Do you really believe that UK bond market prices are not principally set by participants future expectations of inflation?
I believe that in any market, if a large holder of something is racing to offload that thing, that reduces its value. The Bank insists that the impact of its sell off on yields is minimal - it's reasonable then to ask why the Bank's intervention to stabilise the markets by buying bonds worked, and why when it stopped they continued to rise, despite Sunak/Hunt giving an avowedly professional and reassuring performance.
1) The Bank of England did not sell a single bond in September 2022. It announced it would at a future date.
2) Its intervention worked because the market was in freefall with the number of forced sellers increasing with every 0.5% increase in long-dated yields (which was happening in a matter of hours, normally it takes weeks in a volatile market). There was no buyer of sufficient size to buck this trend until the BoE intervened.
3) Base rates rose higher than previously expected to combat inflation and are now expected to remain high. This is the primary reason for higher bond yields now.
4) UK and US debt issuance remains high by historical standards, which combined with the BoE/FED selling bonds is applying additional upward pressure on yields. But it is gradual as the market finds the right clearing price.
Truss and Kwarteng deliberately took a 'shock and awe' approach to fiscal policy. They achieved that, just not in the way they had hoped.
1) The market prices in expectations, so simply announcing that it will is sufficient to move markets.
2) The forced sellers were being forced to sell after the BoE had announced it would sell bonds which devalued them.
3) Base rates have risen globally.
4) Agreed, which is part of the reason why the BoE selling bonds is economic vandalism of the highest order. It is like selling gold all over again and making taxpayers write the cheque.
Point 1 is true but was small compared to the movement on Friday during the mini budget.
Point 2 is simply untrue - the size of movements that day was in the normal range. It all kicked off on Friday and Monday.
Point 4 I agree QT isn't necessary.
You can blame the BoE it you wish, but I was following yields continuously during that week and know exactly what went on in the LDI market. Rising rates and the BoE may have dried the wood but Truss/Kwarteng lit the match. And the BoE put out the fire just in time before the LDI crisis became a banking crisis.
Fiscal irresponsibility had consequences.
The announcement by the Bank of England happened on the Thursday, so a Friday movement in the markets is entirely fitting with it being affected by the Bank's announcements. Can't divorce one from the other.
Its like Chancellor's Budgets that sound good on the day, then have fallen apart two days later.
The BoE "put out the fire" by reversing its own announcement. The BoE set the fire, but that doesn't excuse the Chancellor who should have known what the Bank was upto and not timed his statement at the same time as the Bank's, or better instructed the Bank that the taxpayer would not be writing a blank cheque for QT so the Bank would have to operate in a way that doesn't affect taxpayers finances.
You're talking rubbish. The BoE announcement was at 12pm on Thursday and yields rose slightly in response. It was already expected by markets as passive QT (not reinvesting maturing bond payments) started in March 2022.
The mini budget was on Friday morning - I know because I was on a team meeting where I saw yields rise rapidly as Kwarteng spoke (much more than all Thursday) - which led to the almighty sell-off. The size and scale of unfunded tax cuts with no OBR report shocked the market.
Your alternative view of history undermines the valid criticism of the BoE by trying to defend Truss/Kwarteng who are undoubtedly lit the match.
I broadly agree. The BoE did not cover itself in glory, the QT policy was very badly timed, and they had been painfully slow in seeking to address the surge in inflation. But the fiscal policy of Kwarteng and Truss was reckless in the extreme and completely ignored the highly vulnerable position the UK was in. I think it’s long term effects have been exaggerated but short term we stepped off a cliff without a parachute.
'Cost' of the tax cuts in the mini budget: £45bn
Cost of underwriting the Bank's losses on its QT programme (as announced, the actual cost based on monthly payments so far has been higher): £80bn
Which is more fiscally irresponsible?
The tax cuts. They were a year on year cost, not a one off. Also QT is desirable. It shows that we are interested in maintaining the fiscal base of our fiat currency and it has the potential to reduce the money supply reducing inflation expectations. Ceteris paribus it should protect the currency and reduce imported inflation.
It was the timing that was awry.
QT creates supply of bonds in the secondary markets which will raise gilt yields and therefore mortgage rates, which will push CPIH up in the short term before any demand destruction can push core inflation back down. It's a completely stupid policy to start QT heading into a high inflationary period, you don't need the additional upwards pressure on rates to bring inflation back down, high interest rates will do that anyway.
Worse still is that QT right now is crystallising a huge haircut for the taxpayer because gilt prices are rock bottom, increasing our necessary borrowing and further sending up gilt supply and crashing gilt prices further. They are pushing gilts into a negative feedback cycle which is why we've gone from having a market premium on gilts to very much the opposite which can no longer be blamed on Liz the lettuce.
Yes QT is the wrong policy to tackle inflation. Better to rise base rates slightly higher and avoid the distortion in fiscal policy than try to do it via QT as well (at least active QT, passive QT fine as not crystallising loses).
I'm also not sure the indemnity to the Treasury is strictly necessary, economically speaking. Not all countries have it.
Yes, the indemnity policy is another example of our "Rolls Royce" civil service making an error. The treasury should have told the BoE to shut the fuck up, they decided, as an independent body, to buy a bunch of gilts and they, as an independent body, need to eat the losses or not fucking sell them at such a gigantic loss.
@MaxPB - you mentioned the other day some difficulties your wife was having at work. Does her workplace have a whistleblowing / Speak Up policy which may help? DM me if you would like to discuss.
Thanks, Cyclefree, she's decided to leave her firm over the weekend. I don't think she'll struggle for work.
From another place; cannot speak for its veracity. It refers to the Russians launching their Adivka adventure.
"They (the Russians) started the offensive at the exact same time HAMAS attacked Israel , to the hour."
If true (and depending on time zones, it might be, as they were both on the 6/7 October), then it cannot really be a coincidence, can it? Especially given Iran's hand in both.
Why would either Russia or Hamas (or Iran) want to launch these at the exact same time "to the hour"? It's not as if the Ukrainian defence would be distracted by things happening in Israel, or the IDF by events in Avdiivka.
What's "another place"?
Someone sold the offensive to Putin as the Great Breakthrough Suprise Attack? Timing it with an attack on Israel would have had all that jazz of “distracting the Americans”, “opening a new front - at no expense to us”, “the world will be looking the other way”…
It’s all in Red Storm Rising…
Yes maybe around about the same time - but why would it need to be the exact same hour?
The childish belief that this would be the Great Breakthrough, so that hours would count?
See the start of the hilariously bad film the Battle of The Bulge. The hundred hour clock…
I detest that film. The whole point of the batle was that it was fought out under heavy cloud in the middle of winter. So where do they film it? Spain. With clear blue skies. And US tanks that looking nothing like the German stuff.
Awful. Just awful.
Though Robert Shaw does give an interesting take on mentality of the “realist” hard core fanatic Nazis who fought to the steps of the Bunker.
“Realist” because they admitted what they were facing, but fought on anyway. And killed millions more for no point what so ever.
Shaw is one of my all time favourite actors. Which makes his prescence in that film all the harder to bear.
From another place; cannot speak for its veracity. It refers to the Russians launching their Adivka adventure.
"They (the Russians) started the offensive at the exact same time HAMAS attacked Israel , to the hour."
If true (and depending on time zones, it might be, as they were both on the 6/7 October), then it cannot really be a coincidence, can it? Especially given Iran's hand in both.
Why would either Russia or Hamas (or Iran) want to launch these at the exact same time "to the hour"? It's not as if the Ukrainian defence would be distracted by things happening in Israel, or the IDF by events in Avdiivka.
What's "another place"?
Someone sold the offensive to Putin as the Great Breakthrough Suprise Attack? Timing it with an attack on Israel would have had all that jazz of “distracting the Americans”, “opening a new front - at no expense to us”, “the world will be looking the other way”…
It’s all in Red Storm Rising…
Yes maybe around about the same time - but why would it need to be the exact same hour?
The childish belief that this would be the Great Breakthrough, so that hours would count?
See the start of the hilariously bad film the Battle of The Bulge. The hundred hour clock…
I detest that film. The whole point of the batle was that it was fought out under heavy cloud in the middle of winter. So where do they film it? Spain. With clear blue skies. And US tanks that looking nothing like the German stuff.
Awful. Just awful.
Though Robert Shaw does give an interesting take on mentality of the “realist” hard core fanatic Nazis who fought to the steps of the Bunker.
“Realist” because they admitted what they were facing, but fought on anyway. And killed millions more for no point what so ever.
Shaw is one of my all time favourite actors. Which makes his prescence in that film all the harder to bear.
Do you really believe that UK bond market prices are not principally set by participants future expectations of inflation?
I believe that in any market, if a large holder of something is racing to offload that thing, that reduces its value. The Bank insists that the impact of its sell off on yields is minimal - it's reasonable then to ask why the Bank's intervention to stabilise the markets by buying bonds worked, and why when it stopped they continued to rise, despite Sunak/Hunt giving an avowedly professional and reassuring performance.
1) The Bank of England did not sell a single bond in September 2022. It announced it would at a future date.
2) Its intervention worked because the market was in freefall with the number of forced sellers increasing with every 0.5% increase in long-dated yields (which was happening in a matter of hours, normally it takes weeks in a volatile market). There was no buyer of sufficient size to buck this trend until the BoE intervened.
3) Base rates rose higher than previously expected to combat inflation and are now expected to remain high. This is the primary reason for higher bond yields now.
4) UK and US debt issuance remains high by historical standards, which combined with the BoE/FED selling bonds is applying additional upward pressure on yields. But it is gradual as the market finds the right clearing price.
Truss and Kwarteng deliberately took a 'shock and awe' approach to fiscal policy. They achieved that, just not in the way they had hoped.
1) The market prices in expectations, so simply announcing that it will is sufficient to move markets.
2) The forced sellers were being forced to sell after the BoE had announced it would sell bonds which devalued them.
3) Base rates have risen globally.
4) Agreed, which is part of the reason why the BoE selling bonds is economic vandalism of the highest order. It is like selling gold all over again and making taxpayers write the cheque.
Point 1 is true but was small compared to the movement on Friday during the mini budget.
Point 2 is simply untrue - the size of movements that day was in the normal range. It all kicked off on Friday and Monday.
Point 4 I agree QT isn't necessary.
You can blame the BoE it you wish, but I was following yields continuously during that week and know exactly what went on in the LDI market. Rising rates and the BoE may have dried the wood but Truss/Kwarteng lit the match. And the BoE put out the fire just in time before the LDI crisis became a banking crisis.
Fiscal irresponsibility had consequences.
The announcement by the Bank of England happened on the Thursday, so a Friday movement in the markets is entirely fitting with it being affected by the Bank's announcements. Can't divorce one from the other.
Its like Chancellor's Budgets that sound good on the day, then have fallen apart two days later.
The BoE "put out the fire" by reversing its own announcement. The BoE set the fire, but that doesn't excuse the Chancellor who should have known what the Bank was upto and not timed his statement at the same time as the Bank's, or better instructed the Bank that the taxpayer would not be writing a blank cheque for QT so the Bank would have to operate in a way that doesn't affect taxpayers finances.
You're talking rubbish. The BoE announcement was at 12pm on Thursday and yields rose slightly in response. It was already expected by markets as passive QT (not reinvesting maturing bond payments) started in March 2022.
The mini budget was on Friday morning - I know because I was on a team meeting where I saw yields rise rapidly as Kwarteng spoke (much more than all Thursday) - which led to the almighty sell-off. The size and scale of unfunded tax cuts with no OBR report shocked the market.
Your alternative view of history undermines the valid criticism of the BoE by trying to defend Truss/Kwarteng who are undoubtedly lit the match.
I broadly agree. The BoE did not cover itself in glory, the QT policy was very badly timed, and they had been painfully slow in seeking to address the surge in inflation. But the fiscal policy of Kwarteng and Truss was reckless in the extreme and completely ignored the highly vulnerable position the UK was in. I think it’s long term effects have been exaggerated but short term we stepped off a cliff without a parachute.
'Cost' of the tax cuts in the mini budget: £45bn
Cost of underwriting the Bank's losses on its QT programme (as announced, the actual cost based on monthly payments so far has been higher): £80bn
Which is more fiscally irresponsible?
The tax cuts. They were a year on year cost, not a one off. Also QT is desirable. It shows that we are interested in maintaining the fiscal base of our fiat currency and it has the potential to reduce the money supply reducing inflation expectations. Ceteris paribus it should protect the currency and reduce imported inflation.
It was the timing that was awry.
QT creates supply of bonds in the secondary markets which will raise gilt yields and therefore mortgage rates, which will push CPIH up in the short term before any demand destruction can push core inflation back down. It's a completely stupid policy to start QT heading into a high inflationary period, you don't need the additional upwards pressure on rates to bring inflation back down, high interest rates will do that anyway.
Worse still is that QT right now is crystallising a huge haircut for the taxpayer because gilt prices are rock bottom, increasing our necessary borrowing and further sending up gilt supply and crashing gilt prices further. They are pushing gilts into a negative feedback cycle which is why we've gone from having a market premium on gilts to very much the opposite which can no longer be blamed on Liz the lettuce.
Yes QT is the wrong policy to tackle inflation. Better to rise base rates slightly higher and avoid the distortion in fiscal policy than try to do it via QT as well (at least active QT, passive QT fine as not crystallising loses).
I'm also not sure the indemnity to the Treasury is strictly necessary, economically speaking. Not all countries have it.
Yes, the indemnity policy is another example of our "Rolls Royce" civil service making an error. The treasury should have told the BoE to shut the fuck up, they decided, as an independent body, to buy a bunch of gilts and they, as an independent body, need to eat the losses or not fucking sell them at such a gigantic loss.
Which is all very well, until you can't find anyone else to buy your gilts.
I'm sorry that's ridiculous because there will always be a market for gilts. The way our pension industry is regulated means there will always be a buyer. The BoE is increasing the risk of a failed debt auction by competing with primary sales in the secondary market with their discount gilts.
Boris to stand in a possible Wellingborough by-election?
No, first as he wouldn't get on the CCHQ approved candidates list with Rishi still leader, second as the Tories will likely lose it
Even in a by-election I think I'd back Boris to win it:
Conservative - Peter Bone - 32,277 - 62.2% Labour - Andrea Watts - 13,737 - 26.5% Liberal Democrats - Suzanna Austin - 4,078 - 7.9%
Even if he might, no way would Hands allow Boris on the approved candidates list again so Rishi's biggest potential rival in the Conservative Party is back in Parliament
From another place; cannot speak for its veracity. It refers to the Russians launching their Adivka adventure.
"They (the Russians) started the offensive at the exact same time HAMAS attacked Israel , to the hour."
If true (and depending on time zones, it might be, as they were both on the 6/7 October), then it cannot really be a coincidence, can it? Especially given Iran's hand in both.
Why would either Russia or Hamas (or Iran) want to launch these at the exact same time "to the hour"? It's not as if the Ukrainian defence would be distracted by things happening in Israel, or the IDF by events in Avdiivka.
What's "another place"?
Someone sold the offensive to Putin as the Great Breakthrough Suprise Attack? Timing it with an attack on Israel would have had all that jazz of “distracting the Americans”, “opening a new front - at no expense to us”, “the world will be looking the other way”…
It’s all in Red Storm Rising…
Yes maybe around about the same time - but why would it need to be the exact same hour?
The childish belief that this would be the Great Breakthrough, so that hours would count?
See the start of the hilariously bad film the Battle of The Bulge. The hundred hour clock…
I detest that film. The whole point of the batle was that it was fought out under heavy cloud in the middle of winter. So where do they film it? Spain. With clear blue skies. And US tanks that looking nothing like the German stuff.
Awful. Just awful.
Though Robert Shaw does give an interesting take on mentality of the “realist” hard core fanatic Nazis who fought to the steps of the Bunker.
“Realist” because they admitted what they were facing, but fought on anyway. And killed millions more for no point what so ever.
Though he simultaneously praised himself for being prepared to take higher losses than other commanders, while complaining that so may of his new tank captains were young.
Boris to stand in a possible Wellingborough by-election?
No, first as he wouldn't get on the CCHQ approved candidates list with Rishi still leader, second as the Tories will likely lose it
Even in a by-election I think I'd back Boris to win it:
Conservative - Peter Bone - 32,277 - 62.2% Labour - Andrea Watts - 13,737 - 26.5% Liberal Democrats - Suzanna Austin - 4,078 - 7.9%
Even if he might, no way would Hands allow Boris on the approved list again so Rishi's biggest potential rival in the Conservative Party is back in Parliament
Donald Trump wanted to pull the United States out of NATO during his first term, but was repeatedly talked out of it by senior administration officials. For a possible second term in the White House, the 2024 Republican presidential frontrunner is already discussing how he could actually get it done, if his demands aren’t met by NATO. He and his policy-wonk allies are also gaming out how he could dramatically wind down American involvement to merely a “standby” position in NATO, in Trump’s own words.
Do you really believe that UK bond market prices are not principally set by participants future expectations of inflation?
I believe that in any market, if a large holder of something is racing to offload that thing, that reduces its value. The Bank insists that the impact of its sell off on yields is minimal - it's reasonable then to ask why the Bank's intervention to stabilise the markets by buying bonds worked, and why when it stopped they continued to rise, despite Sunak/Hunt giving an avowedly professional and reassuring performance.
1) The Bank of England did not sell a single bond in September 2022. It announced it would at a future date.
2) Its intervention worked because the market was in freefall with the number of forced sellers increasing with every 0.5% increase in long-dated yields (which was happening in a matter of hours, normally it takes weeks in a volatile market). There was no buyer of sufficient size to buck this trend until the BoE intervened.
3) Base rates rose higher than previously expected to combat inflation and are now expected to remain high. This is the primary reason for higher bond yields now.
4) UK and US debt issuance remains high by historical standards, which combined with the BoE/FED selling bonds is applying additional upward pressure on yields. But it is gradual as the market finds the right clearing price.
Truss and Kwarteng deliberately took a 'shock and awe' approach to fiscal policy. They achieved that, just not in the way they had hoped.
1) The market prices in expectations, so simply announcing that it will is sufficient to move markets.
2) The forced sellers were being forced to sell after the BoE had announced it would sell bonds which devalued them.
3) Base rates have risen globally.
4) Agreed, which is part of the reason why the BoE selling bonds is economic vandalism of the highest order. It is like selling gold all over again and making taxpayers write the cheque.
Point 1 is true but was small compared to the movement on Friday during the mini budget.
Point 2 is simply untrue - the size of movements that day was in the normal range. It all kicked off on Friday and Monday.
Point 4 I agree QT isn't necessary.
You can blame the BoE it you wish, but I was following yields continuously during that week and know exactly what went on in the LDI market. Rising rates and the BoE may have dried the wood but Truss/Kwarteng lit the match. And the BoE put out the fire just in time before the LDI crisis became a banking crisis.
Fiscal irresponsibility had consequences.
The announcement by the Bank of England happened on the Thursday, so a Friday movement in the markets is entirely fitting with it being affected by the Bank's announcements. Can't divorce one from the other.
Its like Chancellor's Budgets that sound good on the day, then have fallen apart two days later.
The BoE "put out the fire" by reversing its own announcement. The BoE set the fire, but that doesn't excuse the Chancellor who should have known what the Bank was upto and not timed his statement at the same time as the Bank's, or better instructed the Bank that the taxpayer would not be writing a blank cheque for QT so the Bank would have to operate in a way that doesn't affect taxpayers finances.
You're talking rubbish. The BoE announcement was at 12pm on Thursday and yields rose slightly in response. It was already expected by markets as passive QT (not reinvesting maturing bond payments) started in March 2022.
The mini budget was on Friday morning - I know because I was on a team meeting where I saw yields rise rapidly as Kwarteng spoke (much more than all Thursday) - which led to the almighty sell-off. The size and scale of unfunded tax cuts with no OBR report shocked the market.
Your alternative view of history undermines the valid criticism of the BoE by trying to defend Truss/Kwarteng who are undoubtedly lit the match.
I broadly agree. The BoE did not cover itself in glory, the QT policy was very badly timed, and they had been painfully slow in seeking to address the surge in inflation. But the fiscal policy of Kwarteng and Truss was reckless in the extreme and completely ignored the highly vulnerable position the UK was in. I think it’s long term effects have been exaggerated but short term we stepped off a cliff without a parachute.
'Cost' of the tax cuts in the mini budget: £45bn
Cost of underwriting the Bank's losses on its QT programme (as announced, the actual cost based on monthly payments so far has been higher): £80bn
Which is more fiscally irresponsible?
The tax cuts. They were a year on year cost, not a one off. Also QT is desirable. It shows that we are interested in maintaining the fiscal base of our fiat currency and it has the potential to reduce the money supply reducing inflation expectations. Ceteris paribus it should protect the currency and reduce imported inflation.
It was the timing that was awry.
QT creates supply of bonds in the secondary markets which will raise gilt yields and therefore mortgage rates, which will push CPIH up in the short term before any demand destruction can push core inflation back down. It's a completely stupid policy to start QT heading into a high inflationary period, you don't need the additional upwards pressure on rates to bring inflation back down, high interest rates will do that anyway.
Worse still is that QT right now is crystallising a huge haircut for the taxpayer because gilt prices are rock bottom, increasing our necessary borrowing and further sending up gilt supply and crashing gilt prices further. They are pushing gilts into a negative feedback cycle which is why we've gone from having a market premium on gilts to very much the opposite which can no longer be blamed on Liz the lettuce.
I agree that QT into a period of high inflation and rapidly rising interest rates is stupid and will inevitably result in gilts held by the Bank being sold at substantial discounts. It would be better for the Bank to hold them until maturity and then cancel them.
The cost to the Treasury, though, is simply the higher price of debt it pays because of additional supply. Losses incurred by the BoE do not result in the Treasury needing to raise taxes to compensate, because the BoE's balance sheet is entirely separate.
If I'm understanding you correctly, that's wrong. The Treasury is giving the Bank real taxpayer's money every month to cover its losses. This is different to the US, where the Fed is just chalking it up on their own accounting system.
I am wrong, and you are right.
Alone of the major central banks, back in 2009, the BoE was indemnified against losses on QE by the government. I didn't know that.
Yes and now the Bank of England is unnecessarily crystallising losses at the cost of billions of taxpayers real money when it could just wait until the debts mature and not roll them over.
It is a scandal, but because of the financial and otherwise illiteracy of the media, and because there's no politician it can be blamed on, its getting so little attention even you didn't know about it.
From another place; cannot speak for its veracity. It refers to the Russians launching their Adivka adventure.
"They (the Russians) started the offensive at the exact same time HAMAS attacked Israel , to the hour."
If true (and depending on time zones, it might be, as they were both on the 6/7 October), then it cannot really be a coincidence, can it? Especially given Iran's hand in both.
Why would either Russia or Hamas (or Iran) want to launch these at the exact same time "to the hour"? It's not as if the Ukrainian defence would be distracted by things happening in Israel, or the IDF by events in Avdiivka.
What's "another place"?
Someone sold the offensive to Putin as the Great Breakthrough Suprise Attack? Timing it with an attack on Israel would have had all that jazz of “distracting the Americans”, “opening a new front - at no expense to us”, “the world will be looking the other way”…
It’s all in Red Storm Rising…
Yes maybe around about the same time - but why would it need to be the exact same hour?
The childish belief that this would be the Great Breakthrough, so that hours would count?
See the start of the hilariously bad film the Battle of The Bulge. The hundred hour clock…
I detest that film. The whole point of the batle was that it was fought out under heavy cloud in the middle of winter. So where do they film it? Spain. With clear blue skies. And US tanks that looking nothing like the German stuff.
Awful. Just awful.
Though Robert Shaw does give an interesting take on mentality of the “realist” hard core fanatic Nazis who fought to the steps of the Bunker.
“Realist” because they admitted what they were facing, but fought on anyway. And killed millions more for no point what so ever.
Though he simultaneously praised himself for being prepared to take higher losses than other commanders, while complaining that so may of his new tank captains were young.
Which was exactly what happened with the “tough” hardcore Nazi commanders - killed their skilled men at a higher rate, making their offensives fail all the quicker. Then complaining that they were out of men and machines….
Donald Trump wanted to pull the United States out of NATO during his first term, but was repeatedly talked out of it by senior administration officials. For a possible second term in the White House, the 2024 Republican presidential frontrunner is already discussing how he could actually get it done, if his demands aren’t met by NATO. He and his policy-wonk allies are also gaming out how he could dramatically wind down American involvement to merely a “standby” position in NATO, in Trump’s own words.
Trump's focus would be on China both in economic and military terms, he is not bothered by Putin and would leave it to European NATO nations and Turkey to contain him. He has to avoid jail next year first of course to implement any of this
The Standard (Hong Kong) - US state senator charged for illegal possession of firearms
A senator from Washington State, United States was charged with possessing arms without license after being found with a revolver at the Hong Kong International Airport. The case has been adjourned to next Monday (Oct 30) and the politician has to surrender his travel documents.
Stephen Jeff Wilson, a senator from the 19th Legislative District of Washington State, was arrested at the Terminal 1 Arrivals Hall last Saturday (Oct 21) when a baggage screener found a gun in his belongings.
The 63-year-old was subsequently arrested as he could not provide any license for the revolver.
The case was mentioned in the Shatin Magistrates' Courts on Monday, and Wilson did not need to enter a plea yet.
He was granted cash bail of HK$20,000 and ordered to surrender his travel documents and not to leave Hong Kong. The next hearing will be held on October 30 at the West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts.
It was learned that he has no fixed place of abode in Hong Kong.
According to Sing Tao Daily, the Standard's sister paper, Wilson has some verbal exchanges with reporters who were taking photos of him stepping out of the court.
He and his wife, along with some relatives, verbally abused the reporters and asked them to delete the photos. The family later reported the incident to the police with some officers arrived at the scene for mediation, according to Sing Tao's report.
Wilson is also a member of several committees for the Washington Senate, including the State Government & Elections (Ranking Member), Housing, Human Services, and Transportation committees.
SSI - this guy was elected in 2000, defeating a long-time Democratic incumbent in rural southwest WA district that was reliably Democratic turf UNTIL 2016 when it flipped hard for Trump and Republicans. Like West Virginia only decade and a half later.
Not sure how this incident will impact this clown's re-election prospects next year. My guess is that he may get primay-ed by another GOPer. NOT for being a gun enthusiast, but instead for being too stupid to be a state senator. Which believe me is NOT a high bar. More like low limbo!
As I understand it "the blob" refers to members of the reality based community, who believe that solutions emerge from the judicious study of discernible reality.
The best recent exposition of the ‘blob’ came from Rory Stewart describing how he was given the runaround by the civil service and prevented from taking an action that he deemed necessary as the responsible minister, and was later proved correct.
Thanks for highlighting this @williamglenn it should be read by everyone here who superciliously opines about 'the adults in the room' and blames politicians for everything wrong with our state.
And it has also both improved my opinion of Rory Stewart greatly, and explained why promotion eluded him.
Inside the civil service, there is a Departmental Policy, in each department.
This isn’t a neat, leather bound volume, with brass corners and good paper, but an amorphous collection of The Ways Things are Done.
Politicians of every stripe since the first Parliament say in Westminster Hall have noticed this. The first Cromwell was notable for taking control of the administration, rather than it controlling him.
The policies in question are no better or worse than those proposed by the politicians. How could they be? They are proposed and enacted by the same shallow thinking - generalist nostrums made manifest. Actually evidenced research is sometimes involved, but only incidentally.
As much as anything, these policies are as a result of the inertia of the system. Not some conspiracy.
Yep, 100%
The blob isn't so much a conspiracy as simply a handbrake on any change happening.
Unless that change is a new Toyota Hillux for Jihadi John.
Overseas aid target - quota for Syria
I’ve mentioned before - I was told that during COVID, ministers gave written instructions to do X. Y was done instead. Civil servants became angry when told that, at the COVID enquiries, if asked, the ministers in question wouldn’t take responsibility for Y.
Yes. It's appalling. But it's really a system thing. It seems from that little account that civil servants take instruction from every which way. I am appalled that it would even be thought appropriate for a Ministerial order to be countermanded by an American civil servant, albeit one leading a joint military effort. Everything like that should go through a Minister. Reward, preferment and punishment for civil servants should all be in the hands of Ministers, and they aren't. I don't think even civil service titles and gongs are in the hands of Ministers, though Ministers gongs can apparently be vetoed by civil servants. Politicians have to claw back some control if we're going to achieve anything.
Abolishing the top tiers of the permanent civil service may be the only way to enact real reform.
Go to a system like America where incoming governments appoint their own civil servants to enact their agenda.
Keep the people who answer the phones on a daily basis on the front line, but make Sir Humphrey work for his job, and be replaced when the government changes with a new appointee who will enact the new government's agenda.
Boris to stand in a possible Wellingborough by-election?
No, first as he wouldn't get on the CCHQ approved candidates list with Rishi still leader, second as the Tories will likely lose it
A dramatic scenario would be this:
1. Boris applies for the seat. 2. The party rules him out. 3. He indignantly joins RefUK, and wins the seat for them. 4. The Tory vote in the next poll splits into 10% loyal, 25% RefUK. 5. 10 Tory MPs defect to join him. 6. Starmer wins a landslide, but RefUK hang onto 50 seats. 7. Starmer finds the economic situation awful, and sternly imposes massive cuts. 8. Boris campaigns unscrupulously and wins one by-election after another. ...and so on.
Not impossible IMO - it's step 3 that's the least likely.
Do you really believe that UK bond market prices are not principally set by participants future expectations of inflation?
I believe that in any market, if a large holder of something is racing to offload that thing, that reduces its value. The Bank insists that the impact of its sell off on yields is minimal - it's reasonable then to ask why the Bank's intervention to stabilise the markets by buying bonds worked, and why when it stopped they continued to rise, despite Sunak/Hunt giving an avowedly professional and reassuring performance.
1) The Bank of England did not sell a single bond in September 2022. It announced it would at a future date.
2) Its intervention worked because the market was in freefall with the number of forced sellers increasing with every 0.5% increase in long-dated yields (which was happening in a matter of hours, normally it takes weeks in a volatile market). There was no buyer of sufficient size to buck this trend until the BoE intervened.
3) Base rates rose higher than previously expected to combat inflation and are now expected to remain high. This is the primary reason for higher bond yields now.
4) UK and US debt issuance remains high by historical standards, which combined with the BoE/FED selling bonds is applying additional upward pressure on yields. But it is gradual as the market finds the right clearing price.
Truss and Kwarteng deliberately took a 'shock and awe' approach to fiscal policy. They achieved that, just not in the way they had hoped.
1) The market prices in expectations, so simply announcing that it will is sufficient to move markets.
2) The forced sellers were being forced to sell after the BoE had announced it would sell bonds which devalued them.
3) Base rates have risen globally.
4) Agreed, which is part of the reason why the BoE selling bonds is economic vandalism of the highest order. It is like selling gold all over again and making taxpayers write the cheque.
Point 1 is true but was small compared to the movement on Friday during the mini budget.
Point 2 is simply untrue - the size of movements that day was in the normal range. It all kicked off on Friday and Monday.
Point 4 I agree QT isn't necessary.
You can blame the BoE it you wish, but I was following yields continuously during that week and know exactly what went on in the LDI market. Rising rates and the BoE may have dried the wood but Truss/Kwarteng lit the match. And the BoE put out the fire just in time before the LDI crisis became a banking crisis.
Fiscal irresponsibility had consequences.
The announcement by the Bank of England happened on the Thursday, so a Friday movement in the markets is entirely fitting with it being affected by the Bank's announcements. Can't divorce one from the other.
Its like Chancellor's Budgets that sound good on the day, then have fallen apart two days later.
The BoE "put out the fire" by reversing its own announcement. The BoE set the fire, but that doesn't excuse the Chancellor who should have known what the Bank was upto and not timed his statement at the same time as the Bank's, or better instructed the Bank that the taxpayer would not be writing a blank cheque for QT so the Bank would have to operate in a way that doesn't affect taxpayers finances.
You're talking rubbish. The BoE announcement was at 12pm on Thursday and yields rose slightly in response. It was already expected by markets as passive QT (not reinvesting maturing bond payments) started in March 2022.
The mini budget was on Friday morning - I know because I was on a team meeting where I saw yields rise rapidly as Kwarteng spoke (much more than all Thursday) - which led to the almighty sell-off. The size and scale of unfunded tax cuts with no OBR report shocked the market.
Your alternative view of history undermines the valid criticism of the BoE by trying to defend Truss/Kwarteng who are undoubtedly lit the match.
I broadly agree. The BoE did not cover itself in glory, the QT policy was very badly timed, and they had been painfully slow in seeking to address the surge in inflation. But the fiscal policy of Kwarteng and Truss was reckless in the extreme and completely ignored the highly vulnerable position the UK was in. I think it’s long term effects have been exaggerated but short term we stepped off a cliff without a parachute.
'Cost' of the tax cuts in the mini budget: £45bn
Cost of underwriting the Bank's losses on its QT programme (as announced, the actual cost based on monthly payments so far has been higher): £80bn
Which is more fiscally irresponsible?
The tax cuts. They were a year on year cost, not a one off. Also QT is desirable. It shows that we are interested in maintaining the fiscal base of our fiat currency and it has the potential to reduce the money supply reducing inflation expectations. Ceteris paribus it should protect the currency and reduce imported inflation.
It was the timing that was awry.
QT creates supply of bonds in the secondary markets which will raise gilt yields and therefore mortgage rates, which will push CPIH up in the short term before any demand destruction can push core inflation back down. It's a completely stupid policy to start QT heading into a high inflationary period, you don't need the additional upwards pressure on rates to bring inflation back down, high interest rates will do that anyway.
Worse still is that QT right now is crystallising a huge haircut for the taxpayer because gilt prices are rock bottom, increasing our necessary borrowing and further sending up gilt supply and crashing gilt prices further. They are pushing gilts into a negative feedback cycle which is why we've gone from having a market premium on gilts to very much the opposite which can no longer be blamed on Liz the lettuce.
Yes QT is the wrong policy to tackle inflation. Better to rise base rates slightly higher and avoid the distortion in fiscal policy than try to do it via QT as well (at least active QT, passive QT fine as not crystallising loses).
I'm also not sure the indemnity to the Treasury is strictly necessary, economically speaking. Not all countries have it.
Yes, the indemnity policy is another example of our "Rolls Royce" civil service making an error. The treasury should have told the BoE to shut the fuck up, they decided, as an independent body, to buy a bunch of gilts and they, as an independent body, need to eat the losses or not fucking sell them at such a gigantic loss.
@MaxPB - you mentioned the other day some difficulties your wife was having at work. Does her workplace have a whistleblowing / Speak Up policy which may help? DM me if you would like to discuss.
Thanks, Cyclefree, she's decided to leave her firm over the weekend. I don't think she'll struggle for work.
Sorry to hear that your wife is having to deal with such a situation. Perhaps good idea still, to dm CF.
From another place; cannot speak for its veracity. It refers to the Russians launching their Adivka adventure.
"They (the Russians) started the offensive at the exact same time HAMAS attacked Israel , to the hour."
If true (and depending on time zones, it might be, as they were both on the 6/7 October), then it cannot really be a coincidence, can it? Especially given Iran's hand in both.
Why would either Russia or Hamas (or Iran) want to launch these at the exact same time "to the hour"? It's not as if the Ukrainian defence would be distracted by things happening in Israel, or the IDF by events in Avdiivka.
What's "another place"?
Someone sold the offensive to Putin as the Great Breakthrough Suprise Attack? Timing it with an attack on Israel would have had all that jazz of “distracting the Americans”, “opening a new front - at no expense to us”, “the world will be looking the other way”…
It’s all in Red Storm Rising…
Yes maybe around about the same time - but why would it need to be the exact same hour?
The childish belief that this would be the Great Breakthrough, so that hours would count?
See the start of the hilariously bad film the Battle of The Bulge. The hundred hour clock…
I detest that film. The whole point of the batle was that it was fought out under heavy cloud in the middle of winter. So where do they film it? Spain. With clear blue skies. And US tanks that looking nothing like the German stuff.
Awful. Just awful.
Though Robert Shaw does give an interesting take on mentality of the “realist” hard core fanatic Nazis who fought to the steps of the Bunker.
“Realist” because they admitted what they were facing, but fought on anyway. And killed millions more for no point what so ever.
Robert Citino is good at Wehrmacht motives from about 42/43 on. There are multiple reasons why they stayed loyal to the point of absurdity, including
* belief in the stabbed-in-the-back myth of WW1 * fear of reprisals * a wish to save German civilians * money * the presence of eager replacements
Some of the motives are sincere, some are postfacto justifications ("oh, now you're worried about civilans?"). Suffice to say he does not believe in a Clean Wehrmacht, and neither do I.
Do you really believe that UK bond market prices are not principally set by participants future expectations of inflation?
I believe that in any market, if a large holder of something is racing to offload that thing, that reduces its value. The Bank insists that the impact of its sell off on yields is minimal - it's reasonable then to ask why the Bank's intervention to stabilise the markets by buying bonds worked, and why when it stopped they continued to rise, despite Sunak/Hunt giving an avowedly professional and reassuring performance.
1) The Bank of England did not sell a single bond in September 2022. It announced it would at a future date.
2) Its intervention worked because the market was in freefall with the number of forced sellers increasing with every 0.5% increase in long-dated yields (which was happening in a matter of hours, normally it takes weeks in a volatile market). There was no buyer of sufficient size to buck this trend until the BoE intervened.
3) Base rates rose higher than previously expected to combat inflation and are now expected to remain high. This is the primary reason for higher bond yields now.
4) UK and US debt issuance remains high by historical standards, which combined with the BoE/FED selling bonds is applying additional upward pressure on yields. But it is gradual as the market finds the right clearing price.
Truss and Kwarteng deliberately took a 'shock and awe' approach to fiscal policy. They achieved that, just not in the way they had hoped.
1) The market prices in expectations, so simply announcing that it will is sufficient to move markets.
2) The forced sellers were being forced to sell after the BoE had announced it would sell bonds which devalued them.
3) Base rates have risen globally.
4) Agreed, which is part of the reason why the BoE selling bonds is economic vandalism of the highest order. It is like selling gold all over again and making taxpayers write the cheque.
Point 1 is true but was small compared to the movement on Friday during the mini budget.
Point 2 is simply untrue - the size of movements that day was in the normal range. It all kicked off on Friday and Monday.
Point 4 I agree QT isn't necessary.
You can blame the BoE it you wish, but I was following yields continuously during that week and know exactly what went on in the LDI market. Rising rates and the BoE may have dried the wood but Truss/Kwarteng lit the match. And the BoE put out the fire just in time before the LDI crisis became a banking crisis.
Fiscal irresponsibility had consequences.
The announcement by the Bank of England happened on the Thursday, so a Friday movement in the markets is entirely fitting with it being affected by the Bank's announcements. Can't divorce one from the other.
Its like Chancellor's Budgets that sound good on the day, then have fallen apart two days later.
The BoE "put out the fire" by reversing its own announcement. The BoE set the fire, but that doesn't excuse the Chancellor who should have known what the Bank was upto and not timed his statement at the same time as the Bank's, or better instructed the Bank that the taxpayer would not be writing a blank cheque for QT so the Bank would have to operate in a way that doesn't affect taxpayers finances.
You're talking rubbish. The BoE announcement was at 12pm on Thursday and yields rose slightly in response. It was already expected by markets as passive QT (not reinvesting maturing bond payments) started in March 2022.
The mini budget was on Friday morning - I know because I was on a team meeting where I saw yields rise rapidly as Kwarteng spoke (much more than all Thursday) - which led to the almighty sell-off. The size and scale of unfunded tax cuts with no OBR report shocked the market.
Your alternative view of history undermines the valid criticism of the BoE by trying to defend Truss/Kwarteng who are undoubtedly lit the match.
I broadly agree. The BoE did not cover itself in glory, the QT policy was very badly timed, and they had been painfully slow in seeking to address the surge in inflation. But the fiscal policy of Kwarteng and Truss was reckless in the extreme and completely ignored the highly vulnerable position the UK was in. I think it’s long term effects have been exaggerated but short term we stepped off a cliff without a parachute.
'Cost' of the tax cuts in the mini budget: £45bn
Cost of underwriting the Bank's losses on its QT programme (as announced, the actual cost based on monthly payments so far has been higher): £80bn
Which is more fiscally irresponsible?
The tax cuts. They were a year on year cost, not a one off. Also QT is desirable. It shows that we are interested in maintaining the fiscal base of our fiat currency and it has the potential to reduce the money supply reducing inflation expectations. Ceteris paribus it should protect the currency and reduce imported inflation.
It was the timing that was awry.
QT creates supply of bonds in the secondary markets which will raise gilt yields and therefore mortgage rates, which will push CPIH up in the short term before any demand destruction can push core inflation back down. It's a completely stupid policy to start QT heading into a high inflationary period, you don't need the additional upwards pressure on rates to bring inflation back down, high interest rates will do that anyway.
Worse still is that QT right now is crystallising a huge haircut for the taxpayer because gilt prices are rock bottom, increasing our necessary borrowing and further sending up gilt supply and crashing gilt prices further. They are pushing gilts into a negative feedback cycle which is why we've gone from having a market premium on gilts to very much the opposite which can no longer be blamed on Liz the lettuce.
I agree that QT into a period of high inflation and rapidly rising interest rates is stupid and will inevitably result in gilts held by the Bank being sold at substantial discounts. It would be better for the Bank to hold them until maturity and then cancel them.
The cost to the Treasury, though, is simply the higher price of debt it pays because of additional supply. Losses incurred by the BoE do not result in the Treasury needing to raise taxes to compensate, because the BoE's balance sheet is entirely separate.
If I'm understanding you correctly, that's wrong. The Treasury is giving the Bank real taxpayer's money every month to cover its losses. This is different to the US, where the Fed is just chalking it up on their own accounting system.
I am wrong, and you are right.
Alone of the major central banks, back in 2009, the BoE was indemnified against losses on QE by the government. I didn't know that.
Yes and now the Bank of England is unnecessarily crystallising losses at the cost of billions of taxpayers real money when it could just wait until the debts mature and not roll them over.
It is a scandal, but because of the financial and otherwise illiteracy of the media, and because there's no politician it can be blamed on, its getting so little attention even you didn't know about it.
It's the biggest 'waste of taxpayers' is money' story in the world. The Governor and the entire leadership team should go, and of course Hunt too, but that's a given.
Still no serious analysis by liberals/moderates as to why Trump is so popular in the United States.
That's hardly true. I'm pretty sure I saw a breakdown (probably Zeihan) about how Trump's capture of union members and Hispanics and the poor outweigh the jettison of country club Republicans, and that onshoring/reshoring of industry, the expansion of fracking, and Trumps renegotiations of NAFTA et al make a Trump vote the logical choice for those in the Rust Belt.
If you are really looking for such things, you are going to have to stop expecting Unherd/Triggernometry etc to bring you truth and go looking for it. There's plenty out there if you look, in book form as well as YouTubes.
Still no serious analysis by liberals/moderates as to why Trump is so popular in the United States.
That's hardly true. I'm pretty sure I saw a breakdown (probably Zeihan) about how Trump's capture of union members and Hispanics and the poor outweigh the jettison of country club Republicans, and that onshoring/reshoring of industry, the expansion of fracking, and Trumps renegotiations of NAFTA et al make a Trump vote the logical choice for those in the Rust Belt.
If you are really looking for such things, you are going to have to stop expecting Unherd/Triggernometry etc to bring you truth and go looking for it. There's plenty out there if you look, in book form as well as YouTubes.
Having said that, the onus is now on me to find . So try these
"...This paper contributes to the study of social change by considering boundary work as a dimension of cultural change. Drawing on the computer-assisted qualitative analysis of 73 formal speeches made by Donald Trump during the 2016 electoral campaign, we argue that his political rhetoric, which led to his presidential victory, addressed the white working classes’ concern with their declining position in the national pecking order. He addressed their concern by raising the moral status of this group, that is, by 1) emphatically describing them as hard working Americans who are victims of globalization; 2) voicing their concerns about ‘people above’ (professionals, the rich, and politicians); 3) drawing strong moral boundaries toward undocumented immigrants, refugees and Muslims; 4) presenting African American and (legal) Hispanic Americans as workers who also deserve jobs; 5) stressing the role of working class men as protectors of women and LGBTQ people. This particular case study of cultural resonance provides a novel, distinctively sociological approach for capturing dynamics of social change..."
"...psychological well-being is a function of three basic psychological needs: for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these are thwarted, people will try to compensate.... We argue that Trump, with his “America First” and “Build a Wall” policies and his nativist rhetoric, fueled and harnessed these sentiments to secure the Presidency..."
In these readings, he applied a moral character to the disaffected and separated them from outsiders/outgroups, and used that moral character to encourage in-group identification. This met the American need for "relatedness" - to feel part of a group - that is in sore need due to the steep decline in community groups like churches.
It bothers me that I never thought of this. My understanding of Trump's appeal was utilitarian: that for certain groups a vote for Trump was the best way to better their life chances. It never occurred to me that he might meet their psychological needs, their need to be presented as a moral group to be defended and that could provide a sense of heimat.
From another place; cannot speak for its veracity. It refers to the Russians launching their Adivka adventure.
"They (the Russians) started the offensive at the exact same time HAMAS attacked Israel , to the hour."
If true (and depending on time zones, it might be, as they were both on the 6/7 October), then it cannot really be a coincidence, can it? Especially given Iran's hand in both.
Why would either Russia or Hamas (or Iran) want to launch these at the exact same time "to the hour"? It's not as if the Ukrainian defence would be distracted by things happening in Israel, or the IDF by events in Avdiivka.
What's "another place"?
Someone sold the offensive to Putin as the Great Breakthrough Suprise Attack? Timing it with an attack on Israel would have had all that jazz of “distracting the Americans”, “opening a new front - at no expense to us”, “the world will be looking the other way”…
It’s all in Red Storm Rising…
Yes maybe around about the same time - but why would it need to be the exact same hour?
The childish belief that this would be the Great Breakthrough, so that hours would count?
See the start of the hilariously bad film the Battle of The Bulge. The hundred hour clock…
I detest that film. The whole point of the batle was that it was fought out under heavy cloud in the middle of winter. So where do they film it? Spain. With clear blue skies. And US tanks that looking nothing like the German stuff.
Awful. Just awful.
Though Robert Shaw does give an interesting take on mentality of the “realist” hard core fanatic Nazis who fought to the steps of the Bunker.
“Realist” because they admitted what they were facing, but fought on anyway. And killed millions more for no point what so ever.
Some of them knew that surrender meant a one-way trip to the gallows, and many more feared it. The Morgenthau Plan and fear of the Red Army were also incentives to keep fighting.
They expected to be treated, in defeat, the same way they had treated those they conquered.
Basically, it started with the hollowing out of the middle class and the offshoring of manufacturing with little social safety net, not helped by initiatives aimed at helping “minorities” which completely bypass poor white people, and there’s millions of Americans for whom the dream isn’t working, who can no longer afford housing for a family on a working man’s salary, if they can even find the work in the first place.
Since 2020, things have got even worse for this group, many of whom lost their jobs during the pandemic, see 7m illegal immigrants now depressing unskilled and semi-skilled wages further, an opioid epidemic literally killing people in these communities, and a government which comes across as being happy to spend money in Ukraine and Israel, but not fixing the problems in their own communities or responding to their own disasters.
There’s some recent polling that suggests black support for Trump is actually increasing (slightly, and from a very low base), as his various legal difficulties resonate with the way that the ‘justice’ system comes after them.
Comments
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-u-s-leave-nato-1234860016/
It is a scandal, but because of the financial and otherwise illiteracy of the media, and because there's no politician it can be blamed on, its getting so little attention even you didn't know about it.
A senator from Washington State, United States was charged with possessing arms without license after being found with a revolver at the Hong Kong International Airport. The case has been adjourned to next Monday (Oct 30) and the politician has to surrender his travel documents.
Stephen Jeff Wilson, a senator from the 19th Legislative District of Washington State, was arrested at the Terminal 1 Arrivals Hall last Saturday (Oct 21) when a baggage screener found a gun in his belongings.
The 63-year-old was subsequently arrested as he could not provide any license for the revolver.
The case was mentioned in the Shatin Magistrates' Courts on Monday, and Wilson did not need to enter a plea yet.
He was granted cash bail of HK$20,000 and ordered to surrender his travel documents and not to leave Hong Kong. The next hearing will be held on October 30 at the West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts.
It was learned that he has no fixed place of abode in Hong Kong.
According to Sing Tao Daily, the Standard's sister paper, Wilson has some verbal exchanges with reporters who were taking photos of him stepping out of the court.
He and his wife, along with some relatives, verbally abused the reporters and asked them to delete the photos. The family later reported the incident to the police with some officers arrived at the scene for mediation, according to Sing Tao's report.
Wilson is also a member of several committees for the Washington Senate, including the State Government & Elections (Ranking Member), Housing, Human Services, and Transportation committees.
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/4/209560/US-state-senator-charged-for-illegal-possession-of-firearms
SSI - this guy was elected in 2000, defeating a long-time Democratic incumbent in rural southwest WA district that was reliably Democratic turf UNTIL 2016 when it flipped hard for Trump and Republicans. Like West Virginia only decade and a half later.
Not sure how this incident will impact this clown's re-election prospects next year. My guess is that he may get primay-ed by another GOPer. NOT for being a gun enthusiast, but instead for being too stupid to be a state senator. Which believe me is NOT a high bar. More like low limbo!
Go to a system like America where incoming governments appoint their own civil servants to enact their agenda.
Keep the people who answer the phones on a daily basis on the front line, but make Sir Humphrey work for his job, and be replaced when the government changes with a new appointee who will enact the new government's agenda.
1. Boris applies for the seat.
2. The party rules him out.
3. He indignantly joins RefUK, and wins the seat for them.
4. The Tory vote in the next poll splits into 10% loyal, 25% RefUK.
5. 10 Tory MPs defect to join him.
6. Starmer wins a landslide, but RefUK hang onto 50 seats.
7. Starmer finds the economic situation awful, and sternly imposes massive cuts.
8. Boris campaigns unscrupulously and wins one by-election after another.
...and so on.
Not impossible IMO - it's step 3 that's the least likely.
* belief in the stabbed-in-the-back myth of WW1
* fear of reprisals
* a wish to save German civilians
* money
* the presence of eager replacements
Some of the motives are sincere, some are postfacto justifications ("oh, now you're worried about civilans?"). Suffice to say he does not believe in a Clean Wehrmacht, and neither do I.
He has many lectures on YouTube. Here's one.
* "The End of WWII on the Eastern Front with Rob Citino" https://youtu.be/gYJW4eWtNP0?si=x6lbN1mdlTiHc8IK&t=492
Its depressing, and deadly serious.
If you are really looking for such things, you are going to have to stop expecting Unherd/Triggernometry etc to bring you truth and go looking for it. There's plenty out there if you look, in book form as well as YouTubes.
Sergio Massa, the economy minister, will now go head-to-head with Javier Milei"
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/10/23/argentinas-election-result-is-the-worst-of-all-possible-outcomes
"...This paper contributes to the study of social change by considering boundary work as a dimension of cultural change. Drawing on the computer-assisted qualitative analysis of 73 formal speeches made by Donald Trump during the 2016 electoral campaign, we argue that his political rhetoric, which led to his presidential victory, addressed the white working classes’ concern with their declining position in the national pecking order. He addressed their concern by raising the moral status of this group, that is, by 1) emphatically describing them as hard working Americans who are victims of globalization; 2) voicing their concerns about ‘people above’ (professionals, the rich, and politicians); 3) drawing strong moral boundaries toward undocumented immigrants, refugees and Muslims; 4) presenting African American and (legal) Hispanic Americans as workers who also deserve jobs; 5) stressing the role of working class men as protectors of women and LGBTQ people. This particular case study of cultural resonance provides a novel, distinctively sociological approach for capturing dynamics of social change..."
See https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/34864122/BJS_Trumps_Electoral_Speeches.pdf
or
"...psychological well-being is a function of three basic psychological needs: for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these are thwarted, people will try to compensate.... We argue that Trump, with his “America First” and “Build a Wall” policies and his nativist rhetoric, fueled and harnessed these sentiments to secure the
Presidency..."
See https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Bowling-with-Trump_Fabian-et-al.pdf
In these readings, he applied a moral character to the disaffected and separated them from outsiders/outgroups, and used that moral character to encourage in-group identification. This met the American need for "relatedness" - to feel part of a group - that is in sore need due to the steep decline in community groups like churches.
It bothers me that I never thought of this. My understanding of Trump's appeal was utilitarian: that for certain groups a vote for Trump was the best way to better their life chances. It never occurred to me that he might meet their psychological needs, their need to be presented as a moral group to be defended and that could provide a sense of heimat.
They expected to be treated, in defeat, the same way they had treated those they conquered.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4 - Warning, he uses a few F-words.
Basically, it started with the hollowing out of the middle class and the offshoring of manufacturing with little social safety net, not helped by initiatives aimed at helping “minorities” which completely bypass poor white people, and there’s millions of Americans for whom the dream isn’t working, who can no longer afford housing for a family on a working man’s salary, if they can even find the work in the first place.
Since 2020, things have got even worse for this group, many of whom lost their jobs during the pandemic, see 7m illegal immigrants now depressing unskilled and semi-skilled wages further, an opioid epidemic literally killing people in these communities, and a government which comes across as being happy to spend money in Ukraine and Israel, but not fixing the problems in their own communities or responding to their own disasters.
There’s some recent polling that suggests black support for Trump is actually increasing (slightly, and from a very low base), as his various legal difficulties resonate with the way that the ‘justice’ system comes after them.