Ok, we've established colour coding is of the devil, but what about size ordering? I'd like to put books of the same dimensions together, within each section, so they gently rise together, but I feel like it would probably be more trouble than it was worth.
The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell must be a real page turner!
More than a collection of the state papers of John Thurloe right next to it they are.
There been a mass shooting at a Russian military base in Belgorod. The Russians are blaming it on a terrorist act carried out by citizens of a CIS state.
*there has been*
Other rumours suggest the perpetrators were recently mobilised.
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
"I used to hunt with my cleaner" hahaha
You're not singing any more.
Don't want to look as if I am bullying you with big number bets, so let's reduce it: I bet you £10,000 at evens that I have regularly been hunting on a horse with someone also on a horse who has regularly cleaned my house for cash.
He doesn't doubt it at all. He was laughing at you because you have a cleaner.
So the law of comparative advantage is too difficult for him.
Is there some sort of charity I can contribute to to make his life easier?
Absolutely fucking cracking. A photo of a dewy eyed foxy woxy because that pulls in SO much more money than a pheasanty weasanty. Just like the Children in need thing has to downplay the extent to which it distributes money to foreign chidlren and darkies.
You are a poster child for brainless prejudice, you really are.
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
"I used to hunt with my cleaner" hahaha
Venture out with a hunt and you will find dukes and dustmen. Literally dukes and dustmen.
Or are you making fun of someone because they have a cleaner?
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
"I used to hunt with my cleaner" hahaha
You're not singing any more.
Don't want to look as if I am bullying you with big number bets, so let's reduce it: I bet you £10,000 at evens that I have regularly been hunting on a horse with someone also on a horse who has regularly cleaned my house for cash.
He doesn't doubt it at all. He was laughing at you because you have a cleaner.
I thought it was funny because the general image people have of fox hunting is posh people chasing poor Mr Fox around with their gardeners/cleaners helping out. Not doing a great job at dispelling that.
There's also a bit of nominative determinism in Mr Hunt being in favour of fox-hunting.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
"I used to hunt with my cleaner" hahaha
You're not singing any more.
Don't want to look as if I am bullying you with big number bets, so let's reduce it: I bet you £10,000 at evens that I have regularly been hunting on a horse with someone also on a horse who has regularly cleaned my house for cash.
He doesn't doubt it at all. He was laughing at you because you have a cleaner.
So the law of comparative advantage is too difficult for him.
Is there some sort of charity I can contribute to to make his life easier?
Absolutely fucking cracking. A photo of a dewy eyed foxy woxy because that pulls in SO much more money than a pheasanty weasanty. Just like the Children in need thing has to downplay the extent to which it distributes money to foreign chidlren and darkies.
You are a poster child for brainless prejudice, you really are.
I'm aware my earlier post fell somewhat short of my usual high standards for which I apologise.
I now realise Harold MacMillan sacked two Chancellors - Peter Thorneycroft in 1958 and Selwyn Lloyd in 1962 so Liz Truss still has some ground to make up.
As for other Chancellors who were encouraged to stand aside - Callaghan went to the Home Office after devaluation, Howe was reshuffled after the 1983 win - Lawson resigned so the next Chancellor to be sacked would be Norman Lamont.
Hammond, Javid, Sunak and Zahawi all resigned to one extent or another so the next to be sacked would be Kwarteng.
It's also worth mentioning while Fontwell has its appeal, I much prefer Plumpton simply because it's easier to get to for those of us travelling by rail.
Few other snippets - can anyone remember the last time the People's Party was third in an Austrian opinion poll? The collapse of the lead centre-right mirrors that of the British Conservatives and they trail the Social Democrats and the revitalised Freedom Party.
In Denmark, the latest Voxmeter has the centre-left bloc six points up but the latest Gallup has the lead at just 3.5% but that's a step forward from the last Gallup poll which had a statistical dead heat between the two blocs.
Ok, we've established colour coding is of the devil, but what about size ordering? I'd like to put books of the same dimensions together, within each section, so they gently rise together, but I feel like it would probably be more trouble than it was worth.
The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell must be a real page turner! Do you read a few pages out loud for the kids every night before bedtime?
Actually have a collection of OC's greatest hits (in old mass market paperback edition) must say it was heavy going.
Addendum - Also have same edition of The Stuart Parliaments.
Cromwell? boring?
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Cromwell was an enormously complicated and interesting man, and Charles I was pretty much the present Duke of York if he had become king.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical
I think Farage has retired hasn't he from electoral politics? i think he likes his new job as broadcaster . I voted remain but think Farage is highly effective in most things he does - his broadcasting is good as well - Talking Pints for instance gets guests across the political and establishment spectrum and his What the Farage section gives him a chance to sound honest .
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
"I used to hunt with my cleaner" hahaha
Venture out with a hunt and you will find dukes and dustmen. Literally dukes and dustmen.
Or are you making fun of someone because they have a cleaner?
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
"I used to hunt with my cleaner" hahaha
You're not singing any more.
Don't want to look as if I am bullying you with big number bets, so let's reduce it: I bet you £10,000 at evens that I have regularly been hunting on a horse with someone also on a horse who has regularly cleaned my house for cash.
He doesn't doubt it at all. He was laughing at you because you have a cleaner.
I thought it was funny because the general image people have of fox hunting is posh people chasing poor Mr Fox around with their gardeners/cleaners helping out. Not doing a great job at dispelling that.
There's also a bit of nominative determinism in Mr Hunt being in favour of fox-hunting.
Hunt has calmed the markets, if he quits then it will be carnage, so Truss cannot afford to lose him, he will do whatever he wants.
What happens if Monday comes and the markets aren’t calmed?
The way this usually happens is there can be two weeks of calm - people say the markets have been calmed, but then it all erupts again.
Obviously you all know my theory - £400bn of Rishi splaffing (and wasting a lot) to get us through covid has maxxed out the credit - now they want to (unnecessarily, needlessly) try to get another £200bn more borrowing - the markets won’t calm till that plan is dead.
Or the £200bn becomes more like £20bn. Everything now turns on the future price of gas.
I don’t want to be really rude David, but you keep posting that “If gas falls sufficiently, the cost of the energy cap freeze drops” means don’t think you really understand it. That thinking is utter bollox.
1. We haven’t had an OBR how much Tories total promise is likely to cost. The Tories have promised to buck the UK energy market for two and a half years regardless what global energy price does. Some think tanks have had a go at pricing this and come to a quarter of a trillion pound. To be found by tax rises, borrowing or cuts or mixture thereof. Quarter of a trillion on that one policy alone. 2. Variable one. Energy prices can go down, yes, but also up, it’s a very fluid situation in supply and demand over this coming period - but at which point do energy companies need to commit to buying it in advance, so commit to passing on THAT price to both customers AND onto a government commitment to bucking the market? 3. Variable two. If global prices do come down, to what degree is the saving on the quarter of a trillion eaten into or obliterated by the more expensive borrowing costs? Out of these two variable’s, borrowing costs for this policy look certain to remain high now, the greater doubt is if energy prices will come down and stay down isn’t it?
You really think that whole £200bn comes down to £20bn? 🥹 We all know what’s really behind “but the bill freeze looks like turning out much cheaper because gas prices are coming down” argument we get spun from Tory’s on TV and on PB - they privately hate this lumbering Labour policy Tory party has adopted, they hate the ENORMOUS amount of borrowing maxing out UKs credit limit, and the regressive unConservative way the money is spewed out in indiscriminate handouts.
But. They are only fooling themselves spinning that comfort blanket, because, yes, there are variables, but the variables are very much against them.
Don’t be one of them.
There is no defence to this insane policy, Truss has been hiding behind all week.
I would agree we don't know what this policy is going to cost and I would agree that there are significant risks on the upside but there is also some reason for hope on the low side.
The government have committed to the average house bill being no more than £2500 a year. At the moment the price of gas futures are 263p/therm. It has been over 700p and has averaged around 400p of late. The cost of the UK subsidy is directly relational to that price against the price that fixes the £2500 pa average. I have been unable to work out exactly what that is because there are quite a number of other variables. Energy companies are bumping up their fixed charges as well. My best guess is that £2500 per household is going be equivalent to something like 200p/therm, roughly twice what it was last winter.
But I am not wrong is saying that there is a chance that the cost of the scheme will prove to be much lower than the worst estimates. It could also be higher of course. If it stays somewhere near our current price or goes even lower then the cost of the scheme will be less. If it goes back up again we are in trouble, no doubt about it.
Edit, and btw the OBR will have no better idea than the rest of us, it is simply unknowable.
You telling us It’s unknowable wasn’t the impression I got when you reduced it from £200bn to £20bn to spark my reply. 🙂
We know enough overall price can’t come down that much. Because the bit you seem to be avoiding is commodity price drop is to some extent offset by borrowing cost increase - goes back to the unknowable being very guessable in that the borrowing cost won’t be based on “maybe the commodity price drops and stays at x price”, who lends money on that basis?
You accept the part of the equation, political and economic, it is not necessary to provide help in this way, there other options such as sliding scale to target help where needed, not wasted where not needed, and virtually pays for itself?
I believe most UK government borrowing is fixed rate. So the increase only kicks in as new debt is issued.
Interesting the current (March) forecast it from debt interest this year to be c £83bn but to *fall* to £47bn next year… a cut in public spending baked in
If you listened to what the mini budget said - the Energy Price Freeze (a quarter of a trillion pounds) will be paid for by new borrowing, no new taxes no new cuts.
If you listed to what Liz Truss said Wednesday, public spending overall total will not show any cuts under her, simply because the quarter of a trillion Energy Price Freeze is being added to the public spending total.
What I am arguing in this thread, we don’t have to fund a quarter of a trillion pound scheme when other realistic options are available better targeted and virtually paying for themselves, I’m also arguing against those saying commodity price coming down proves the end bill will definitely be cheaper, because even with cuts even with more tax, this scheme will always need a huge amount of new borrowing at the new higher borrowing rates.
Correct me where wrong.
But I am now adding a third facet to my argument - anyone who claims Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth. And I can prove it. That spiking gilt market graph they use over and over in media, expand it to see the previous 12 months and see the trajectory is up up up long before Truss got anywhere near number 10 - my argument is the budget exacerbated an already underlying problem. Anyone want to own the claim if the mini budget is reversed, annulled, reset, the trajectory on the borrowings chart graph would be down when it hasn’t been all year?
I’m arguing anyone who peddles Labour Party lies that Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth, and sure I can win this argument.
I’ve been drinking all afternoon, don’t anyone want to take me on?
You're probably sleeping it off right now, but just in case, I will!
You and @Luckyguy1983 are making a similar argument, and its nonsense.
You're arguing two different things. The first is a straw man, and obviously false: "Anyone want to own the claim if the mini budget is reversed, annulled, reset, the trajectory on the borrowings chart graph would be down when it hasn’t been all year?" Nah, no thanks, the economy was already getting worse before the Trustterf*ck.
The second argument obviously doesn't follow: "I’m arguing anyone who peddles Labour Party lies that Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth, and sure I can win this argument." Nah you can't. The markets were already pretty unhappy, they dropped a Trussterbomb in the middle of it. They bear full responsibility for moving the markets from 'err...we don't really like this
If I was to say, sorry about that clusterbomb I dropped last week, I'll just clean up all the shrapnel from my clusterbomb and pretend it never happened, the maimed children might have something to say about it.
Lucky for you, I’m still wide awake and drinking. 😵💫
Your post is just spin - you actually agree with my central point, that I’m right because you have to, but saying I’m wrong all over the place.
If Labour had held a budget the same day, without the tax cutting, I’m arguing what you call a Trusster fuck would still have happened. It would be a Starmerfuck. Because the fundamentals in the economy, the maxxed out credit card, cannot handle the quarter of a trillion extra for Energy hand outs, not simply the fundamental maths of it making the loan/borrowing risk - the markets don’t see a need for us to use this particular scheme. So when you break it down, The gilty graph has been on upward trajectory all year - fact if the mini budget is completely reversed the gilty trajectory will still be an upward trajectory, not downward - fact thus proving conclusively the idea Truss Kwasi budget crashed the economy is a myth, a myth peddled by Labour and their friends in the media and also mouthed by people who can’t think for themselves, the aim being to create a polling crash - because with just what the markets are doing without a polling crash, Kwarteng would still be there. Fact.
What we actually need to hear from Labour if they think they can form a government on Monday morning - why is the borrowing cost on an upward trajectory all year, long before the mini budget came along, and what policy do they have to put it on downward trajectory?
Hint. The answer is Labour are clueless on this, as Starmer agreed with Truss quarter of a billion of unnecessary further borrowing in the trap he fell into in last weeks PMQs.
and that I am without doubt winning this argument.
This is very annoying, because I kind of half agree with your point about the energy price guarantee, but if I admit that then you'll tell me you're 1000% winning the argument or something similar.
So, as I'm the sober one here, I'll attempt a compronise... - The fundamentals in the economy are a lot less 'fundamental' than you are arguing. Yeah, we are borrowing too much. But an astute politician could have presented something like the energy price guarantee with lots of reassuring noises and 'look over here' distraction tactics to sustain market confidence (e.g. an OBR forecast that suggested a reassuring medium-term picture). Perhaps the market reassurance would only have been for a period of time, but still. - It took political idiocy to try to get markets to take the strain of another big spending commitment (the energy price guarantee) whilst also refusing to do any of the reassuring noises or distraction tactics - in fact to do the opposite of simultaneously throwing any appearance of fiscal responsibility to the winds. - I agree it is possible that the energy price guarantee would have been the straw that breaks the camel's back regardless of the political window-dressing, but looking at e.g. debt-to-GDP ratios of major economies, it is very hard to argue that this moment, right now, is the moment when the UK's spending commitments become unaffordable. - And what happened after the budget was in no way simply a polling crash. Mortgage rates are the biggest real impact, but the pension funds are close behind.
Hmm...not sure that compromise will satisfy you, and I'm off to bed (I know, I know, it's before 9pm. That's my life with a two-year old and a pregnant wife) but this has been fun. Thanks.
Fair point. But still think members voting has been a bad thing.
Ridiculous to scapegoat Conservative members - at the most generous estimate, just 128 MPs voted for candidates offering a radically different economic strategy than Liz Truss. She was the chosen candidate of the previous PM and the Daily Mail.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
Watching Michael Palin's Himalaya on BBC4 because it's pretty much the only non-irritating thing on TV at the moment.
I do like Michael Palin. He must have the patience of a saint to have worked with John Cleese.
saw him on his current theatre tour at Nottingham the other week (An evening with Michael Palin) - the biggest laugh from the Nottingham audience was when he said his wife tried to persuade him not to go to Iraq as it was too dangerous and he said "listen darling I have spent one Christmas in Derby!"
HE did then go on to say he was at Derby next week and would reciprocate his joke
Ok, we've established colour coding is of the devil, but what about size ordering? I'd like to put books of the same dimensions together, within each section, so they gently rise together, but I feel like it would probably be more trouble than it was worth.
The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell must be a real page turner! Do you read a few pages out loud for the kids every night before bedtime?
Actually have a collection of OC's greatest hits (in old mass market paperback edition) must say it was heavy going.
Addendum - Also have same edition of The Stuart Parliaments.
Cromwell? boring?
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Cromwell was an enormously complicated and interesting man, and Charles I was pretty much the present Duke of York if he had become king.
Good heavens above. What an unfair comment.
Charles I was an admirable family man, and while his wife may have been not quite 16 when they married there was nothing unusual about that in the 17th century.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
In which case he would lose badly.
Would he? About a quarter to a third of the electorate at least would vote for just such a populist right agenda.
Fair point. But still think members voting has been a bad thing.
Ridiculous to scapegoat Conservative members - at the most generous estimate, just 128 MPs voted for candidates offering a radically different economic strategy than Liz Truss. She was the chosen candidate of the previous PM and the Daily Mail.
Boris Johnson The ERG The Daily Mail The Daily Express The Daily Telegraph GB News Patrick Minford BartyBobbins Radio Broadmoor
They all need to get in the sea.
Judging by the votes for the other candidates, I suspect she would have gotten the most MP support, had the third place been reallocated.
Honestly if they want a small tweak without cutting out the members that might be something worth doing. It probably wouldn't affect the members too much, but if, say, 90% of Truss's support had gone to Rishi, so he was more than 100 ahead of her, perhaps it would influence them to some degree by making the MP choice unambiguous.
Ok, we've established colour coding is of the devil, but what about size ordering? I'd like to put books of the same dimensions together, within each section, so they gently rise together, but I feel like it would probably be more trouble than it was worth.
The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell must be a real page turner! Do you read a few pages out loud for the kids every night before bedtime?
Actually have a collection of OC's greatest hits (in old mass market paperback edition) must say it was heavy going.
Addendum - Also have same edition of The Stuart Parliaments.
Cromwell? boring?
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Cromwell was an enormously complicated and interesting man, and Charles I was pretty much the present Duke of York if he had become king.
Whilst I agree on Cromwell, seems a bit harsh on Charles. Inadequate as king, and the only man besides HYUFD to believe so strongly in the divine right of kings, to tragic effect, but on a personal level?
Hunt has calmed the markets, if he quits then it will be carnage, so Truss cannot afford to lose him, he will do whatever he wants.
What happens if Monday comes and the markets aren’t calmed?
The way this usually happens is there can be two weeks of calm - people say the markets have been calmed, but then it all erupts again.
Obviously you all know my theory - £400bn of Rishi splaffing (and wasting a lot) to get us through covid has maxxed out the credit - now they want to (unnecessarily, needlessly) try to get another £200bn more borrowing - the markets won’t calm till that plan is dead.
Or the £200bn becomes more like £20bn. Everything now turns on the future price of gas.
I don’t want to be really rude David, but you keep posting that “If gas falls sufficiently, the cost of the energy cap freeze drops” means don’t think you really understand it. That thinking is utter bollox.
1. We haven’t had an OBR how much Tories total promise is likely to cost. The Tories have promised to buck the UK energy market for two and a half years regardless what global energy price does. Some think tanks have had a go at pricing this and come to a quarter of a trillion pound. To be found by tax rises, borrowing or cuts or mixture thereof. Quarter of a trillion on that one policy alone. 2. Variable one. Energy prices can go down, yes, but also up, it’s a very fluid situation in supply and demand over this coming period - but at which point do energy companies need to commit to buying it in advance, so commit to passing on THAT price to both customers AND onto a government commitment to bucking the market? 3. Variable two. If global prices do come down, to what degree is the saving on the quarter of a trillion eaten into or obliterated by the more expensive borrowing costs? Out of these two variable’s, borrowing costs for this policy look certain to remain high now, the greater doubt is if energy prices will come down and stay down isn’t it?
You really think that whole £200bn comes down to £20bn? 🥹 We all know what’s really behind “but the bill freeze looks like turning out much cheaper because gas prices are coming down” argument we get spun from Tory’s on TV and on PB - they privately hate this lumbering Labour policy Tory party has adopted, they hate the ENORMOUS amount of borrowing maxing out UKs credit limit, and the regressive unConservative way the money is spewed out in indiscriminate handouts.
But. They are only fooling themselves spinning that comfort blanket, because, yes, there are variables, but the variables are very much against them.
Don’t be one of them.
There is no defence to this insane policy, Truss has been hiding behind all week.
I would agree we don't know what this policy is going to cost and I would agree that there are significant risks on the upside but there is also some reason for hope on the low side.
The government have committed to the average house bill being no more than £2500 a year. At the moment the price of gas futures are 263p/therm. It has been over 700p and has averaged around 400p of late. The cost of the UK subsidy is directly relational to that price against the price that fixes the £2500 pa average. I have been unable to work out exactly what that is because there are quite a number of other variables. Energy companies are bumping up their fixed charges as well. My best guess is that £2500 per household is going be equivalent to something like 200p/therm, roughly twice what it was last winter.
But I am not wrong is saying that there is a chance that the cost of the scheme will prove to be much lower than the worst estimates. It could also be higher of course. If it stays somewhere near our current price or goes even lower then the cost of the scheme will be less. If it goes back up again we are in trouble, no doubt about it.
Edit, and btw the OBR will have no better idea than the rest of us, it is simply unknowable.
You telling us It’s unknowable wasn’t the impression I got when you reduced it from £200bn to £20bn to spark my reply. 🙂
We know enough overall price can’t come down that much. Because the bit you seem to be avoiding is commodity price drop is to some extent offset by borrowing cost increase - goes back to the unknowable being very guessable in that the borrowing cost won’t be based on “maybe the commodity price drops and stays at x price”, who lends money on that basis?
You accept the part of the equation, political and economic, it is not necessary to provide help in this way, there other options such as sliding scale to target help where needed, not wasted where not needed, and virtually pays for itself?
I believe most UK government borrowing is fixed rate. So the increase only kicks in as new debt is issued.
Interesting the current (March) forecast it from debt interest this year to be c £83bn but to *fall* to £47bn next year… a cut in public spending baked in
If you listened to what the mini budget said - the Energy Price Freeze (a quarter of a trillion pounds) will be paid for by new borrowing, no new taxes no new cuts.
If you listed to what Liz Truss said Wednesday, public spending overall total will not show any cuts under her, simply because the quarter of a trillion Energy Price Freeze is being added to the public spending total.
What I am arguing in this thread, we don’t have to fund a quarter of a trillion pound scheme when other realistic options are available better targeted and virtually paying for themselves, I’m also arguing against those saying commodity price coming down proves the end bill will definitely be cheaper, because even with cuts even with more tax, this scheme will always need a huge amount of new borrowing at the new higher borrowing rates.
Correct me where wrong.
But I am now adding a third facet to my argument - anyone who claims Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth. And I can prove it. That spiking gilt market graph they use over and over in media, expand it to see the previous 12 months and see the trajectory is up up up long before Truss got anywhere near number 10 - my argument is the budget exacerbated an already underlying problem. Anyone want to own the claim if the mini budget is reversed, annulled, reset, the trajectory on the borrowings chart graph would be down when it hasn’t been all year?
I’m arguing anyone who peddles Labour Party lies that Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth, and sure I can win this argument.
I’ve been drinking all afternoon, don’t anyone want to take me on?
You're probably sleeping it off right now, but just in case, I will!
You and @Luckyguy1983 are making a similar argument, and its nonsense.
You're arguing two different things. The first is a straw man, and obviously false: "Anyone want to own the claim if the mini budget is reversed, annulled, reset, the trajectory on the borrowings chart graph would be down when it hasn’t been all year?" Nah, no thanks, the economy was already getting worse before the Trustterf*ck.
The second argument obviously doesn't follow: "I’m arguing anyone who peddles Labour Party lies that Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth, and sure I can win this argument." Nah you can't. The markets were already pretty unhappy, they dropped a Trussterbomb in the middle of it. They bear full responsibility for moving the markets from 'err...we don't really like this
If I was to say, sorry about that clusterbomb I dropped last week, I'll just clean up all the shrapnel from my clusterbomb and pretend it never happened, the maimed children might have something to say about it.
Lucky for you, I’m still wide awake and drinking. 😵💫
Your post is just spin - you actually agree with my central point, that I’m right because you have to, but saying I’m wrong all over the place.
If Labour had held a budget the same day, without the tax cutting, I’m arguing what you call a Trusster fuck would still have happened. It would be a Starmerfuck. Because the fundamentals in the economy, the maxxed out credit card, cannot handle the quarter of a trillion extra for Energy hand outs, not simply the fundamental maths of it making the loan/borrowing risk - the markets don’t see a need for us to use this particular scheme. So when you break it down, The gilty graph has been on upward trajectory all year - fact if the mini budget is completely reversed the gilty trajectory will still be an upward trajectory, not downward - fact thus proving conclusively the idea Truss Kwasi budget crashed the economy is a myth, a myth peddled by Labour and their friends in the media and also mouthed by people who can’t think for themselves, the aim being to create a polling crash - because with just what the markets are doing without a polling crash, Kwarteng would still be there. Fact.
What we actually need to hear from Labour if they think they can form a government on Monday morning - why is the borrowing cost on an upward trajectory all year, long before the mini budget came along, and what policy do they have to put it on downward trajectory?
Hint. The answer is Labour are clueless on this, as Starmer agreed with Truss quarter of a billion of unnecessary further borrowing in the trap he fell into in last weeks PMQs.
and that I am without doubt winning this argument.
Where are ya? Have you gone to bed to sleep it off?
I thought you were going to engage with my argument knock it over and put me right
That didn’t last long. It was like flicking an ant off my bare skin whilst sunbathing in the park.
We both agree a fire was already going.
We both agree What you refer to as a “cluster fuck” is a fire going which gasoline was poured onto.
What you need to agree, because it’s fact, The gasoline to cause clusterfuck was in large part quarter of a trillion loan for energy handout, and small part the net minus thirteen billion budget redistributing wealth from workers to owners, owners with ideas and ambition but not the capital to match hence no growth in economy. (Net-13bn from 45bn cuts minus 2bn uturn minus 30bn stealth tax)
Labour unlikely to have done the 45bn tax change budget, but they do believe in the up to quarter of a trillion of borrowing at new expensive rates (minus a small percentage for windfall tax and a small percentage for other tax rises, but tax rising is limited due to the politically maxxed out level of tax burden already) for a wrong headed and ruinous system of handouts - my argument, which is a winning argument, it’s known as a Trussrerfuck only because she was PM not Loto, whilst Starmer’s budget would also have poured a lot of gasoline on the fire with similar result, and it would have been known as the Starmerfuck. And LOTO Truss with her libertarian ethos would now be riding high in the polling.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical
I think Farage has retired hasn't he from electoral politics? i think he likes his new job as broadcaster . I voted remain but think Farage is highly effective in most things he does - his broadcasting is good as well - Talking Pints for instance gets guests across the political and establishment spectrum and his What the Farage section gives him a chance to sound honest .
For now but he absolutely despises Hunt, he almost certainly would run against him as he sees him as as much a part of the elitist Remainer corporatist elite as Starmer.
This was his tweet yesterday
'@Nigel_Farage · Oct 14 I have it on good authority that @Jeremy_Hunt on the Eurostar from Brussels this morning en route to become Chancellor.
I'm aware my earlier post fell somewhat short of my usual high standards for which I apologise.
I now realise Harold MacMillan sacked two Chancellors - Peter Thorneycroft in 1958 and Selwyn Lloyd in 1962 so Liz Truss still has some ground to make up.
As for other Chancellors who were encouraged to stand aside - Callaghan went to the Home Office after devaluation, Howe was reshuffled after the 1983 win - Lawson resigned so the next Chancellor to be sacked would be Norman Lamont.
Hammond, Javid, Sunak and Zahawi all resigned to one extent or another so the next to be sacked would be Kwarteng.
It's also worth mentioning while Fontwell has its appeal, I much prefer Plumpton simply because it's easier to get to for those of us travelling by rail.
Few other snippets - can anyone remember the last time the People's Party was third in an Austrian opinion poll? The collapse of the lead centre-right mirrors that of the British Conservatives and they trail the Social Democrats and the revitalised Freedom Party.
In Denmark, the latest Voxmeter has the centre-left bloc six points up but the latest Gallup has the lead at just 3.5% but that's a step forward from the last Gallup poll which had a statistical dead heat between the two blocs.
I'm aware my earlier post fell somewhat short of my usual high standards for which I apologise.
I now realise Harold MacMillan sacked two Chancellors - Peter Thorneycroft in 1958 and Selwyn Lloyd in 1962 so Liz Truss still has some ground to make up.
As for other Chancellors who were encouraged to stand aside - Callaghan went to the Home Office after devaluation, Howe was reshuffled after the 1983 win - Lawson resigned so the next Chancellor to be sacked would be Norman Lamont.
Hammond, Javid, Sunak and Zahawi all resigned to one extent or another so the next to be sacked would be Kwarteng.
It's also worth mentioning while Fontwell has its appeal, I much prefer Plumpton simply because it's easier to get to for those of us travelling by rail.
Few other snippets - can anyone remember the last time the People's Party was third in an Austrian opinion poll? The collapse of the lead centre-right mirrors that of the British Conservatives and they trail the Social Democrats and the revitalised Freedom Party.
In Denmark, the latest Voxmeter has the centre-left bloc six points up but the latest Gallup has the lead at just 3.5% but that's a step forward from the last Gallup poll which had a statistical dead heat between the two blocs.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
In which case he would lose badly.
Would he? About a quarter to a third of the electorate at least would vote for just such a populist right agenda.
He might not win but he could come second
In FPTP, 25-30% doesn't get you far, unless it is pretty lumpy.
What he could do is kick the Conservative party into the grave they have dug for themselves.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
In which case he would lose badly.
Would he? About a quarter to a third of the electorate at least would vote for just such a populist right agenda.
Ok, we've established colour coding is of the devil, but what about size ordering? I'd like to put books of the same dimensions together, within each section, so they gently rise together, but I feel like it would probably be more trouble than it was worth.
The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell must be a real page turner! Do you read a few pages out loud for the kids every night before bedtime?
Actually have a collection of OC's greatest hits (in old mass market paperback edition) must say it was heavy going.
Addendum - Also have same edition of The Stuart Parliaments.
Cromwell? boring?
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Cromwell was an enormously complicated and interesting man, and Charles I was pretty much the present Duke of York if he had become king.
Whilst I agree on Cromwell, seems a bit harsh on Charles. Inadequate as king, and the only man besides HYUFD to believe so strongly in the divine right of kings, to tragic effect, but on a personal level?
My take, which you all possibly disagree with me but I am right all the same, Cromwell wanting the king to live, the king wanted the king executed.
Watching Michael Palin's Himalaya on BBC4 because it's pretty much the only non-irritating thing on TV at the moment.
I do like Michael Palin. He must have the patience of a saint to have worked with John Cleese.
saw him on his current theatre tour at Nottingham the other week (An evening with Michael Palin) - the biggest laugh from the Nottingham audience was when he said his wife tried to persuade him not to go to Iraq as it was too dangerous and he said "listen darling I have spent one Christmas in Derby!"
HE did then go on to say he was at Derby next week and would reciprocate his joke
The Kwarteng chancellorship was a major Cambridge University fail. The crème brûlée and Great Court Run college in particular. Re-establish the monasteries and give them their assets back?
Creme Brulee is Caius, not arriviste Trinity Burnt Cream.
My apologies. What's the difference, or is it only the nomenclature?
Doesn't the idea come from Catalonia anyway?
Despite my possible faux pas, it's true that Kwasi Kwarteng was in the in crowd at both Eton and Trinity and he ballsed up the Chancellor job as nobody has ever ballsed it up before so fast. And he doesn't have the humility and charm of Eddie the Eagle. No way would he have been promoted so high if he'd gone to the school down the road or even a second division private boarding school somewhere, or if he'd gone to, well, probably any university apart from Oxford and Cambridge.
And we can't blame the Tory party's membership in this instance.
Top post. Eton and Cambridge must be deeply embarrassed to have turned out such a tone-deaf incompetent.
He was at Cambridge with Richard Burgon, I believe, who was in the next door college?
Do people now understand why so many Cambridge politicians have been passed over before now?
Which would be a valid argument if the Oxford ones who get in weren't just as useless.
The real apex of entitled and ignorant cretinism in the education system is neither Oxford nor Cambridge, but Eton College. The first action of an incoming Labour Government should be to whistle up a squadron of RAF Typhoons armed with precision guided bombs and reduce the whole place to a pile of smouldering rubble.
Truss went to a comprehensive not Eton. The only Tory major winners in the last 40 years went to Eton
The only three PMs to win majorities in the last thirty years went to public schools. Two Eton, one Fettes.
Prior to that, the previous four (Major, Thatcher, Wilson, Heath) were all at state schools.
Yes, all 4 grammar school educated. Truss the first PM educated fully at a comprehensive for secondary education.
Starmer also educated at private and grammar school
People who went to school before the advent of comprehensives didn't go to a comprehensive. What a revelation.
Major would have come within the comprehensive era, although I'm not sure how many there were in London at the time. Not the others.
Wasn't Brown technically at a comp as well, albeit in the fast stream of it?
Not really the case for John Major. He was born in 1943 so would have left school between 1959 and 1961. Though there were some early examples of Comprehensives in the 50s, the main drive was in the mid 60s so well after Major had left school.
I'm aware my earlier post fell somewhat short of my usual high standards for which I apologise.
I now realise Harold MacMillan sacked two Chancellors - Peter Thorneycroft in 1958 and Selwyn Lloyd in 1962 so Liz Truss still has some ground to make up.
As for other Chancellors who were encouraged to stand aside - Callaghan went to the Home Office after devaluation, Howe was reshuffled after the 1983 win - Lawson resigned so the next Chancellor to be sacked would be Norman Lamont.
Hammond, Javid, Sunak and Zahawi all resigned to one extent or another so the next to be sacked would be Kwarteng.
It's also worth mentioning while Fontwell has its appeal, I much prefer Plumpton simply because it's easier to get to for those of us travelling by rail.
Few other snippets - can anyone remember the last time the People's Party was third in an Austrian opinion poll? The collapse of the lead centre-right mirrors that of the British Conservatives and they trail the Social Democrats and the revitalised Freedom Party.
In Denmark, the latest Voxmeter has the centre-left bloc six points up but the latest Gallup has the lead at just 3.5% but that's a step forward from the last Gallup poll which had a statistical dead heat between the two blocs.
I'm aware my earlier post fell somewhat short of my usual high standards for which I apologise.
I now realise Harold MacMillan sacked two Chancellors - Peter Thorneycroft in 1958 and Selwyn Lloyd in 1962 so Liz Truss still has some ground to make up.
As for other Chancellors who were encouraged to stand aside - Callaghan went to the Home Office after devaluation, Howe was reshuffled after the 1983 win - Lawson resigned so the next Chancellor to be sacked would be Norman Lamont.
Hammond, Javid, Sunak and Zahawi all resigned to one extent or another so the next to be sacked would be Kwarteng.
It's also worth mentioning while Fontwell has its appeal, I much prefer Plumpton simply because it's easier to get to for those of us travelling by rail.
Few other snippets - can anyone remember the last time the People's Party was third in an Austrian opinion poll? The collapse of the lead centre-right mirrors that of the British Conservatives and they trail the Social Democrats and the revitalised Freedom Party.
In Denmark, the latest Voxmeter has the centre-left bloc six points up but the latest Gallup has the lead at just 3.5% but that's a step forward from the last Gallup poll which had a statistical dead heat between the two blocs.
But Thorneycroft was not sacked.
I sense another Stodge U Turn coming. He’ll get there.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
In which case he would lose badly.
Would he? About a quarter to a third of the electorate at least would vote for just such a populist right agenda.
He might not win but he could come second
In FPTP, 25-30% doesn't get you far, unless it is pretty lumpy.
What he could do is kick the Conservative party into the grave they have dug for themselves.
It could get him 50-100 seats, 100-200 if he got to 30%. That would then be curtains for the Tories under Hunt yes. Assuming Starmer Labour got 40%+ then the Hunt led Tories would be down to about 10-15%, they would be lucky to get more than a handful of seats at most
Farage isn’t going to win anything like 30% of the vote in a general election, even up against a candidate like Hunt. His best bet would be as a spoiler party making the difference in a few constituencies.
Ok, we've established colour coding is of the devil, but what about size ordering? I'd like to put books of the same dimensions together, within each section, so they gently rise together, but I feel like it would probably be more trouble than it was worth.
The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell must be a real page turner! Do you read a few pages out loud for the kids every night before bedtime?
Actually have a collection of OC's greatest hits (in old mass market paperback edition) must say it was heavy going.
Addendum - Also have same edition of The Stuart Parliaments.
Cromwell? boring?
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Cromwell was an enormously complicated and interesting man, and Charles I was pretty much the present Duke of York if he had become king.
Whilst I agree on Cromwell, seems a bit harsh on Charles. Inadequate as king, and the only man besides HYUFD to believe so strongly in the divine right of kings, to tragic effect, but on a personal level?
You ma6 be right, but It’s a bit soon to know whether he will be inadequate as king. Who knows, he may use his divine right to sack Truss and behead HYUFD.
I'm aware my earlier post fell somewhat short of my usual high standards for which I apologise.
I now realise Harold MacMillan sacked two Chancellors - Peter Thorneycroft in 1958 and Selwyn Lloyd in 1962 so Liz Truss still has some ground to make up.
As for other Chancellors who were encouraged to stand aside - Callaghan went to the Home Office after devaluation, Howe was reshuffled after the 1983 win - Lawson resigned so the next Chancellor to be sacked would be Norman Lamont.
Hammond, Javid, Sunak and Zahawi all resigned to one extent or another so the next to be sacked would be Kwarteng.
But Thorneycroft was not sacked.
So it would seem - the fact remains MacMillan had four Chancellors in his tenure - Thorneycroft, Heathcote-Amory, Lloyd and Maudling..
Johnson went through three - Javid, Sunak and Zahawi.
Attlee had three - Dalton, Cripps and Gaitskell.
In all her long tenure, Thatcher only had three Chancellors - Howe, Lawson and Major.
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
In which case he would lose badly.
Would he? About a quarter to a third of the electorate at least would vote for just such a populist right agenda.
He might not win but he could come second
In FPTP, 25-30% doesn't get you far, unless it is pretty lumpy.
What he could do is kick the Conservative party into the grave they have dug for themselves.
It could get him 50-100 seats, 100-200 if he got to 30%. That would then be curtains for the Tories under Hunt yes. Assuming Starmer Labour got 40%+ then the Hunt led Tories would be down to about 10-15%, they would be lucky to get more than a handful of seats at most
Starmer’s wettest dreams must include Farage being leader of the opposition.
Hunt has calmed the markets, if he quits then it will be carnage, so Truss cannot afford to lose him, he will do whatever he wants.
What happens if Monday comes and the markets aren’t calmed?
The way this usually happens is there can be two weeks of calm - people say the markets have been calmed, but then it all erupts again.
Obviously you all know my theory - £400bn of Rishi splaffing (and wasting a lot) to get us through covid has maxxed out the credit - now they want to (unnecessarily, needlessly) try to get another £200bn more borrowing - the markets won’t calm till that plan is dead.
Or the £200bn becomes more like £20bn. Everything now turns on the future price of gas.
I don’t want to be really rude David, but you keep posting that “If gas falls sufficiently, the cost of the energy cap freeze drops” means don’t think you really understand it. That thinking is utter bollox.
1. We haven’t had an OBR how much Tories total promise is likely to cost. The Tories have promised to buck the UK energy market for two and a half years regardless what global energy price does. Some think tanks have had a go at pricing this and come to a quarter of a trillion pound. To be found by tax rises, borrowing or cuts or mixture thereof. Quarter of a trillion on that one policy alone. 2. Variable one. Energy prices can go down, yes, but also up, it’s a very fluid situation in supply and demand over this coming period - but at which point do energy companies need to commit to buying it in advance, so commit to passing on THAT price to both customers AND onto a government commitment to bucking the market? 3. Variable two. If global prices do come down, to what degree is the saving on the quarter of a trillion eaten into or obliterated by the more expensive borrowing costs? Out of these two variable’s, borrowing costs for this policy look certain to remain high now, the greater doubt is if energy prices will come down and stay down isn’t it?
You really think that whole £200bn comes down to £20bn? 🥹 We all know what’s really behind “but the bill freeze looks like turning out much cheaper because gas prices are coming down” argument we get spun from Tory’s on TV and on PB - they privately hate this lumbering Labour policy Tory party has adopted, they hate the ENORMOUS amount of borrowing maxing out UKs credit limit, and the regressive unConservative way the money is spewed out in indiscriminate handouts.
But. They are only fooling themselves spinning that comfort blanket, because, yes, there are variables, but the variables are very much against them.
Don’t be one of them.
There is no defence to this insane policy, Truss has been hiding behind all week.
I would agree we don't know what this policy is going to cost and I would agree that there are significant risks on the upside but there is also some reason for hope on the low side.
The government have committed to the average house bill being no more than £2500 a year. At the moment the price of gas futures are 263p/therm. It has been over 700p and has averaged around 400p of late. The cost of the UK subsidy is directly relational to that price against the price that fixes the £2500 pa average. I have been unable to work out exactly what that is because there are quite a number of other variables. Energy companies are bumping up their fixed charges as well. My best guess is that £2500 per household is going be equivalent to something like 200p/therm, roughly twice what it was last winter.
But I am not wrong is saying that there is a chance that the cost of the scheme will prove to be much lower than the worst estimates. It could also be higher of course. If it stays somewhere near our current price or goes even lower then the cost of the scheme will be less. If it goes back up again we are in trouble, no doubt about it.
Edit, and btw the OBR will have no better idea than the rest of us, it is simply unknowable.
You telling us It’s unknowable wasn’t the impression I got when you reduced it from £200bn to £20bn to spark my reply. 🙂
We know enough overall price can’t come down that much. Because the bit you seem to be avoiding is commodity price drop is to some extent offset by borrowing cost increase - goes back to the unknowable being very guessable in that the borrowing cost won’t be based on “maybe the commodity price drops and stays at x price”, who lends money on that basis?
You accept the part of the equation, political and economic, it is not necessary to provide help in this way, there other options such as sliding scale to target help where needed, not wasted where not needed, and virtually pays for itself?
I believe most UK government borrowing is fixed rate. So the increase only kicks in as new debt is issued.
Interesting the current (March) forecast it from debt interest this year to be c £83bn but to *fall* to £47bn next year… a cut in public spending baked in
If you listened to what the mini budget said - the Energy Price Freeze (a quarter of a trillion pounds) will be paid for by new borrowing, no new taxes no new cuts.
If you listed to what Liz Truss said Wednesday, public spending overall total will not show any cuts under her, simply because the quarter of a trillion Energy Price Freeze is being added to the public spending total.
What I am arguing in this thread, we don’t have to fund a quarter of a trillion pound scheme when other realistic options are available better targeted and virtually paying for themselves, I’m also arguing against those saying commodity price coming down proves the end bill will definitely be cheaper, because even with cuts even with more tax, this scheme will always need a huge amount of new borrowing at the new higher borrowing rates.
Correct me where wrong.
But I am now adding a third facet to my argument - anyone who claims Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth. And I can prove it. That spiking gilt market graph they use over and over in media, expand it to see the previous 12 months and see the trajectory is up up up long before Truss got anywhere near number 10 - my argument is the budget exacerbated an already underlying problem. Anyone want to own the claim if the mini budget is reversed, annulled, reset, the trajectory on the borrowings chart graph would be down when it hasn’t been all year?
I’m arguing anyone who peddles Labour Party lies that Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth, and sure I can win this argument.
I’ve been drinking all afternoon, don’t anyone want to take me on?
You're probably sleeping it off right now, but just in case, I will!
You and @Luckyguy1983 are making a similar argument, and its nonsense.
You're arguing two different things. The first is a straw man, and obviously false: "Anyone want to own the claim if the mini budget is reversed, annulled, reset, the trajectory on the borrowings chart graph would be down when it hasn’t been all year?" Nah, no thanks, the economy was already getting worse before the Trustterf*ck.
The second argument obviously doesn't follow: "I’m arguing anyone who peddles Labour Party lies that Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth, and sure I can win this argument." Nah you can't. The markets were already pretty unhappy, they dropped a Trussterbomb in the middle of it. They bear full responsibility for moving the markets from 'err...we don't really like this
If I was to say, sorry about that clusterbomb I dropped last week, I'll just clean up all the shrapnel from my clusterbomb and pretend it never happened, the maimed children might have something to say about it.
Lucky for you, I’m still wide awake and drinking. 😵💫
Your post is just spin - you actually agree with my central point, that I’m right because you have to, but saying I’m wrong all over the place.
If Labour had held a budget the same day, without the tax cutting, I’m arguing what you call a Trusster fuck would still have happened. It would be a Starmerfuck. Because the fundamentals in the economy, the maxxed out credit card, cannot handle the quarter of a trillion extra for Energy hand outs, not simply the fundamental maths of it making the loan/borrowing risk - the markets don’t see a need for us to use this particular scheme. So when you break it down, The gilty graph has been on upward trajectory all year - fact if the mini budget is completely reversed the gilty trajectory will still be an upward trajectory, not downward - fact thus proving conclusively the idea Truss Kwasi budget crashed the economy is a myth, a myth peddled by Labour and their friends in the media and also mouthed by people who can’t think for themselves, the aim being to create a polling crash - because with just what the markets are doing without a polling crash, Kwarteng would still be there. Fact.
What we actually need to hear from Labour if they think they can form a government on Monday morning - why is the borrowing cost on an upward trajectory all year, long before the mini budget came along, and what policy do they have to put it on downward trajectory?
Hint. The answer is Labour are clueless on this, as Starmer agreed with Truss quarter of a billion of unnecessary further borrowing in the trap he fell into in last weeks PMQs.
and that I am without doubt winning this argument.
Where are ya? Have you gone to bed to sleep it off?
I thought you were going to engage with my argument knock it over and put me right
That didn’t last long. It was like flicking an ant off my bare skin whilst sunbathing in the park.
We both agree a fire was already going.
We both agree What you refer to as a “cluster fuck” is a fire going which gasoline was poured onto.
What you need to agree, because it’s fact, The gasoline to cause clusterfuck was in large part quarter of a trillion loan for energy handout, and small part the net minus thirteen billion budget redistributing wealth from workers to owners, owners with ideas and ambition but not the capital to match hence no growth in economy. (Net-13bn from 45bn cuts minus 2bn uturn minus 30bn stealth tax)
Labour unlikely to have done the 45bn tax change budget, but they do believe in the up to quarter of a trillion of borrowing at new expensive rates (minus a small percentage for windfall tax and a small percentage for other tax rises, but tax rising is limited due to the politically maxxed out level of tax burden already) for a wrong headed and ruinous system of handouts - my argument, which is a winning argument, it’s known as a Trussrerfuck only because she was PM not Loto, whilst Starmer’s budget would also have poured a lot of gasoline on the fire with similar result, and it would have been known as the Starmerfuck. And LOTO Truss with her libertarian ethos would now be riding high in the polling.
What bit of that is not fact?
Sorry to miss this, I was busy writing an unanswerably awesome riposte to your previous post.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical
I think Farage has retired hasn't he from electoral politics? i think he likes his new job as broadcaster . I voted remain but think Farage is highly effective in most things he does - his broadcasting is good as well - Talking Pints for instance gets guests across the political and establishment spectrum and his What the Farage section gives him a chance to sound honest .
For now but he absolutely despises Hunt, he almost certainly would run against him as he sees him as as much a part of the elitist Remainer corporatist elite as Starmer.
This was his tweet yesterday
'@Nigel_Farage · Oct 14 I have it on good authority that @Jeremy_Hunt on the Eurostar from Brussels this morning en route to become Chancellor.
Had he taken any instructions?'
Jesus Christ, I think even our erstwhile EU overlords can programme their minions over the phone thesedays.
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
"I used to hunt with my cleaner" hahaha
Venture out with a hunt and you will find dukes and dustmen. Literally dukes and dustmen.
Or are you making fun of someone because they have a cleaner?
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
"I used to hunt with my cleaner" hahaha
You're not singing any more.
Don't want to look as if I am bullying you with big number bets, so let's reduce it: I bet you £10,000 at evens that I have regularly been hunting on a horse with someone also on a horse who has regularly cleaned my house for cash.
He doesn't doubt it at all. He was laughing at you because you have a cleaner.
I thought it was funny because the general image people have of fox hunting is posh people chasing poor Mr Fox around with their gardeners/cleaners helping out. Not doing a great job at dispelling that.
There's also a bit of nominative determinism in Mr Hunt being in favour of fox-hunting.
There's a PGA golf coach called Simon Shanks.
Hopefully that's the opposite of nominative determinism.
Hunt has calmed the markets, if he quits then it will be carnage, so Truss cannot afford to lose him, he will do whatever he wants.
What happens if Monday comes and the markets aren’t calmed?
The way this usually happens is there can be two weeks of calm - people say the markets have been calmed, but then it all erupts again.
Obviously you all know my theory - £400bn of Rishi splaffing (and wasting a lot) to get us through covid has maxxed out the credit - now they want to (unnecessarily, needlessly) try to get another £200bn more borrowing - the markets won’t calm till that plan is dead.
Or the £200bn becomes more like £20bn. Everything now turns on the future price of gas.
I don’t want to be really rude David, but you keep posting that “If gas falls sufficiently, the cost of the energy cap freeze drops” means don’t think you really understand it. That thinking is utter bollox.
1. We haven’t had an OBR how much Tories total promise is likely to cost. The Tories have promised to buck the UK energy market for two and a half years regardless what global energy price does. Some think tanks have had a go at pricing this and come to a quarter of a trillion pound. To be found by tax rises, borrowing or cuts or mixture thereof. Quarter of a trillion on that one policy alone. 2. Variable one. Energy prices can go down, yes, but also up, it’s a very fluid situation in supply and demand over this coming period - but at which point do energy companies need to commit to buying it in advance, so commit to passing on THAT price to both customers AND onto a government commitment to bucking the market? 3. Variable two. If global prices do come down, to what degree is the saving on the quarter of a trillion eaten into or obliterated by the more expensive borrowing costs? Out of these two variable’s, borrowing costs for this policy look certain to remain high now, the greater doubt is if energy prices will come down and stay down isn’t it?
You really think that whole £200bn comes down to £20bn? 🥹 We all know what’s really behind “but the bill freeze looks like turning out much cheaper because gas prices are coming down” argument we get spun from Tory’s on TV and on PB - they privately hate this lumbering Labour policy Tory party has adopted, they hate the ENORMOUS amount of borrowing maxing out UKs credit limit, and the regressive unConservative way the money is spewed out in indiscriminate handouts.
But. They are only fooling themselves spinning that comfort blanket, because, yes, there are variables, but the variables are very much against them.
Don’t be one of them.
There is no defence to this insane policy, Truss has been hiding behind all week.
I would agree we don't know what this policy is going to cost and I would agree that there are significant risks on the upside but there is also some reason for hope on the low side.
The government have committed to the average house bill being no more than £2500 a year. At the moment the price of gas futures are 263p/therm. It has been over 700p and has averaged around 400p of late. The cost of the UK subsidy is directly relational to that price against the price that fixes the £2500 pa average. I have been unable to work out exactly what that is because there are quite a number of other variables. Energy companies are bumping up their fixed charges as well. My best guess is that £2500 per household is going be equivalent to something like 200p/therm, roughly twice what it was last winter.
But I am not wrong is saying that there is a chance that the cost of the scheme will prove to be much lower than the worst estimates. It could also be higher of course. If it stays somewhere near our current price or goes even lower then the cost of the scheme will be less. If it goes back up again we are in trouble, no doubt about it.
Edit, and btw the OBR will have no better idea than the rest of us, it is simply unknowable.
You telling us It’s unknowable wasn’t the impression I got when you reduced it from £200bn to £20bn to spark my reply. 🙂
We know enough overall price can’t come down that much. Because the bit you seem to be avoiding is commodity price drop is to some extent offset by borrowing cost increase - goes back to the unknowable being very guessable in that the borrowing cost won’t be based on “maybe the commodity price drops and stays at x price”, who lends money on that basis?
You accept the part of the equation, political and economic, it is not necessary to provide help in this way, there other options such as sliding scale to target help where needed, not wasted where not needed, and virtually pays for itself?
I believe most UK government borrowing is fixed rate. So the increase only kicks in as new debt is issued.
Interesting the current (March) forecast it from debt interest this year to be c £83bn but to *fall* to £47bn next year… a cut in public spending baked in
If you listened to what the mini budget said - the Energy Price Freeze (a quarter of a trillion pounds) will be paid for by new borrowing, no new taxes no new cuts.
If you listed to what Liz Truss said Wednesday, public spending overall total will not show any cuts under her, simply because the quarter of a trillion Energy Price Freeze is being added to the public spending total.
What I am arguing in this thread, we don’t have to fund a quarter of a trillion pound scheme when other realistic options are available better targeted and virtually paying for themselves, I’m also arguing against those saying commodity price coming down proves the end bill will definitely be cheaper, because even with cuts even with more tax, this scheme will always need a huge amount of new borrowing at the new higher borrowing rates.
Correct me where wrong.
But I am now adding a third facet to my argument - anyone who claims Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth. And I can prove it. That spiking gilt market graph they use over and over in media, expand it to see the previous 12 months and see the trajectory is up up up long before Truss got anywhere near number 10 - my argument is the budget exacerbated an already underlying problem. Anyone want to own the claim if the mini budget is reversed, annulled, reset, the trajectory on the borrowings chart graph would be down when it hasn’t been all year?
I’m arguing anyone who peddles Labour Party lies that Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth, and sure I can win this argument.
I’ve been drinking all afternoon, don’t anyone want to take me on?
You're probably sleeping it off right now, but just in case, I will!
You and @Luckyguy1983 are making a similar argument, and its nonsense.
You're arguing two different things. The first is a straw man, and obviously false: "Anyone want to own the claim if the mini budget is reversed, annulled, reset, the trajectory on the borrowings chart graph would be down when it hasn’t been all year?" Nah, no thanks, the economy was already getting worse before the Trustterf*ck.
The second argument obviously doesn't follow: "I’m arguing anyone who peddles Labour Party lies that Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth, and sure I can win this argument." Nah you can't. The markets were already pretty unhappy, they dropped a Trussterbomb in the middle of it. They bear full responsibility for moving the markets from 'err...we don't really like this
If I was to say, sorry about that clusterbomb I dropped last week, I'll just clean up all the shrapnel from my clusterbomb and pretend it never happened, the maimed children might have something to say about it.
Lucky for you, I’m still wide awake and drinking. 😵💫
Your post is just spin - you actually agree with my central point, that I’m right because you have to, but saying I’m wrong all over the place.
If Labour had held a budget the same day, without the tax cutting, I’m arguing what you call a Trusster fuck would still have happened. It would be a Starmerfuck. Because the fundamentals in the economy, the maxxed out credit card, cannot handle the quarter of a trillion extra for Energy hand outs, not simply the fundamental maths of it making the loan/borrowing risk - the markets don’t see a need for us to use this particular scheme. So when you break it down, The gilty graph has been on upward trajectory all year - fact if the mini budget is completely reversed the gilty trajectory will still be an upward trajectory, not downward - fact thus proving conclusively the idea Truss Kwasi budget crashed the economy is a myth, a myth peddled by Labour and their friends in the media and also mouthed by people who can’t think for themselves, the aim being to create a polling crash - because with just what the markets are doing without a polling crash, Kwarteng would still be there. Fact.
What we actually need to hear from Labour if they think they can form a government on Monday morning - why is the borrowing cost on an upward trajectory all year, long before the mini budget came along, and what policy do they have to put it on downward trajectory?
Hint. The answer is Labour are clueless on this, as Starmer agreed with Truss quarter of a billion of unnecessary further borrowing in the trap he fell into in last weeks PMQs.
and that I am without doubt winning this argument.
Where are ya? Have you gone to bed to sleep it off?
I thought you were going to engage with my argument knock it over and put me right
That didn’t last long. It was like flicking an ant off my bare skin whilst sunbathing in the park.
We both agree a fire was already going.
We both agree What you refer to as a “cluster fuck” is a fire going which gasoline was poured onto.
What you need to agree, because it’s fact, The gasoline to cause clusterfuck was in large part quarter of a trillion loan for energy handout, and small part the net minus thirteen billion budget redistributing wealth from workers to owners, owners with ideas and ambition but not the capital to match hence no growth in economy. (Net-13bn from 45bn cuts minus 2bn uturn minus 30bn stealth tax)
Labour unlikely to have done the 45bn tax change budget, but they do believe in the up to quarter of a trillion of borrowing at new expensive rates (minus a small percentage for windfall tax and a small percentage for other tax rises, but tax rising is limited due to the politically maxxed out level of tax burden already) for a wrong headed and ruinous system of handouts - my argument, which is a winning argument, it’s known as a Trussrerfuck only because she was PM not Loto, whilst Starmer’s budget would also have poured a lot of gasoline on the fire with similar result, and it would have been known as the Starmerfuck. And LOTO Truss with her libertarian ethos would now be riding high in the polling.
What bit of that is not fact?
Sorry to miss this, I was busy writing an unanswerably awesome riposte to your previous post.
And going to bed. Sorry.
Off you go. Scuttle away. Least you know when your beaten.
Anyone else want to take my argument on. Who wants some? 😈
Farage isn’t going to win anything like 30% of the vote in a general election, even up against a candidate like Hunt. His best bet would be as a spoiler party making the difference in a few constituencies.
The 2019 Spring polls had Farage's party on 20 - 25% in some of them and Hunt would be May 2 just with higher taxes now and spending cuts. Most of the voters who voted for Boris at the last general election are hardly going to be desperate to vote for the man who lost the leadership contest to Boris and would have been imposed on the Tories by coronation after Boris was removed.
I expect Labour would win but there is certainly a scenario where Farage could take second place from Hunt
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
In which case he would lose badly.
Would he? About a quarter to a third of the electorate at least would vote for just such a populist right agenda.
He might not win but he could come second
In FPTP, 25-30% doesn't get you far, unless it is pretty lumpy.
What he could do is kick the Conservative party into the grave they have dug for themselves.
There's something peculiar happens around the 25% mark. The number of seats gained with 30% absolutely dwarfs the number with 20%. Hence the quite stunningly low seat projections for the Tories on low twenties polling recently. Whereas Labour in 1983 and the Tories in 1997 had 200 and 160 odd whilst hovering around 30%.
I'm aware my earlier post fell somewhat short of my usual high standards for which I apologise.
I now realise Harold MacMillan sacked two Chancellors - Peter Thorneycroft in 1958 and Selwyn Lloyd in 1962 so Liz Truss still has some ground to make up.
As for other Chancellors who were encouraged to stand aside - Callaghan went to the Home Office after devaluation, Howe was reshuffled after the 1983 win - Lawson resigned so the next Chancellor to be sacked would be Norman Lamont.
Hammond, Javid, Sunak and Zahawi all resigned to one extent or another so the next to be sacked would be Kwarteng.
But Thorneycroft was not sacked.
So it would seem - the fact remains MacMillan had four Chancellors in his tenure - Thorneycroft, Heathcote-Amory, Lloyd and Maudling..
Johnson went through three - Javid, Sunak and Zahawi.
Attlee had three - Dalton, Cripps and Gaitskell.
In all her long tenure, Thatcher only had three Chancellors - Howe, Lawson and Major.
Blair had just one, so did Cameron.
Truss is already on her second.
What would Gladstone say? My guess is (not) "WTF?!?"
Reflecting on yesterday's events - let's be fair, Kwarteng isn't the first Chancellor to be sacked or "asked to stand aside" to use the euphemism in recent times. We've had Sunak, Lawson and Lamont to name but three.
The one thing the change of Chancellor (voluntary or otherwise) is supposed to do is demonstrate the authority of the Prime Minister (primus inter pares) and it strengthens the notion of that authority to be seen to be able to dismiss someone as senior as the Chancellor.
Indeed, go back to the "Night of the Long Knives" and the dismissal of Thorneycroft, Birch and Powell by Harold MacMillan in 1958 (could one argue they were the first real Thatcherites?) and you see how a "little local difficulty" can build a Prime Minister's authority.
Yet the more I look at the circumstances of Kwarteng's resignation the more I see not a confirmation of Prime Ministerial authority but a confirmation of Prime Ministerial weakness. This isn't Blair giving Brown a free hand on the economy - this was a Prime Minister and Chancellor "in lockstep" so we were told.
An ill-timed and poorly communicated policy change which badly misread the public mood and the market reaction has claimed the carer of its creator (so we are to believe). Pace MacMillan, Truss has taken a axe to the "pro-growthers" ad cleared them out from the stables.
I can only assume Hunt has exacted a heavy price from Truss for taking this on - Campbell may be right to a point but Truss still has plenty of allies in Cabinet who can either defend her or join in the feeding frenzy.
However, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, "to lose one Prime Minister may be regarded as misfortune, to lose two might be considered careless". Will enough people want a careless party in charge to allow the Conservatives another term in office?
Off top my head, Sunak not sacked and knight of Long Knives wasn’t 58, it was sixties when Super Mac in trouble?
Correct . Sunak resigned - and the Night of the Long Knives was Summer 1962 when Selwyn Lloyd was dismissed.
Yes.
I recall he made 48 before being turned inside out and edging to gully. And so it started, Knight of long Nightlife’s, or something 34 years before I was born.
The gruesome phrase, so inappropriate on anniversary of Sir David’s death, I presume is a Shakespeare reference?
No, blackshirts v borownshirts in 1934 and then macmillan 1962.
I had a memory that it originated with Native Americans and on checking so it did (long knives=cavalry sabres). No doubt there was some slaughter of a village that took place on the night of.
Source, please?
Not specifically cavalry sabres but swords in general it seems.
'But the German debacle was not the first to which long knives was applied. Back in the fifth century, Hengist and his Saxon forces, who had invaded Britain, invited the British King Vortigern and his entourage to a peace conference, and at a given signal the Saxons drew their swords and massacred the Britons: at least, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s semi-legendary History of the Britons. This slaughter became known as the treachery, plot, or treason of the long knives: first recorded in English in about 1604, but in Welsh (twyll y cyllyll hirion), in or before 1587. The long knives referred to were probably the short swords or saxes (Old English seax) which were drawn at the command (as Geoffrey gives it) ‘Nemet oure saxas’.'
I wouldn't be surprised if the etymolgy of long knives had some connection with Native Americans/Red Indians (no offence) for AH and co, Germany seemed particularly entranced with the Wild West & associated movies and potboilers.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
In which case he would lose badly.
Would he? About a quarter to a third of the electorate at least would vote for just such a populist right agenda.
He might not win but he could come second
In FPTP, 25-30% doesn't get you far, unless it is pretty lumpy.
What he could do is kick the Conservative party into the grave they have dug for themselves.
There's something peculiar happens around the 25% mark. The number of seats gained with 30% absolutely dwarfs the number with 20%. Hence the quite stunningly low seat projections for the Tories on low twenties polling recently. Whereas Labour in 1983 and the Tories in 1997 had 200 and 160 odd whilst hovering around 30%.
Yes, at their highest UKIP were tantalisingly close to breaking through in a number of areas, but didn't quite get there. Whereas the Green strategy has always been very different, focusing on a few areas only rather than a mass breakthrough.
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
Who does your loading, then?
Although I should be against shooting (Scottish Nationalist, centre left) I thoroughly enjoyed the grouse I had for lunch yesterday. The Elk’s Head, Whitfield, Northumberland, if the mods don’t mind the recommendation.
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
In which case he would lose badly.
Would he? About a quarter to a third of the electorate at least would vote for just such a populist right agenda.
He might not win but he could come second
In FPTP, 25-30% doesn't get you far, unless it is pretty lumpy.
What he could do is kick the Conservative party into the grave they have dug for themselves.
There's something peculiar happens around the 25% mark. The number of seats gained with 30% absolutely dwarfs the number with 20%. Hence the quite stunningly low seat projections for the Tories on low twenties polling recently. Whereas Labour in 1983 and the Tories in 1997 had 200 and 160 odd whilst hovering around 30%.
Demographic changes re: seat distributions?
And/or fact that Tories are currently (and for foreseeable future) are getting hammered in Red Wall AND Blue Wall, at both ends so to speak?
Hunt's comments about tax rises and spending cuts at least have the smack of cold hard reality about them.
Which taxes will rise and where the spending cuts will fall are of course going to be the real issues between now and the end of the month.
Given it seems impossible politically to cut defence or NHS spending, it would seem local Government will again take the hit but as to raising taxes, not quite sure what Hunt has in mind or where. Seems politically impossible to for example raise VAT or fuel duty - will we see the 1p tax cut in the Kwarteng Budget reversed to put the final nail in the coffin of Trussonomics?
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
Who does your loading, then?
Although I should be against shooting (Scottish Nationalist, centre left) I thoroughly enjoyed the grouse I had for lunch yesterday. The Elk’s Head, Whitfield, Northumberland, if the mods don’t mind the recommendation.
So, as a Scottish nationalist of the centre left, you enjoy a good grouse?
Hunt's comments about tax rises and spending cuts at least have the smack of cold hard reality about them.
Which taxes will rise and where the spending cuts will fall are of course going to be the real issues between now and the end of the month.
Given it seems impossible politically to cut defence or NHS spending, it would seem local Government will again take the hit but as to raising taxes, not quite sure what Hunt has in mind or where. Seems politically impossible to for example raise VAT or fuel duty - will we see the 1p tax cut in the Kwarteng Budget reversed to put the final nail in the coffin of Trussonomics?
Defence and health won't be cut, welfare they might like to cut but might not be able to, and as you say not much you can raise. So not sure what else significant can be cut, since 'efficiencies' won't get much.
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
Hunt has calmed the markets, if he quits then it will be carnage, so Truss cannot afford to lose him, he will do whatever he wants.
What happens if Monday comes and the markets aren’t calmed?
The way this usually happens is there can be two weeks of calm - people say the markets have been calmed, but then it all erupts again.
Obviously you all know my theory - £400bn of Rishi splaffing (and wasting a lot) to get us through covid has maxxed out the credit - now they want to (unnecessarily, needlessly) try to get another £200bn more borrowing - the markets won’t calm till that plan is dead.
Or the £200bn becomes more like £20bn. Everything now turns on the future price of gas.
I don’t want to be really rude David, but you keep posting that “If gas falls sufficiently, the cost of the energy cap freeze drops” means don’t think you really understand it. That thinking is utter bollox.
1. We haven’t had an OBR how much Tories total promise is likely to cost. The Tories have promised to buck the UK energy market for two and a half years regardless what global energy price does. Some think tanks have had a go at pricing this and come to a quarter of a trillion pound. To be found by tax rises, borrowing or cuts or mixture thereof. Quarter of a trillion on that one policy alone. 2. Variable one. Energy prices can go down, yes, but also up, it’s a very fluid situation in supply and demand over this coming period - but at which point do energy companies need to commit to buying it in advance, so commit to passing on THAT price to both customers AND onto a government commitment to bucking the market? 3. Variable two. If global prices do come down, to what degree is the saving on the quarter of a trillion eaten into or obliterated by the more expensive borrowing costs? Out of these two variable’s, borrowing costs for this policy look certain to remain high now, the greater doubt is if energy prices will come down and stay down isn’t it?
You really think that whole £200bn comes down to £20bn? 🥹 We all know what’s really behind “but the bill freeze looks like turning out much cheaper because gas prices are coming down” argument we get spun from Tory’s on TV and on PB - they privately hate this lumbering Labour policy Tory party has adopted, they hate the ENORMOUS amount of borrowing maxing out UKs credit limit, and the regressive unConservative way the money is spewed out in indiscriminate handouts.
But. They are only fooling themselves spinning that comfort blanket, because, yes, there are variables, but the variables are very much against them.
Don’t be one of them.
There is no defence to this insane policy, Truss has been hiding behind all week.
I would agree we don't know what this policy is going to cost and I would agree that there are significant risks on the upside but there is also some reason for hope on the low side.
The government have committed to the average house bill being no more than £2500 a year. At the moment the price of gas futures are 263p/therm. It has been over 700p and has averaged around 400p of late. The cost of the UK subsidy is directly relational to that price against the price that fixes the £2500 pa average. I have been unable to work out exactly what that is because there are quite a number of other variables. Energy companies are bumping up their fixed charges as well. My best guess is that £2500 per household is going be equivalent to something like 200p/therm, roughly twice what it was last winter.
But I am not wrong is saying that there is a chance that the cost of the scheme will prove to be much lower than the worst estimates. It could also be higher of course. If it stays somewhere near our current price or goes even lower then the cost of the scheme will be less. If it goes back up again we are in trouble, no doubt about it.
Edit, and btw the OBR will have no better idea than the rest of us, it is simply unknowable.
You telling us It’s unknowable wasn’t the impression I got when you reduced it from £200bn to £20bn to spark my reply. 🙂
We know enough overall price can’t come down that much. Because the bit you seem to be avoiding is commodity price drop is to some extent offset by borrowing cost increase - goes back to the unknowable being very guessable in that the borrowing cost won’t be based on “maybe the commodity price drops and stays at x price”, who lends money on that basis?
You accept the part of the equation, political and economic, it is not necessary to provide help in this way, there other options such as sliding scale to target help where needed, not wasted where not needed, and virtually pays for itself?
I believe most UK government borrowing is fixed rate. So the increase only kicks in as new debt is issued.
Interesting the current (March) forecast it from debt interest this year to be c £83bn but to *fall* to £47bn next year… a cut in public spending baked in
If you listened to what the mini budget said - the Energy Price Freeze (a quarter of a trillion pounds) will be paid for by new borrowing, no new taxes no new cuts.
If you listed to what Liz Truss said Wednesday, public spending overall total will not show any cuts under her, simply because the quarter of a trillion Energy Price Freeze is being added to the public spending total.
What I am arguing in this thread, we don’t have to fund a quarter of a trillion pound scheme when other realistic options are available better targeted and virtually paying for themselves, I’m also arguing against those saying commodity price coming down proves the end bill will definitely be cheaper, because even with cuts even with more tax, this scheme will always need a huge amount of new borrowing at the new higher borrowing rates.
Correct me where wrong.
But I am now adding a third facet to my argument - anyone who claims Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth. And I can prove it. That spiking gilt market graph they use over and over in media, expand it to see the previous 12 months and see the trajectory is up up up long before Truss got anywhere near number 10 - my argument is the budget exacerbated an already underlying problem. Anyone want to own the claim if the mini budget is reversed, annulled, reset, the trajectory on the borrowings chart graph would be down when it hasn’t been all year?
I’m arguing anyone who peddles Labour Party lies that Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth, and sure I can win this argument.
I’ve been drinking all afternoon, don’t anyone want to take me on?
You're probably sleeping it off right now, but just in case, I will!
You and @Luckyguy1983 are making a similar argument, and its nonsense.
You're arguing two different things. The first is a straw man, and obviously false: "Anyone want to own the claim if the mini budget is reversed, annulled, reset, the trajectory on the borrowings chart graph would be down when it hasn’t been all year?" Nah, no thanks, the economy was already getting worse before the Trustterf*ck.
The second argument obviously doesn't follow: "I’m arguing anyone who peddles Labour Party lies that Kwarteng and Truss mini budget crashed the markets I am calling an idiot peddling a myth, and sure I can win this argument." Nah you can't. The markets were already pretty unhappy, they dropped a Trussterbomb in the middle of it. They bear full responsibility for moving the markets from 'err...we don't really like this
If I was to say, sorry about that clusterbomb I dropped last week, I'll just clean up all the shrapnel from my clusterbomb and pretend it never happened, the maimed children might have something to say about it.
Lucky for you, I’m still wide awake and drinking. 😵💫
Your post is just spin - you actually agree with my central point, that I’m right because you have to, but saying I’m wrong all over the place.
If Labour had held a budget the same day, without the tax cutting, I’m arguing what you call a Trusster fuck would still have happened. It would be a Starmerfuck. Because the fundamentals in the economy, the maxxed out credit card, cannot handle the quarter of a trillion extra for Energy hand outs, not simply the fundamental maths of it making the loan/borrowing risk - the markets don’t see a need for us to use this particular scheme. So when you break it down, The gilty graph has been on upward trajectory all year - fact if the mini budget is completely reversed the gilty trajectory will still be an upward trajectory, not downward - fact thus proving conclusively the idea Truss Kwasi budget crashed the economy is a myth, a myth peddled by Labour and their friends in the media and also mouthed by people who can’t think for themselves, the aim being to create a polling crash - because with just what the markets are doing without a polling crash, Kwarteng would still be there. Fact.
What we actually need to hear from Labour if they think they can form a government on Monday morning - why is the borrowing cost on an upward trajectory all year, long before the mini budget came along, and what policy do they have to put it on downward trajectory?
Hint. The answer is Labour are clueless on this, as Starmer agreed with Truss quarter of a billion of unnecessary further borrowing in the trap he fell into in last weeks PMQs.
and that I am without doubt winning this argument.
Where are ya? Have you gone to bed to sleep it off?
I thought you were going to engage with my argument knock it over and put me right
That didn’t last long. It was like flicking an ant off my bare skin whilst sunbathing in the park.
We both agree a fire was already going.
We both agree What you refer to as a “cluster fuck” is a fire going which gasoline was poured onto.
What you need to agree, because it’s fact, The gasoline to cause clusterfuck was in large part quarter of a trillion loan for energy handout, and small part the net minus thirteen billion budget redistributing wealth from workers to owners, owners with ideas and ambition but not the capital to match hence no growth in economy. (Net-13bn from 45bn cuts minus 2bn uturn minus 30bn stealth tax)
Labour unlikely to have done the 45bn tax change budget, but they do believe in the up to quarter of a trillion of borrowing at new expensive rates (minus a small percentage for windfall tax and a small percentage for other tax rises, but tax rising is limited due to the politically maxxed out level of tax burden already) for a wrong headed and ruinous system of handouts - my argument, which is a winning argument, it’s known as a Trussrerfuck only because she was PM not Loto, whilst Starmer’s budget would also have poured a lot of gasoline on the fire with similar result, and it would have been known as the Starmerfuck. And LOTO Truss with her libertarian ethos would now be riding high in the polling.
What bit of that is not fact?
Sorry to miss this, I was busy writing an unanswerably awesome riposte to your previous post.
And going to bed. Sorry.
Off you go. Scuttle away. Least you know when your beaten.
Anyone else want to take my argument on. Who wants some? 😈
Given that you haven’t responded to my unanswerable reply, I must indeed conclude that it is, in fact, unanswerable.
Reflecting on yesterday's events - let's be fair, Kwarteng isn't the first Chancellor to be sacked or "asked to stand aside" to use the euphemism in recent times. We've had Sunak, Lawson and Lamont to name but three.
The one thing the change of Chancellor (voluntary or otherwise) is supposed to do is demonstrate the authority of the Prime Minister (primus inter pares) and it strengthens the notion of that authority to be seen to be able to dismiss someone as senior as the Chancellor.
Indeed, go back to the "Night of the Long Knives" and the dismissal of Thorneycroft, Birch and Powell by Harold MacMillan in 1958 (could one argue they were the first real Thatcherites?) and you see how a "little local difficulty" can build a Prime Minister's authority.
Yet the more I look at the circumstances of Kwarteng's resignation the more I see not a confirmation of Prime Ministerial authority but a confirmation of Prime Ministerial weakness. This isn't Blair giving Brown a free hand on the economy - this was a Prime Minister and Chancellor "in lockstep" so we were told.
An ill-timed and poorly communicated policy change which badly misread the public mood and the market reaction has claimed the carer of its creator (so we are to believe). Pace MacMillan, Truss has taken a axe to the "pro-growthers" ad cleared them out from the stables.
I can only assume Hunt has exacted a heavy price from Truss for taking this on - Campbell may be right to a point but Truss still has plenty of allies in Cabinet who can either defend her or join in the feeding frenzy.
However, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, "to lose one Prime Minister may be regarded as misfortune, to lose two might be considered careless". Will enough people want a careless party in charge to allow the Conservatives another term in office?
Off top my head, Sunak not sacked and knight of Long Knives wasn’t 58, it was sixties when Super Mac in trouble?
Correct . Sunak resigned - and the Night of the Long Knives was Summer 1962 when Selwyn Lloyd was dismissed.
Yes.
I recall he made 48 before being turned inside out and edging to gully. And so it started, Knight of long Nightlife’s, or something 34 years before I was born.
The gruesome phrase, so inappropriate on anniversary of Sir David’s death, I presume is a Shakespeare reference?
No, blackshirts v borownshirts in 1934 and then macmillan 1962.
I had a memory that it originated with Native Americans and on checking so it did (long knives=cavalry sabres). No doubt there was some slaughter of a village that took place on the night of.
Source, please?
Not specifically cavalry sabres but swords in general it seems.
'But the German debacle was not the first to which long knives was applied. Back in the fifth century, Hengist and his Saxon forces, who had invaded Britain, invited the British King Vortigern and his entourage to a peace conference, and at a given signal the Saxons drew their swords and massacred the Britons: at least, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s semi-legendary History of the Britons. This slaughter became known as the treachery, plot, or treason of the long knives: first recorded in English in about 1604, but in Welsh (twyll y cyllyll hirion), in or before 1587. The long knives referred to were probably the short swords or saxes (Old English seax) which were drawn at the command (as Geoffrey gives it) ‘Nemet oure saxas’.'
I wouldn't be surprised if the etymolgy of long knives had some connection with Native Americans/Red Indians (no offence) for AH and co, Germany seemed particularly entranced with the Wild West & associated movies and potboilers.
Before firearms, killings with knives, long or short, single or multiple, common, if not exactly commonplace.
Hunt's comments about tax rises and spending cuts at least have the smack of cold hard reality about them.
Which taxes will rise and where the spending cuts will fall are of course going to be the real issues between now and the end of the month.
Given it seems impossible politically to cut defence or NHS spending, it would seem local Government will again take the hit but as to raising taxes, not quite sure what Hunt has in mind or where. Seems politically impossible to for example raise VAT or fuel duty - will we see the 1p tax cut in the Kwarteng Budget reversed to put the final nail in the coffin of Trussonomics?
Defence and health won't be cut, welfare they might like to cut but might not be able to, and as you say not much you can raise. So not sure what else significant can be cut, since 'efficiencies' won't get much.
They’ll find out how much they have to cut when the bond market opens on Monday.
By Wednesday things will be clear.
Everything Hunt has said so far is directly aimed at Gilt traders. If yields reduce, then cuts will be moderate. If they rise, they’ll be severe. He’s using the press to signal all sorts of cuts and tax rises this weekend. Whether they actually get implemented depends, as I said, on the bond market next week.
Thats the terrifying truth about how politics works, right now.
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
"I used to hunt with my cleaner" hahaha
Venture out with a hunt and you will find dukes and dustmen. Literally dukes and dustmen.
Or are you making fun of someone because they have a cleaner?
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
"I used to hunt with my cleaner" hahaha
You're not singing any more.
Don't want to look as if I am bullying you with big number bets, so let's reduce it: I bet you £10,000 at evens that I have regularly been hunting on a horse with someone also on a horse who has regularly cleaned my house for cash.
He doesn't doubt it at all. He was laughing at you because you have a cleaner.
I thought it was funny because the general image people have of fox hunting is posh people chasing poor Mr Fox around with their gardeners/cleaners helping out. Not doing a great job at dispelling that.
There's also a bit of nominative determinism in Mr Hunt being in favour of fox-hunting.
There's a PGA golf coach called Simon Shanks.
Hopefully that's the opposite of nominative determinism.
Chris Moneymaker won the World series of Poker one year
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
Hunt's comments about tax rises and spending cuts at least have the smack of cold hard reality about them.
Which taxes will rise and where the spending cuts will fall are of course going to be the real issues between now and the end of the month.
Given it seems impossible politically to cut defence or NHS spending, it would seem local Government will again take the hit but as to raising taxes, not quite sure what Hunt has in mind or where. Seems politically impossible to for example raise VAT or fuel duty - will we see the 1p tax cut in the Kwarteng Budget reversed to put the final nail in the coffin of Trussonomics?
Why not a policy to pay 10% of your treatment? If you can’t afford to pay £2,000 towards a new hip or £10,000 towards cancer treatment, you don’t deserve to live, sucker. (c) Tory thinking.
Hunt's comments about tax rises and spending cuts at least have the smack of cold hard reality about them.
Which taxes will rise and where the spending cuts will fall are of course going to be the real issues between now and the end of the month.
Given it seems impossible politically to cut defence or NHS spending, it would seem local Government will again take the hit but as to raising taxes, not quite sure what Hunt has in mind or where. Seems politically impossible to for example raise VAT or fuel duty - will we see the 1p tax cut in the Kwarteng Budget reversed to put the final nail in the coffin of Trussonomics?
Defence and health won't be cut, welfare they might like to cut but might not be able to, and as you say not much you can raise. So not sure what else significant can be cut, since 'efficiencies' won't get much.
To be fair, Hunt was completely non-committal this morning and wouldn't rule out cuts to either the NHS or defence spending.
Cutting the NHS and defence would be "courageous" as Sir Humphrey would put it. There's also the thorny question of raising benefits in line with inflation to which again Hunt wouldn't make a commitment.
We've already seen a publicly unpopular budget destroyed politically - will we now see a politically unpopular Budget destroyed publicly by Conservative backbenchers terrified of seeing their majorities evaporate?
Hunt was 48 on BF for next leader yesterday lunchtime when I bet on him.
Now 4.8
Has an MP ever come in faster on the betting?
Given Hunt was eliminated in the first MPs round of voting in the leadership contest and polled worse than Sunak with members let alone Truss or Badenoch, I fail to see how he gets it. Chancellor is probably the highest post he is going to have
That he was out so early ironically makes him more likely a compromise candidate for me, in seeking to secure a coronation. He didn't get involved in the argy bargy of the debates.
Contrarily, whilst people might want to avoid the members voting this time, picking the guy they most definitely rejected, would make crowning Sunak quite the provocation to them.
If there is a Tory leader Farage would be licking his lips over, it is Hunt.
Farage would return to lead RefUK in 5 minutes if Hunt took over.
Farage should just retire already. He's got his most important policy through, does he really want to spend his time setting up and running fractious parties to act as a pressure group on the Tories, rather than just be a pundit?
Farage would definitely run on a low tax, hard Brexit, tough on immigration and channel crossings and anti Woke agenda against Starmer and Hunt who he would portray as near identical centrist, corporatist Remainers
In which case he would lose badly.
Would he? About a quarter to a third of the electorate at least would vote for just such a populist right agenda.
He might not win but he could come second
In FPTP, 25-30% doesn't get you far, unless it is pretty lumpy.
What he could do is kick the Conservative party into the grave they have dug for themselves.
It could get him 50-100 seats, 100-200 if he got to 30%. That would then be curtains for the Tories under Hunt yes. Assuming Starmer Labour got 40%+ then the Hunt led Tories would be down to about 10-15%, they would be lucky to get more than a handful of seats at most
You are living in a fantasy world and seem to want the conservative party to be extinguished
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
Who does your loading, then?
Never shot with a loader. I am a pleb.
You use an AK-47 or an L1A1?
I happened to be passing through the vibrant mutlcultural neighbourhood (I'm being unironic for the avoidance of doubt) of Govanhill a couple of days ago and noticed a Shisha shop had a shisha pipe in the shape of a life size AK-47 in the widow. I considered asking the owner if I could take a pic of it but he might have thought I was some rsole hack trying to make a story - 'Days after Irish women sing song praising the terrorist IRA at Hampden, less than a mile away shop in immigrant hellhole glorifies the weapon of Jihad in window'.
On Fox hunting I remain deeply skeptical that if foxes are the menace that need to be dealt with (I see no reason not to defer to farmers on that point), that putting on fancy dress and getting the local amateurs to amble about is the most efficient and effective method of dealing with them, but I don't care enough to look into the matter as they insist it is indeed the most effective way.
Hunting doesn't aim to rid the world of every fox. It is a typically British compromise. It used to kill enough.
Now foxes are shot and gassed and gamekeepers of large and not so large estates will tell you how there are none to be found on their land.
They are a designated pest. And killed as such by many. But there are unlikely to be adorable documentaries on killing them on the BBC as there have been for example on Sealyhams killing rats.
Ain't life strange.
Jesus...how can you even begin to comment from a background of such ignorance on the matter. Fact 1: fox hunting never stopped...it's as prevalent now as it was pre-ban. Hunts continue to kill dozens of foxes each season. Fact 2: foxes are not being gassed...it's been illegal for decades and the penalties are draconian. Foxes are being shot just as they were shot pre-ban. Fact 3: go to any hunt now and there is no shortage of foxes. Fact 4: foxes are not and never have been "designated pests"
If they aren't pests how come they are being shot left, right and Chelsea all over the place.
It is impossible not to like Michael Palin. That would be like defying gravity. It is a Law of the Universe.
Yes that law also applies imho to
Colin Jackson Michael Johnson Jessica Ennis (must be something about athletics) Hannah Fry Lucy Worsley Ken Clarke Bumble Peter Kay David Beckham Kate Bush
Farage has never won shit, and he’s certainly not gonna win shit now.
He won the national vote and most seats in the 2014 and 2019 European elections
You have suddenly become an apologist for Farage but it really has been there for all to see in your posts over the last months as you see the marginalisation of the little Englander cult
It is ironic that you are following the same doomed path as Corbynites
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
Who does your loading, then?
?? There is a huge market in cartridge belts in case you hadn't noticed or deep pockets on your Barbour. Loading is something out of Downton.
Fox hunting is a manifestation of extreme arrogance that perhaps comes with years of being the feudal lords and ladies of the manor as though they think they have a right to be cruel and not care because nobody will stop them . Go back a couple of hundred years and the same thing applied to the aristocracy owning slaves . I have no great wish for the state to ever intervene in private affairs but do think power (whether state or feudal ) brings extreme arrogance over time and leads to things like this.Its actually no different to communism where extreme power in the hands of a few or one person leads to Stalin purges and North Korea.Its why power shoudl be spread far and wide and look to be diluted constantly
I hadn't previously recognised what an utter jerk you are, thanks for clarifying. I have got lots of money, mainly thanks to some "cotton merchant" hur hur ancestors. I feel terrible about it. Genuinely. But this has zero to do with foxhunting. Here's a clue: in the days of foxhunting, I used to hunt with my cleaner and with someone who was on the tills in Tescos. When I shoot grouse and pheasant, I do not find people like that next to me.
Who does your loading, then?
Although I should be against shooting (Scottish Nationalist, centre left) I thoroughly enjoyed the grouse I had for lunch yesterday. The Elk’s Head, Whitfield, Northumberland, if the mods don’t mind the recommendation.
So, as a Scottish nationalist of the centre left, you enjoy a good grouse?
Farage isn’t going to win anything like 30% of the vote in a general election, even up against a candidate like Hunt. His best bet would be as a spoiler party making the difference in a few constituencies.
The 2019 Spring polls had Farage's party on 20 - 25% in some of them and Hunt would be May 2 just with higher taxes now and spending cuts. Most of the voters who voted for Boris at the last general election are hardly going to be desperate to vote for the man who lost the leadership contest to Boris and would have been imposed on the Tories by coronation after Boris was removed.
I expect Labour would win but there is certainly a scenario where Farage could take second place from Hunt
Farage isn’t going to win anything like 30% of the vote in a general election, even up against a candidate like Hunt. His best bet would be as a spoiler party making the difference in a few constituencies.
The 2019 Spring polls had Farage's party on 20 - 25% in some of them and Hunt would be May 2 just with higher taxes now and spending cuts. Most of the voters who voted for Boris at the last general election are hardly going to be desperate to vote for the man who lost the leadership contest to Boris and would have been imposed on the Tories by coronation after Boris was removed.
The 2019 Spring polls were at the peak of Brexit paralysis and the Brexit party success at the EU elections. No way that those poll ratings would have been translated into such support at any General Election . The Peterborough by election held just a few days after the Brexit party success highlighted that very well. It was pretty universally expected that Labour would lose that seat to the Brexit party - given the added burden it then carried from the Fiona Onasanya scandal - yet it did not happen. Brexit party support proved to be very shallow even at a time when the wider electorate was focussed on the issue. It was a protest vote - as was the 2015 UKIP vote to a great extent. The Brexit issue has ceased to be salient, and I suspect that any attempted Farage comeback would be doomed to fail with his vote share little more than UKIP managed back in 2010.
Farage isn’t going to win anything like 30% of the vote in a general election, even up against a candidate like Hunt. His best bet would be as a spoiler party making the difference in a few constituencies.
The 2019 Spring polls had Farage's party on 20 - 25% in some of them and Hunt would be May 2 just with higher taxes now and spending cuts. Most of the voters who voted for Boris at the last general election are hardly going to be desperate to vote for the man who lost the leadership contest to Boris and would have been imposed on the Tories by coronation after Boris was removed.
I expect Labour would win but there is certainly a scenario where Farage could take second place from Hunt
I think you over-estimate the potential of Farage and the populist right. The 2019 polls you refer to were before Brexit 'got done' - it's done now. You referred earlier to something like 'Farage taking on the corporatist remainer elite represented by Starmer and Hunt' - strange language for you. His supporters are very noisy but not so numerous - no more than 10% of the electorate, I reckon, believe in these sort of conspiracist global elite memes. Look how little progress Tice has made.
In short, the numbers you talk about would only be achievable by a Farage-led party if there was a serious risk of Brexit being over-turned. But that isn't going to happen. Brexit is done, at least for the foreseeable future. And therefore Farage is a busted flush.
Hunt's comments about tax rises and spending cuts at least have the smack of cold hard reality about them.
Which taxes will rise and where the spending cuts will fall are of course going to be the real issues between now and the end of the month.
Given it seems impossible politically to cut defence or NHS spending, it would seem local Government will again take the hit but as to raising taxes, not quite sure what Hunt has in mind or where. Seems politically impossible to for example raise VAT or fuel duty - will we see the 1p tax cut in the Kwarteng Budget reversed to put the final nail in the coffin of Trussonomics?
Defence and health won't be cut, welfare they might like to cut but might not be able to, and as you say not much you can raise. So not sure what else significant can be cut, since 'efficiencies' won't get much.
They’ll find out how much they have to cut when the bond market opens on Monday.
By Wednesday things will be clear.
Everything Hunt has said so far is directly aimed at Gilt traders. If yields reduce, then cuts will be moderate. If they rise, they’ll be severe. He’s using the press to signal all sorts of cuts and tax rises this weekend. Whether they actually get implemented depends, as I said, on the bond market next week.
Thats the terrifying truth about how politics works, right now.
Hunt's comments about tax rises and spending cuts at least have the smack of cold hard reality about them.
Which taxes will rise and where the spending cuts will fall are of course going to be the real issues between now and the end of the month.
Given it seems impossible politically to cut defence or NHS spending, it would seem local Government will again take the hit but as to raising taxes, not quite sure what Hunt has in mind or where. Seems politically impossible to for example raise VAT or fuel duty - will we see the 1p tax cut in the Kwarteng Budget reversed to put the final nail in the coffin of Trussonomics?
Council tax and its adult social care precept look likely.
Aside from the genuine advantage of shifting more of the tax burden onto property it would have the political advantage of shifting much of the backlash onto local councils.
Hunt's comments about tax rises and spending cuts at least have the smack of cold hard reality about them.
Which taxes will rise and where the spending cuts will fall are of course going to be the real issues between now and the end of the month.
Given it seems impossible politically to cut defence or NHS spending, it would seem local Government will again take the hit but as to raising taxes, not quite sure what Hunt has in mind or where. Seems politically impossible to for example raise VAT or fuel duty - will we see the 1p tax cut in the Kwarteng Budget reversed to put the final nail in the coffin of Trussonomics?
And interest and mortgage and borrowing rates will continue to rise. Thanks to Liz this worldwide trend has now been laid at the door of the Conservative Party.
Comments
Other rumours suggest the perpetrators were recently mobilised.
This is the reality of trail hunting
https://twitter.com/DorsetMonitor/status/1575190596087476224?s=20&t=XhAPRah99txTvcApTYcOBg
Really: choose misdirected class hatred, or get a life. One or the other.
I'm aware my earlier post fell somewhat short of my usual high standards for which I apologise.
I now realise Harold MacMillan sacked two Chancellors - Peter Thorneycroft in 1958 and Selwyn Lloyd in 1962 so Liz Truss still has some ground to make up.
As for other Chancellors who were encouraged to stand aside - Callaghan went to the Home Office after devaluation, Howe was reshuffled after the 1983 win - Lawson resigned so the next Chancellor to be sacked would be Norman Lamont.
Hammond, Javid, Sunak and Zahawi all resigned to one extent or another so the next to be sacked would be Kwarteng.
It's also worth mentioning while Fontwell has its appeal, I much prefer Plumpton simply because it's easier to get to for those of us travelling by rail.
Few other snippets - can anyone remember the last time the People's Party was third in an Austrian opinion poll? The collapse of the lead centre-right mirrors that of the British Conservatives and they trail the Social Democrats and the revitalised Freedom Party.
In Denmark, the latest Voxmeter has the centre-left bloc six points up but the latest Gallup has the lead at just 3.5% but that's a step forward from the last Gallup poll which had a statistical dead heat between the two blocs.
YouTube and wikipedia are great examples of how things can have a great effect on quality of life while not affecting GDP much.
So, as I'm the sober one here, I'll attempt a compronise...
- The fundamentals in the economy are a lot less 'fundamental' than you are arguing. Yeah, we are borrowing too much. But an astute politician could have presented something like the energy price guarantee with lots of reassuring noises and 'look over here' distraction tactics to sustain market confidence (e.g. an OBR forecast that suggested a reassuring medium-term picture). Perhaps the market reassurance would only have been for a period of time, but still.
- It took political idiocy to try to get markets to take the strain of another big spending commitment (the energy price guarantee) whilst also refusing to do any of the reassuring noises or distraction tactics - in fact to do the opposite of simultaneously throwing any appearance of fiscal responsibility to the winds.
- I agree it is possible that the energy price guarantee would have been the straw that breaks the camel's back regardless of the political window-dressing, but looking at e.g. debt-to-GDP ratios of major economies, it is very hard to argue that this moment, right now, is the moment when the UK's spending commitments become unaffordable.
- And what happened after the budget was in no way simply a polling crash. Mortgage rates are the biggest real impact, but the pension funds are close behind.
Hmm...not sure that compromise will satisfy you, and I'm off to bed (I know, I know, it's before 9pm. That's my life with a two-year old and a pregnant wife) but this has been fun. Thanks.
Boris Johnson
The ERG
The Daily Mail
The Daily Express
The Daily Telegraph
GB News
Patrick Minford
BartyBobbins
Radio Broadmoor
They all need to get in the sea.
HE did then go on to say he was at Derby next week and would reciprocate his joke
Charles I was an admirable family man, and while his wife may have been not quite 16 when they married there was nothing unusual about that in the 17th century.
He might not win but he could come second
Honestly if they want a small tweak without cutting out the members that might be something worth doing. It probably wouldn't affect the members too much, but if, say, 90% of Truss's support had gone to Rishi, so he was more than 100 ahead of her, perhaps it would influence them to some degree by making the MP choice unambiguous.
I thought you were going to engage with my argument knock it over and put me right
That didn’t last long. It was like flicking an ant off my bare skin whilst sunbathing in the park.
We both agree a fire was already going.
We both agree What you refer to as a “cluster fuck” is a fire going which gasoline was poured onto.
What you need to agree, because it’s fact, The gasoline to cause clusterfuck was in large part quarter of a trillion loan for energy handout, and small part the net minus thirteen billion budget redistributing wealth from workers to owners, owners with ideas and ambition but not the capital to match hence no growth in economy.
(Net-13bn from 45bn cuts minus 2bn uturn minus 30bn stealth tax)
Labour unlikely to have done the 45bn tax change budget, but they do believe in the up to quarter of a trillion of borrowing at new expensive rates (minus a small percentage for windfall tax and a small percentage for other tax rises, but tax rising is limited due to the politically maxxed out level of tax burden already) for a wrong headed and ruinous system of handouts - my argument, which is a winning argument, it’s known as a Trussrerfuck only because she was PM not Loto, whilst Starmer’s budget would also have poured a lot of gasoline on the fire with similar result, and it would have been known as the Starmerfuck. And LOTO Truss with her libertarian ethos would now be riding high in the polling.
What bit of that is not fact?
This was his tweet yesterday
'@Nigel_Farage
·
Oct 14
I have it on good authority that @Jeremy_Hunt on the Eurostar from Brussels this morning en route to become Chancellor.
Had he taken any instructions?'
What he could do is kick the Conservative party into the grave they have dug for themselves.
What a week for U Turns!
Johnson went through three - Javid, Sunak and Zahawi.
Attlee had three - Dalton, Cripps and Gaitskell.
In all her long tenure, Thatcher only had three Chancellors - Howe, Lawson and Major.
Blair had just one, so did Cameron.
Truss is already on her second.
And going to bed. Sorry.
Ah, you mean the humane harvesting of organic free range produce.
Hopefully that's the opposite of nominative determinism.
Anyone else want to take my argument on. Who wants some? 😈
I expect Labour would win but there is certainly a scenario where Farage could take second place from Hunt
Hence the quite stunningly low seat projections for the Tories on low twenties polling recently.
Whereas Labour in 1983 and the Tories in 1997 had 200 and 160 odd whilst hovering around 30%.
That would be like defying gravity. It is a Law of the Universe.
'But the German debacle was not the first to which long knives was applied. Back in the fifth century, Hengist and his Saxon forces, who had invaded Britain, invited the British King Vortigern and his entourage to a peace conference, and at a given signal the Saxons drew their swords and massacred the Britons: at least, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s semi-legendary History of the Britons. This slaughter became known as the treachery, plot, or treason of the long knives: first recorded in English in about 1604, but in Welsh (twyll y cyllyll hirion), in or before 1587. The long knives referred to were probably the short swords or saxes (Old English seax) which were drawn at the command (as Geoffrey gives it) ‘Nemet oure saxas’.'
https://public.oed.com/blog/june-2016-update-release-notes-the-long-knife/
I wouldn't be surprised if the etymolgy of long knives had some connection with Native Americans/Red Indians (no offence) for AH and co, Germany seemed particularly entranced with the Wild West & associated movies and potboilers.
And/or fact that Tories are currently (and for foreseeable future) are getting hammered in Red Wall AND Blue Wall, at both ends so to speak?
Which taxes will rise and where the spending cuts will fall are of course going to be the real issues between now and the end of the month.
Given it seems impossible politically to cut defence or NHS spending, it would seem local Government will again take the hit but as to raising taxes, not quite sure what Hunt has in mind or where. Seems politically impossible to for example raise VAT or fuel duty - will we see the 1p tax cut in the Kwarteng Budget reversed to put the final nail in the coffin of Trussonomics?
Well, who are the rest of us to argue with that?
By Wednesday things will be clear.
Everything Hunt has said so far is directly aimed at Gilt traders. If yields reduce, then cuts will be moderate. If they rise, they’ll be severe. He’s using the press to signal all sorts of cuts and tax rises this weekend. Whether they actually get implemented depends, as I said, on the bond market next week.
Thats the terrifying truth about how politics works, right now.
Or do the financial institutions not mind tax cuts as long as they are subsidising property prices.
Politics has moved on from Farage and the ERG
Cutting the NHS and defence would be "courageous" as Sir Humphrey would put it. There's also the thorny question of raising benefits in line with inflation to which again Hunt wouldn't make a commitment.
We've already seen a publicly unpopular budget destroyed politically - will we now see a politically unpopular Budget destroyed publicly by Conservative backbenchers terrified of seeing their majorities evaporate?
Dick brain.
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/
🔺 EXCLUSIVE: The Downing Street chief of staff lobbied ministers including Liz Truss for a politician he falsely claimed was Libya’s “legitimate prime minister” as part of a paid campaign to change UK foreign policy
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mark-fullbrookmark-fullbrook-liz-truss-chief-of-staff-lobbying-libya-9r657ccbt?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1665854109-1
Colin Jackson
Michael Johnson
Jessica Ennis (must be something about athletics)
Hannah Fry
Lucy Worsley
Ken Clarke
Bumble
Peter Kay
David Beckham
Kate Bush
Would be a fun dinner party
Your eyes do not deceive you - this really is the Daily Telegraph https://twitter.com/PascalLTH/status/1581304429193572352/photo/1
From @JeremyWarnerUK in @Telegraph - Brexit has been even worse than predicted - hit the economy even more severely than so-called Project Fear. https://twitter.com/jeremywarneruk/status/1581330560571801602
It is ironic that you are following the same doomed path as Corbynites
The Brexit issue has ceased to be salient, and I suspect that any attempted Farage comeback would be doomed to fail with his vote share little more than UKIP managed back in 2010.
In short, the numbers you talk about would only be achievable by a Farage-led party if there was a serious risk of Brexit being over-turned. But that isn't going to happen. Brexit is done, at least for the foreseeable future. And therefore Farage is a busted flush.
George Mann 🫧⚒️🫧
@sgfmann
·
12m
Sunday Express: Revealed - Secret plot to oust PM #TomorrowsPapersToday
Aside from the genuine advantage of shifting more of the tax burden onto property it would have the political advantage of shifting much of the backlash onto local councils.
Thanks to Liz this worldwide trend has now been laid at the door of the Conservative Party.