it would lead and knew it could conceivably lead to someone worse becoming PM.
The scenario now is different and you really can't get any worse than Liz Truss. She's as bad as it gets on every level so what do they have lose?
She'll be gone soon IMO.4 -
If Truss gets a surge in popularity and somehow is PM after the next General Election then I've read this wrong and will lose my stake. Currently I have almost £1k exposure to hopefully win £285. So a potential 28.5% return over 2 years with a risk of losing all my capital.PedestrianRock said:
Bear in mind that I think you’d still be waiting for the GE for a payout there. Seeing as it’s theoretically possible that Truss is ousted next week, but then could somehow enjoy a huge surge in popularity and become leader again and win the election, or something.stjohn said:
I think the best political bet currently is laying Truss to be PM after the next General Election with Smarkets. I started laying at 3.9 and have carried on taking everything offered up to the last price matched 5.0. This bet could, effectively, pay out quite soon and to my mind it is almost inconceivable Truss is PM after the next General Election.stjohn said:
About £50 at approx 100/1. So £5k payout if it happens. So yes, I'm talking up my book.RobD said:
Alright, how much money do you have on May as next PM?stjohn said:Mayday! Mayday!
Truss needs to be persuaded to step down immediately and Tory MPs need to rally around PM Teresa May who should assemble a new cabinet selected on merit alone. There exists a sufficient enough number of able Tory MPs to form a convincing government that could stabilise the current crisis. The national interest demands this.
But far more important than what happens to my £50 bet is what happens to everyone in the UK's finances while this incompetent government piles further avoidable damage to our economic prospects.
5.0 lay odds but potentially your money locked away for 2 years until a December 2024 election, maybe not that great in the current interest environment?
I very rarely back odds on, or in this case lay a bet at odds against. But I'm not at all worried. She's toast. And if I'm somehow wrong we should all be very unexpected winners.2 -
Presumably if Truss is ousted next week they could back at high odds.PedestrianRock said:
Bear in mind that I think you’d still be waiting for the GE for a payout there. Seeing as it’s theoretically possible that Truss is ousted next week, but then could somehow enjoy a huge surge in popularity and become leader again and win the election, or something.stjohn said:
I think the best political bet currently is laying Truss to be PM after the next General Election with Smarkets. I started laying at 3.9 and have carried on taking everything offered up to the last price matched 5.0. This bet could, effectively, pay out quite soon and to my mind it is almost inconceivable Truss is PM after the next General Election.stjohn said:
About £50 at approx 100/1. So £5k payout if it happens. So yes, I'm talking up my book.RobD said:
Alright, how much money do you have on May as next PM?stjohn said:Mayday! Mayday!
Truss needs to be persuaded to step down immediately and Tory MPs need to rally around PM Teresa May who should assemble a new cabinet selected on merit alone. There exists a sufficient enough number of able Tory MPs to form a convincing government that could stabilise the current crisis. The national interest demands this.
But far more important than what happens to my £50 bet is what happens to everyone in the UK's finances while this incompetent government piles further avoidable damage to our economic prospects.
5.0 lay odds but potentially your money locked away for 2 years until a December 2024 election, maybe not that great in the current interest environment?0 -
Yes. She would move to huge odds.kamski said:
Presumably if Truss is ousted next week they could back at high odds.PedestrianRock said:
Bear in mind that I think you’d still be waiting for the GE for a payout there. Seeing as it’s theoretically possible that Truss is ousted next week, but then could somehow enjoy a huge surge in popularity and become leader again and win the election, or something.stjohn said:
I think the best political bet currently is laying Truss to be PM after the next General Election with Smarkets. I started laying at 3.9 and have carried on taking everything offered up to the last price matched 5.0. This bet could, effectively, pay out quite soon and to my mind it is almost inconceivable Truss is PM after the next General Election.stjohn said:
About £50 at approx 100/1. So £5k payout if it happens. So yes, I'm talking up my book.RobD said:
Alright, how much money do you have on May as next PM?stjohn said:Mayday! Mayday!
Truss needs to be persuaded to step down immediately and Tory MPs need to rally around PM Teresa May who should assemble a new cabinet selected on merit alone. There exists a sufficient enough number of able Tory MPs to form a convincing government that could stabilise the current crisis. The national interest demands this.
But far more important than what happens to my £50 bet is what happens to everyone in the UK's finances while this incompetent government piles further avoidable damage to our economic prospects.
5.0 lay odds but potentially your money locked away for 2 years until a December 2024 election, maybe not that great in the current interest environment?1 -
Oh no 😦El_Capitano said:Ok, what the hell is this?
http://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1580276545641271296
“BREAKING (confirming @dellcam)
Senior Meta executives Nick Clegg and Nichola Mendelsohn are accused in a civil lawsuit of taking bribes from OnlyFans to blacklist competitors of the multi-billion dollar company.
I can reveal that an improperly redacted subpoena in the civil proceedings reveals that adult performers say that Clegg has a secret trust account in the Philippines in the name of his son. He allegedly received at least tens of thousands of dollars.”
TSE is about to give us one of his “shocked I tell you! Shocked to the mugetts of my tummy” reactions.0 -
Last post from me.
Just want to say I don't know if @IshmaelZ will be back tomorrow but I hope he will be. I really don't like finding myself in the center of "drama" and in 16 years on here I've had very few genuine "run'ins" with anyone, which has been deliberate on my part as I don't like conflict online or in real life.
To Ishmael, I'm sorry that I've got on your tits so much. I hope when you come back we can just move on with no more hard feelings.0 -
I’m very late to the news, but muchos congratulatos to @Casino_Royale.
It is a true joy to have “one of each”.0 -
Sounds like bollocks.MoonRabbit said:
Oh no 😦El_Capitano said:Ok, what the hell is this?
http://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1580276545641271296
“BREAKING (confirming @dellcam)
Senior Meta executives Nick Clegg and Nichola Mendelsohn are accused in a civil lawsuit of taking bribes from OnlyFans to blacklist competitors of the multi-billion dollar company.
I can reveal that an improperly redacted subpoena in the civil proceedings reveals that adult performers say that Clegg has a secret trust account in the Philippines in the name of his son. He allegedly received at least tens of thousands of dollars.”
TSE is about to give us one of his “shocked I tell you! Shocked to the mugetts of my tummy” reactions.0 -
How would the membership react though? If not Truss they would demand Boris. If not either they would want Braverman. Easy for you to dismiss 180K Conservative activists as a dangerous joke, you are not in the party are you?nico679 said:We’ve heard it all before from the Tory MPs who took an age to get rid of Johnson and will likely hang around moaning for months about Truss .
If they had any sense they’d tell Brady to change the rules for challenges and also that due to exceptional circumstances the MPs will pick the next PM .
The Tory membership clearly can’t be trusted to not install someone even worse than the Maggie clone and should be treated as a clear and present danger to the UK !
My mum and Dad are. My Mail reading mum pours the entire blame for the polling collapse on Gove - my remain voting dad quietly says just get into opposition and sort it out.0 -
Liz just needs to cancel the mini-shit-show because “the time is not right”, and move the fuck on.
Of course she can’t, because she is batshit, Kwasi is batshit, and Coffey, Braverman and Rees-Mogg are fucking ghouls.
If I was a Tory MP I’d defect to the Monster Raving Loony Party in pursuit of “saner fiscal policy”.1 -
That’s better 🙂Gardenwalker said:
Sounds like bollocks.MoonRabbit said:
Oh no 😦El_Capitano said:Ok, what the hell is this?
http://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1580276545641271296
“BREAKING (confirming @dellcam)
Senior Meta executives Nick Clegg and Nichola Mendelsohn are accused in a civil lawsuit of taking bribes from OnlyFans to blacklist competitors of the multi-billion dollar company.
I can reveal that an improperly redacted subpoena in the civil proceedings reveals that adult performers say that Clegg has a secret trust account in the Philippines in the name of his son. He allegedly received at least tens of thousands of dollars.”
TSE is about to give us one of his “shocked I tell you! Shocked to the mugetts of my tummy” reactions.0 -
Your parents should assume fiduciary liability for this shit-show and be forced to hand over their assets.MoonRabbit said:
How would the membership react though? If not Truss they would demand Boris. If not either they would want Braverman. Easy for you to dismiss 180K Conservative activists as a dangerous joke, you are not in the party are you?nico679 said:We’ve heard it all before from the Tory MPs who took an age to get rid of Johnson and will likely hang around moaning for months about Truss .
If they had any sense they’d tell Brady to change the rules for challenges and also that due to exceptional circumstances the MPs will pick the next PM .
The Tory membership clearly can’t be trusted to not install someone even worse than the Maggie clone and should be treated as a clear and present danger to the UK !
My mum and Dad are. My Mail reading mum pours the entire blame for the polling collapse on Gove - my remain voting dad quietly says just get into opposition and sort it out.
Sorry.0 -
I'm not one to go in to bat for Nick Clegg, but "tens of thousands of dollars"?Gardenwalker said:
Sounds like bollocks.MoonRabbit said:
Oh no 😦El_Capitano said:Ok, what the hell is this?
http://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1580276545641271296
“BREAKING (confirming @dellcam)
Senior Meta executives Nick Clegg and Nichola Mendelsohn are accused in a civil lawsuit of taking bribes from OnlyFans to blacklist competitors of the multi-billion dollar company.
I can reveal that an improperly redacted subpoena in the civil proceedings reveals that adult performers say that Clegg has a secret trust account in the Philippines in the name of his son. He allegedly received at least tens of thousands of dollars.”
TSE is about to give us one of his “shocked I tell you! Shocked to the mugetts of my tummy” reactions.
He was bunged £10m in shares for his promotion and is paid about £15m / year, allegedly. Seems ... unlikely.0 -
Maybe I should suggest they transfer them all into my name for safe keeping? I’m a Lib Dem voter. I don’t know what fiduciaries are, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never done any.Gardenwalker said:
Your parents should assume fiduciary liability for this shit-show and be forced to hand over their assets.MoonRabbit said:
How would the membership react though? If not Truss they would demand Boris. If not either they would want Braverman. Easy for you to dismiss 180K Conservative activists as a dangerous joke, you are not in the party are you?nico679 said:We’ve heard it all before from the Tory MPs who took an age to get rid of Johnson and will likely hang around moaning for months about Truss .
If they had any sense they’d tell Brady to change the rules for challenges and also that due to exceptional circumstances the MPs will pick the next PM .
The Tory membership clearly can’t be trusted to not install someone even worse than the Maggie clone and should be treated as a clear and present danger to the UK !
My mum and Dad are. My Mail reading mum pours the entire blame for the polling collapse on Gove - my remain voting dad quietly says just get into opposition and sort it out.
Sorry.0 -
If Truss is ousted next week I expect she would resign her seat. Part of the "health issues" narrative where we are expected to go "Aw...Really? Bless...." or something.kamski said:
Presumably if Truss is ousted next week they could back at high odds.PedestrianRock said:
Bear in mind that I think you’d still be waiting for the GE for a payout there. Seeing as it’s theoretically possible that Truss is ousted next week, but then could somehow enjoy a huge surge in popularity and become leader again and win the election, or something.stjohn said:
I think the best political bet currently is laying Truss to be PM after the next General Election with Smarkets. I started laying at 3.9 and have carried on taking everything offered up to the last price matched 5.0. This bet could, effectively, pay out quite soon and to my mind it is almost inconceivable Truss is PM after the next General Election.stjohn said:
About £50 at approx 100/1. So £5k payout if it happens. So yes, I'm talking up my book.RobD said:
Alright, how much money do you have on May as next PM?stjohn said:Mayday! Mayday!
Truss needs to be persuaded to step down immediately and Tory MPs need to rally around PM Teresa May who should assemble a new cabinet selected on merit alone. There exists a sufficient enough number of able Tory MPs to form a convincing government that could stabilise the current crisis. The national interest demands this.
But far more important than what happens to my £50 bet is what happens to everyone in the UK's finances while this incompetent government piles further avoidable damage to our economic prospects.
5.0 lay odds but potentially your money locked away for 2 years until a December 2024 election, maybe not that great in the current interest environment?0 -
So the discussion about whether Tory members would accept a PM imposed on them by the MPs is an interesting one, but I think it's important to clarify there are de facto two "tiers" of Tory members.
The first tier is the roughly 150,000 Tory members that pay a £15 annual membership fee to their local association/£10 to CCHQ, occasionally donate, might at a stretch volunteer to be a ward executive officer for a year or two, but basically don't contribute much to the party other than money (which CCHQ can get elsewhere if it really needs to). Losing this tier by telling them to get fucked? It's really bad for local associations, really bad for representative democracy, but it's semi survivable for the national Tories.
The second tier is the roughly 10,000 Tory members (including local councillors, association executive officers, long term activists, etc) that actually do all the miserable ground-level campaigning for elections. While CCHQ smartarses can sit in Westminster feeling smug about their latest data targeting whiz, these are the people who actually knock on doors, deliver leaflets, and canvass to get councillors, AMs and MPs elected.
The problem CCHQ has is that this tier has been shrinking rapidly for about 25 years - not just because of the usual defections and lapsed memberships, but because those dedicated activists and councillors are dying from old age and no one is replacing them due to the central party's deliberate policy of alienating the young.
So we have situations where rural counties in northern England might consist of a federation of several associations, with theoretical first-tier memberships of 1400-1800, and practical memberships of maybe 30 councillors and activists who keep the whole thing steady.
There is literally no more slack in the second tier; in what we'd call the Blue Wall, the second tier is running on fumes and probably will collapse regardless of what they do. But actively telling those dedicated councillors and activists to get fucked will make it collapse harder and faster. If MPs want to coup Truss, the best way to do it isn't Westminster conspiracies, it's by going to their activists, securing support for a change of leadership, and only then going to Graham Brady to request a vote.4 -
Forget Brexit.Pagan2 said:What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
0 -
+1Pagan2 said:What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.0 -
Wrt Tory members, I think they're probably slightly younger than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Especially in London.0
-
There are definitely some libertarians in Britain, maybe as much as 3% of the electorate. But she's not even doing libertarianism, for instance WTF was the thing about solar panels in fields?Beibheirli_C said:
The "War on woke" is nothing more than a distraction from sorting the real problems the country faces. As such it is an indulgence that we simply do not have the time for.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
One suspects that the War on Woke is somewhat less salient AND saleable, even among the Blue Meanies, than it was back in the last days of QEII.Northern_Al said:
I'm not sure if there's much left of Kemi if you ditch the culture wars stuff, though. It seems to be her main preoccupation, and was certainly her selling point in the leadership election.GIN1138 said:
Well she can actually string a sentence together and doesn't resemble an extra from Night Of The Living Dead so that's a start.dixiedean said:
Kemi seems to be the latest magic solution to 12 years of failure.GIN1138 said:
Yeah, I think Kemi needs a few years as LOTO. Up against dreary PM SKS she'll do well (and she'll be able to quietly ditch the culture wars stuff too)Jonathan said:
Potentially good choice for opposition. Not a safe pair of hands to stabilise government.Andy_JS said:Does Kemi Badenoch have a path to the leadership if Truss goes?
For Kemi's POV it would probably be better for her for Liz to stick around until the election disaster and then she (Kemi) can take over... If they go for Penny lets say and she manages to keep Con losses to a minimum shell deserve to be able to stick around as LOTO and maybe have another crack at an election in a few years.
But on the other hand if Liz sticks around Kemi might not have much of a party left to take over lol.
Do you think she would have been significantly better than Truss? Cos she ran on the same platform. With added culture war.
The culture wars stuff is a concern and needs ditching (or a least modifying)
Like I say, I can see her more as LOTO against PM Starmer building up her profile over 4 years or so. For now I'd go with Penny, as I would have done back in July.
Also, her far out Libertarianism will get short shrift from an electorate who are suffering as a result of Truss's milder Libertarianism.
What she's doing is Elderly Conservative Party Member-ism. The problem is that this isn't compatible with reality, for example if the government cuts taxes, it has less money, even though Conservative Party members would prefer it if it had more.1 -
I don't think you're an extremist, but I think you need to understand the scale of the challenge.Pagan2 said:People keep seeming to think me some type of extremist and I dont understand why. I am not pro labour or pro tory.
Perhaps they could tell me which of these statements they disagree with?
1) We should not generally indebt future generations to pay for state spending(exceptions emergencies and some infrastructure)
2) We should not tax so much we make people unable to live while earning a full time wage
3) What services we deem necessary should be properly funded
4) Services we don't deem essential and are lower priority we stop if we cant fund them properly out of tax revenue
5) Business must be taxed in a way that make them want to set up here and invest in productivity and training of native britons
That is where I come at things from so why is any of that extreme. Feel free to enlighten me?
Total Public Sector expenditure (ex-energy payments across both local and central government) is about £1,050bn.
Of this, 45% is pensions, interest and health care.
There's undoubtedly some savings you can manage there, but it's fiendishly hard and there are more old people every year, so the pressure is just going to get worse. Obviously the triple-lock needs to go... but remember that pensioner vote. Plus, if you cut spending in areas like health care, you run the risk that doctors export themselves to places where pay is higher.
The other 55% is split like this:
- Education 10%
- Defence 6%
- Welfare 13%
- Law & Order 4%
- Transport 4%
- Civil Servant Salaries / Rent / etc 3%
- Other 14%
Now, defence probably needs to rise. Education you can probably cut a bit, but of course there are knock on effects from that. (In particular, we want to upskill our workforce, to avoid us getting increasingly outcompeted from abroad.)
If you want to move the needle, though, you need to identify things the government does, which it can not do in future.1 -
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.rcs1000 said:
Forget Brexit.Pagan2 said:What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
0 -
Congrtulations to Casino_Royale. And even more to his family.
(But I hope he won't mind if I add that, with one-tenth more child, they break even demographically.)1 -
I think the Primeminister was explaining this afternoon, you have to, because she intends to, add the Energy Price Guarantee onto your One Trillion public spending to make at least One point two trillion.rcs1000 said:
I don't think you're an extremist, but I think you need to understand the scale of the challenge.Pagan2 said:People keep seeming to think me some type of extremist and I dont understand why. I am not pro labour or pro tory.
Perhaps they could tell me which of these statements they disagree with?
1) We should not generally indebt future generations to pay for state spending(exceptions emergencies and some infrastructure)
2) We should not tax so much we make people unable to live while earning a full time wage
3) What services we deem necessary should be properly funded
4) Services we don't deem essential and are lower priority we stop if we cant fund them properly out of tax revenue
5) Business must be taxed in a way that make them want to set up here and invest in productivity and training of native britons
That is where I come at things from so why is any of that extreme. Feel free to enlighten me?
Total Public Sector expenditure (ex-energy payments across both local and central government) is about £1,050bn.
Of this, 45% is pensions, interest and health care.
There's undoubtedly some savings you can manage there, but it's fiendishly hard and there are more old people every year, so the pressure is just going to get worse. Obviously the triple-lock needs to go... but remember that pensioner vote. Plus, if you cut spending in areas like health care, you run the risk that doctors export themselves to places where pay is higher.
The other 55% is split like this:
- Education 10%
- Defence 6%
- Welfare 13%
- Law & Order 4%
- Transport 4%
- Civil Servant Salaries / Rent / etc 3%
- Other 14%
Now, defence probably needs to rise. Education you can probably cut a bit, but of course there are knock on effects from that. (In particular, we want to upskill our workforce, to avoid us getting increasingly outcompeted from abroad.)
If you want to move the needle, though, you need to identify things the government does, which it can not do in future.
WOAH. As the Telegraph columnists queuing to tell us all week, that’s FAR too much - that’s not a lean and mean Brexit Britain regaining its place in the world! One Point Two Trillion? Cuts need to be made, we are bloated. Bloated!
I think I’m in the right conversation to say, what is one persons “they would be mad to make those sort of cuts” is another persons “we have no choice.”0 -
I proposed a while ago a claw back. For every 5£ of extra income after 5000 a pensioner lost 1£ off their state pension.....someone earning 10k£ extra over their state pension would only get 8k state pension etc....someone earning that much pension is unlikely to be poor before they retired...I got told off for robbing poor pensioners...a lot of those telling me off being the same that rail against boomers.rcs1000 said:
I don't think you're an extremist, but I think you need to understand the scale of the challenge.Pagan2 said:People keep seeming to think me some type of extremist and I dont understand why. I am not pro labour or pro tory.
Perhaps they could tell me which of these statements they disagree with?
1) We should not generally indebt future generations to pay for state spending(exceptions emergencies and some infrastructure)
2) We should not tax so much we make people unable to live while earning a full time wage
3) What services we deem necessary should be properly funded
4) Services we don't deem essential and are lower priority we stop if we cant fund them properly out of tax revenue
5) Business must be taxed in a way that make them want to set up here and invest in productivity and training of native britons
That is where I come at things from so why is any of that extreme. Feel free to enlighten me?
Total Public Sector expenditure (ex-energy payments across both local and central government) is about £1,050bn.
Of this, 45% is pensions, interest and health care.
There's undoubtedly some savings you can manage there, but it's fiendishly hard and there are more old people every year, so the pressure is just going to get worse. Obviously the triple-lock needs to go... but remember that pensioner vote. Plus, if you cut spending in areas like health care, you run the risk that doctors export themselves to places where pay is higher.
The other 55% is split like this:
- Education 10%
- Defence 6%
- Welfare 13%
- Law & Order 4%
- Transport 4%
- Civil Servant Salaries / Rent / etc 3%
- Other 14%
Now, defence probably needs to rise. Education you can probably cut a bit, but of course there are knock on effects from that. (In particular, we want to upskill our workforce, to avoid us getting increasingly outcompeted from abroad.)
If you want to move the needle, though, you need to identify things the government does, which it can not do in future.
0 -
I’m minded to agree.Andy_JS said:Wrt Tory members, I think they're probably slightly younger than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Especially in London.
I think I may personally know all nine of the them 😆2 -
I am of a liberal/libertarian bent on the whole....right now I just want a party that says we are getting y...we are spending x.....either raise y or reduce x. Currently tories are saying we can reduce y and raise x. Labour seem to be saying we can keep y the same but raise x.Pagan2 said:
I proposed a while ago a claw back. For every 5£ of extra income after 5000 a pensioner lost 1£ off their state pension.....someone earning 10k£ extra over their state pension would only get 8k state pension etc....someone earning that much pension is unlikely to be poor before they retired...I got told off for robbing poor pensioners...a lot of those telling me off being the same that rail against boomers.rcs1000 said:
I don't think you're an extremist, but I think you need to understand the scale of the challenge.Pagan2 said:People keep seeming to think me some type of extremist and I dont understand why. I am not pro labour or pro tory.
Perhaps they could tell me which of these statements they disagree with?
1) We should not generally indebt future generations to pay for state spending(exceptions emergencies and some infrastructure)
2) We should not tax so much we make people unable to live while earning a full time wage
3) What services we deem necessary should be properly funded
4) Services we don't deem essential and are lower priority we stop if we cant fund them properly out of tax revenue
5) Business must be taxed in a way that make them want to set up here and invest in productivity and training of native britons
That is where I come at things from so why is any of that extreme. Feel free to enlighten me?
Total Public Sector expenditure (ex-energy payments across both local and central government) is about £1,050bn.
Of this, 45% is pensions, interest and health care.
There's undoubtedly some savings you can manage there, but it's fiendishly hard and there are more old people every year, so the pressure is just going to get worse. Obviously the triple-lock needs to go... but remember that pensioner vote. Plus, if you cut spending in areas like health care, you run the risk that doctors export themselves to places where pay is higher.
The other 55% is split like this:
- Education 10%
- Defence 6%
- Welfare 13%
- Law & Order 4%
- Transport 4%
- Civil Servant Salaries / Rent / etc 3%
- Other 14%
Now, defence probably needs to rise. Education you can probably cut a bit, but of course there are knock on effects from that. (In particular, we want to upskill our workforce, to avoid us getting increasingly outcompeted from abroad.)
If you want to move the needle, though, you need to identify things the government does, which it can not do in future.
Neither are plausible and they are full of shit
1 -
The London hustings was pretty busy with young people.MoonRabbit said:
I’m minded to agree.Andy_JS said:Wrt Tory members, I think they're probably slightly younger than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Especially in London.
I think I may personally know all nine of the them 😆0 -
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:Pagan2 said:
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.rcs1000 said:
Forget Brexit.Pagan2 said:What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of
secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.1 -
That’s because of Brexit and Kwasi Kwarteng.williamglenn said:@lisaabramowicz1
U.S. 30-year mortgage rates keep climbing, now to 6.81%, the highest in 16 years:
https://twitter.com/lisaabramowicz1/status/15801583338474823730 -
There is no realistic way you could further cut education. It’s already being run as a lash-up on the cheap. Any further cuts and you won’t have an education system at all (which I suppose would be cheaper).rcs1000 said:
I don't think you're an extremist, but I think you need to understand the scale of the challenge.Pagan2 said:People keep seeming to think me some type of extremist and I dont understand why. I am not pro labour or pro tory.
Perhaps they could tell me which of these statements they disagree with?
1) We should not generally indebt future generations to pay for state spending(exceptions emergencies and some infrastructure)
2) We should not tax so much we make people unable to live while earning a full time wage
3) What services we deem necessary should be properly funded
4) Services we don't deem essential and are lower priority we stop if we cant fund them properly out of tax revenue
5) Business must be taxed in a way that make them want to set up here and invest in productivity and training of native britons
That is where I come at things from so why is any of that extreme. Feel free to enlighten me?
Total Public Sector expenditure (ex-energy payments across both local and central government) is about £1,050bn.
Of this, 45% is pensions, interest and health care.
There's undoubtedly some savings you can manage there, but it's fiendishly hard and there are more old people every year, so the pressure is just going to get worse. Obviously the triple-lock needs to go... but remember that pensioner vote. Plus, if you cut spending in areas like health care, you run the risk that doctors export themselves to places where pay is higher.
The other 55% is split like this:
- Education 10%
- Defence 6%
- Welfare 13%
- Law & Order 4%
- Transport 4%
- Civil Servant Salaries / Rent / etc 3%
- Other 14%
Now, defence probably needs to rise. Education you can probably cut a bit, but of course there are knock on effects from that. (In particular, we want to upskill our workforce, to avoid us getting increasingly outcompeted from abroad.)
If you want to move the needle, though, you need to identify things the government does, which it can not do in future.
You could improve things and save a little money by abolishing the DfE, OFQUAL, OFSTED, Oak National Academy, academy chains and whatever they’re calling the NCTL this week, which fulfil no useful function and divert substantial resources from where they’re needed. But it seems unlikely that would happen.0 -
You can obviously cut education if desired, but it would lead to lower not higher growth.ydoethur said:
There is no realistic way you could further cut education. It’s already being run as a lash-up on the cheap. Any further cuts and you won’t have an education system at all (which I suppose would be cheaper).rcs1000 said:
I don't think you're an extremist, but I think you need to understand the scale of the challenge.Pagan2 said:People keep seeming to think me some type of extremist and I dont understand why. I am not pro labour or pro tory.
Perhaps they could tell me which of these statements they disagree with?
1) We should not generally indebt future generations to pay for state spending(exceptions emergencies and some infrastructure)
2) We should not tax so much we make people unable to live while earning a full time wage
3) What services we deem necessary should be properly funded
4) Services we don't deem essential and are lower priority we stop if we cant fund them properly out of tax revenue
5) Business must be taxed in a way that make them want to set up here and invest in productivity and training of native britons
That is where I come at things from so why is any of that extreme. Feel free to enlighten me?
Total Public Sector expenditure (ex-energy payments across both local and central government) is about £1,050bn.
Of this, 45% is pensions, interest and health care.
There's undoubtedly some savings you can manage there, but it's fiendishly hard and there are more old people every year, so the pressure is just going to get worse. Obviously the triple-lock needs to go... but remember that pensioner vote. Plus, if you cut spending in areas like health care, you run the risk that doctors export themselves to places where pay is higher.
The other 55% is split like this:
- Education 10%
- Defence 6%
- Welfare 13%
- Law & Order 4%
- Transport 4%
- Civil Servant Salaries / Rent / etc 3%
- Other 14%
Now, defence probably needs to rise. Education you can probably cut a bit, but of course there are knock on effects from that. (In particular, we want to upskill our workforce, to avoid us getting increasingly outcompeted from abroad.)
If you want to move the needle, though, you need to identify things the government does, which it can not do in future.
You could improve things and save a little money by abolishing the DfE, OFQUAL, OFSTED, Oak National Academy, academy chains and whatever they’re calling the NCTL this week, which fulfil no useful function and divert substantial resources from where they’re needed. But it seems unlikely that would happen.0 -
Yes. It was clear from right at the beginning of the contest, the first polls among members that Sunak had no chance. It started with his expensive day 1 campaign to try and make himself inevitable, then moved on to the fact that he has an awful lot of money and no empathy. The MPs should have understood this, and put up two candidates they would be happy to coalesce around.GIN1138 said:
Agreed. Why they thought putting Truss up against Sunak rather than Penny I don't know. I still think this probably all goes back to Sunak who thought he'd have a better chance against Liz. And that misjudgment alone should count him out from ever becoming leader.Beibheirli_C said:
She is not long for the political world, I agree. But the MPs put her up there. They said to the members "Here are two candidates. Pick one of these two"GIN1138 said:
The reason it took them a long time to move against Boris is precisely because of what we're now seeing and to be fair @HYUFD warned about this right from the get go.nico679 said:We’ve heard it all before from the Tory MPs who took an age to get rid of Johnson and will likely hang around moaning for months about Truss .
If they had any sense they’d tell Brady to change the rules for challenges and also that due to exceptional circumstances the MPs will pick the next PM .
The Tory membership clearly can’t be trusted to not install someone even worse than the Maggie clone and should be treated as a clear and present danger to the UK !
When you all your throw the cards up in the air you never know where it will lead. Yes, Boris was a rascal but at least he didn't run the economy into the iceberg with one financial statement. A lot of Con MP's were reluctant to move against Boris as they didn't know where it would lead and knew it could conceivably lead to someone worse becoming PM.
The scenario now is different and you really can't get any worse than Liz Truss. She's as bad as it gets on every level so what do they have lose?
She'll be gone soon IMO.
The behaviour of the Sunak mob of MPs, after losing the contest, has been disgraceful. Sadly, as some of us predicted.0 -
Did you really write “…well paid jobs their father’s had”..?rcs1000 said:
I wrote a piece of research about six or seven years ago which said pretty much the same thing:Pagan2 said:
I don't believe anywhere in the west is prospering when you consider the life of the median citizen, they are finding housing costs rising, tax rising,energy price rising and food rising all more than their pay over the last 3 to 4 decades. All the west has been doing the social democratic lie of we can have more and more public services but not raise tax and funded it through borrowing. UK, germany, france etc.rcs1000 said:
Forget Brexit.Pagan2 said:What annoys me reading tonight is that all the blame for where we are is being put on truss and kwasi. Have they made things worse certainly they have and I have no liking for either.
However where we are is the end point of 30 odd years of centrist social democratic style governement. It has left millions in this country unable to live despite working 40 hours a week without having to rely on governement handouts or food banks or both.
Most of that time spent within the EU before anyone goes yeah but brexit. Centrist governments have failed a lot of people in this country while companies and their directors made out like bandits. The difference now is it is beginning to hit people on this board most of whom weren't in those bottom cohorts so now you are starting to cry and whine about it.
Welcome to the poorhouse you deserve it.
What is it you propose?
Where is prospering, and what policies have they implemented that are appropriate for the UK?
And there are two massive headwinds you need to at the very least acknowledge.
Firstly, there's demographics.
Secondly, there's all the people in the world - and we're not talking immigrants - who are prepared to do your job for less.
Time to be realistic. We need to fund those public services we consider essential properly. We need to stop putting the cost of that on generations unborn. What we cant fund we need to tell people I am sorry we cant fund that and cut it.
I laid out the 5 tenets of where I come from.
Personally I prefer a small state but the 5 principles I think is where we need to be before we even talk about small state vs big state....fiscal stability
For much of the post war period, developed countries – and their citizens – had it pretty good.
Unemployment was negligible, crime low, and each generation successively richer. A German, Japanese or American father could look down on his children and feel confident that their lives would be better than his.
But then something changed. The children of the 2000s ceased being wealthier than their parents. And while incomes had apparently risen, so had the prices of petrol, of energy and of rent. While families of the 1970s could survive - or even prosper – with one working parent, it now required two. Young people were leaving college with ever larger amounts of debt and failing to find the kind of
secure, well paid jobs their father’s had.
We see these trends wherever we look. Take the US, generally considered (by us in Europe at least) to have been the most successful developed economy in the world in the recent past. According to the US Federal Reserve, real median household income is down almost 10% since peaking in 1999.
That’s an unprecedented reduction, and is all the more shocking in the context of a country where headline GDP growth has been relatively strong.0 -
That was my first reaction, as well - high up in Facebook... The 15 million a year is just the walking round money. Then he'll be getting all kinds of bonuses, options etc etc - the share you mention are just the start of it.Flatlander said:
I'm not one to go in to bat for Nick Clegg, but "tens of thousands of dollars"?Gardenwalker said:
Sounds like bollocks.MoonRabbit said:
Oh no 😦El_Capitano said:Ok, what the hell is this?
http://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1580276545641271296
“BREAKING (confirming @dellcam)
Senior Meta executives Nick Clegg and Nichola Mendelsohn are accused in a civil lawsuit of taking bribes from OnlyFans to blacklist competitors of the multi-billion dollar company.
I can reveal that an improperly redacted subpoena in the civil proceedings reveals that adult performers say that Clegg has a secret trust account in the Philippines in the name of his son. He allegedly received at least tens of thousands of dollars.”
TSE is about to give us one of his “shocked I tell you! Shocked to the mugetts of my tummy” reactions.
He was bunged £10m in shares for his promotion and is paid about £15m / year, allegedly. Seems ... unlikely.
0
