It started in Threadneedle Street will not work for the government – politicalbetting.com

Adjusting the inflation target higher because it's harder to hit would be just about the worst thing the government would do. Inflation expectations, pay demands etc would simply ratchet up to reflect the new target and that new target would then be out of reach. Of all the things you can criticise this government of economic policy numpties for, and Jesus there are plenty of them, not changing the inflation mandate certainly isn't one of them.

Selebian said:

Taz said:

Carnyx said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Miklosvar said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

What an utter, utter indictment.

"The government has “no true grasp on the costs” involved in preventing a collapse of Thames Water, with estimates presented to ministers and regulators suggesting the company could be facing a hole of £10bn in its finances, the Guardian can reveal.


The water company, which serves 15 million customers, is in emergency talks with the water regulator Ofwat, ministers and government departments after the departure of its chief executive and concerns over its ability to continue operating without a multibillion cash injection."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/28/thames-water-in-crisis-talks-over-potential-10bn-black-hole-cost-possible-collapse

10 billion pounds, with bills also going up at least 25%, if not 40, to bail out decades of leveraging. An absolute scandal, ;there's no other way to describe it.

No.

If Thames Water goes bust, then the lenders lose money. There is no reason why bills should rise.

The USS pension fund, the biggest in the U.K., has a 20% stake in Thames Water. More likely to become ‘had’

....

And "formerly the biggest."

Looks like USS had a data breach too, just last month...

That was down to Capita AIUI.

They manage the fund, and have had to offer free cyber security products to all members. I’m sure Selebian would be able to add more. Capita manage one of my old DB schemes too. Although active members now are less than 300.

Crapita is as Crapita does...

Your summary is about as much as I know. Time limited credit monitoring membership was offered. Should be fined out of existence imho.

There are a few companies who have benefited from privatisation by providing lousy service for the cheapest price, Capita, Serco and Jarvis come to mind.

Omnium said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.

Like Indy, I hate spiders.

Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase

The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.

https://news.sky.com/story/stowaway-african-huntsman-spider-found-in-edinburgh-suitcase-12911116

How the hell do you get a massive spider in your suitcase by accident? A huntsman isn’t your regular house spider, it’s the size of a dinner plate!

Quite relieved to have got out of Edinburgh alive to be honest. Need to check the car to make sure didn’t bring back any unexpected passengers.

It's not the spiders you need to worry about.

@TheScreamingEagles is wrong about Indiana Jones!

The latter hates SNAKES, not spiders!

Top 10 Natural arsehole species;

1. Wasps
2. Crocs and Gators (mainly because I'm so scared of them)
3. Rats
4. Snakes (Again scary)
5. Spiders of any great size
6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes
7. Komodo Dragons - nasty bastards, and noticed
8. Flies - particularly Tsetse flies.
9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful!
10. Little bastard unidentifiable moving crap!

Daddy long-legs.

Just fucking weird, really. Like a drunk flying spider.

Selebian said:

Taz said:

Carnyx said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Miklosvar said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

What an utter, utter indictment.

"The government has “no true grasp on the costs” involved in preventing a collapse of Thames Water, with estimates presented to ministers and regulators suggesting the company could be facing a hole of £10bn in its finances, the Guardian can reveal.


The water company, which serves 15 million customers, is in emergency talks with the water regulator Ofwat, ministers and government departments after the departure of its chief executive and concerns over its ability to continue operating without a multibillion cash injection."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/28/thames-water-in-crisis-talks-over-potential-10bn-black-hole-cost-possible-collapse

10 billion pounds, with bills also going up at least 25%, if not 40, to bail out decades of leveraging. An absolute scandal, ;there's no other way to describe it.

No.

If Thames Water goes bust, then the lenders lose money. There is no reason why bills should rise.

The USS pension fund, the biggest in the U.K., has a 20% stake in Thames Water. More likely to become ‘had’

....

And "formerly the biggest."

Looks like USS had a data breach too, just last month...

That was down to Capita AIUI.

They manage the fund, and have had to offer free cyber security products to all members. I’m sure Selebian would be able to add more. Capita manage one of my old DB schemes too. Although active members now are less than 300.

Crapita is as Crapita does...

Your summary is about as much as I know. Time limited credit monitoring membership was offered. Should be fined out of existence imho.

I would have thought, given the severity, they would have been all over this and doing their best to let everyone affected know and keep,them up,to,date.

I only know what a couple,of,fincancial journalists have put on Twitter.

Crapita are hopeless.

Carnyx said:

Taz said:

Omnium said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.

Like Indy, I hate spiders.

Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase

The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.

https://news.sky.com/story/stowaway-african-huntsman-spider-found-in-edinburgh-suitcase-12911116

How the hell do you get a massive spider in your suitcase by accident? A huntsman isn’t your regular house spider, it’s the size of a dinner plate!

Quite relieved to have got out of Edinburgh alive to be honest. Need to check the car to make sure didn’t bring back any unexpected passengers.

It's not the spiders you need to worry about.

@TheScreamingEagles is wrong about Indiana Jones!

The latter hates SNAKES, not spiders!

Top 10 Natural arsehole species;

1. Wasps
2. Crocs and Gators (mainly because I'm so scared of them)
3. Rats
4. Snakes (Again scary)
5. Spiders of any great size
6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes
7. Komodo Dragons - nasty bastards, and noticed
8. Flies - particularly Tsetse flies.
9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful!
10. Little bastard unidentifiable moving crap!

Botfly, especially the larvae. There’s something quite life affirming seeing them removed fro a kittens nose on YouTube.

Cordyceps
Tarantula hawk wasps

No ticks? Highland midges and their Scandi cousins? Dracunculiasis worms?

That Sardinian cheese that shoots eye burrowing larvae at you has to be up there.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

solarflare said:

Omnium said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.

Like Indy, I hate spiders.

Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase

The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.

https://news.sky.com/story/stowaway-african-huntsman-spider-found-in-edinburgh-suitcase-12911116

How the hell do you get a massive spider in your suitcase by accident? A huntsman isn’t your regular house spider, it’s the size of a dinner plate!

Quite relieved to have got out of Edinburgh alive to be honest. Need to check the car to make sure didn’t bring back any unexpected passengers.

It's not the spiders you need to worry about.

@TheScreamingEagles is wrong about Indiana Jones!

The latter hates SNAKES, not spiders!

Top 10 Natural arsehole species;

1. Wasps
2. Crocs and Gators (mainly because I'm so scared of them)
3. Rats
4. Snakes (Again scary)
5. Spiders of any great size
6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes
7. Komodo Dragons - nasty bastards, and noticed
8. Flies - particularly Tsetse flies.
9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful!
10. Little bastard unidentifiable moving crap!

Daddy long-legs.

Just fucking weird, really. Like a drunk flying spider.

Completely fucking harmless!

Unless you are a grass plant.

Omnium said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.

Like Indy, I hate spiders.

Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase

The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.

https://news.sky.com/story/stowaway-african-huntsman-spider-found-in-edinburgh-suitcase-12911116

How the hell do you get a massive spider in your suitcase by accident? A huntsman isn’t your regular house spider, it’s the size of a dinner plate!

Quite relieved to have got out of Edinburgh alive to be honest. Need to check the car to make sure didn’t bring back any unexpected passengers.

It's not the spiders you need to worry about.

@TheScreamingEagles is wrong about Indiana Jones!

The latter hates SNAKES, not spiders!

Top 10 Natural arsehole species;

1. Wasps
2. Crocs and Gators (mainly because I'm so scared of them)
3. Rats
4. Snakes (Again scary)
5. Spiders of any great size
6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes
7. Komodo Dragons - nasty bastards, and noticed
8. Flies - particularly Tsetse flies.
9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful!
10. Little bastard unidentifiable moving crap!

Rats are beautiful, highly intelligent and affectionate creatures! I'll give you leeches though. Put slugs on the list for eating my rhubarb.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Taz said:

Omnium said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.

Like Indy, I hate spiders.

Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase

The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.

https://news.sky.com/story/stowaway-african-huntsman-spider-found-in-edinburgh-suitcase-12911116

How the hell do you get a massive spider in your suitcase by accident? A huntsman isn’t your regular house spider, it’s the size of a dinner plate!

Quite relieved to have got out of Edinburgh alive to be honest. Need to check the car to make sure didn’t bring back any unexpected passengers.

It's not the spiders you need to worry about.

@TheScreamingEagles is wrong about Indiana Jones!

The latter hates SNAKES, not spiders!

Top 10 Natural arsehole species;

1. Wasps
2. Crocs and Gators (mainly because I'm so scared of them)
3. Rats
4. Snakes (Again scary)
5. Spiders of any great size
6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes
7. Komodo Dragons - nasty bastards, and noticed
8. Flies - particularly Tsetse flies.
9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful!
10. Little bastard unidentifiable moving crap!

Botfly, especially the larvae. There’s something quite life affirming seeing them removed fro a kittens nose on YouTube.

Cordyceps
Tarantula hawk wasps

No ticks? Highland midges and their Scandi cousins? Dracunculiasis worms?

That Sardinian cheese that shoots eye burrowing larvae at you has to be up there.

Yes, but they are provoked. Not the others.

stodge said:

Fairliered said:

It seems that Thames Water are in the shit. They need flushing out. Will they be allowed to fail, or will the government and the regulators be too wet? I suppose it will all come out in the wash.

Tee hee

I wonder if they've had problems with the funding of the Beckton Super Sewer. It's not just their business - it's everybody's business - but when the wind is in the south east the tang of sweage reaches the noses of those of us in East Ham.

The 25km super sewer, being built by Tideway, can't be cheap and I wonder if Thames Water's problems are connected with any cost overruns in this infrastructure project.

The Victorians must be turning in the graves when they look at the infrastructure they built being left to rot by the likes of our water and energy companies and Railtrack.

Southern water is another waste of space . After trying to blame customers for the temerity of using water they bring in a hose pipe ban not because reservoirs are low but their crappy infrastructure can’t cope with cleaning enough water .

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Thames Water shouldn't get a penny of our money until the shareholders have been wiped out and the debt holders have taken a haircut. The water companies have been saddled with debt while their owners have taken cash out of them, while fleecing customers and pumping shit into our rivers. And now they want a bailout? Fuck right off.

To us lowly mortals the operations as described sound like bog standard con jobs. No doubt it is all totally above board and just smart business.

kle4 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Thames Water shouldn't get a penny of our money until the shareholders have been wiped out and the debt holders have taken a haircut. The water companies have been saddled with debt while their owners have taken cash out of them, while fleecing customers and pumping shit into our rivers. And now they want a bailout? Fuck right off.

To us lowly mortals the operations as described sound like bog standard con jobs. No doubt it is all totally above board and just smart business.

It is late model capitalism. Fleece the customers, provide shit service and trouser the profits. Then they wonder why the young don't like it.

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

Boris could win. But if he were to run then Corbyn would too. Boris won't win against Corbyn in that situation.

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

I 'ad that Ulez Expansion fella in the back of my cab!

Where's the "Bollocks" button when you need it?

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

I have wondered this a bit myself. He'd have to go full on anti-Ulez expansion. Boris the toast of London's red wall. It would at least make the race exciting.

Omnium said:

WhisperingOracle said:

What an utter, utter indictment.

"The government has “no true grasp on the costs” involved in preventing a collapse of Thames Water, with estimates presented to ministers and regulators suggesting the company could be facing a hole of £10bn in its finances, the Guardian can reveal.


The water company, which serves 15 million customers, is in emergency talks with the water regulator Ofwat, ministers and government departments after the departure of its chief executive and concerns over its ability to continue operating without a multibillion cash injection."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/28/thames-water-in-crisis-talks-over-potential-10bn-black-hole-cost-possible-collapse

10 billion pounds, with bills also going up at least 25%, if not 40, to bail out decades of leveraging. An absolute scandal, ;there's no other way to describe it.

Labour have their fingers all over this, and it hasn't worked!

(Ok well perhaps I made that up )

To be fair, the utter failure of regulatory control of the monopoly carried on unaddressed under Labour as well as the Tories.

.

tlg86 said:

I've waited well over 20 years to go to an Ashes Test Match. my day at Lord's was ruined by two Australian ****s who would not stop shouting shit about England all day (yes, I know, they had a lot to shout about).

The sad thing is, there were lots of other Aussies there and I guess they would have been really embarrassed.

You should have told them to 'get your shit stars off our flag', that usually silences loudmouth Aussies.

tlg86 said:

I've waited well over 20 years to go to an Ashes Test Match. my day at Lord's was ruined by two Australian ****s who would not stop shouting shit about England all day (yes, I know, they had a lot to shout about).

The sad thing is, there were lots of other Aussies there and I guess they would have been really embarrassed.

How to embarrass an Aussie. Answers on a postcard please.

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Thames Water shouldn't get a penny of our money until the shareholders have been wiped out and the debt holders have taken a haircut. The water companies have been saddled with debt while their owners have taken cash out of them, while fleecing customers and pumping shit into our rivers. And now they want a bailout? Fuck right off.

To us lowly mortals the operations as described sound like bog standard con jobs. No doubt it is all totally above board and just smart business.

It is late model capitalism. Fleece the customers, provide shit service and trouser the profits. Then they wonder why the young don't like it.

I suppose the question is- could it have ended any other way? Is it just Rishi's bad luck to be the poor bugger holding the parcel as it explodes?

On this issue, yes. He won't be able to play that card for everything in his forthcoming memoirs Holding back the tide: The Rishi Sunak Story

Nigelb said:

Omnium said:

WhisperingOracle said:

What an utter, utter indictment.

"The government has “no true grasp on the costs” involved in preventing a collapse of Thames Water, with estimates presented to ministers and regulators suggesting the company could be facing a hole of £10bn in its finances, the Guardian can reveal.


The water company, which serves 15 million customers, is in emergency talks with the water regulator Ofwat, ministers and government departments after the departure of its chief executive and concerns over its ability to continue operating without a multibillion cash injection."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/28/thames-water-in-crisis-talks-over-potential-10bn-black-hole-cost-possible-collapse

10 billion pounds, with bills also going up at least 25%, if not 40, to bail out decades of leveraging. An absolute scandal, ;there's no other way to describe it.

Labour have their fingers all over this, and it hasn't worked!

(Ok well perhaps I made that up )

To be fair, the utter failure of regulatory control of the monopoly carried on unaddressed under Labour as well as the Tories.

Appointing politicians to the great offices of state has proved to be a big mistake from about the 1980s onwards.

Admittedly when you have a clown like Andrew Bailey appointed by other means you have to wonder whether any mechanism that we're likely to get might work! I'd sort of suggest interviews by sensible people, but clearly that's long gone.

TheScreamingEagles said:

My word.

If Rudy has/is going to flip on Trump then Trump is fucked.

Rudy Giuliani met with Jack Smith under agreement that 'can precede a formal cooperation deal': NYT

The New York Times reports that former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently sat down for a voluntary interview with special counsel Jack Smith under a proffer agreement, which the Times points out "can precede a formal cooperation deal."

According to the Times, attorneys working for Smith pelted Giuliani with multiple questions related to the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, including about former Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and John Eastman, both of whom have been accused of trying to help the president illegally remain in power despite losing that election to President Joe Biden.

The attorneys also asked Giuliani about "a plan to create fake slates of pro-Trump electors in key swing states that were actually won by Mr. Biden," the paper writes, which also reported that he was asked about actions taken at the pro-Trump "war room" at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. where Trump allies plotted on ways to block the certification of the election results.

The Times notes that it is still not clear whether Giuliani will face criminal charges in Smith's probe, which has been bringing witnesses before a grand jury to testify about efforts to keep Trump in the White House.

https://www.rawstory.com/rudy-giuliani-jack-smith/

The raising of PAC contributions to "stop the steal" potentially opens up charges of wire fraud if such a conspiracy can be proven in court.
Which would be fun.

BartholomewRoberts said:

WhisperingOracle said:

What an utter, utter indictment.

"The government has “no true grasp on the costs” involved in preventing a collapse of Thames Water, with estimates presented to ministers and regulators suggesting the company could be facing a hole of £10bn in its finances, the Guardian can reveal.


The water company, which serves 15 million customers, is in emergency talks with the water regulator Ofwat, ministers and government departments after the departure of its chief executive and concerns over its ability to continue operating without a multibillion cash injection."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/28/thames-water-in-crisis-talks-over-potential-10bn-black-hole-cost-possible-collapse

10 billion pounds, with bills also going up at least 25%, if not 40, to bail out decades of leveraging. An absolute scandal, ;there's no other way to describe it.

Why the hell should the taxpayer prevent a collapse of a private firm?

You privatise the gains, you privatise the losses. If Thames Water collapses then it collapses and the shareholders and bondholders get wiped out - that's the market working. Those shareholders and bondholders made a bad investment and bad investments should never be bailed out by taxpayers.

If Thames Water collapses and goes into bankruptcy, then the state can step in to buy out the assets at pennies on the pound to ensure continuity of service, but there is no reason whatsoever to bail out the firm, or its shareholders, or its bondholders.

That’s capitalism, not conservatism. Remember that Tory voting pensioners, and their pension funds will own Thames Water shares.

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Thames Water shouldn't get a penny of our money until the shareholders have been wiped out and the debt holders have taken a haircut. The water companies have been saddled with debt while their owners have taken cash out of them, while fleecing customers and pumping shit into our rivers. And now they want a bailout? Fuck right off.

The owners who took out the most cash are long gone.

Omnium said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.

Like Indy, I hate spiders.

Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase

The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.

https://news.sky.com/story/stowaway-african-huntsman-spider-found-in-edinburgh-suitcase-12911116

How the hell do you get a massive spider in your suitcase by accident? A huntsman isn’t your regular house spider, it’s the size of a dinner plate!

Quite relieved to have got out of Edinburgh alive to be honest. Need to check the car to make sure didn’t bring back any unexpected passengers.

It's not the spiders you need to worry about.

@TheScreamingEagles is wrong about Indiana Jones!

The latter hates SNAKES, not spiders!

Top 10 Natural arsehole species;

1. Wasps
2. Crocs and Gators (mainly because I'm so scared of them)
3. Rats
4. Snakes (Again scary)
5. Spiders of any great size
6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes
7. Komodo Dragons - nasty bastards, and noticed
8. Flies - particularly Tsetse flies.
9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful!
10. Little bastard unidentifiable moving crap!

You sound as if you have something against my emotional support Salt Water Crocodile?

He doesn’t eat *that* many people. I keep him on a a strict diet - alternating lawyers, recruiters and estate agents.

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

tlg86 said:

I've waited well over 20 years to go to an Ashes Test Match. my day at Lord's was ruined by two Australian ****s who would not stop shouting shit about England all day (yes, I know, they had a lot to shout about).

The sad thing is, there were lots of other Aussies there and I guess they would have been really embarrassed.

You should have told them to 'get your shit stars off our flag', that usually silences loudmouth Aussies.

I was in the MCG January 1999, for an ODI just after Australia retained the Ashes and before the republic referendum then scheduled for that November.

The Aussies completely hammered us (scorecard) but the Barmy Army seemed to completely out-sing the Aussies despite that.

The Aussie fans kept starting up chants of "we own the Ashes" which would then be silenced with the response of "we own your country".

Fairliered said:

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

Any party that relies on the votes of taxi drivers is probably more right wing than Farage, Orban or Trump..

Not sure that's true anymore. A whole bunch of people have entered the gig economy. They are essentially freelance, even if technically described otherwise, and that is the same as a cab driver

Ne jemi të gjithë taksi shqiptarë tani

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.

A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.

Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.

Fair points. However it was an Uber driver

London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined

Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates

Wishcasting again.

No, it's a genuine point

If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er

Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race

i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris

He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume

Bad case of BDS, Johnson will never win in London. He's no longer the cuddly, bouncy, ADHD ridden fornicator we all knew.

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.

A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.

Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.

Fair points. However it was an Uber driver

London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined

Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates

Wishcasting again.

No, it's a genuine point

If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er

Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race

i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris

He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume

Why would an ex-PM who can make millions (and can't help spend more), want to bother himself as a lowly Mayor?

It might give him opportunities to bone up on tech or teach him how to fiddle.

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.

A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.

Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.

Fair points. However it was an Uber driver

London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined

Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates

Wishcasting again.

No, it's a genuine point

If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er

Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race

i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris

He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume

Why would an ex-PM who can make millions (and can't help spend more), want to bother himself as a lowly Mayor?

Yes, another fair point

I am presuming- horror! - that Boris is motivated by more than money, and likes attention and TV, and has more than a hint of narcissism in his persona. Mayor of the greatest city in the world (others may demur) gives hin that limelit pulpit he craves, without too much responsbility

I'm just idly speculating of a pleasant summer evening. But I bet it has occurred to Bojo as well. He was a popular mayor, and Khan is deeply mediocre and vulnerable

It is all unlikely, but not impossible

I would absolutely vote for him as mayor and with enthusiasm. otherwise I would probably abstain. Can't be arsed

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.

A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.

Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.

Fair points. However it was an Uber driver

London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined

Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates

Wishcasting again.

Taxi drivers are like other service workers. They tell people what they want to hear, so deranged right wing fantasists get fed deranged right wing fantasies. It's the same with hotel staff, bar staff, tour guides etc.

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

tlg86 said:

I've waited well over 20 years to go to an Ashes Test Match. my day at Lord's was ruined by two Australian ****s who would not stop shouting shit about England all day (yes, I know, they had a lot to shout about).

The sad thing is, there were lots of other Aussies there and I guess they would have been really embarrassed.

You should have told them to 'get your shit stars off our flag', that usually silences loudmouth Aussies.

I did dish it out to them when Root took those wickets.

I thought being in a queue with Bad Al was going to be the worst part of the day:

SandyRentool said:

Nigelb said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Thames Water shouldn't get a penny of our money until the shareholders have been wiped out and the debt holders have taken a haircut. The water companies have been saddled with debt while their owners have taken cash out of them, while fleecing customers and pumping shit into our rivers. And now they want a bailout? Fuck right off.

The owners who took out the most cash are long gone.

Did they syphon it off, or just drain the company dry?

They took the part of their job called "taking the piss" insufficiently literally.

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.

Like Indy, I hate spiders.

Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase

The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.

https://news.sky.com/story/stowaway-african-huntsman-spider-found-in-edinburgh-suitcase-12911116

How the hell do you get a massive spider in your suitcase by accident? A huntsman isn’t your regular house spider, it’s the size of a dinner plate!

Quite relieved to have got out of Edinburgh alive to be honest. Need to check the car to make sure didn’t bring back any unexpected passengers.

It's not the spiders you need to worry about.

@TheScreamingEagles is wrong about Indiana Jones!

The latter hates SNAKES, not spiders!

Top 10 Natural arsehole species;

1. Wasps
2. Crocs and Gators (mainly because I'm so scared of them)
3. Rats
4. Snakes (Again scary)
5. Spiders of any great size
6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes
7. Komodo Dragons - nasty bastards, and noticed
8. Flies - particularly Tsetse flies.
9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful!
10. Little bastard unidentifiable moving crap!

You sound as if you have something against my emotional support Salt Water Crocodile?

He doesn’t eat *that* many people. I keep him on a a strict diet - alternating lawyers, recruiters and estate agents.

"Murders and rapes in the city, people bomb planes, can the police stop 'em? No! But feed one little cow to a crocodile..."

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence.
If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.

Two points:

1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.

2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.

Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.

Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.

That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.

The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.

The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.

The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.

You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.

Control of prices, but which prices?

The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.

The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.

To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.

No, not a minority, the average.

In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.

Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.

Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

tlg86 said:

I've waited well over 20 years to go to an Ashes Test Match. my day at Lord's was ruined by two Australian ****s who would not stop shouting shit about England all day (yes, I know, they had a lot to shout about).

The sad thing is, there were lots of other Aussies there and I guess they would have been really embarrassed.

You should have told them to 'get your shit stars off our flag', that usually silences loudmouth Aussies.

I did dish it out to them when Root took those wickets.

I thought being in a queue with Bad Al was going to be the worst part of the day:

Card payment only? Fascists.

Who wants plant-based beer anyway?

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence.
If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.

Two points:

1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.

2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.

Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.

Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.

That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.

The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.

The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.

The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.

You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.

Control of prices, but which prices?

The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.

The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.

To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.

No, not a minority, the average.

In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.

Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.

Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.

Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?

Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.

Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence.
If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.

Two points:

1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.

2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.

Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.

Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.

That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.

The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.

The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.

The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.

You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.

Control of prices, but which prices?

The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.

The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.

To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.

No, not a minority, the average.

In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.

Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.

Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.

Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?

Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.

Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.

I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.

A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.

Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.

Fair points. However it was an Uber driver

London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined

Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates

Wishcasting again.

Taxi drivers are like other service workers. They tell people what they want to hear, so deranged right wing fantasists get fed deranged right wing fantasies. It's the same with hotel staff, bar staff, tour guides etc.

Was he an Albanian taxi driver, though?

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.

A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.

Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.

Fair points. However it was an Uber driver

London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined

Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates

Wishcasting again.

No, it's a genuine point

If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er

Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race

i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris

He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume

Why would an ex-PM who can make millions (and can't help spend more), want to bother himself as a lowly Mayor?

Yes, another fair point

I am presuming- horror! - that Boris is motivated by more than money, and likes attention and TV, and has more than a hint of narcissism in his persona. Mayor of the greatest city in the world (others may demur) gives hin that limelit pulpit he craves, without too much responsbility

I'm just idly speculating of a pleasant summer evening. But I bet it has occurred to Bojo as well. He was a popular mayor, and Khan is deeply mediocre and vulnerable

It is all unlikely, but not impossible

I would absolutely vote for him as mayor and with enthusiasm. otherwise I would probably abstain. Can't be arsed

“more than than a hint of narcissism”.

No shit? You think so?

As @Nigelb notes, I was trying to be judicious, in context

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence.
If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.

Two points:

1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.

2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.

Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.

Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.

That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.

The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.

The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.

The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.

You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.

Control of prices, but which prices?

The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.

The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.

To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.

No, not a minority, the average.

In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.

Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.

Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.

Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?

Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.

Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.

I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?

And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.

If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?

Farooq said:

SandyRentool said:

Omnium said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.

Like Indy, I hate spiders.

Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase

The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.

https://news.sky.com/story/stowaway-african-huntsman-spider-found-in-edinburgh-suitcase-12911116

How the hell do you get a massive spider in your suitcase by accident? A huntsman isn’t your regular house spider, it’s the size of a dinner plate!

Quite relieved to have got out of Edinburgh alive to be honest. Need to check the car to make sure didn’t bring back any unexpected passengers.

It's not the spiders you need to worry about.

@TheScreamingEagles is wrong about Indiana Jones!

The latter hates SNAKES, not spiders!

Top 10 Natural arsehole species;

1. Wasps
2. Crocs and Gators (mainly because I'm so scared of them)
3. Rats
4. Snakes (Again scary)
5. Spiders of any great size
6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes
7. Komodo Dragons - nasty bastards, and noticed
8. Flies - particularly Tsetse flies.
9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful!
10. Little bastard unidentifiable moving crap!

I'm afraid that you missed the planet's only truly arsehole species. Homo sapiens.

1. Wasps - die die die
2. Crocs - the shoes
3. Dogs - you noisy little shits, go play on the motorway
4. Humans - I mean, Boris is one
5. Snakes- Boris again
6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes
7. Crane flies - what are you even doing, chaotic clouds of legs
9. Moths - you stupid little bastards
9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful!
10. Snails, slugs - well I'm not touching them just fucking look at them

If is wasn’t for Crocs, what would TSE wear on his feet?

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence.
If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.

Two points:

1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.

2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.

Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.

Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.

That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.

The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.

The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.

The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.

You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.

Control of prices, but which prices?

The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.

The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.

To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.

No, not a minority, the average.

In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.

Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.

Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.

Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?

Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.

Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.

I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?

And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.

If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?

What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence.
If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.

Two points:

1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.

2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.

Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.

Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.

That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.

The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.

The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.

The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.

You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.

Control of prices, but which prices?

The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.

The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.

To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.

No, not a minority, the average.

In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.

Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.

Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.

Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?

Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.

Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.

I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?

And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.

If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?

What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?

House prices since Dec 2021 have relatively declined by more than eg food has, so yes.

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence.
If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.

Two points:

1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.

2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.

Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.

Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.

That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.

The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.

The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.

The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.

You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.

Control of prices, but which prices?

The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.

The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.

To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.

No, not a minority, the average.

In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.

Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.

Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.

Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?

Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.

Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.

I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?

And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.

If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?

What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?

What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.

A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.

Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.

Fair points. However it was an Uber driver

London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined

Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates

Wishcasting again.

No, it's a genuine point

If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er

Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race

i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris

He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume

He wouldn't get the approval of the Tory hierarchy, but his best bet at a tilt for the Mayor would be running as an independent anyway, shaking off the shackles that come with Conservative party membership, and attempting to present himself as a fresh alternative to the tired old London party machines.

I personally don't think that it would work - and there's a big downside risk of doing embarrassingly badly, and I think Boris Johnson is risk-averse towards losing (hence why he pulled out in 2016 and resigned rather than fight an Uxbridge by-election).

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

OFFICIAL TAXI DRIVER ANECDOTE


Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho

Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"

Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor

True story!

I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier

A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.

A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.

Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.

Fair points. However it was an Uber driver

London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined

Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates

Wishcasting again.

No, it's a genuine point

If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er

Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race

i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris

He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume

He wouldn't get the approval of the Tory hierarchy, but his best bet at a tilt for the Mayor would be running as an independent anyway, shaking off the shackles that come with Conservative party membership, and attempting to present himself as a fresh alternative to the tired old London party machines.

I personally don't think that it would work - and there's a big downside risk of doing embarrassingly badly, and I think Boris Johnson is risk-averse towards losing (hence why he pulled out in 2016 and resigned rather than fight an Uxbridge by-election).

If the election was SV like previous elections Boris would still certainly lose as LD and Green preferences would go for Khan.

However under FPTP Boris has a slim chance of winning, even if he got only 35-40% of the vote, by getting large white van man turnout against ULEZ and almost all the Tory vote (given the official Tory final 2 are barely even known in Tory circles).

Even a few upper middle class Remainers (who would never vote for Boris again at a general election and will vote for Starmer Labour or LD at the next general election) might vote for Boris as an Independent for Mayor again in the privacy of the polling booth to get rid of Khan, they just wouldn't tell their dinner party companions

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence.
If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.

Two points:

1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.

2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.

Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.

Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.

That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.

The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.

The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.

The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.

You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.

Control of prices, but which prices?

The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.

The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.

To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.

No, not a minority, the average.

In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.

Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.

Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.

Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?

Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.

Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.

I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?

And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.

If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?

What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?

What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?

A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.

Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?

Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence.
If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.

Two points:

1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.

2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.

Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.

Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.

That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.

The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.

The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.

The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.

You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.

Control of prices, but which prices?

The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.

The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.

To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.

No, not a minority, the average.

In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.

Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.

Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.

Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?

Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.

Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.

I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?

And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.

If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?

What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?

What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?

A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.

Precisely the point.

Inflation is about more than just immediate impacts, so why disregard housing just because its not totally immediate? Its more immediate than food, and its a bigger portion of the median household budget than food too.