LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThis is where you give extra money to people who don't need it and make life more difficult for people who do need it. Trickle down economics.
British people are lazy, apart from those in the south east.
Need help with this one.
September 30th, 2022, 06:51 AM
This is where you give extra money to people who don't need it and make life more difficult for people who do need it. Trickle down economics.
British people are lazy, apart from those in the south east.
Need help with this one.
"Trussonomics", basically appears to consist of trying to copy previous Conservative governments in a more extreme manner, then just assuming everything will work out great. But when even the former Conservative Chancellor warned that her plans would be a disaster, then it's no wonder we're experiencing chaos now.
Unfortunately, and the same can be said for Kwasi Kwarteng, there's no evidence that Truss has the first clue about economics.
During the leadership debates, when Sunak warned Conservative members what would happen if Truss went ahead with her tax cuts, she just didn't listen.
What they tried to do with their 'mini-budget' is along the lines of Cameron in 2010 when the Conservatives gave huge tax breaks to their wealthy backers & supporters as a reward for supporting them, paid for by 12 years government spending cuts hitting local economies across the country.
Truss talked about going for growth, but that's like saying we want the environment to be better, everyone can get onboard with the sentiment, but it doesn't actually mean anything. What matters is what you actually do to achieve it, and they appear to have gotten it badly wrong.
Now the U Turn of the century from the party who think the little people need to be put in their place.Originally Posted by Ascended
Only 4 weeks in and the economic joy ride is now in reverse gear.
Beware of Chancellors who chance their hands. This is not a game.Unfortunately, and the same can be said for Kwasi Kwarteng, there's no evidence that Truss has the first clue about economics.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...d-for-disaster
Now the U Turn of the century from the party who think the little people need to be put in their place.
Only 4 weeks in and the economic joy ride is now in reverse gear.
Beware of Chancellors who chance their hands. This is not a game.Unfortunately, and the same can be said for Kwasi Kwarteng, there's no evidence that Truss has the first clue about economics.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...d-for-disaster
What nobody mentions is that the reason Truss is so desperate to find growth is because we have just reduced our growth potential by erecting new trade barriers with our closest and largest market. It is denying of this that has led the Tory party into a wilderness of lies and attacks on all the institutions that might point out this uncomfortable reality.
Which in turn is how they have managed to attract a "moron premium" for the interest on UK government bonds, which will crucify mortgage holders and also businesses seeking investment loans. So they have done more damage to growth in the last week than any amount of tax reduction can replace.
Surely, if we've impacted our external markets and we still want growth, then our only real alternative is to boost our internal markets with more liquidity, actually getting all our local economies firing on all cylinders through internal demand. Yet each time you see a newspaper it suggests Truss wants to inflict more austerity, the spending cuts we already had have put our highstreets and local economies on life support is our Prime Minister not capable of understanding that if people don't have money to spend then our companies and businesses don't have customers and they won't have tax revenues. Since when can you get more out of a shrinking pot, it's feels like they've totally lost the plot. We're all seemingly, paying the "moron premium" for the people we've allowed to be in charge.
"We" never allowed Truss to be in charge. Her predecessor, admittedly an inveterate liar, offered something totally different. That was the last time "we" had any say in the matter.
Even "Mad Nad" Dorries understands that.
"We" never allowed Truss to be in charge. Her predecessor, admittedly an inveterate liar, offered something totally different. That was the last time "we" had any say in the matter.
Even "Mad Nad" Dorries understands that.
I take your point, but what I mean is, we aren't exactly putting enough pressure on our MPs to get rid of her.
Looks like we're now in for a dose of Huntonomics.
Taxes may have to rise after all.
Truss now looks beaten. Nervous, exhausted, frail.
If she can't stand the heat she might as well get out of the kitchen now.
She's been eviscerated, politically. Hunt is now in charge and she will just have to accept what he decides. She's finished, and deservedly so. I realised she was crap when I saw her in the robes of the Lord Chancellor, looking as usual very pleased with herself and utterly absurd - an overgrown schoolgirl. She's been useless in every job, so far as I can see.
But the bigger picture is this is all just reality reasserting itself. The bond markets want to get a rate of return reflecting the risk, before they agree to lend GB even more money. Come up with a fantasy economic plan and a "moron premium" follows, as night follows day. Ever since Brexit, the Tories have deluded themselves with talk of unicorns and sunlit uplands, when the reality - which they dare not admit to themselves, let alone anyone else - is that Brexit has wiped a big chunk off the country's prospects for economic growth, by damaging trade with our biggest market, cutting us off from labour when we have full employment and imposing more, not less, red tape. Sure we face all sorts of headwinds: energy crisis, cost of Covid etc, but we are unique in having made life much harder for ourselves at the same time by a huge act of economic self-harm.
Truss is the logical end state of this by now ingrained magical thinking, and....Kwar-TENGG!! into the metal lamp post of reality. The Tories need to go into opposition and we need a new government that will get us back into easier trade and reciprocal migration with the EU and invest in what actually matters to business, which is NOT lower tax, whatever these wank-tanks in Tufton St. may say.
Sounds like a vote for Labour.
Do you expect a return to the EU?
Let's move on.
What I've seen throughout is that Labour are high tax and Tories are low tax, and that's why people vote for them.
Lowering taxes is when a country is on an economic roll. That's where Truss got it wrong, and the markets proved that.
Truss also wants people to work harder. More efficiently yes, but not like the worker ants she seems to propose.
What Corbyn was to Labour, Truss is to the Tories. The lurch too far to the left or right is never popular with the majority of voters.
Let's see what Jeremy Hunt comes up with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-63276374
Last edited by ox; October 16th, 2022 at 10:18 AM.
I don't see any short term readmission to the EU. I think we have to wait for the old buggers that voted for Brexit, like you, to die off before it would be politically possible. But I do think we should go for an interpretation of Brexit that lowers the barriers to trade and movement of people. After all, that is what Brexit voters were promised at the time of the vote. All this hard Brexit crap was foisted on the country subsequently, with no popular mandate at all, by a little group of Tory extremists (ERG) who held the government to ransom. At the time of the vote, people like Gove and Daniel Hannan were promising we would stay in the Single Market and would barely notice the difference.
Hunt is a sensible bloke with a lot of experience. (Unfortunately he always looks a bit bonkers in front of the cameras, but he's actually sane.) The problem he has is that the bond markets have now called the UK's bluff on its economic management and will henceforth be watching with beady eyes and analysing every move, instead of taking it on trust that the UK knows what it is doing. So we will face a higher cost of borrowing than we would otherwise have had, for years now, thanks to this pair of idiots. That will constrain Hunt in what he can do. So we're in for a tough time.
Alas though I agree readmission doesn't appear likely any time soon, the tide may be turning regarding public opinion.
Understandable exasperation, but everybody, right or wrong, did what they thought right at the time. Exercise frustration on those truly responsible, liars promoting & campaigning for Brexit.
Do we still have to wait for leave voters to pass on?
People can now see economic impact & those who had immigration as their priority, their towns haven't changed so much viz. immigrants leaving etc. Are they all still wedded to Brexit?
Yes we have to wait. In twenty years or so we might look at it again.Alas though I agree readmission doesn't appear likely any time soon, the tide may be turning regarding public opinion.
Understandable exasperation, but everybody, right or wrong, did what they thought right at the time. Exercise frustration on those truly responsible, liars promoting & campaigning for Brexit.
Do we still have to wait for leave voters to pass on?
People can now see economic impact & those who had immigration as their priority, their towns haven't changed so much viz. immigrants leaving etc. Are they all still wedded to Brexit?
This chart proves there was an increasing tendency to vote for Brexit based on age and experience.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-votes-by-age/
Yes, age I can see on the chart. However for some reason I could not spot the one showing the relationship with experience.This chart proves there was an increasing tendency to vote for Brexit based on age and experience.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-votes-by-age/
But this makes my point: when todays' oldies die off, it will be far easier to raise the question of EU membership once more.
Quite obviously age implies experience.Yes, age I can see on the chart. However for some reason I could not spot the one showing the relationship with experience.This chart proves there was an increasing tendency to vote for Brexit based on age and experience.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-votes-by-age/
But this makes my point: when todays' oldies die off, it will be far easier to raise the question of EU membership once more.
After all do we not learn from our mistakes?
I was hoping that chart might highlight a correlation between Brexit voters and xenophobic attitudes.
But I suppose we don't need to generalize when we already have a real example of one.
You'd hope. But how does that expression go again, "There's no fool like an old fool", some people just don't, or won't learn.
My tongue was curled around my denturesYou'd hope. But how does that expression go again, "There's no fool like an old fool", some people just don't, or won't learn.
Actually my ability to change my mind probably flatlined around age 13
If there is a Rejoin the EU vote, what age groups should be allowed to vote?
Based on the fact that democracy is one person one vote, does it need to be changed?
Could use age groups based on youth, senescence, and xenophobia.
People aged 18 - 60 allowed to vote.
Over 60's excluded altogether because it's not their future, and they are all suffering with dementia and are xenophobic.
If there is a vote for the UK to regain our rightful place at Europe's top table as a full member of the European Union, then I don't think there should be upper age restrictions. Just because someone is over 60 doesn't mean their opinions don't matter. I do think equally though you have a point about it not being their future, but in as much as not likely to be as much as their future as today's children. So, whilst I don't think we should have upper age limit for who should be able participate, neither do I think we should prevent children from voting if it's clear they are capable of understanding what they are voting for.
To this end, I'd suggest everybody of any age who wished to participate in such a vote had to fill out a simple questionnaire to demonstrate they are capable of understanding what they're voting for, this could solve issues over whether someone is considered too senile or young to comprehend what they're voting for.
But arbitrary age limits, on who should or shouldn't have the right to participate, don't seem the best solution.
Is this the end of Trussagnomics?
(meant to be a joke but I didn't realize what gnomism was)
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gnomism
thought it was some kind of an obscurantist sect (gnosticism?)
Maybe someone could have warned her to "Beware the Gnomes of Zurich"(no I don't want my hat)
If nothing else it shows the propensity of the Tory voting classes to vote for a pig in a poke (and damn the rest of the country)
Oh,you already knew that?
It certainly looks like it now.
The fun starts all over again to see which clown, the Conservatives didn't think wasn't good enough for the top job just a weeks ago, they now want to make their new leader.
No doubt, once again foisting upon us whatever their particular flavour of economics happens to be.
If I had to guess, I'd say Wallace, if he doesn't want the job then Sunak. At least with Sunak he's been chancellor, not saying he did a great job, but not as chaotic as Truss & Kwarteng. Wallace very popular with the Conservative party, what his
level of economic competence is like; your guess is as good as mine.
Chaos theory has been redefined by Truss and the Tory implosion.
The price of Brexit is now clear. The import of Italian politics.
I don't think Sunak would last long, which leaves Bozo as the favourite at this moment.
He did win the last general election.
He might have learned his lesson.
He does make us laugh.
If he declares to run, let's see what he says.
Wallace now rules himself out, but leans towards Bozo.
Both Truss and AVFC's manager Steven Gerard gone on the same day and both declaring them fighters not quitters.
Truss is an AVFC supporter.
Last edited by ox; October 21st, 2022 at 06:37 AM.
Great video from the FT
Choosing Bozo would be a disaster, both for the Tory party and country. It might destroy the Tory party in fact. Let's hope he fails to get 100MPs to back him and decides against running. It seems rather hard to imagine there are 100MPs quite so stupid as to choose the man they forced out of office a mere 3 months ago for being a lying shit.
You mean if Truss hasn't done that already.
Big stakes here. I hear Sunak is a very bright guy, but probably a better Chancellor than a PM.
Labour so far ahead in the polls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio...neral_election
Only because most voters today will not remember the utter chaos that previous Labour administrations have caused.
Inflation at 25%. Much of this due to giving in to union pay demands.
Nationalisation of industry and services that led to lack of competition.
Uncontrolled immigration.
Emigration of home grown talent because of better opportunities elsewhere.
Government unable to control the loony left.
The unions effectively running the country.
Strikes, more strikes and a winter of discontent with streets full of litter and the bereaved unable to bury their dead.
You seem to have forgotten that Labour has been in power since the 1970s and ran the country pretty well for a decade. (If you go back to the 1970s, Heath ran a Conservative government that presided over a 3 day week with strikes all over the place and harrumphing generals threatening to take over the country.)You mean if Truss hasn't done that already.
Big stakes here. I hear Sunak is a very bright guy, but probably a better Chancellor than a PM.
Labour so far ahead in the polls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio...neral_election
Only because most voters today will not remember the utter chaos that previous Labour administrations have caused.
Inflation at 25%. Much of this due to giving in to union pay demands.
Nationalisation of industry and services that led to lack of competition.
Uncontrolled immigration.
Emigration of home grown talent because of better opportunities elsewhere.
Government unable to control the loony left.
The unions effectively running the country.
Strikes, more strikes and a winter of discontent with streets full of litter and the bereaved unable to bury their dead.
But Labour or a Labour-led alliance will win the next election, so better get used to the idea. The crucial thing is to have party in power with some shreds of competence. Virtually all the talent has been driven out of the Tory ranks by Brexshit.
Sunak now PM is at least a realist and claims he will fix the mess.
If he does the Tories can still win the next election, by January 2025 at the latest.
If he can't a Labour government propped up by the SNP will lead to the breakup of the UK.
But if he keeps Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor, why is Sunak going to be any more popular than Truss?Sunak now PM is at least a realist and claims he will fix the mess.
If he does the Tories can still win the next election, by January 2025 at the latest.
If he can't a Labour government propped up by the SNP will lead to the breakup of the UK.
When Kwasi Kwarteng announced the energy support package, he originally said it would be for 2 years, when Hunt replaced him, he changed it to ending next April.
This means as of next April, average energy bills will jump from £2,500 to £4,500 - £5,000.
Why would anybody vote for someone who is going to cost them thousands of pounds extra than the opposition who would make the energy companies pay this extra cost, from their excess profits,
given that the energy companies never expected to even make these excess profits over and above the profits they were expecting to make.
Even if you would normally like the Conservatives over Labour, how many people like them enough to willing hand over thousands of pounds of their hard-earned money for sweet FA in return, other than the knowledge,
they had increased the bank account sizes of some wealthy shareholders.
Whilst Rishi will undoubtedly be more popular than Truss, if he continues with the Conservative policies of diverting the public's money, one way or another, towards the bank accounts of the wealthy, then I think
he stands no chance of defeating Sir Keir Starmer at the coming election, which given the mounting pressure is likely to be a lot sooner than 2025.
You seem to be hyperventilating a bit. 2 points:But if he keeps Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor, why is Sunak going to be any more popular than Truss?Sunak now PM is at least a realist and claims he will fix the mess.
If he does the Tories can still win the next election, by January 2025 at the latest.
If he can't a Labour government propped up by the SNP will lead to the breakup of the UK.
When Kwasi Kwarteng announced the energy support package, he originally said it would be for 2 years, when Hunt replaced him, he changed it to ending next April.
This means as of next April, average energy bills will jump from £2,500 to £4,500 - £5,000.
Why would anybody vote for someone who is going to cost them thousands of pounds extra than the opposition who would make the energy companies pay this extra cost, from their excess profits,
given that the energy companies never expected to even make these excess profits over and above the profits they were expecting to make.
Even if you would normally like the Conservatives over Labour, how many people like them enough to willing hand over thousands of pounds of their hard-earned money for sweet FA in return, other than the knowledge,
they had increased the bank account sizes of some wealthy shareholders.
Whilst Rishi will undoubtedly be more popular than Truss, if he continues with the Conservative policies of diverting the public's money, one way or another, towards the bank accounts of the wealthy, then I think
he stands no chance of defeating Sir Keir Starmer at the coming election, which given the mounting pressure is likely to be a lot sooner than 2025.
1) Sunak will earn some popularity by bringing down bond yields and thus reducing the size of interest rate rises, which affect mortgages. Bond yields are already back to what they were before the "Black Friday" Truss/Kwar-TENGG! disaster, just on the news of the appointment of Sunak and his Cabinet. So that is a tangible win, felt by the voters AND it reduces the deficit from £40bn to £30bn, due to the reduction in debt interest the government has to service. That's huge.
2) Hunt is NOT saying there will be no energy subsidies after April. He is saying there will be a review, between now and then, to see what form of subsidies can be afforded after that date. The obvious thing to do is stop this current stupid splashing of cash we don't have to all and sundry, and target the help on those in real need.
I'm not arguing that the Tories can win the next election but, please, let's keep to facts rather than propaganda.
Suggesting the Conservatives now in pole position to win next GE, surely, understandable such a notion might get my hackles up.You seem to be hyperventilating a bit. 2 points:But if he keeps Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor, why is Sunak going to be any more popular than Truss?Sunak now PM is at least a realist and claims he will fix the mess.
If he does the Tories can still win the next election, by January 2025 at the latest.
If he can't a Labour government propped up by the SNP will lead to the breakup of the UK.
When Kwasi Kwarteng announced the energy support package, he originally said it would be for 2 years, when Hunt replaced him, he changed it to ending next April.
This means as of next April, average energy bills will jump from £2,500 to £4,500 - £5,000.
Why would anybody vote for someone who is going to cost them thousands of pounds extra than the opposition who would make the energy companies pay this extra cost, from their excess profits,
given that the energy companies never expected to even make these excess profits over and above the profits they were expecting to make.
Even if you would normally like the Conservatives over Labour, how many people like them enough to willing hand over thousands of pounds of their hard-earned money for sweet FA in return, other than the knowledge,
they had increased the bank account sizes of some wealthy shareholders.
Whilst Rishi will undoubtedly be more popular than Truss, if he continues with the Conservative policies of diverting the public's money, one way or another, towards the bank accounts of the wealthy, then I think
he stands no chance of defeating Sir Keir Starmer at the coming election, which given the mounting pressure is likely to be a lot sooner than 2025.
1) Sunak will earn some popularity by bringing down bond yields and thus reducing the size of interest rate rises, which affect mortgages. Bond yields are already back to what they were before the "Black Friday" Truss/Kwar-TENGG! disaster, just on the news of the appointment of Sunak and his Cabinet. So that is a tangible win, felt by the voters AND it reduces the deficit from £40bn to £30bn, due to the reduction in debt interest the government has to service. That's huge.
2) Hunt is NOT saying there will be no energy subsidies after April. He is saying there will be a review, between now and then, to see what form of subsidies can be afforded after that date. The obvious thing to do is stop this current stupid splashing of cash we don't have to all and sundry, and target the help on those in real need.
I'm not arguing that the Tories can win the next election but, please, let's keep to facts rather than propaganda.
Agree Sunak's more popular than Truss, he's articulate & not Boris Johnson, but also a reflection of how far the bar was lowered.
The Conservative party & Rishi Sunak don't have real solutions, short term stability isn't enough, decline of living standards has to end.
1.) Was this Rishi Sunak or the BoE playing the greater role? Positive changes began immediately after their intervention. Certainly, economists are attributing the BoE willingness to intervene as the significant factor in the restoration of market confidence.
Mortgage rates offered prior to Truss' premiership seem a far cry than are being offered today, few lenders offering anything close to the 2.65% rates previously advertised. Likewise, with the number of mortgage products being offered significantly lower now.
If we do start to see major movements, I'd agree it will boost his popularity, but right now, lenders appear to be waiting to see what will transpire before acting.
2.) This is slightly confusing, you've said, "let's keep to facts rather than propaganda".
Kwasi Kwarteng's energy support package 2-years, scrapped, fact. Jeremy Hunt new package expires April 2023, fact. Labour energy support package funded by tax on energy companies excess profits, fact.
Further support measures may be available after April, but as yet unknown, not fact. Rumours of help for those on the government's vulnerable register, but this is speculation not comparable to Labour's support package or the government's own 2-year package.
Received a letter yesterday telling me I'll get £500 as combined winter fuel payment and help with the cost of living.
I don't actually need it but all people born before September 1956 will.
Guess I could donate some to a food bank.
What I find irritating is some people complaining about the price of food but having money for non-essentials such as phones, fags and booze.
I grew up in austerity Britain. Soggy cereal for breakfast, inedible school meals, bread and dripping for supper. One cooked meal a week.
Coal in the bath, walk to school, one week's holiday a year. Few people moaned like they do today.
Actually, we didn't have coal in the bath. We could only afford slack.
Nobody here haas suggested the Conservatives are in pole position, have they? Where do you get this from?Suggesting the Conservatives now in pole position to win next GE, surely, understandable such a notion might get my hackles up.
Agree Sunak's more popular than Truss, he's articulate & not Boris Johnson, but also a reflection of how far the bar was lowered.
The Conservative party & Rishi Sunak don't have real solutions, short term stability isn't enough, decline of living standards has to end.
1.) Was this Rishi Sunak or the BoE playing the greater role? Positive changes began immediately after their intervention. Certainly, economists are attributing the BoE willingness to intervene as the significant factor in the restoration of market confidence.
Mortgage rates offered prior to Truss' premiership seem a far cry than are being offered today, few lenders offering anything close to the 2.65% rates previously advertised. Likewise, with the number of mortgage products being offered significantly lower now.
If we do start to see major movements, I'd agree it will boost his popularity, but right now, lenders appear to be waiting to see what will transpire before acting.
2.) This is slightly confusing, you've said, "let's keep to facts rather than propaganda".
Kwasi Kwarteng's energy support package 2-years, scrapped, fact. Jeremy Hunt new package expires April 2023, fact. Labour energy support package funded by tax on energy companies excess profits, fact.
Further support measures may be available after April, but as yet unknown, not fact. Rumours of help for those on the government's vulnerable register, but this is speculation not comparable to Labour's support package or the government's own 2-year package.
BoE intervention merely stopped a doom loop from taking hold. That is a technical day-to-day circuit breaker role, not a campaign to support the bond price or hold down yields. The BoE has gone out of its way to point out it intends to SELL gilts. It was forced into buying some for a few days, as a result of Truss and Kwarteng's incompetence and it was bloody annoyed about it. Yields fell on news of Sunak's appointment. It was in the FT and I read it there. There is no doubt about this.
You seem to be being deliberately obtuse about the energy subsidy. The facts are as I stated them: Hunt says the current arrangements wil stop in April AND between now and then there will be a review as to how to continue to provide support for the most vulnerable after that. It is a fact that that is what Hunt said the plan is.
If you ignore the part in bold, you totally misrepresent what Hunt's stated plan is. Don't play games.
It is obvious that Truss's idea of support for everyone is stupid: far too costly and fails to provide incentives to reduce consumption. Other countries do it far better, by subsidising a first tranche of consumption only, to provide the basics for poor people and beyond that encourage big users to save energy. I would expect Hunt to come forward with something like that in due course, very likely funded in part by some further windfall tax on energy companies. Don't pretend his plan is to do nothing, because it isn't.
Post #29, "Sunak now PM is at least a realist and claims he will fix the mess. If he does the Tories can still win the next election, by January 2025 at the latest."
1.) My contention is not contradictory to exchemist's assertion that bond yields fell as result of Rishi Sunak becoming prime minister. Simply that, I'm speculating on how much of it was due to the fact he isn't Liz Truss, given that market confidence was already returning immediately following BoE intervention. Does Sunak really deserve credit for simply not being Liz Truss, if so, there's an awful lot of other people who aren't either.
2.) My contention isn't that there won't be any further support towards the cost of energy, simply that I don't think we should/could consider such support equal to either Labour's package, or the previous Kwasi Kwarteng 2-year package. We don't know for sure it will happen, given the government have repeatedly ruled out further windfall taxes on the energy companies to pay for public energy support; we also don't know how much support it would consist of if it did happen, and finally we don't know who would even be eligible, would it just be the vulnerable or people on low incomes as well perhaps, mere speculation.
Positions I find hard to grasp.
1.) That we should praise Rishi Sunak for doing almost nothing, whilst ignoring key intervention by the BoE to restore market confidence at time when our economy was most vulnerable.
2.) That we would give equivalence to Jeremy Hunt's vague muttering of possible future support on energy prices, to the previous 2-year government policy, or fully costed Labour energy support package policy.
Vague muttering? It is a clear statement of intent. The guy had been in the job about 2 weeks when he made that commitment. It is obvious he could not have had a worked out alternative system at that stage.
And I repeat, the bond yields went down on news of Sunak's appointment. That is a fact, that anyone in the City can corroborate. The credit he gets from that is that the markets clearly think he knows what he doing, unlike either Truss or Bozo.
Who really runs Britain?
This question asked before now takes a new direction.
Sunak became PM because he was not Truss or Johnson.
No longer just bankers, hedge fund managers and other financial institutions in play here.
Not the voters. They did not elect Sunak.
And who hacked Truss's phone?
There are some questions that are never answered and quietly forgotten.
Sunak Oil: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...ossil-28361452
Last edited by ox; October 30th, 2022 at 11:42 AM.
Vague muttering? It is a clear statement of intent. The guy had been in the job about 2 weeks when he made that commitment. It is obvious he could not have had a worked out alternative system at that stage.
And I repeat, the bond yields went down on news of Sunak's appointment. That is a fact, that anyone in the City can corroborate. The credit he gets from that is that the markets clearly think he knows what he doing, unlike either Truss or Bozo.
You say clear, the chancellor hasn't told us the following.
Who's eligible, i.e., specific groups, limitations, exemptions etc.,
Eligibility criteria,
Fixed support or different financial levels by eligibility,
Geographic restrictions, supplements or additional criteria.
Support limitations to specific fuels or extending to gas, electricity & heating oil.
What level/amount of financial support for an individual or household etc.
Kwasi Kwarteng's 2-year energy support policy answered these questions. Certainly, it was of more use to those struggling with the cost-of-living crisis trying to work out their finances.
Simple question regarding the BoE, if they hadn't intervened immediately at a time of great financial chaos and said chaos was left unchecked to continue, would bond yields have still fallen by the same amount, simply by changing the prime minister?
My contention is that only because of the BoE helping to restore market confidence did foreign investors think it was once again safe to buy British bonds, thus yields didn't need to be as high to attract investment. So again, whilst Rishi Sunak may have had a positive effect, not being considered as risky or dangerous as Lizz Truss, it was still the BoE's role in restoration of market confidence that played the significant factor, without it bond yields would have continued to rise as foreign investors became even more concerned regarding ongoing instability.
On a number of occasions, the BoE has had to step in and deal with the government's economic mistakes and there always seem to be those who would have us believe the BoE played no such part.
I think Rishi Sunak will have a big say in running Britain, but until he can get ahead in the polls, he's likely under a lot of pressure from sections of his party. There's a wide belief he only brought Braverman back to appease ERG/ultra-right-wing faction. Then of course
you'll have all the Conservative Party donors expecting to have some influence. We have to remember here when Truss launched her let's make the rich richer plans, many in her party thought this was wonderful and they haven't gone anywhere.
They went for Sunak because he's the only Conservative that now appears remotely competent and still relatively likeable amongst the public, they ditched Truss because of the market crash. Not many of the Conservative MPs genuinely liked Johnson, he was loved by party members but not so much by the MPs. He only became PM because they thought he'd be vote winner, when his brand was damaged he couldn't even get a hundred MPs to back him. That said, if Sunak messes up and the Conservative MPs don't put him into the final 2 of a leadership contest for their members to vote on, then there's likely to be a rebellion.
That's it, it's a remarkable thing when in the very people Truss was seeking to make more wealthy had so little confidence in her plans, that they all went into panic mode. The question is if they'll try and do something like that again and will face similar results, Sunak will have to be incredibly brave to try that and risk Truss' fate.
Sunak has to win over his own party members, you wouldn't give much for his chances with the voters at large if he can't even do that. The other problem he has is Jeremy Hunt. He cannot afford, politically, for his chancellor to do another slash & burn of our public services in the name of austerity, 12-years of spending cuts has put them on their knees already, people are really going to start to notice in very unpleasant ways if this happens.
Brexit is also proving problematic, but to give him some credit here he seems to be backing away from some of the more insane aspects, but Braverman's going to do him no favours if she's as belligerent over immigration with Sunak as she was with Truss, that said she's in a more precarious situation this time, as if she acts up, he may appeal to the ERG/ultra-right-wing to offer up a different representative instead.
Was Truss' phone hacked? I can think of a few people/groups/countries who may have wanted to, but will we really know for sure. But it does raise the question of are our politicians, especially those in government being security conscious enough, certainly you'd hope this'd be a wakeup call given all that's happening in the world right now.
What's wrong with you? Hunt says there will be a review of how to do it, right? So of course he can't yet tell us who will be eligible and all that. He'd been in a job less than 2 weeks when he made that statement. Get real, for goodness sake.Vague muttering? It is a clear statement of intent. The guy had been in the job about 2 weeks when he made that commitment. It is obvious he could not have had a worked out alternative system at that stage.
And I repeat, the bond yields went down on news of Sunak's appointment. That is a fact, that anyone in the City can corroborate. The credit he gets from that is that the markets clearly think he knows what he doing, unlike either Truss or Bozo.
You say clear, the chancellor hasn't told us the following.
Who's eligible, i.e., specific groups, limitations, exemptions etc.,
Eligibility criteria,
Fixed support or different financial levels by eligibility,
Geographic restrictions, supplements or additional criteria.
Support limitations to specific fuels or extending to gas, electricity & heating oil.
What level/amount of financial support for an individual or household etc.
Kwasi Kwarteng's 2-year energy support policy answered these questions. Certainly, it was of more use to those struggling with the cost-of-living crisis trying to work out their finances.
Simple question regarding the BoE, if they hadn't intervened immediately at a time of great financial chaos and said chaos was left unchecked to continue, would bond yields have still fallen by the same amount, simply by changing the prime minister?
My contention is that only because of the BoE helping to restore market confidence did foreign investors think it was once again safe to buy British bonds, thus yields didn't need to be as high to attract investment. So again, whilst Rishi Sunak may have had a positive effect, not being considered as risky or dangerous as Lizz Truss, it was still the BoE's role in restoration of market confidence that played the significant factor, without it bond yields would have continued to rise as foreign investors became even more concerned regarding ongoing instability.
On a number of occasions, the BoE has had to step in and deal with the government's economic mistakes and there always seem to be those who would have us believe the BoE played no such part.
As for the thing on bond yields, I've already explained what happened, as a regular reader of the UK's premier financial newspaper, which is not politically biased. I see no need to repeat myself.
In the wake of the market crash, following Kwarteng's disastrous mini budget, the BoE began buying UK bonds to stabilize the £2.1 trillion government bond market. The treasury thus far, has had to transfer at least £11billion of taxpayer money to cover BoE loses. The money spent was intended to prevent bond yields skyrocketing as UK government debt became toxic and investors sort to move their money elsewhere.
Given other circumstances, I think you'd be one of the most able people to explain just what effect this intervention would have had on bond yields. However, you appear to be wilfully ignoring this intervention because of your unwillingness to accept that Rishi Sunak wasn't solely responsible for falling bond yields.
Your appeal to authority argument citing the financial press is flawed. The press had motive to play down BoE intervention since it doesn't reflect well on the government's ability to manage the economy, not great for investment or confidence over the longer term. Equally, it bumps into reality, it's not exactly a secret the BoE spent billions propping up the UK bond market.
Scrapping 2-year energy support package leaves millions in limbo, knowing not whether they can afford higher bills, or what sacrifices to make to do so. I accept your point Jeremy Hunt's been in job short time, this is no comfort to those affected though, Conservatives been in government for 12-years.
The FT has no incentive to mislead its readers.In the wake of the market crash, following Kwarteng's disastrous mini budget, the BoE began buying UK bonds to stabilize the £2.1 trillion government bond market. The treasury thus far, has had to transfer at least £11billion of taxpayer money to cover BoE loses. The money spent was intended to prevent bond yields skyrocketing as UK government debt became toxic and investors sort to move their money elsewhere.
Given other circumstances, I think you'd be one of the most able people to explain just what effect this intervention would have had on bond yields. However, you appear to be wilfully ignoring this intervention because of your unwillingness to accept that Rishi Sunak wasn't solely responsible for falling bond yields.
Your appeal to authority argument citing the financial press is flawed. The press had motive to play down BoE intervention since it doesn't reflect well on the government's ability to manage the economy, not great for investment or confidence over the longer term. Equally, it bumps into reality, it's not exactly a secret the BoE spent billions propping up the UK bond market.
Scrapping 2-year energy support package leaves millions in limbo, knowing not whether they can afford higher bills, or what sacrifices to make to do so. I accept your point Jeremy Hunt's been in job short time, this is no comfort to those affected though, Conservatives been in government for 12-years.
What you say about the government transferring £11bn of taxpayers money to the BoE sounds completely wrong to me. Where do you get that from? The BoE prints its own money to do that. That's what quantitative easing was all about. And that's why the BoE wanted to start selling the bonds it had bought in previously, to take the printed money back out of circulation. Hence its annoyance when Kwarteng forced them to do the opposite, to stop a doom loop taking hold in the gilts markets.
Last edited by exchemist; November 2nd, 2022 at 07:31 AM.
Sorry about this, but can't resist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63482510
The FT has no incentive to mislead its readers.In the wake of the market crash, following Kwarteng's disastrous mini budget, the BoE began buying UK bonds to stabilize the £2.1 trillion government bond market. The treasury thus far, has had to transfer at least £11billion of taxpayer money to cover BoE loses. The money spent was intended to prevent bond yields skyrocketing as UK government debt became toxic and investors sort to move their money elsewhere.
Given other circumstances, I think you'd be one of the most able people to explain just what effect this intervention would have had on bond yields. However, you appear to be wilfully ignoring this intervention because of your unwillingness to accept that Rishi Sunak wasn't solely responsible for falling bond yields.
Your appeal to authority argument citing the financial press is flawed. The press had motive to play down BoE intervention since it doesn't reflect well on the government's ability to manage the economy, not great for investment or confidence over the longer term. Equally, it bumps into reality, it's not exactly a secret the BoE spent billions propping up the UK bond market.
Scrapping 2-year energy support package leaves millions in limbo, knowing not whether they can afford higher bills, or what sacrifices to make to do so. I accept your point Jeremy Hunt's been in job short time, this is no comfort to those affected though, Conservatives been in government for 12-years.
What you say about the government transferring £11bn of taxpayers' money to the BoE sounds completely wrong to me. Where do you get that from? The BoE prints its own money to do that. That's what quantitative easing was all about. And that's why the BoE wanted to start selling the bonds it had bought in previously, to take the printed money back out of circulation. Hence its annoyance when Kwarteng forced them to do the opposite, to stop a doom loop taking hold in the gilts markets.
Treasury £11billion BoE transfer, to help cover losses resulting from £895 billion QE program, where an equivalent number of reserves were created in the form of deposits held by commercial lenders at the bank. The BoE pays interest on those reserves at the current interest rate. Initially, the cost was more than covered by income earned on government bonds bought by the BoE with the money it created. However, interest rates have now hit 2.25%, which is higher than average coupon income on the gilt portfolio.
The FT printed a chart, admittedly behind a paywall, which clearly shows the impact of BoE bond buy-back announcement upon bond yields for 30-year gilts. It clearly demonstrates how BoE intervention helped to lower bond yields.
As of, the 28th of September 25-year yields have fallen from 5.023% to 4.068% in space of less than 24 hours, on the announcement of BoE intervention, likewise, by 3:30pm 28th September 30-year paper had fallen to 3.975% from 4.991% as of 27th September.
Citation:1 https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mark...ket-operations
Citation:2 https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...kE/1003x-1.png
Last edited by Ascended; November 2nd, 2022 at 02:22 PM.
Not quite Guy Fawkes, I guess it's supposed to be fun, but I think we should treat our former prime ministers with a little bit more respect. Even if we didn't like the person, we should still respect the position.
As much as we may wish to portray all the ones we don't support as villains, I don't think they go into politics wishing to do badly. Everyone who gets to be PM, I think they all think, in their own way, that
they can and will make things better, even if it doesn't always work out that way.
A future book of economics might have a chapter on trickle-down economics with Liz Truss mentioned and risks involved.
Looking back now it seems a massive mistake to want to make the rich richer in a time of hardship.
Sunak was right all along. £50 billion gap in the budget can't be plugged other than by spending cuts and increasing taxes.
It sounds like the Tories have moved to the left of centre with tax rises.
What divides the parties now is not much. Labour would also have to increase taxes.
12-years of the Conservatives in government.
Economic incompetence, degradation of living standards & unnecessary austerity, by wealth UK no.5 in the world, yet rising poverty throughout all regions. Over 2 million can't afford to feed themselves, shortages of nurses, school places, GPs & NHS dentists, Northern Ireland situation unresolved, immigration higher than under Labour (12 years of numerous home secretaries & PM's either unable to solve migrant crisis, or unwilling and want bad situation as campaign issue). NHS waiting lists 3 times higher than Labour. Tens of thousands of asylum seekers coming to UK any way possible needing to be housed whilst claims supposedly processed, because government won't let them apply from France or other countries. Insecure borders, failing to inspect goods coming into UK, when inspections finally carried out, 21 of 22 inspected lorries contained food products unfit for UK consumption, some thoroughly disgusting, destined for UK food chain. So much failure in so many areas of governance.
Oh I see, it's to do with interest.The FT has no incentive to mislead its readers.In the wake of the market crash, following Kwarteng's disastrous mini budget, the BoE began buying UK bonds to stabilize the £2.1 trillion government bond market. The treasury thus far, has had to transfer at least £11billion of taxpayer money to cover BoE loses. The money spent was intended to prevent bond yields skyrocketing as UK government debt became toxic and investors sort to move their money elsewhere.
Given other circumstances, I think you'd be one of the most able people to explain just what effect this intervention would have had on bond yields. However, you appear to be wilfully ignoring this intervention because of your unwillingness to accept that Rishi Sunak wasn't solely responsible for falling bond yields.
Your appeal to authority argument citing the financial press is flawed. The press had motive to play down BoE intervention since it doesn't reflect well on the government's ability to manage the economy, not great for investment or confidence over the longer term. Equally, it bumps into reality, it's not exactly a secret the BoE spent billions propping up the UK bond market.
Scrapping 2-year energy support package leaves millions in limbo, knowing not whether they can afford higher bills, or what sacrifices to make to do so. I accept your point Jeremy Hunt's been in job short time, this is no comfort to those affected though, Conservatives been in government for 12-years.
What you say about the government transferring £11bn of taxpayers' money to the BoE sounds completely wrong to me. Where do you get that from? The BoE prints its own money to do that. That's what quantitative easing was all about. And that's why the BoE wanted to start selling the bonds it had bought in previously, to take the printed money back out of circulation. Hence its annoyance when Kwarteng forced them to do the opposite, to stop a doom loop taking hold in the gilts markets.
Treasury £11billion BoE transfer, to help cover losses resulting from £895 billion QE program, where an equivalent number of reserves were created in the form of deposits held by commercial lenders at the bank. The BoE pays interest on those reserves at the current interest rate. Initially, the cost was more than covered by income earned on government bonds bought by the BoE with the money it created. However, interest rates have now hit 2.25%, which is higher than average coupon income on the gilt portfolio.
The FT printed a chart, admittedly behind a paywall, which clearly shows the impact of BoE bond buy-back announcement upon bond yields for 30-year gilts. It clearly demonstrates how BoE intervention helped to lower bond yields.
As of, the 28th of September 25-year yields have fallen from 5.023% to 4.068% in space of less than 24 hours, on the announcement of BoE intervention, likewise, by 3:30pm 28th September 30-year paper had fallen to 3.975% from 4.991% as of 27th September.
Citation:1 https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mark...ket-operations
Citation:2 https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...kE/1003x-1.png
But the point remains that this was a temporary intervention to stop a doom loop. The BoE was able to stop these interventions, without the bond yields going back up, once the markets were reassured that UK economic policy was back in sensible hands
That includes coalition with Lib Dems.
When has any party got it right? Economics is a pseudoscience.Economic incompetence, degradation of living standards & unnecessary austerity, by wealth UK no.5 in the world, yet rising poverty throughout all regions.
Poverty always rises among some sectors of the population. Yet people today are far less impoverished than when I first remember.
I can recall kids without shoes in the street, slums, very basic food, poor health care, unemployment running at nearly 10%, queues at the labour exchange, strikes and more strikes until the country came to a near halt.
Much of this under Labour.
Foreign holidays were virtually unknown. One week's paid holiday a year was normal.
They can afford fags and booze, the lottery, mobile phones.Over 2 million can't afford to feed themselves,
Every government seems to have problems like this.shortages of nurses, school places, GPs & NHS dentists,
When has the NI situation ever been anything other than unresolved?Northern Ireland situation unresolved,
This is due to religious divide.
Nothing new. People were arriving in small boats from the 1960's in search of a better life.immigration higher than under Labour (12 years of numerous home secretaries & PM's either unable to solve migrant crisis
You could always try living in Albania.
During the pandemic, appointments were pushed back.NHS waiting lists 3 times higher than Labour.
Now you've really got me started.Tens of thousands of asylum seekers coming to UK any way possible needing to be housed whilst claims supposedly processed, because government won't let them apply from France or other countries.
That would lead to many more thousands of people assembling in Europe. NW France would become the Badlands of Europe. Migrants into Spain and Italy would probably be escorted to UK reception centres.
These places would be completely overwhelmed. Failed migrants would still cross the Channel.
UK would lose complete control of its borders, just like France and Germany have. This would lead to the growth of the Far Right.
Reference please.21 of 22 inspected lorries contained food products unfit for UK consumption, some thoroughly disgusting, destined for UK food chain.
That includes coalition with Lib Dems.
When has any party got it right? Economics is a pseudoscience.Economic incompetence, degradation of living standards & unnecessary austerity, by wealth UK no.5 in the world, yet rising poverty throughout all regions.
Poverty always rises among some sectors of the population. Yet people today are far less impoverished than when I first remember.
I can recall kids without shoes in the street, slums, very basic food, poor health care, unemployment running at nearly 10%, queues at the labour exchange, strikes and more strikes until the country came to a near halt.
Much of this under Labour.
Foreign holidays were virtually unknown. One week's paid holiday a year was normal.
They can afford fags and booze, the lottery, mobile phones.Over 2 million can't afford to feed themselves,
Every government seems to have problems like this.shortages of nurses, school places, GPs & NHS dentists,
When has the NI situation ever been anything other than unresolved?Northern Ireland situation unresolved,
This is due to religious divide.
Nothing new. People were arriving in small boats from the 1960's in search of a better life.immigration higher than under Labour (12 years of numerous home secretaries & PM's either unable to solve migrant crisis
You could always try living in Albania.
During the pandemic, appointments were pushed back.NHS waiting lists 3 times higher than Labour.
Now you've really got me started.Tens of thousands of asylum seekers coming to UK any way possible needing to be housed whilst claims supposedly processed, because government won't let them apply from France or other countries.
That would lead to many more thousands of people assembling in Europe. NW France would become the Badlands of Europe. Migrants into Spain and Italy would probably be escorted to UK reception centres.
These places would be completely overwhelmed. Failed migrants would still cross the Channel.
UK would lose complete control of its borders, just like France and Germany have. This would lead to the growth of the Far Right.
Reference please.21 of 22 inspected lorries contained food products unfit for UK consumption, some thoroughly disgusting, destined for UK food chain.
Surely, you don't believe the Lib Dems were architects of the worst coalition policies.
You've forgotten what rising living standards looks like, Tony Blair's government, economically, was incredibly successful, they rose every year, public services were properly funded, and the country was able to weather the GFC. Liz Truss' government struggled to survive their own tax cut.
Labour made a choice to reduce the rate of poverty, the problem with the Conservatives is indifference.
As a left of centre political party, Labour policies are more socialistic in nature, thus creation of the NHS etc., whereas Conservative policies aren't about making people's lives easier, twelve years of cutting our public services so they can fund tax breaks for those who already benefit the most from society will attest to that.
For a country as wealthy as ours, everybody should be able to do everything you mention, though the issue is about a government failing to ensure all its people can afford to eat, and though I'm proud to be British, this makes me ashamed.
As UK prime ministers, Tony Blair & John Major both played a hand in ending the violence in Northern Ireland, bringing the country together.
During covid appointments were delayed, but that doesn't excuse 6 figure staff shortages or longer waiting times prior to the pandemic. After heroic effort NHS workers made during the pandemic, sufficient funding to tackle waiting lists should have been a government priority, rather than cutting the top rate of tax.
The Conservatives campaign on immigration at every election, yet subsequently, are either too incompetent or deliberately chose not to sort it out and treat voters like gullible amnesiacs.
Since the Conservatives implemented aspects of Brexit, UK border security simply doesn't exist. Whilst anything crossing an EU external border, is checked thoroughly on a regular basis, UK checks are infrequent and sporadic at best.
One of the biggest issues with preventing people applying for asylum from abroad is they are risking their lives to get here. This wouldn't be the case otherwise, as legitimate travel arrangement could be made for successful applicants. We would also know their backgrounds, criminal history, job experience etc., and sufficient support could be put in place ready for their arrivals. As for them being funnelled towards the UK, this is already happening, as the government has torn up EU era agreements which previously prevented this.
Reference for Lorry inspection article:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...-b1033827.html
Last edited by Ascended; November 6th, 2022 at 08:21 PM.
I do believe.
Speechless. Blair was a nut who couldn't stand the heat of the kitchen and left it to Brown.You've forgotten what rising living standards looks like, Tony Blair's government, economically, was incredibly successful, they rose every year, public services were properly funded, and the country was able to weather the GFC. Liz Truss' government struggled to survive their own tax cut.
The main difference between the parties is their economic model.Labour made a choice to reduce the rate of poverty, the problem with the Conservatives is indifference.
Some people don't seem to be bothered about being brought out of poverty.
This is a time of virtually full employment,
I took Tebbit's advice in the 1980's to get on my bike and look for work. I did just that and I found it.
I take it you weren't around in the 1970's when anarchy was fuelled by the loony left of the Labour Party.As a left of centre political party, Labour policies are more socialistic in nature, thus creation of the NHS etc., whereas Conservative policies aren't about making people's lives easier, twelve years of cutting our public services so they can fund tax breaks for those who already benefit the most from society will attest to that.
That led to Thatcherism (1979-1981) when people had had enough of socialism.
You put food on the table before anything else. Shop in the supermarket and a basket of food for the day need not cost more than £5.For a country as wealthy as ours, everybody should be able to do everything you mention, though the issue is about a government failing to ensure all its people can afford to eat, and though I'm proud to be British, this makes me ashamed.
Why then is Sinn Fein the largest party?As UK prime ministers, Tony Blair & John Major both played a hand in ending the violence in Northern Ireland, bringing the country together.
The NHS staff were brilliant during the pandemic and they should be rewarded with better pay. But they are now going on strike.During covid appointments were delayed, but that doesn't excuse 6 figure staff shortages or longer waiting times prior to the pandemic. After heroic effort NHS workers made during the pandemic, sufficient funding to tackle waiting lists should have been a government priority, rather than cutting the top rate of tax.
What is Labour's policy on immigration?The Conservatives campaign on immigration at every election, yet subsequently, are either too incompetent or deliberately chose not to sort it out and treat voters like gullible amnesiacs.
Gate crashing the UK is not acceptable. This country is already at bursting point. Most of the people coming are economic migrants such as Albanians who are from a secure place.Since the Conservatives implemented aspects of Brexit, UK border security simply doesn't exist. Whilst anything crossing an EU external border, is checked thoroughly on a regular basis, UK checks are infrequent and sporadic at best.
]One of the biggest issues with preventing people applying for asylum from abroad is they are risking their lives to get here. This wouldn't be the case otherwise, as legitimate travel arrangement could be made for successful applicants. We would also know their backgrounds, criminal history, job experience etc., and sufficient support could be put in place ready for their arrivals. As for them being funnelled towards the UK, this is already happening, as the government has torn up EU era agreements which previously prevented this.
You did not state that these were a sample of lorries from Poland, Moldova, Ukraine and Rumania.Reference for Lorry inspection article:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...-b1033827.html
Your conclusion then, it was the 57 coalition Lib Dem MPs, (who couldn't even keep their signature pledge card policy of abolishing tuition fees), somehow forcing the 306 coalition Conservatives MPs into horrendous policy decisions. That one might be a tough sell.
People span the gamut for intelligence, ambition, aptitude & physicality etc. Any competent government will make provision for even the least gifted to live above the poverty line. Incarceration, far less of a deterrent for crime when people can't afford to participate in society, let alone contribute.
I just don't buy into this, "Some people don't seem to be bothered about being brought out of poverty." nonsense. To think people genuinely want to live in poverty is naive.
Successive Conservative prime ministers demonstrated just how difficult the job is, Tony Blair lasted longer than they have. Also, prior to his retiring, there was a growing consensus that 10 years in power was the maximum period healthy for a democracy.
We're at near full employment, but living standards have fallen so far, in-work poverty has become a serious issue.
I'm not advocating for Labour governments of the 1970's, this was 5 decades ago. Today's Labour Party is more professional, as the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir Keir Starmer has brought a level of professionalism that we haven't seen from the Conservatives who've been lurching from one debacle to the next.
An awful lot of people in this country simply don't have £5 a day left to spend on food, inflation, rising cost of energy, mortgages/rent etc., has tipped them into poverty.
The DUP's Brexit stance sort to push NI away from the EU, against the will of the majority, one of the key reasons for Sinn Féin's electoral success. The situation has been exacerbated by the way the Conservative government has acted over Brexit, especially, threatening to break international law and reneging on their own agreement.
Given how they've been treated, striking NHS staff are likely to have public support, they certainly deserve it.
Job vacancies can now be measured in the millions such is scale of the problem. Yet for seemingly ideological reasons, economic migrants with skills to fill vacancies are being prevented. Every day more disabled & elderly are unable to receive the care they require because of government choices, whilst every level of UK business is crying out for staff.
Of the 10,000 arriving every day, 22 lorries were checked, with 21 containing unfit food products, a concerning rate regardless of the country of origin. So much for our border security.
It WAS a coalition government.
Some people need to get off their butts and find work. I went down to London in the 1980's. Work does not come to you.People span the gamut for intelligence, ambition, aptitude & physicality etc. Any competent government will make provision for even the least gifted to live above the poverty line. Incarceration, far less of a deterrent for crime when people can't afford to participate in society, let alone contribute.
I just don't buy into this, "Some people don't seem to be bothered about being brought out of poverty." nonsense. To think people genuinely want to live in poverty is naive.
You can also train for a new skill.
Blair was a poodle to Bush. Blood on his hands, like 600,000 Iraqi's.Successive Conservative prime ministers demonstrated just how difficult the job is, Tony Blair lasted longer than they have. Also, prior to his retiring, there was a growing consensus that 10 years in power was the maximum period healthy for a democracy.
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/...0705-0031.html
He also had thousands of innocent kids arrested in Britain and their DNA taken.
Just think, if Corbyn had been PM now we'd be allied with Russia and fighting Ukraine.We're at near full employment, but living standards have fallen so far, in-work poverty has become a serious issue.
A government coalition where one party has over 5 times the number of MPs means they are the ones setting policy and choosing who gets to be prime minister, what happened with the Conservatives & Liberal Democrats in 2010.
Despite government forcing the unemployed to fill vacancies wherever possible, by taking away the only money they have to live on, often they aren't suitable, live in the wrong areas and can't afford to move, have family commitments, have to look after disabled or elderly relatives, have health problems themselves, lack aptitude, skills or experience etc.
There are now less unemployed than vacancies and they are often unsuitable to fill them anyway. What we need is what most developed economies rely on, what we had prior to Brexit, a flexible migrant labour workforce.
In 2005 the British public re-elected Tony Blair to be prime minister regardless of Iraq, so he was clearly getting something right.
Sir Keir Starmer kicked Jeremy Corbyn out of the Labour Party, if that's your issue you don't have to worry. Will Rishi Sunak will have the stones to kick Boris Johnson out of the Conservative Party?
There is plenty of help out there for finding people employment despite their circumstances.
One thing I admired about the influx of Eastern Europeans was they found work. They stood outside job agencies before they had opened and they would do any work.
I've always been severely asthmatic but that never stopped me cycling long distances to work and back, and I would do just about any work.
And the price to pay for that is massive pressure on services like housing and healthcare.There are now less unemployed than vacancies and they are often unsuitable to fill them anyway. What we need is what most developed economies rely on, what we had prior to Brexit, a flexible migrant labour workforce.
But he didn't serve his term. Few people realised the horrors of Iraq. He was told that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction.In 2005 the British public re-elected Tony Blair to be prime minister regardless of Iraq, so he was clearly getting something right.
The Tories at the time were lacking a leader.
He's the MP for Islington North and I assume he is still Labour.Sir Keir Starmer kicked Jeremy Corbyn out of the Labour Party, if that's your issue you don't have to worry.
I assume Johnson will sit on the back benches for now.Will Rishi Sunak will have the stones to kick Boris Johnson out of the Conservative Party?
Suitable placements can take years companies only want people they can use and changing circumstances, locations & skills to match current vacancies isn't an easy, nor speedy process.
Migrant tax revenues fund extra services capacity for more people than just themselves, they're subsidising everybody else not the other way around, lack of services capacity is down to the Conservative government using extra revenues for tax breaks, rather than providing extra council/housing association homes, NHS beds, school places, GPs or dentists etc.
They had cause for the Iraq invasion, though shouldn't have exaggerated WMD aspect & should have done it differently to reduce loss of life, but hindsight is 20/20. Tony Blair should have told the British people he was supporting our ally.
Saddam Hussein, had attempted an anthrax attack on the UK in 1998, he'd gassed and killed 100,000 Kurdish civilians, was committing systematic human rights abuses against his own people including rape & torture, and he'd disappeared, believed murdered, between 250,000 – 300,000. He also possessed a substantial arsenal of Scud missiles.
Michael Howard was the Conservative leader trounced in the 2005 general election, not great nor terrible, no worse than any of the leaders who came after, sunk by Ann Widdecombe's infamous comment putting the idea into people's heads that he looked like a vampire, or at least somewhat creepy, (though he had nothing on Steven Miller).
On this occasion your assumption is mistaken, Mr Corbyn is the Independent MP for Islington North. Mr Corbyn leaving the Labour Party has allowed Keir Starmer to position the party back towards the centre.
Don't understand why a university degree is necessary in some professions. It's all PC. Forget the theory and train while doing the job.
And send half their money earned via Western Union.Migrant tax revenues fund extra services capacity for more people than just themselves, they're subsidising everybody else not the other way around, lack of services capacity is down to the Conservative government using extra revenues for tax breaks, rather than providing extra council/housing association homes, NHS beds, school places, GPs or dentists etc.
Problem is uncontrolled immigration.
Blair got off the hook by the dark forces. He should have been tried as a potential war criminal.They had cause for the Iraq invasion, though shouldn't have exaggerated WMD aspect & should have done it differently to reduce loss of life, but hindsight is 20/20. Tony Blair should have told the British people he was supporting our ally.
Saddam was also a nut, but why do we have to get involved in places like Iraq and Afghanistan? It's as if we cannot let go of our colonial past.Saddam Hussein, had attempted an anthrax attack on the UK in 1998, he'd gassed and killed 100,000 Kurdish civilians, was committing systematic human rights abuses against his own people including rape & torture, and he'd disappeared, believed murdered, between 250,000 – 300,000. He also possessed a substantial arsenal of Scud missiles.
Need a reliable reference for anthrax attack on the UK.
Just as Howard had 'something of the night about him' (Widdicombe's quote], she was labelled Doris Karloff.Michael Howard was the Conservative leader trounced in the 2005 general election, not great nor terrible, no worse than any of the leaders who came after, sunk by Ann Widdecombe's infamous comment putting the idea into people's heads that he looked like a vampire, or at least somewhat creepy, (though he had nothing on Steven Miller).
Neither Labour nor Tories are ever in the centre.On this occasion your assumption is mistaken, Mr Corbyn is the Independent MP for Islington North. Mr Corbyn leaving the Labour Party has allowed Keir Starmer to position the party back towards the centre.
Torynomics: Cut taxes and public spending.
Labournomics: Raise taxes and public spending.
What has now happened: Tories to raise taxes and to cut public spending.
How much is now representative democracy and how much is spreadsheets and other software?
Maybe we can soon do without the lot of them and hand over to AI.
Increased vocational training would improve preparedness for the work environment, but as you point out, for so many positions the entry requirement is still a degree.
Government's failing to control immigration, we have criminals coming into the country, whilst they're refusing to let the young fit workers come that can actually fill vacancies, on the basis of their nationality. With the kind of immigration system Labour wants where people are coming to fill vacancies, not the uncontrolled Conservative mess, then it wouldn't be Conservative campaign issue, the public wouldn't be so concerned. Government incompetence of this scale creates suspicion.
Inclusion of a government reference for the anthrax incident would've been better, but the newspaper article from the period was more readily available, without having to spend too much time.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/a...n-1152053.html
Have not heard the "Doris Karloff", one before, quite amusing.
The majority of the public want the government to increase taxes on the wealthy to fund increased spending on our public services, they're fed up with austerity and falling living standards. This is now the centre position it's the position Labour represents and very far away from the Conservatives who seem out touch and represent the party who don't care about nurses having to use foodbanks.
Like immigration, Truss was out of control.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63592909
Then, Sunak soon lost control with fastest ever sacking (Gavin Williamson).
What a guy - https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ffice-minister
Suella Braverman sacked by Truss and reinstated by Sunak 6 days later.
Start of a miniseries with more episodes yet to be written.
Then, Matt Hancock (I'm a celebrity get me out of here) off to the jungle because he's had enough of his fellow Westminster primates.
Sunak will be praying for England to win 4 World Cups: Women's Rugby Union and Rugby League, T20 Cricket, FIFA World Cup.
I think he'll need at least 3.
Last edited by ox; November 11th, 2022 at 11:20 AM.
All sensible points.
This Tory government shuffles it's MPs like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
We need a new government, a Labour government to get us back on track, to tackle immigration, refugee crisis, foodbank dependency, NHS waiting lists, social care, GP & dentist shortages, get the economy moving in the right direction, alleviate the cost-living-crisis, restore confidence in government and our public officials, improve our diplomatic relations, funding based on need, not this "levelling up" Tory nonsense where the party in government gets to funnel public money to its own, removing damaging Conservative trade barriers, help our fishing industry, listen to our farmers, improve genuinely affordable housing capacity for ownership & rental, prevent maggot infested meat getting into our food supply chain, reverse austerity cuts to education, more focus on STEM, make children's future a priority, with no child going hungry, protect worker's rights and ensure fair salaries & wages, especially for those we relied on during the pandemic, improve GDP by supporting local businesses, highstreets and economies, invest in computing, environmental technology, bring more higher paying high tech jobs to the UK, make energy & infrastructure more environmentally friendly, reduce/stop subsidies for fossil fuels, raise the poverty level & raise living standards etc.
But we can set aside the laundry list of areas where a Labour government can get us back on track, and just concentrate on two that can truly improve all our lives, scrapping austerity funding properly the public services we all rely on, and raising living standards, a practice that was normal for governments of all colours prior to 2010.
That's not the Labour Party I used to know.
Do you remember the strikes and high unemployment that led to Thatcherism?
How are they going to keep inflation under control with their usual tax and spend policies?
It was the Labour Party that led to the brain drain.
Truss was right in saying that high taxes do not lead to economic growth.
Under Labour the UK will likely have to be bailed out by the IMF.
Should they win the next election, Labour's scorched earth policies will once again lead to the rise of the Tories.
After yesterday's budget it seems that only the Tories can fix their own mess by raising taxes and cutting public spending.
They can't keep blaming Russia and the pandemic.
Johnson, Truss and Sunak sounds like one to the right, another even more to the right, then one to the left.
The old ploy to raise taxes early or mid-term and then cut them before the next election is very likely to misfire this time.
Suppose an unknown factor suddenly appears to worsen the situation, what then?
Did you see How the Other Half Live last night by Brian Cox the actor?
How the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
| « The Dog Business | BBC News? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
