Like a slow motion Liz Truss – politicalbetting.com
Like a slow motion Liz Truss – politicalbetting.com
After Liz Truss's mini-budget, just 15 per cent of people felt the Tories were the best party at handling the economyToday, the equivalent figure for Labour is 12 per cent www.thetimes.com/article/470f…
1
Comments
Appoint TRUSS to the BBC
Guaranteed to end the institution.
No-one can see what Labour is trying to do, other than survive in office.
On the plus side- has has experience in the media biz. On the minus side, it was working for Carlton TV and On Digital. Remember them?
This dystopia is not looking great
The best way to run the economy well is to be in the right place at the right time and not do anything stupid. Events in America and Ukraine are much bigger factors than anything any UK government can do.
I would be 3p on income tax, reduce NI by 2p.
And fix council tax and stamp duty.
But that is complex so they won’t do it
That’s how much of an affect it’s having already, people are making decisions that will stick even if it doesn’t happen this year. People know it’s been floated, and there’s three more Labour budgets still to come.
(No idea if any of that is actually true but that's certainly the message online.)
"Pathetic."
https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1987703732600184837
In the past we would debate issues and facts. Disagreeing with the other side but recognising that their policy position is based on truth and their genuine ambition to do what is best for the country.
That is gone. Now we argue about the facts - even when those facts happened in real time in front of us. And have malevolent actors doing their best to undermine the country.
Yanksoc is not going to be good for the UK as we continue to be influenced by it.
Until quite recently, it was possible to say- with a reasonably straight face- "I'm not very political, so I joined the Conservatives." Yes, I know that sounds bonkers, but there you go.
All card-carrying Socialists are deeply political, by definition.
The excuses on here "yeah but he was inciting a riot", well then why splice the video together to make it appear he was saying something different to what he did?
They caught fabricating a narrative. That other media organisations do this is neither here or there. Just because other car manufacturers repeatedly break down, and yours has an excellent reputation for reliability shouldnt mean you start producing models that break down.
The BBC is only really a few more mistakes away from implosion. Imagine losing a post truth pi*sing contest with Donald Trump.
Where is Leon?
No development;
The human race should die out;
In the meantime, carbon capture should get loadsamoney.
A fair summary ?
That's going to keep me pretty busy, as they do so regularly.
And converting the gas network to hydrogen.
Otherwise, that's the bulk of my manifesto.
It will change though if the economy does start to do well.
God knows why. I guess it shows the influence he has. No one is pining for that knob Jessop who flounced before Leon was banned.
He’s not been here for weeks.
You can get him on Twitter if you want.
Quite a good list of quotes to put the ‘poor misrepresented Trump’ narrative into context.
https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1987667206981984298?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Probably 2p up, 2p down so they can argue working people aren't paying more.
Shutdown battles are always about unpleasant choices, and there are downsides to whatever action the Democrats take.
But folding without having achieved anything of substance from your opponents never plays well.
The GOP, equally, is now faced with some electorally unpalatable choices of its own.
When I worked for Baxi they were very keen to go down the hydrogen boiler route. Even had a few houses in Gateshead running on Hydrogen.
The problem was always the production.
Big opportunity for Mel Stride to show what he can offer. If he can pin the unpopular stuff on Reeves and Starmer, whilst having a sensible narrative for what he would have done instead, the Tories could start heading back towards Reform in the polls.
On the exit tax, I do think it's worth exploring taxes on expats to low tax countries, but I'm not sure what form that should take. What people shouldn't be able to do is spend their working years abroad paying no tax and then retiring here and taking advantage of our healthcare and state pension with only a few quid spent on voluntary NI contributions.
If people want the benefits of citizenship / residency in retirement, they should pay their fair share during their working life.
You keep obsessing about him, makes a change from cross dressing men.
On the plus side my feed is full of pics of Sydney Sweeney.
I also don’t seem to get too much right wing guff either.
So without the NI cut Rachel would only need to raise income tax by 1p. With a bit more for the higher and additional rates.
MIKE JOHNSON: Ah -- no. I'm not promising anyone anything.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1986460444609941798
Their problem is that instead of doing that, they seem in denial about their time doing Plan A. Happy to decry Labour also doing Plan A but missing the rather basic point that little of substance has changed.
So we will have the budget. And the Tory response to the budget. Two bald people arguing about what colour the hairbrush for their luscious hair should be.
If you need to rip off the plaster. Just do it. The fallout will be the same. By refunding you just annoy those who are impacted more with zero gratitude from those who are no worse off.
It's the people going off to live in zero (or close to zero) tax countries, often in well paying jobs, and then retaining all the upside of citizenship that I object most to.
I'm sure there's lots of ways you could design a system that only targets that segment.
Nils Pratley in The Guardian had an interesting piece on it and the impact of AZ moving its listing
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2025/nov/03/reeves-recognise-reality-astrazeneca-killed-stamp-duty-shares
She could try and do a 2p raise with a corresponding 1p cut, if she feels brave.
The possibility is that in addition she does, say a 3p up and 2p down on higher rate. The “broadest shoulders” argument.
It’s clear she wants to try and raise a lot of cash in this budget.
They lied.
They lied.
They lied.
I was jaw dropping shocked when I saw it. I was saddened to the core that it was the BBC and Panorama. A show that from my youth had always been a programme that meant truth and integrity.
If a show like Panorama on a station like the BBC can so easily deceive, it makes me question assumptions about all news reporting.
It’s devastating. To simply dismiss it as orange man bag and it’s probably what he meant anyway, just adds. Carrying water for media corruption because its a noble lie.
Without help of some sort, AI or not, local objectors, who lack expertise in this complex area, resort to sloppy, incomplete and irrelevant objections which get knocked down by those that know, who sigh a relief that the meaty grounds for objecting have been missed.
Meanwhile, council officers are indulging in behind-the-scenes discussions with developers (long past the objection deadline) to get applications through by contorting their own rules, and then they get patted on the back for meeting their new housing targets and enlarging their tax base.
Parishioners are being out-gunned and the countryside and nature is being cemented over. I've seen all this in action and spoken to people on all sides.
https://x.com/julianHjessop/status/1986849400015016253
This morning I listened to a couple of hours of turgid R4 Today introspection on the current row. I haven't read the famous leaked memo/report. One thing stood out a mile: Charles Moore (whose bias and dislike of the BBC is of course obvious) started to mention, as if from the memo/report suggestions about the BBC Arabic service which, if true, are egregiously and outstandingly startling and a total dereliction of news values duties. No idea if it's true. This was more or less immediately stifled and diverted and the rest of the two hours focusses on other stuff including the now notorious Panorama splicing of clips from a well known American fascist called Donald Trump.
This indicated to me that a selection bias is going on, under the appearance of fair neutral news coverage. But I can't be sure.
Because in the seventh week she rested
* at least according to @Luckyguy1983
PS: Get shot of all the parasitic quangos/charity parasites/ambulance chasers , etc who feed off all the crazy misuse of supposed rights / laws
(In addition I note that in horrible places with high rise and no gardens like parts of cities, the new build dwellings numbers are no better or often worse.)
The edited lie: Trump incited a riot
Why the performative shock? We aren't morons on X, doesn't work here.
The amount of kite-flying this year is off the scale.
The BBC does not have an easy task but that doesn’t excuse its failings. Like the government, Id rather it did fewer things better (respected news and journalism being one of the things we really need right now) than lots of things poorly.
I think the news division should in some way be spun off from its entertainment offering too.
The Dems really need to be looking at other candidates.
Start with an extreme example for a simple illustration. Philosophically rigorous neutrality and sticking to facts in the empirical sense would require that the reporting takes no view, explicitly or implicitly, about the moral status (right or wrongness, good or evilness) of torturing children for fun.
This of course causes no problem because consensus. But the moment you deal in shades of grey, that gets hard. One of the simplest examples is in use of names. What words the BBC, or anyone else, uses to describe certain regions, towns, countries, ethnicities, events in history etc are in themselves seen as sources of bias. Like Derry/Londonderry multiplied by millions
Of course it's not good the publicly-funded (and that's the point) broadcaster has been caught out and it makes you wonder how often this has happened with other programmes.
If you want a cynical view, the choice is how you pay for your lies or whether you get them for free.
We know political speeches have been "edited" for generations - look at any party Conference speech and you get 20-30 seconds of a 45-60 minute address so naturally context is the second casualty of war after the truth itself and we know with modern techniques how words can be diced and spliced to convey an entirely different meaning.
As others have suggested, this isn't the sole cause of Davie's resignation and more will be revealed (or not) in time. As far as the 2024 GE coverage is concerned, I thought the BBC little worse than either Sky or ITV with their Farage obsession - as a Liberal Democrat, I found the coverage of the party's advances lacking - the night was all about the demise of the Conservatives and the election of Farage and his acolytes and everything else was an irrelevance.
The bigger question is whether, as many on here seem to want, the BBC is forced to move away from public funding and has to stand on its own feet. The organisation has in this instance failed to live up to its own lofty ideals but that doesn't mean the concept of an impartial publicly-funded broadcaster is obsolete.
The notion of a future Government (of whatever stripe) being immune from scrutiny in the broadcast media because all the channels are run by supporters or allies is abhorrent in any plural democracy.
If the UK did something similar, for example 10% tax on overseas income above £100k, then I wouldn’t object.
Hobbs, AZ gov
Beshear, KY gov
Whitmer, MI gov
Stein, NC gov
Shapiro, PN gov
Kelly, AZ sen
Gallego, AZ sen
Slotkin, MI sen
Cortez Masto, NV sen
should all be interesting possibilities.