Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Lionator

The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

By Lionator, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Beechey

Beechey

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

So it’s emerged Starmer intends to stop all gas production from the north sea by 2030. I thought he wanted to win the GE. 

Yes? His ambition is to decarbonise energy production by 2030, so obviously drilling would stop. Current government policy is by 2035.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-unveiled-to-decarbonise-uk-power-system-by-2035

Edited by Beechey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted

This is nuts 

news night just illustrated that govt will have to find 30/50bn per annum in savings somewhere to cover the hole in the finances 

 

and that the annual cost of servicing govt debt has gone up from 50 to 100 bn because of the increase in the rates we must pay to borrow money on the markets 

 

so the money they need to save is the money that they’ve lost by bringing in their mini budget without having the OBR make a judgement on it.  that sort of says the measures would just about have been manageable if they hadn’t spooked the markets by doing it cack handed 

 

you couldn’t make it up - it’s the ultimate shooting yourself in the foot - and we will pay the price for this incompetence 

 

If you want to be optimistic, once the OBR has reported, if the govt show intent to make the relevant cuts, interest rates on our debt could drop and then that 100bn could drop towards 70bn.  Mind you, where does the 65bn the b of e had to find the other day to protect our pensions fit into all of this ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brizzle Fox

Brizzle Fox

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

This is nuts 

news night just illustrated that govt will have to find 30/50bn per annum in savings somewhere to cover the hole in the finances 

 

and that the annual cost of servicing govt debt has gone up from 50 to 100 bn because of the increase in the rates we must pay to borrow money on the markets 

 

so the money they need to save is the money that they’ve lost by bringing in their mini budget without having the OBR make a judgement on it.  that sort of says the measures would just about have been manageable if they hadn’t spooked the markets by doing it cack handed 

 

you couldn’t make it up - it’s the ultimate shooting yourself in the foot - and we will pay the price for this incompetence 

 

If you want to be optimistic, once the OBR has reported, if the govt show intent to make the relevant cuts, interest rates on our debt could drop and then that 100bn could drop towards 70bn.  Mind you, where does the 65bn the b of e had to find the other day to protect our pensions fit into all of this ??

But Patrick Minford says Trussonomics is already working, so all is good...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

This is nuts 

news night just illustrated that govt will have to find 30/50bn per annum in savings somewhere to cover the hole in the finances 

 

and that the annual cost of servicing govt debt has gone up from 50 to 100 bn because of the increase in the rates we must pay to borrow money on the markets 

 

so the money they need to save is the money that they’ve lost by bringing in their mini budget without having the OBR make a judgement on it.  that sort of says the measures would just about have been manageable if they hadn’t spooked the markets by doing it cack handed 

 

you couldn’t make it up - it’s the ultimate shooting yourself in the foot - and we will pay the price for this incompetence 

 

If you want to be optimistic, once the OBR has reported, if the govt show intent to make the relevant cuts, interest rates on our debt could drop and then that 100bn could drop towards 70bn.  Mind you, where does the 65bn the b of e had to find the other day to protect our pensions fit into all of this ??

Efficiency savings, obviously? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gerblod

gerblod

Posted
Posted
On 29/09/2022 at 09:51, Dahnsouff said:

Yes, but like or hate what Thatcher did, it did energise the economy of the country, whether or not that was at the cost of (hate this term) "the working man" is another question. My dislike for Labour came from the strength of the unions, the imnpact it had on my father as a young boy, the point at which the unions were not required to be so militant unlike in my grandfathers time.

Unfortunately, Thatcher was a fanatic who forgot to test the prejudices of her father to see if they could stand objective assessment. An adult woman carrying the lower middle-class disdain for the working-class.

Unions grew in response to awful working conditions in factories and other centres where massed labour worked for poor remuneration and in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. They became militant because management treated them with contempt and grudging acknowledgment of their role.

In the car industry, in particular, management masked their own incompetence by blaming production problems on the union militancy - using the 'commie' slurs which can still be read and heard in the media.

Thatcher introduced force into demonstrations - always a sign that the powers-that-be have lost the argument.

She energised nothing and antagonised almost all of lower income citizens. Stuff like the Poll Tax produced massive demonstrations - I participated in a few. Only the Falklands war changed the growing dislike of her brutality and callousness and the rising discontent with her leadership.

Truss is trying to be the new not-for-turning iron lady. She needn't worry about being inferior to the original - both failed because of one major character weakness - an inability to adapt their ideas to bettering the lives of the majority of the people.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spiritwalker

Spiritwalker

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, weller54 said:

Although my shares/investments have tanked....

It's quite funny watching Truss performing 😂😂....

Fvck me, I knew she'd be bad, but this is just another level...

She's even managed to crash the Pork markets 😂😂

Having transferred my life savings from the bank into funds and shares I’m

finding it quite distressing. Every time Lizz Truss or the Chancellor appear on the

telly my personal finances take a large hit.

Edited by Spiritwalker
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mickyblueeyes

Mickyblueeyes

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Daggers said:

What does that even mean? Have you the first clue who she is or are you relying on tabloid coverage?

 

Honestly, I find this kind of comment sickening. Rayner has one of the most impressive back stories in parliament. 

 

Are you asking me if I personally know Angela Rayner ? The answer is no. I doubt anyone here bases their opinions on personal knowledge - isn’t it all based on the news and tabloids ?
 

I’m sure she is a talented individual. I’m sure she has earned her right to sit in the shadow cabinet. However, she is outspoken at times and can bring forth controversy a sense of madness to proceedings - she can become a target - it’s happened many times before with others.  that, at any time in politics can bring uncertainty. The madness has been a part of politics for eternity - what’s so wrong about being careful with that bit of madness an individual can bring ? I guarantee you, the Tory PR teams are desperately searching around for who to target in the next few weeks/months and Rayner is way ahead of Reeves for them. 

 

Madness doesn’t equal incompetence - which is what I suspect you’ve taken my comment as. For an example of clear incompetence see Matt Hancock/Priti Patel (again, I don’t personally know either). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kenny

kenny

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Daggers said:

What does that even mean? Have you the first clue who she is or are you relying on tabloid coverage?

 

Honestly, I find this kind of comment sickening. Rayner has one of the most impressive back stories in parliament. 

 

I can only assume that this admiration extends to politicians such as suella braverman, kwasi kwarteng or Priti patel who have all risen to high office after being being children to immigrants to this country and not benefitting from the white privilege that Angela Rayner has.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

This is nuts 

news night just illustrated that govt will have to find 30/50bn per annum in savings somewhere to cover the hole in the finances 

 

and that the annual cost of servicing govt debt has gone up from 50 to 100 bn because of the increase in the rates we must pay to borrow money on the markets 

 

so the money they need to save is the money that they’ve lost by bringing in their mini budget without having the OBR make a judgement on it.  that sort of says the measures would just about have been manageable if they hadn’t spooked the markets by doing it cack handed 

 

you couldn’t make it up - it’s the ultimate shooting yourself in the foot - and we will pay the price for this incompetence 

 

If you want to be optimistic, once the OBR has reported, if the govt show intent to make the relevant cuts, interest rates on our debt could drop and then that 100bn could drop towards 70bn.  Mind you, where does the 65bn the b of e had to find the other day to protect our pensions fit into all of this ??

I’d say it’s more shooting yourself in the foot and then shooting the doctor who comes running along to try to save it.

 

And then shooting your nose off for good measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WigstonWanderer

WigstonWanderer

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 

If you want to be optimistic, once the OBR has reported, if the govt show intent to make the relevant cuts, interest rates on our debt could drop and then that 100bn could drop towards 70bn.  Mind you, where does the 65bn the b of e had to find the other day to protect our pensions fit into all of this ??

That’s just created money. Their books technically balance because the money they created is on one side of the ledger, but the government bonds they have bought are on the other. The effect is to raise the price of these bonds, so that pension funds that need to sell them to fund their outgoings (pension payments) still get a decent price. Otherwise there would have been a downward spiral as panic selling would have driven bond prices down leading to more selling.

 

At least that’s my understanding.

 

It does mean an about face by the BoE though as they had planned to reduce their holdings of government bonds in a reverse of earlier quantitative easing measures, and thus reduce the size of their balance sheet. Basically they are having to double down instead. Very embarrassing for the UK.

Edited by WigstonWanderer
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Are you asking me if I personally know Angela Rayner ? The answer is no. I doubt anyone here bases their opinions on personal knowledge - isn’t it all based on the news and tabloids ?
 

I’m sure she is a talented individual. I’m sure she has earned her right to sit in the shadow cabinet. However, she is outspoken at times and can bring forth controversy a sense of madness to proceedings - she can become a target - it’s happened many times before with others.  that, at any time in politics can bring uncertainty. The madness has been a part of politics for eternity - what’s so wrong about being careful with that bit of madness an individual can bring ? I guarantee you, the Tory PR teams are desperately searching around for who to target in the next few weeks/months and Rayner is way ahead of Reeves for them. 

 

Madness doesn’t equal incompetence - which is what I suspect you’ve taken my comment as. For an example of clear incompetence see Matt Hancock/Priti Patel (again, I don’t personally know either). 

Right, so it is all about the tabloid representation of her.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Facecloth

Facecloth

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Fazzer 7 said:

What could you do with the 400 spent on furlough and covid. 

What are you suggesting they did during Covid then? Close everything and let people lose jobs, or let it run rife and kill even more than it did?

 

Although it's right to ask what they could have done with the billions wasted on useless PPE to their mates, and the £14bn written off, or even the billions spent on track and trace when the technology already existed. But that's not a Covid bill as such, its a incompetent, corrupt government bill.

Edited by Facecloth
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

The BoE essentially had to print extra money to protect the pension market. That’s why it led to inflation and interest rates going up. 
 

The BoE creates the money supply and can print money when it likes, but a greater supply of money leads to inflation, hence why the usually only add to the money supply in a very deliberate and structured way.

I don’t believe that there was much reaction to the £65bn from a forward int rate  perspective. The markets viewed it in a positive light that the b of e wouldn’t allow the sh1tshow to become an absolute disaster over which they seemed to have no control whatsoever.  

 

 Wigston warrior has summed it up a few posts ago 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...