Stop voting for fucking Tories

Where goats go to escape
I like neeps
Posts: 3800
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 am

JM2K6 wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 7:18 pm
I like neeps wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 9:40 am
GogLais wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2023 10:55 pm

Not by any recognised definition of lying. Inconsistent? Maybe.
Eh saying things that you don't mean to further your goal is the very definition of lying?

For example: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2021/09/ ... alisation/ what on earth is this but a lie?
Are we really a) using a site somehow worse than Skwakbox to help with our definitions over what lying is, angering the very gods of irony themselves, and b) still arguing over why Starmer back tracked on pledges made prior to a fucking pandemic and Tory ransacking of the economy?

I guess the Corbynites really are obsessed with the leadership pledges because talking a good game is all Corbyn was ever in a position to do. Easy to make and stick to promises if there's no way you're actually ever going to be able to enact them. The good news is that all the people upset that Labour are led by someone who no longer stands by every pledge made four years ago or whatever it was will actually be able to decide for themselves which party to vote for to enact the things they want to see enacted.

Boris repeatedly says stuff he knows is not even close to true as his default approach. There is no evidence that Starmer does this, and same goes for a number of politicians, the recent Tory crop excepted. It betrays a fundamental ignorance of what's actually happened in the UK and USA over the last 5-10 years to think otherwise.
It's literally Andrew Marr on the BBC questioning him my guy.

You're the one comparing Johnson and Starmer. I said all politicians lie, so politicians like Johnson get away with it. Starmer lied to the labour membership to become leader, and now he magically has a lot of new policies that aren't even close to what he "pledged". That's a liar. I get that it's politicking and you agree with the strategy. But you're agreeing with a fundamentally dishonest strategy.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 10127
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

I like neeps wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 1:02 pm
JM2K6 wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 7:18 pm
I like neeps wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 9:40 am

Eh saying things that you don't mean to further your goal is the very definition of lying?

For example: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2021/09/ ... alisation/ what on earth is this but a lie?
Are we really a) using a site somehow worse than Skwakbox to help with our definitions over what lying is, angering the very gods of irony themselves, and b) still arguing over why Starmer back tracked on pledges made prior to a fucking pandemic and Tory ransacking of the economy?

I guess the Corbynites really are obsessed with the leadership pledges because talking a good game is all Corbyn was ever in a position to do. Easy to make and stick to promises if there's no way you're actually ever going to be able to enact them. The good news is that all the people upset that Labour are led by someone who no longer stands by every pledge made four years ago or whatever it was will actually be able to decide for themselves which party to vote for to enact the things they want to see enacted.

Boris repeatedly says stuff he knows is not even close to true as his default approach. There is no evidence that Starmer does this, and same goes for a number of politicians, the recent Tory crop excepted. It betrays a fundamental ignorance of what's actually happened in the UK and USA over the last 5-10 years to think otherwise.
It's literally Andrew Marr on the BBC questioning him my guy.

You're the one comparing Johnson and Starmer. I said all politicians lie, so politicians like Johnson get away with it. Starmer lied to the labour membership to become leader, and now he magically has a lot of new policies that aren't even close to what he "pledged". That's a liar. I get that it's politicking and you agree with the strategy. But you're agreeing with a fundamentally dishonest strategy.
It's not Marr calling him a liar or saying he lied to get the leadership, my guy.

Again, you don't seem to understand what the difference is or even what this debate is about. I get it, you're terminally bitter about Corbyn and loathe Starmer. But there is zero evidence that Starmer lied to the membership to win the race. Pledges made years ago not surviving contact with Covid and a rapacious Tory government is not the same thing as lying about them in the first place.

And, to point out the obvious, they are pledges about what Labour would do if they won an election. Bearing in mind that the Labour leader has to actually lead the party first and then win an election years into the future, there's a big gap between "what I would do if we won an election in the current environment" and "what I am going to do as leader". You vote for an opposition party leader over how they're going to lead the party, not what they might campaign on in four years time.

Being tied down to pledges made in an entirely different scenario is just daft. If he'd won the election without changing his mind on these and then said he wasn't going to do X, then you could claim it was a lie.

It's breathtakingly naive to stamp your feet about pledges changing and claiming they were just lies. Immensely childish stuff.
dpedin
Posts: 3338
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

fishfoodie wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 9:29 am
dpedin wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 9:08 am
Breakfast eaten, rant over, off to play golf now!
Watch out for lightening, it's dangerous out there the last few days !

I can't help wonder if the latest resignation wasn't encouraged by Team Oaf ?

They know that Rishi, technically can't be challenged in his first year, but the Oaf got ousted, not just because of a stream of scandals, but because those scandals made them getting re-elected less, & less likely, & the By-Election losses in the safest of seats showed that the polls weren't lying.

Now RIshi is going to have a series of iffy votes before the Party Conference, & a bunch of malcontent shits lobbying against him.
Lightening forecast for tonight in Embra. Shitty game of golf with an 8 at par 5 and 6 at par 3 ruining my card, however I have my fathers day dinner to look forward to now.

Rishi is now captain of a slowly sinking ship but with no rescue in sight, miles from land and the crew becoming increasingly mutinous. It is beyond the point of saving and it is all about when will it reach the final tipping point and go under completely. He knows his days are now numbered and his decision is either go all in soon on an early GE and go down fighting or hang on as long as possible hoping for some good news but inevitably losing the GE in Autumn 2024. Hanging on will just mean death by a thousand cuts with internal sabotage by the mad bad Boris bunch, bad news from the emerging bad news from Covid Enquiry, continued shite in rivers and beaches, dire economic performance driven by a large number of mortgage defaults and possible housing market collapse. This coming winter will be awful for them economically, politically and within the party. They also have the forthcoming imposition of import checks and tariffs for goods and services from the EU at the end of this year which will drive up shortages and inflation further.

I honestly don't see the point in the Head Boy hanging onto the end of term and I would have thought the best advice would be to go for an early GE in Autumn, fight a good fight, retreat to regroup post the Blonde Bumbelcunt and start blaming Labour for all the shite they have created over the last 13 years, not least by shooting themselves in both feet with Brexit. It would however mean Sunak having to fight to keep the leadership but he must realise by now that the Party members dont want him and he will be gone s soon as they can get rid of him so he would be better off going down fighting, resigning gracefully after a GE defeat and then retreating to California with his Green Card and his mega rich wife and live the life he really wants in high tech for whatever. He really should call all their bluffs - the Anderson, JRM, Gullit, Clark, Fabricant, Benton et al - and watch from his large mansion as they all lose their seats, their MP salary and large expense accounts and have to sign on and disappear into the political void.
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

Sunak's response when asked if he will vote on the Privileges Committee Report today:

A You're right to ask and I can today confirm that while I've used a slide rule and a calculator it's not for me to judge on which maths aid is superior. Thank you!
User avatar
sturginho
Posts: 2584
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:51 pm

tabascoboy wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 11:43 am Sunak's response when asked if he will vote on the Privileges Committee Report today:

A You're right to ask and I can today confirm that while I've used a slide rule and a calculator it's not for me to judge on which maths aid is superior. Thank you!
he has "commitments he cannot move"


in a fridge
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 7323
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Nothing to do with us.........honest!!
I'd forgotten what an entitled, chinless wonder this twat is.
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 10479
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:33 pm Nothing to do with us.........honest!!
I'd forgotten what an entitled, chinless wonder this twat is.
How spending cuts have decimated public services since 2010, from libraries to youth clubs
https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/ ... remy-hunt/

Tory austerity ‘has cost UK half a trillion pounds of public spending since 2010
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... since-2010
Attachments
1CA7B58E-348C-4296-BE78-4A4DE0F08609_4_5005_c.jpeg
1CA7B58E-348C-4296-BE78-4A4DE0F08609_4_5005_c.jpeg (31.03 KiB) Viewed 2341 times
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 7323
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Awww. Poor little Lizzie didn't like the joke
User avatar
fishfoodie
Posts: 8752
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:43 pm Awww. Poor little Lizzie didn't like the joke
On the whole I think the lettuce has the greater grounds for being upset at the comparison.
GogLais
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:06 pm
Location: Wirral/Cilgwri

SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:33 pm Nothing to do with us.........honest!!
I'd forgotten what an entitled, chinless wonder this twat is.
Tbh ok I didn’t listen to it but I don’t think the inquiry should be wasting much time and money questioning political decisions. Almost certainly we didn’t have enough PPE, ICU beds, etc and the inquiry should focus on what we need for the next pandemic.
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

It's a curious state of affairs when the Privileges Committee Report might well pass without a vote and that being better for the Tories ( hardly any of whom have bothered to attend the debate - though JRM is up to his usual obnoxious tricks ) than having to see how few vote against it or abstain in support of their erstwhile leader...
sockwithaticket
Posts: 9254
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:48 am

SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:43 pm Awww. Poor little Lizzie didn't like the joke
This, however, is fucking hilarious.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rile-media
More widely, Truss argued, the UK media were focused overly on trivialities, and did not properly understand economics – especially the sort of small-state, low-tax economics she espoused in her disastrous, sub-50-day period in No 10.

“If I’ve got a criticism of the media, there’s too much focus on the people and seeing it as a sort of entertaining story to follow … rather than discussions of the ideas. And I particularly find that true on economics,” she said.

“Did I and my colleagues get everything perfect about communication? No, we didn’t. But I think we’re operating in an environment where the economic ideas that I believe in are not widely understood.”
She's actually not wrong that in general there is a poor level of understanding of economics in this country (I'm definitely under-informed), but the idea that policies she wanted to enact were simply misunderstood is jaw-droppingly stupid. I was half expecting her to accuse the markets of being woke lefties again.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 11712
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:18 pm
SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:33 pm Nothing to do with us.........honest!!
I'd forgotten what an entitled, chinless wonder this twat is.
Tbh ok I didn’t listen to it but I don’t think the inquiry should be wasting much time and money questioning political decisions. Almost certainly we didn’t have enough PPE, ICU beds, etc and the inquiry should focus on what we need for the next pandemic.
About 2 trillion quid down the back of the sofa?
User avatar
C69
Posts: 3414
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:42 pm

GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:18 pm
SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:33 pm Nothing to do with us.........honest!!
I'd forgotten what an entitled, chinless wonder this twat is.
Tbh ok I didn’t listen to it but I don’t think the inquiry should be wasting much time and money questioning political decisions. Almost certainly we didn’t have enough PPE, ICU beds, etc and the inquiry should focus on what we need for the next pandemic.
Oh it was far more complex than that on the ground.
But hey
GogLais
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:06 pm
Location: Wirral/Cilgwri

C69 wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:21 pm
GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:18 pm
SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:33 pm Nothing to do with us.........honest!!
I'd forgotten what an entitled, chinless wonder this twat is.
Tbh ok I didn’t listen to it but I don’t think the inquiry should be wasting much time and money questioning political decisions. Almost certainly we didn’t have enough PPE, ICU beds, etc and the inquiry should focus on what we need for the next pandemic.
Oh it was far more complex than that on the ground.
But hey
I'm sure it was, I'm not a medic.
User avatar
C69
Posts: 3414
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:42 pm

GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:38 pm
C69 wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:21 pm
GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:18 pm

Tbh ok I didn’t listen to it but I don’t think the inquiry should be wasting much time and money questioning political decisions. Almost certainly we didn’t have enough PPE, ICU beds, etc and the inquiry should focus on what we need for the next pandemic.
Oh it was far more complex than that on the ground.
But hey
I'm sure it was, I'm not a medic.
Without a doubt I will not be working as long as I planned to due to COVID.
The NHS is a horrible employer. COVID for frontline ICU staff was horrible and very divisive .
Medical staff in may Trusts being paid massive over time and locum rates with other staff being expected to work at plain time and senior staff on AFC denied overtime.
All the good will is now gone.
GogLais
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:06 pm
Location: Wirral/Cilgwri

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 7:55 pm
GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:18 pm
SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:33 pm Nothing to do with us.........honest!!
I'd forgotten what an entitled, chinless wonder this twat is.
Tbh ok I didn’t listen to it but I don’t think the inquiry should be wasting much time and money questioning political decisions. Almost certainly we didn’t have enough PPE, ICU beds, etc and the inquiry should focus on what we need for the next pandemic.
About 2 trillion quid down the back of the sofa?
How to put it? Sure the results of the Government's policies in as much as they affected our response to Covid should be investigated. However I think it would be wrong to go back to the early 2010s and have a debate about the rights (if any) and wrongs of Austerity. If in fact that is what is going to happen. We should keep what will end up as party politics out of it as far as possible. I come back to the fact that for me the main focus should be learning from errors made and preparing for the next pandemic. By all means investigate PPE scams etc but not in this inquiry, it may well need to be police-led.
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

"You don't have any friends..."
And that’s it - MPs have voted to approve the report which said Boris Johnson deliberately misled the House of Commons over lockdown parties at Downing Street.

Here's the full vote tally:

For - 354
Against - 7
The results don't include the MPs who didn't vote, who will be recorded as abstaining.
GogLais
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:06 pm
Location: Wirral/Cilgwri

C69 wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:46 pm
GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:38 pm
C69 wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:21 pm

Oh it was far more complex than that on the ground.
But hey
I'm sure it was, I'm not a medic.
Without a doubt I will not be working as long as I planned to due to COVID.
The NHS is a horrible employer. COVID for frontline ICU staff was horrible and very divisive .
Medical staff in may Trusts being paid massive over time and locum rates with other staff being expected to work at plain time and senior staff on AFC denied overtime.
All the good will is now gone.
Perfectly reasonable stuff for the inquiry to address.
GogLais
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:06 pm
Location: Wirral/Cilgwri

tabascoboy wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:52 pm "You don't have any friends..."
And that’s it - MPs have voted to approve the report which said Boris Johnson deliberately misled the House of Commons over lockdown parties at Downing Street.

Here's the full vote tally:

For - 354
Against - 7
The results don't include the MPs who didn't vote, who will be recorded as abstaining.
Bloody hell, that's a load of abstentions.
Biffer
Posts: 10039
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:18 pm
SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:33 pm Nothing to do with us.........honest!!
I'd forgotten what an entitled, chinless wonder this twat is.
Tbh ok I didn’t listen to it but I don’t think the inquiry should be wasting much time and money questioning political decisions. Almost certainly we didn’t have enough PPE, ICU beds, etc and the inquiry should focus on what we need for the next pandemic.
But those are political decisions.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
User avatar
fishfoodie
Posts: 8752
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

Biffer wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:47 pm
GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:18 pm
SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:33 pm Nothing to do with us.........honest!!
I'd forgotten what an entitled, chinless wonder this twat is.
Tbh ok I didn’t listen to it but I don’t think the inquiry should be wasting much time and money questioning political decisions. Almost certainly we didn’t have enough PPE, ICU beds, etc and the inquiry should focus on what we need for the next pandemic.
But those are political decisions.
Exactly !!

And it highlights the colossal flaw in the Tories solution to all problems; "the market will decide", because the market won't keep millions of pounds of PPE in warehouses in case of a surge in requirements, & it won't keep large numbers of extra wards empty, or any extra capacity available, full stop !

The market also was responsible for off-shoring all PPE manufacturing to China in the first place, so that when supply lines broke, the UK had zero ability to make it's own. When the NHS started taking the PPE they had stockpiled, they discovered that it was decades out of date, & useless, because instead of it being regularly taken out, & used, & then new PPE being added, instead, as C4 discovered, all that happened was new "Use By" labels were printed, & just pasted on the previous ones :roll:

It also rather shines a spotlight on the downside of the decision to exit anything with Europe in the label, because it removed the UK from bigger schemes to cooperate on keeping key manufacturing within Europe, & sharing the costs.
User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4599
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:55 pm
tabascoboy wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:52 pm "You don't have any friends..."
And that’s it - MPs have voted to approve the report which said Boris Johnson deliberately misled the House of Commons over lockdown parties at Downing Street.

Here's the full vote tally:

For - 354
Against - 7
The results don't include the MPs who didn't vote, who will be recorded as abstaining.
Bloody hell, that's a load of abstentions.
The political equivalent of scuttling off to South America rather than staying in the bunker.
dpedin
Posts: 3338
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

Hal Jordan wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:31 pm
GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:55 pm
tabascoboy wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:52 pm "You don't have any friends..."

Bloody hell, that's a load of abstentions.
The political equivalent of scuttling off to South America rather than staying in the bunker.
I thought it was funny that it was actually the Labour Whip who cried out 'No, no, no' When the Speaker asked who was against the motion in order to force the vote. As a result he is one of the 7 who are recorded as voting against. Tories are really miserable bastards scared to stand up in the HoC to vote against the biggest lier of a PM we have ever had.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 11712
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

dpedin wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 6:42 am
Hal Jordan wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:31 pm
GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:55 pm
Bloody hell, that's a load of abstentions.
The political equivalent of scuttling off to South America rather than staying in the bunker.
I thought it was funny that it was actually the Labour Whip who cried out 'No, no, no' When the Speaker asked who was against the motion in order to force the vote. As a result he is one of the 7 who are recorded as voting against. Tories are really miserable bastards scared to stand up in the HoC to vote against the biggest lier of a PM we have ever had.
They’re worried - and probably rightly so - that UK politics is in such a state and the quality of politicians is so low, that there’s still a chance Boris could come back and be PM again. :???:
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

Maybe MPs should be paid by their attendance record for voting...
Former Prime Minister Theresa May, Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt and Education Secretary Gillian Keegan were among the senior Conservatives who supported the report's findings.

Conservative MPs who voted against included Sir Bill Cash, Nick Fletcher, Adam Holloway, Karl McCartney, Joy Morrissey and Heather Wheeler - while 118 Tories voted in favour.

No vote was recorded for 225 MPs, because they either abstained or did not turn up to vote.
GogLais
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:06 pm
Location: Wirral/Cilgwri

Biffer wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:47 pm
GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:18 pm
SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:33 pm Nothing to do with us.........honest!!
I'd forgotten what an entitled, chinless wonder this twat is.
Tbh ok I didn’t listen to it but I don’t think the inquiry should be wasting much time and money questioning political decisions. Almost certainly we didn’t have enough PPE, ICU beds, etc and the inquiry should focus on what we need for the next pandemic.
But those are political decisions.
Yes I know. We had Cameron replying to a question yesterday on the lines of the NHS would have ended up even worse off if they hadn’t handled public finances they way they did. I really don’t think the inquiry should be addressing what’s the best way to run the economy.
Biffer
Posts: 10039
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

GogLais wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:19 am
Biffer wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:47 pm
GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:18 pm

Tbh ok I didn’t listen to it but I don’t think the inquiry should be wasting much time and money questioning political decisions. Almost certainly we didn’t have enough PPE, ICU beds, etc and the inquiry should focus on what we need for the next pandemic.
But those are political decisions.
Yes I know. We had Cameron replying to a question yesterday on the lines of the NHS would have ended up even worse off if they hadn’t handled public finances they way they did. I really don’t think the inquiry should be addressing what’s the best way to run the economy.
But determining why the NHS was put into a state where it was unprepared should be part of the inquiry, surely? And if that was due to political decisions made about how they wanted to run the economy, then it's a valid question. You can't just separate these things out.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
GogLais
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:06 pm
Location: Wirral/Cilgwri

Biffer wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:15 pm
GogLais wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:19 am
Biffer wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:47 pm

But those are political decisions.
Yes I know. We had Cameron replying to a question yesterday on the lines of the NHS would have ended up even worse off if they hadn’t handled public finances they way they did. I really don’t think the inquiry should be addressing what’s the best way to run the economy.
But determining why the NHS was put into a state where it was unprepared should be part of the inquiry, surely? And if that was due to political decisions made about how they wanted to run the economy, then it's a valid question. You can't just separate these things out.
I don’t think so. It’s perfectly fine for the inquiry to conclude that the NHS wasn’t prepared for a pandemic and that to be prepared it needed either more money or to spend less on other things.

However, I think it’s a huge leap to go on from there and investigate and report on how the economy was managed in the 2010s. More for the NHS? Fine but I don’t think it’s for the inquiry to try and judge whether that should be raised by spending less on other things, borrowing more or raising taxation.
dpedin
Posts: 3338
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

GogLais wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:29 pm
Biffer wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:15 pm
GogLais wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:19 am
Yes I know. We had Cameron replying to a question yesterday on the lines of the NHS would have ended up even worse off if they hadn’t handled public finances they way they did. I really don’t think the inquiry should be addressing what’s the best way to run the economy.
But determining why the NHS was put into a state where it was unprepared should be part of the inquiry, surely? And if that was due to political decisions made about how they wanted to run the economy, then it's a valid question. You can't just separate these things out.
I don’t think so. It’s perfectly fine for the inquiry to conclude that the NHS wasn’t prepared for a pandemic and that to be prepared it needed either more money or to spend less on other things.

However, I think it’s a huge leap to go on from there and investigate and report on how the economy was managed in the 2010s. More for the NHS? Fine but I don’t think it’s for the inquiry to try and judge whether that should be raised by spending less on other things, borrowing more or raising taxation.
The inquiry is not and will not be judging these matters, it does however need to understand the wider context within which the NHS was operating and the reasons behind the key drivers as to its performance and capacity to deliver. It will not pass judgement on whether austerity was a good or bad thing per se but it can examine the impact it had or did not have on the NHS's ability to respond in case of pandemic ie if the number of beds/ICU beds and if there was sufficient capacity to flex in times of pandemics, etc. The decision by the Gov to reduce spending in real terms is a political matter but the impact of this on reduced bed capacity, for example, is a key issue for the inquiry and which it has every right to comment on. It is perfectly right for the Inquiry to compare spending in UK and the resulting number of beds, ICU beds, doctors and nurses, etc etc with historical rates or with comparable countries to help benchmark the NHS ability and capacity to respond to a pandemic.
GogLais
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:06 pm
Location: Wirral/Cilgwri

dpedin wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 4:19 pm
GogLais wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:29 pm
Biffer wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:15 pm

But determining why the NHS was put into a state where it was unprepared should be part of the inquiry, surely? And if that was due to political decisions made about how they wanted to run the economy, then it's a valid question. You can't just separate these things out.
I don’t think so. It’s perfectly fine for the inquiry to conclude that the NHS wasn’t prepared for a pandemic and that to be prepared it needed either more money or to spend less on other things.

However, I think it’s a huge leap to go on from there and investigate and report on how the economy was managed in the 2010s. More for the NHS? Fine but I don’t think it’s for the inquiry to try and judge whether that should be raised by spending less on other things, borrowing more or raising taxation.
The inquiry is not and will not be judging these matters, it does however need to understand the wider context within which the NHS was operating and the reasons behind the key drivers as to its performance and capacity to deliver. It will not pass judgement on whether austerity was a good or bad thing per se but it can examine the impact it had or did not have on the NHS's ability to respond in case of pandemic ie if the number of beds/ICU beds and if there was sufficient capacity to flex in times of pandemics, etc. The decision by the Gov to reduce spending in real terms is a political matter but the impact of this on reduced bed capacity, for example, is a key issue for the inquiry and which it has every right to comment on. It is perfectly right for the Inquiry to compare spending in UK and the resulting number of beds, ICU beds, doctors and nurses, etc etc with historical rates or with comparable countries to help benchmark the NHS ability and capacity to respond to a pandemic.
That’s fine.
User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4599
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

Sunak's wretched performance in the panto that is PMQS again shows that when he can't read from a script or hide behind his money, his utter mediocrity and general lack of an ability to think on his feet shows through.
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

Hal Jordan wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 12:32 pm Sunak's wretched performance in the panto that is PMQS again shows that when he can't read from a script or hide behind his money, his utter mediocrity and general lack of an ability to think on his feet shows through.
Let me guess, almost every response was: "We are delivering..."
_Os_
Posts: 2853
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:19 pm

It's time for another interest rate post. First some of the facts...

1. Core inflation is up, overall inflation has not moved.
2. Interest rates are going up, because this is the lever the BoE has to control inflation (via supressing consumer buying power). This is all textbook (since Thatcher?).
3. Wages have been stagnant in the UK for 15 years, and in real terms declining for many.
4. The UK is now so heavily leveraged, that interest rate rises much gentler than in the past, are a much more onerous burden. There's a big difference between 5% on a £250k mortgage when the combined household income is £50k, than 5% on £40k with a combined income of £15k-£20k. That's without factoring in reduced spending power now compared to the past.

The direction of travel does not look good. Put bluntly, raising interest rates looks incapable of reducing inflation in 2023 UK (I'm not referring to the past with that statement, only the here and now), yet that's where the BoE (and the government which ultimately controls it) is heading. What I'm seeing is higher interest rates fuelling inflation.

Facts 3 and 4 are crucial to understanding the problem. Wages have not been going up at all or enough to create inflation, so using interest rates to supress spending power isn't going to do what the BoE want it to do (reduce inflation). And the UK is now so indebted that debt interest payments are a significant outgoing (both in personal finances and in small businesses), unlike in the past when there was less indebtedness if the interest rate rises now so do costs everywhere, all the costs incurred to businesses by interest rate rises are passed on (anyone with their hand in the game, can see it in real time). Consumers then stop spending on anything they don't have to (hospitality and the high street go under etc), but they also start demanding pay rises to service their own debt and not just to afford to live.

Interest rate rises also don't supress spending power equally. Anyone with their mortgage paid off and a large amount of savings will have their spending power increased in absolute and relative terms. This will mostly be older people. Anyone with a large mortgage and little savings is probably facing going under entirely if interest rates go north of 5% and stay there. This will mostly be people under 40 (and a specific subset of that group, those that did well enough to get a mortgage, will be punished for that). So there's also a huge wealth transfer mechanism from the young to the old built into this.

Another fact:

5. Economists including at the BoE haven't made forecasts that have been particularly accurate. They then make a new forecast and pretend the old one didn't exist. Interest rates at one time were supposed to peak at 4.5%, inflation was supposed to be falling much more than it is, core inflation wasn't supposed to be climbing heading into mid 2023.

A lot of what's going on seems to be ideological, economics is more ideological that it's often presented. What I'm seeing is a square peg that's being hammered into a round hole, despite that fact it doesn't seem to be working, because of ideology. Truss was the most extreme proponent of the dogma to get into power, but it's also the consensus view if more diluted, as such it's worth rewinding to Truss' time in power ...

Team Truss were in favour of interest rates much higher than they are now (that was their answer to anything regarding inflation). They believe in the power of the market, the market is almost a god to them. They do not believe that businesses can set prices, they think the market does alone (most of these people have never run a business of any size), so they thought increasing borrowing costs would eliminate what they saw as unproductive businesses making the UK economy stronger. They don't understand that this worked in the past when some businesses were heavily indebted but most weren't indebted at all, which isn't the case now (what's true in the housing market is true across the economy, you have to go into debt to compete with those willing to take debt on, if you don't do this and have no other funding the business will fail before it does anything). Nor do they understand that businesses actually do have a large say in setting prices, and this becomes more true the larger they are/the more of a monopoly they hold. Team Truss also have an ideological blindness to the possibility something within government control (interest rates) has the power to set the market, because they don't believe the state should have the power to do anything and certainly not control their god.

If I'm right and it's all actually ideology and detached from reality, how high can interest rates go? 7%? 8%? 11%? A lot of people below 40 will be hurting at 5%, anything prolonged over 7% and they're wiped out.
Simian
Posts: 791
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:53 pm

:thumbup: Great post
_Os_
Posts: 2853
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:19 pm

Simian wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:38 am :thumbup: Great post
It's just really obvious to me. I'm seeing on TV all sorts of people (politicians/economists/presenters) stating interest rates "need" to rise to control inflation. But inflation isn't controlled, the interest rates keep rising. Meanwhile everyone (literally everyone without exception) I know running any type of business, is jacking their rates in direct response to interest rate rises because they're all carrying debt.
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 7323
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Meanwhile, bloke worth £500m is feeling our pain and has a plan to help :crazy:
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 10479
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

Yeah, good post, Os.

The government are using inflation keep Public Sector wages low, as you say they have stagnated for years now. Just like the trick they pulled off when comparing the UK economy with managing a household budget, they have tricked us into thinking that raising public sector wages causes inflation, it's just not true - Private Sector wage rises cause the cost of a product or service to go up, but public sector wage rises don't, there is no product as such in a hospital or school, grandad gets better in the hospital and little Wendy learns there three Rs at school.

You'd have to fund the increase in Public Sector wages, ie through tax and that is what they are opposed to, but it won't really cause inflation.
_Os_
Posts: 2853
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:19 pm

5% it is then.

"To save the economy we will have to destroy the economy". The BoE or the Tory Party or Thatcher, probably.

The fun is really going to start if inflation doesn't do much, everyone starts saying it's because the rises haven't fed through the system which then precipitates more interest rate rises well past what anyone said would be the peak not long ago (the highest was going to be 5%-5.5%). then that rise feeds into the system (which is where we are now already from the original rises) and core inflation goes up.

Everyone is up to their eyeballs in debt apart from old people and the people with the power making all the decisions. This isn't difficult.
Last edited by _Os_ on Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Biffer
Posts: 10039
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

_Os_ wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:32 am It's time for another interest rate post. First some of the facts...

1. Core inflation is up, overall inflation has not moved.
2. Interest rates are going up, because this is the lever the BoE has to control inflation (via supressing consumer buying power). This is all textbook (since Thatcher?).
3. Wages have been stagnant in the UK for 15 years, and in real terms declining for many.
4. The UK is now so heavily leveraged, that interest rate rises much gentler than in the past, are a much more onerous burden. There's a big difference between 5% on a £250k mortgage when the combined household income is £50k, than 5% on £40k with a combined income of £15k-£20k. That's without factoring in reduced spending power now compared to the past.

The direction of travel does not look good. Put bluntly, raising interest rates looks incapable of reducing inflation in 2023 UK (I'm not referring to the past with that statement, only the here and now), yet that's where the BoE (and the government which ultimately controls it) is heading. What I'm seeing is higher interest rates fuelling inflation.

Facts 3 and 4 are crucial to understanding the problem. Wages have not been going up at all or enough to create inflation, so using interest rates to supress spending power isn't going to do what the BoE want it to do (reduce inflation). And the UK is now so indebted that debt interest payments are a significant outgoing (both in personal finances and in small businesses), unlike in the past when there was less indebtedness if the interest rate rises now so do costs everywhere, all the costs incurred to businesses by interest rate rises are passed on (anyone with their hand in the game, can see it in real time). Consumers then stop spending on anything they don't have to (hospitality and the high street go under etc), but they also start demanding pay rises to service their own debt and not just to afford to live.

Interest rate rises also don't supress spending power equally. Anyone with their mortgage paid off and a large amount of savings will have their spending power increased in absolute and relative terms. This will mostly be older people. Anyone with a large mortgage and little savings is probably facing going under entirely if interest rates go north of 5% and stay there. This will mostly be people under 40 (and a specific subset of that group, those that did well enough to get a mortgage, will be punished for that). So there's also a huge wealth transfer mechanism from the young to the old built into this.

Another fact:

5. Economists including at the BoE haven't made forecasts that have been particularly accurate. They then make a new forecast and pretend the old one didn't exist. Interest rates at one time were supposed to peak at 4.5%, inflation was supposed to be falling much more than it is, core inflation wasn't supposed to be climbing heading into mid 2023.

A lot of what's going on seems to be ideological, economics is more ideological that it's often presented. What I'm seeing is a square peg that's being hammered into a round hole, despite that fact it doesn't seem to be working, because of ideology. Truss was the most extreme proponent of the dogma to get into power, but it's also the consensus view if more diluted, as such it's worth rewinding to Truss' time in power ...

Team Truss were in favour of interest rates much higher than they are now (that was their answer to anything regarding inflation). They believe in the power of the market, the market is almost a god to them. They do not believe that businesses can set prices, they think the market does alone (most of these people have never run a business of any size), so they thought increasing borrowing costs would eliminate what they saw as unproductive businesses making the UK economy stronger. They don't understand that this worked in the past when some businesses were heavily indebted but most weren't indebted at all, which isn't the case now (what's true in the housing market is true across the economy, you have to go into debt to compete with those willing to take debt on, if you don't do this and have no other funding the business will fail before it does anything). Nor do they understand that businesses actually do have a large say in setting prices, and this becomes more true the larger they are/the more of a monopoly they hold. Team Truss also have an ideological blindness to the possibility something within government control (interest rates) has the power to set the market, because they don't believe the state should have the power to do anything and certainly not control their god.

If I'm right and it's all actually ideology and detached from reality, how high can interest rates go? 7%? 8%? 11%? A lot of people below 40 will be hurting at 5%, anything prolonged over 7% and they're wiped out.
The big issue nowadays is that changes in interest rates take 12-18 months to work through into having an effect substantially because of fixed term deals. So we're only starting to see the effects of last year's rises now. If they raise too far, and it starts a recession, that will get worse and worse as the effect drips through over more than a year.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Post Reply